Blog

  • Spirit of adventure – meet the Nepalese study abroad guides

    Spirit of adventure – meet the Nepalese study abroad guides

    Nepal has long been synonymous with the legendary ‘Sherpa’ mountain guides, skilled in helping international travellers explore the Himalayas.

    There is also however, a more recent tradition of local education guides helping their compatriots to seek out adventure and opportunity through study abroad.

    In the past, this demand favoured Australia as a study destination, but since the Albanese government introduced increased visa restrictions, that demand has increasingly turned to alternative destinations like the US, France, Japan and the UK.

    According to ONS data, more than 9,000 study visas were issued to Nepalese students studying in the UK as of March 2024 but the true number is undoubtedly higher in the year since.

    The PIE News visited Franklin International, a leading local agent, to better understand the factors supporting growth.

    Away from the chaotic streets of Kathmandu, where thousands of agent offices operate within a square mile in a district known as ‘Putalisadak’, Franklin International has chosen instead to base its national headquarters in the foothills of peaceful Pokhara.

    Here we find an operation that feels more like a family than an agency. There aren’t any cut-outs of Big Ben; instead, they favour a comfortable working atmosphere for staff and students.

    There is an office full of people diligently running document checks, taking calls, and running webinars with their prospective students across Nepal.

    I meet a team packing for a 17-day tour of the country to meet applicants face-to-face – giving them a chance to outline important next steps and reassure family members.

    There are entire rooms of people dedicated to supporting universities like the University of Roehampton and the University of East London, for whom they facilitate close operational relationships that deliver hundreds of compliant student enrolments.

    “The UK demand is still in its infancy,” company CMO and co-founder, Deepak Khadka tells me.

    “The number of students applying has grown rapidly, but the knowledge about the UK process is limited among most people,” he continues.”There are too many agents looking for short-cut commission – so we have had to build a system in partnership with British universities to focus on the compliance checks they need.”

    This is a price-sensitive market, with only 15-20 universities offering financially viable course options. This has created a unique bubble where large numbers of students are following each other to the same university in each intake. Word of mouth is a key driver of demand.

    This volume has, in turn, triggered an explosion in Nepalese agent activity as the potential for high commission levels is clear.

    At a higher education event in Kathmandu, The PIE met teams of young friends, often still in their 20s or early 30s, keen to get involved and cash-in on prospective students from their neighbourhoods.

    “We have a choice to make in Nepal,” explains Khadka. “We either compete as agents, or we try and work together to best support the students.”

    Having completed his doctorate in agent supply chains from UWS, his understanding of the Nepalese market is crucial.

    “We try to act as supportive guides for these other guys. They have so much energy and ambition – but we must make sure the professional compliance is water-tight when processing applications,” he tells The PIE. “We have the expertise to do this correctly. We call this the Official University Representative network to convey that message.”

    Khadka is keen to stress that he and his fellow agents care far more about the students they work with than pitting themselves against one another.

    “I care about Nepal’s future. We don’t want to make the same mistakes as other countries or regions,” he says.

    “We want our young people to succeed in their study abroad adventures – and I would rather work together for a better system, than get drawn into a territorial battle. We are proud that this model is being recognised by our UK partners and local officials here.”

    Overseas education agencies must have government approval to operate in Nepal, leading to conflict over online aggregator models trying to undercut this licensing.

    I care about Nepal’s future. We don’t want to make the same mistakes as other countries or regions
    Deepak Khadka, Franklin International

    Local protocol can be complicated as students need to obtain a ‘No Obligation Certificate’ from the government to study abroad, and many turn to government-backed student finance options to prepare their budgets.

    Vidhi Mistry, head of international operations for the University of Roehampton, explains her approach to the market: “In Nepal, when there are thousands of agents, it’s not about being everywhere. A university doesn’t need to work with every agent.

    “A right partnership is about aligning values, intent and quality that prioritises reputation and longevity. Agents can elevate the sector or dilute it. Exclusivity when earned and aligned isn’t a restriction, it is a strategy for sustainable growth [in a chaotic market].”

    The PIE spoke to Sajan, a Nepalese student who has an offer to study at the University of West Scotland London campus. He explained his reasoning for working with an agency.

    “I have friends already at UWS London and they love it. I didn’t need help with choosing which university or course I wanted, but I had to make sure my finances and visa are processed correctly,” he says. “My father and I have been guided to understand my required budget and each step of the process. I am very grateful.”

    With the UK government announcing future plans to tighten visa issuance for countries linked to asylum claims, and to clamp down on universities linked to poor compliance metrics – it is important the Nepal market doesn’t grow too fast, too soon.

    Strong demand will undoubtedly bring greater competition, so only time will tell if universities and agents can get regulate themselves to realise the opportunity.

    Source link

  • Can we use LEO in regulation?

    Can we use LEO in regulation?

    The Institute for Fiscal Studies answers the last government’s question on earnings data in regulation. David Kernohan reads along

    Source link

  • Solving our literacy crisis starts in the lecture hall

    Solving our literacy crisis starts in the lecture hall

    Key points:

    The recent NAEP scores have confirmed a sobering truth: Our schools remain in the grips of a literacy crisis. Across the country, too many children are struggling to read, and too many teachers are struggling to help them. But why? And how do we fix it?

    There are decades of research involving thousands of students and educators to support a structured literacy approach to teaching literacy. Teacher preparation programs and school districts across the nation have been slow to fully embrace this research base, known as the science of reading. Since 2017, consistent media attention focused on the literacy crisis has created a groundswell of support for learning about the science of reading. Despite this groundswell, too many educators are still entering classrooms without the skills and knowledge they need to teach reading.

    While there is steady progress in teacher preparation programs to move toward the science of reading-aligned practices, the National Council on Teacher Quality’s latest report on the status of teacher preparation programs for teaching reading (2023) still shows that only 28 percent of programs adequately address all five components of reading instruction. Furthermore, according to the report, up to 40 percent of programs still teach multiple practices that run counter to reading research and ultimately impede student learning, such as running records, guided reading, leveled texts, the three cueing systems, etc. This data shows that there is still much work to be done to support the education of the teacher educators responsible for training pre-service teachers.

    The disconnect between theory and practice

    When it comes to literacy instruction, this problem is especially glaring. Teachers spend years learning about teaching methods, reading theories, and child development. They’re often trained in methods that emphasize comprehension and context-based guessing. However, these methods aren’t enough to help students develop the core skills they need to become proficient readers. Phonics–teaching students how to decode words–is a critical part of reading instruction, but it’s often left out of traditional teacher prep programs.

    One primary reason this disconnect happens is that many teacher prep programs still rely on outdated methods. These approaches prioritize reading comprehension strategies that focus on meaning and context, but they don’t teach the foundational skills, like phonics, essential for developing fluent readers.

    Another reason is that teacher prep programs often lag when it comes to incorporating new research on reading. While the science of reading–a body of evidence built from decades of research and studies involving thousands of students and educators about how humans learn to read and the instructional practices that support learning to read–has been gaining deserved traction, it’s not always reflected in the teacher preparation programs many educators go through. As a result, teachers enter classrooms without the knowledge, skills, and up-to-date methods they need to teach reading effectively.

    A way forward: Structured literacy and continuous professional development

    For real progress, education systems must prioritize structured literacy, a research-backed approach to teaching reading that includes explicit, systematic instruction in phonics, decoding, fluency, and comprehension. This method is effective because it provides a clear, step-by-step process that teachers can follow consistently, ensuring that every single student gets the support they need to succeed.

    But simply teaching teachers about structured literacy is not enough. They also need the tools to implement these methods in their classrooms. The goal should be to create training programs that offer both the theoretical knowledge and the hands-on experience teachers need to make a lasting difference. Teachers should graduate from their prep programs not just with a degree but with a practical, actionable plan for teaching reading.

    And just as important, we can’t forget that teacher development doesn’t end once a teacher leaves their prep program. Just like doctors, teachers need to continue learning and growing throughout their careers. Ongoing professional development is critical to helping teachers stay current with the latest research and best practices in literacy instruction. Whether through in-person workshops, online courses, or coaching, teachers should have consistent, high-quality opportunities to grow and sharpen their skills.

    What do teacher educators need?

    In 2020, the American Federation of Teachers published an update to its seminal publication, Teaching Reading is Rocket Science. First published in 2000, this updated edition is a collaboration between the AFT and the Center on Development and Learning. Although some progress has been made over the past 20 years in teaching reading effectively, there are still too many students who have not become proficient readers.

    This report outlines in very specific ways what pre-service and in-service teachers need to know to teach reading effectively across four broad categories:

    1. Knowing the basics of reading psychology and development
    2. Understanding language structure for word recognition and language comprehension
    3. Applying best practices (based on validated research) in all components of reading
    4. Using validated, reliable, efficient assessments to inform classroom teaching

    There should be a fifth category that is directly related to each of the four areas listed above: the knowledge of how to address the specific oral language needs of multilingual learners and speakers of language varieties. Structured, spoken language practice is at the heart of addressing these needs.

    Moving forward: Reimagining teacher training

    Ultimately, fixing the literacy crisis means changing the way we think about teacher preparation and ongoing professional development. We need to create programs that not only teach the theory of reading instruction but also provide teachers with the practical skills they need to apply that knowledge effectively in the classroom. It’s not enough to just teach teachers about phonics and reading theory; they need to know how to teach it, too.

    Literacy instruction must be at the heart of every teacher’s training–whether they teach kindergarten or high school–and ongoing professional development should ensure that teachers have the support they need to continuously improve.

    It’s a big task, but with the right tools, knowledge, and support, we can bridge the gap between theory and practice and finally begin to solve a literacy crisis that has stubbornly endured for far too long.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Top Tips: Be naive

    Top Tips: Be naive

    Young people are often accused of naivety. But in journalism, naivety can be powerful.

    Being naive means sounding innocent or unsophisticated about something. You often get accused of naivety when you question why things are the way they are. Many people hate being accused of that, so they accept generally accepted standards — a fancy term I like is “prevailing paradigms.” 

    Often these are notions that some problems are so rooted that they can’t be fixed so you just have to accept them: polluted rivers or entrenched corruption or homelessness or discriminatory policies. 

    When you question these notions you might be accused of being naive. I say wear that like a badge. Why? Because if we accept problems without seeking solutions we won’t ever improve a community or society or nation. And that means that you must reject the idea that some problems can’t be solved. 

    It means we have to go back to the idea that everyone deserves clean air and water, healthy food, a basic education, shelter and safety. Nowadays you might add internet access, heat and electricity to that list and maybe a decent transportation system. The more I add, the more naive I sound. 

    Question prevailing paradigms.

    Good journalism comes from asking why people don’t have these things, not from accepting that they don’t have them. 

    So I suggest this: Draw an imaginary line. It represents a perfect world. In a perfect world everyone would have those things I listed: clean air and water, healthy food, etc. Then draw a line next to it that represents the current situation, and make the space between them wider the more off we are from that perfect world. Therein lies your story. 

    How far off is your community from having clean water or clean air? How bad are diets or how bad is the food shortage? 

    Then ask why. Why are people drinking or fishing out of contaminated water streams? Why are people going hungry? Why are people homeless? These are basic questions that come from the naive perspective that these problems shouldn’t exist in a perfect world. 

    Only when you ask these questions can you get to the heart of causes. Here is the hard part. The accusation of naivety comes not because these problems can’t be solved. It comes because the solutions are complicated. Sometimes they are really complicated. So the naivety comes in the idea that no one — including you or me — is willing to take the time and effort and brain power to unravel all those complications to get to solutions. 

    Prove them wrong.

    This all gets to the two traits that make someone a great journalist: Persistence and patience. It is the persistence to not just walk away when someone tells you that you are being naive or that a problem is too complicated, and the patience to work through the complicated elements. 

    All the complications people will throw at you are like protective layers around a problem. They are like the levels you need to surmount in a video game. 

    Once you peel them away, you get to causes that are pretty basic: Not enough money because people with money aren’t willing to spend it; a lack of power because people with power aren’t willing to cede it; and basic human failings like racism, homophobia, sexism or greed.

    If you can call out people or communities or government representatives on their racism or homophobia or sexism or greed, maybe you can get them to work on solutions. Only by finding solutions to problems can we get a little closer to that perfect world.

    Isn’t a perfect world the one you want to work towards? Or am I being naive?

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What does the author mean by “prevailing paradigms”?

    2. Why can naivety be powerful in journalism?

    3. What are some problems in your community that people seem to accept without question?

     

    Source link

  • Why agentic AI matters now more than ever

    Why agentic AI matters now more than ever

    Key points:

    For years now, the promise of AI in education has centered around efficiency–grading faster, recommending better content, or predicting where a student might struggle.

    But at a moment when learners face disconnection, systems are strained, and expectations for personalization are growing, task automation feels…insufficient.

    What if we started thinking less about what AI can do and more about how it can relate?

    That’s where agentic AI comes in. These systems don’t just answer questions. They recognize emotion, learn from context, and respond in ways that feel more thoughtful than transactional. Less machine, more mentor.

    So, what’s the problem with what we have now?

    It’s not that existing AI tools are bad. They’re just incomplete.

    Here’s where traditional AI systems tend to fall short:

    • NLP fine-tuning
       Improves the form of communication but doesn’t understand intent or depth.
    • Feedback loops
       Built to correct errors, not guide growth.
    • Static knowledge bases
       Easy to search but often outdated or contextually off.
    • Ethics and accessibility policies
       Written down but rarely embedded in daily workflows.
    • Multilingual expansion
       Translates words, not nuance or meaning across cultures.

    These systems might help learners stay afloat. They don’t help them go deeper.

    What would a more intelligent system look like?

    It wouldn’t just deliver facts or correct mistakes. A truly intelligent learning system would:

    • Understand when a student is confused or disengaged
    • Ask guiding questions instead of giving quick answers
    • Retrieve current, relevant knowledge instead of relying on a static script
    • Honor a learner’s pace, background, and context
    • Operate with ethical boundaries and accessibility in mind–not as an add-on, but as a foundation

    In short, it would feel less like a tool and more like a companion. That may sound idealistic, but maybe idealism is what we need.

    The tools that might get us there

    There’s no shortage of frameworks being built right now–some for developers, others for educators and designers. They’re not perfect. But they’re good places to start.

    Framework Type Use
    LangChain Code Modular agent workflows, RAG pipelines
    Auto-GPT Code Task execution with memory and recursion
    CrewAI Code Multi-agent orchestration
    Spade Code Agent messaging and task scheduling
    Zapier + OpenAI No-code Automated workflows with language models
    Flowise AI No-code Visual builder for agent chains
    Power Automate AI Low-code AI in business process automation
    Bubble + OpenAI No-code Build custom web apps with LLMs

    These tools are modular, experimental, and still evolving. But they open a door to building systems that learn and adjust–without needing a PhD in AI to use them.

    A better system starts with a better architecture

    Here’s one way to think about an intelligent system’s structure:

    Learning experience layer

    • Where students interact, ask questions, get feedback
    • Ideally supports multilingual input, emotional cues, and accessible design

    Agentic AI core

    • The “thinking” layer that plans, remembers, retrieves, and reasons
    • Coordinates multiple agents (e.g., retrieval, planning, feedback, sentiment)

    Enterprise systems layer

    • Connects with existing infrastructure: SIS, LMS, content repositories, analytics systems

    This isn’t futuristic. It’s already possible to prototype parts of this model with today’s tools, especially in contained or pilot environments.

    So, what would it actually do for people?

    For students:

    • Offer guidance in moments of uncertainty
    • Help pace learning, not just accelerate it
    • Present relevant content, not just more content

    For teachers:

    • Offer insight into where learners are emotionally and cognitively
    • Surface patterns or blind spots without extra grading load

    For administrators:

    • Enable guardrails around AI behavior
    • Support personalization at scale without losing oversight

    None of this replaces people. It just gives them better support systems.

    Final thoughts: Less control panel, more compass

    There’s something timely about rethinking what we mean by intelligence in our learning systems.

    It’s not just about logic or retrieval speed. It’s about how systems make learners feel–and whether those systems help learners grow, question, and persist.

    Agentic AI is one way to design with those goals in mind. It’s not the only way. But it’s a start.

    And right now, a thoughtful start might be exactly what we need.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Harvard: Indoor air quality even more important in early childhood

    Harvard: Indoor air quality even more important in early childhood

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

    Indoor air pollution has especially powerful effects on babies and young children, not only due to more time spent indoors but because they breathe more rapidly and inhale more air relative to their body size than adults, according to a working paper by the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.

    Most spend more than 90% of their time in enclosed buildings, where air pollutants can be two to five times higher than outdoor levels due to poor ventilation, say the researchers, citing estimates from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

    During early childhood, the amount of time spent inside is also due to the additional time spent in childcare facilities, schools, community centers, summer camp buildings, offices and homes, according to the paper. Elevated levels occur for those during pregnancy as well, the researchers say. 

    One example of volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, commonly found inside children-focused locations stems from the frequent use of cleaning products — particularly scented spray products — that result in a higher risk of wheezing in early childhood and the development of asthma and lower respiratory tract infections in childhood, the researchers say. 

    The paper notes that actionable solutions to improve indoor air quality exist. These range from policy and regulation to pollutant-free cleaners, healthier housing and furniture materials, new building technologies and “simply maintaining and using ventilation systems with high-quality filters.” 

    The EPA defines indoor air quality management as the control of airborne pollutants, introduction and distribution of adequate outdoor air and the maintenance of acceptable temperature and relative humidity. Key pollutants present in children’s environments that can cause serious harm when exposure occurs include VOCs; pesticides, phthalates, forever chemicals and flame retardants; particulate matter; wildfire smoke; germs, viruses, bacteria and allergens; gases; and heat, according to the Harvard research paper. 

    A balanced approach to cleaner indoor air means three approaches: protection, adaptation and prevention, the paper says. Facility managers can protect occupants by monitoring indoor air quality, switching to safer cleaning products, using hooded kitchen exhaust fans that vent to the outside, and utilizing portable, room-based air purifiers with HEPA filters, according to the paper. 

    Adaptation includes the reduction and absorption of emissions by creating vegetation barriers, transitioning to less polluting appliances and by making buildings healthier. According to the Healthy Buildings Program at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, an approach to improving air quality includes the use of ventilation that controls indoor sources of pollutants, providing regulation maintenance of ventilation systems and implementing an integrated pest management plan. This plan should focus on preventative measures, such as sealing entry points, preventing moisture buildup and removing trash, according to the paper. 

    Operators should also install and maintain adequate ventilation and filtration systems in schools located in low-income neighborhoods and verify that building systems are operating as designed. The researchers noted that proper maintenance and use of these systems is “surprisingly rare,” citing a California study of schools with recently retrofitted HVAC systems that found only 5% of classrooms met minimum ventilation rates due to improperly selected equipment, incorrect fan control settings and maintenance issues. 

    Prevention measures include policy interventions and the development of health-based regulatory standards for indoor air quality, researchers say.   

    The EPA’s IAQ Tools for Schools program is one resource that operators can use to implement these strategies, including a framework for effective school IAQ management, guidance documents and an IAQ assessment mobile app that can be used to address critical building-related environmental health issues.

    Source link

  • 16 states sue National Science Foundation over wide-reaching research cuts

    16 states sue National Science Foundation over wide-reaching research cuts

    Dive Brief:

    • Sixteen states sued the National Science Foundation on Wednesday over the agency’s cap on funding for research overhead and its mass termination of grants related to diversity, equity and other topics deemed verboten by the Trump administration. 
    • Plaintiffs allege both moves violate federal law and threaten major research projects and millions of dollars in federal funding at universities in their states. An NSF spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit. 
    • The suing states — nearly all of whom have Democrat attorneys general — asked a federal judge in New York to block NSF’s indirect cost cap and its April directive barring diversity-related grants.

    Dive Insight:

    On April 18, the science research agency — which was founded in 1950 and had a budget of $9 billion last fiscal year — issued a statement announcing it would prioritize research focused on creating “opportunities for all Americans everywhere.” 

    “Research projects with more narrow impact limited to subgroups of people based on protected class or characteristics do not effectuate NSF priorities,” the agency said at the time.

    The same day, NSF began issuing mass termination notices for projects that seek to boost participation in scientific fields by “women, minorities, and people with disabilities,” according to Wednesday’s complaint. Studies on misinformation and environmental justice also received termination notices.

    The canceled projects include a University of Delaware study on post-traumatic stress disorder and suicidality among veterans; a new doctoral program in New Jersey promoting increased participation of underrepresented groups in science-related Ph.D.s; and a University of Oregon initiative providing some 20,000 students with learning experiences in computer science. 

    Later, in May, NSF moved to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs at 15% for all new grants issued to colleges. The cuts affect funding for equipment, administrative staff, laboratory construction and other expenses in research programs.

    The funding cap already sparked at least one other lawsuit, from a group of higher education associations.

    The change could bring steep financial and infrastructural damage to university research programs that the government relies on to advance knowledge and technology in the country, the state plaintiffs argued. 

    According to Wednesday’s lawsuit, the “vast majority” of university projects in the plaintiff states had negotiated indirect research rates between 40% and 60% with NSF. Those states’ “institutions will not be able to maintain essential research infrastructure and will be forced to significantly scale back or halt research, abandon numerous projects, and lay off staff,” the plaintiffs argued. 

    In both cases — the April directive and May indirect cost cap — the NSF violated law, the states said. 

    In the case of the April directive, the plaintiffs pointed to statutes that explicitly direct the agency to promote scientific participation among underrepresented groups in the U.S. 

    They further argue that the longstanding policy has worked, citing statistics showing that the number of women in science and engineering occupations or with related degrees doubled between 1995 and 2017. Participation in these fields by those from minority groups rose from 15% to 35% during the period. 

    The plaintiffs likewise argued that the indirect cost cap undermines a federal law directing the NSF to support basic scientific research and education programs.

    Under the Trump administration this year, the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Energy also both adopted similar 15% caps on overhead reimbursement. Courts have blocked both policies, though the cases are ongoing.

    Source link

  • College composting program turns cafeteria scraps to brown gold

    College composting program turns cafeteria scraps to brown gold

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

    Ohio University processes more than five tons of food waste every day, turning the scraps left over from hungry college students at the institution’s cafeterias into “brown gold” — compost that the university uses to fertilize plants around the campus and sell to neighbors. 

    In most dining halls, any leftover food is placed on a conveyor belt where an employee from the university’s Culinary Services department separates the contents into food waste, landfill waste and recyclable waste. This collection process allows the University to compost nearly 100% of food waste from campus dining halls and its central food facility, the university said April 17 in a blog post. 

    “Basically, it’s completely circular in that we take that food waste out of the earth, we process it, we make a soil amendment and then we return it to our grounds,” Sam Crowl, director of sustainability at Ohio University, told Facilities Dive. 

    Compost bins are collected, five days a week, and taken to the OHIO facility, which is co-managed by the university’s facilities management team and the Office of Sustainability. The facility contains two-ton and four-ton in-vessel systems that help to ensure the recycling process is effective by churning out quality soil while also limiting any chance of methane-producing bacteria, Ohio University says. 

    After adding in wood chips to create a chemically-balanced mixture, the compost is turned and heated to further the decomposition process. “We have a chipper so we’re able to produce some of our own wood chips, but we also have to purchase [some]. So that’s an expense,” Crowl said. 

    After two weeks in the vessel, the material is taken outside to be cured in long outdoor piles, or windrows, for 90 to 180 days, that are turned by tractor. 

    “The vast majority of the product that the system produces is returned to our campus grounds. It goes into our landscape beds. It is used anywhere we want to provide nutrients, so we put it around our trees,” Crowl said. In addition, the compost is provided to community gardens through partnerships with local schools and other departments on campuses. 

    A university employee powerwashes compost bins to be reused.

    An Ohio University employee powerwashes compost bins. The bins are set up on a rack and power washed with water from a rainwater collection system so that they can be reused.

    Retrieved from Ohio University on May 06, 2025

     

    “So it’s available internally to university partners, and then also it’s available externally. We do have a process where community members or small local farmers can purchase the product,” Crowl said. “We don’t really do a lot of marketing or advertising of that, so it’s not a huge part of our economics, or how we support the system. But it is available, and it is sold locally.” 

    Once compost bins are dropped off at the OHIO facility, which features a specialized solar-thermal system, waste oil burner and plastic skylights for heating the building, the bins are set up on a rack and power washed with water from a rainwater collection system so that they can be reused. 

    The problem with kids — and teachers — these days

    The compost bins can also be found at the university’s central food facility in Athens, Ohio, as well as various offices and even some resident halls via an opt-in program. While the system has been operating pretty seamlessly since it began in 2009, the university did run into a challenge when attempting to expand the system to include waste from its student union’s food court: the public. 

    Compost facilities in Ohio are rate limited by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, which examines the facility once a year to check ground water and make sure that no leaks are contaminating the ground water supply or nearby streams. 

    “Our biggest challenge has been contamination of the water stream,” Crowl said. Despite many attempts over a year and a half to improve signage at the public food court, properly separating food waste from landfill waste and recyclable waste “was something that the public just couldn’t really handle,” he said. 

    After running an internal audit and examining the situation, Crowl realized that it wasn’t just students failing to separate garbage from food waste, “it was pretty much everybody. Not everybody, but a wide spectrum of different people who were incorrectly putting items in the wrong place.” 

    Source link

  • Why the student experience has never mattered more – Campus Review

    Why the student experience has never mattered more – Campus Review

    It’s more important than ever to focus on student experience. The Albanese Government’s recent re-election has given higher education institutions a clearer idea of what’s ahead.

    With the Australian Tertiary Education Commission set to begin operations on 1 July 2025, we can expect further action on the recommendations laid out in the Australian Universities Accord.

    At the same time, the shifting geopolitical landscape presents Australia with an opportunity to become an even more attractive destination for international students. Ongoing debates around enrolment caps could influence this, but the potential is there.

    Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) has once again raised the bar for digital expectations. Students now expect their university experience to match the ease and responsiveness of tech giants like Amazon or Meta.

    Together, these forces are putting pressure on universities to rise to the occasion and deliver better educational experiences.

    The Universities Accord is changing the landscape

    The Australian Universities Accord, released in 2024, outlines a vision for a more educated workforce with more accessible and flexible learning pathways. A key goal is for 80 per cent of the workforce to hold a tertiary qualification by 2050, up from around 60 per cent today.

    The Accord also calls for doubling the number of placements, reducing inequality in access to higher education, and addressing growing skill shortages. It encourages more regional hubs and deeper integration between VET and university providers.

    To achieve this, universities will need to create more flexible, hybrid learning environments that accommodate students from all walks of life. Whether a student is studying remotely or regionally, they’ll expect full access to resources, a sense of community, and seamless transitions across providers.

    This is where digital experience becomes critical. If university and VET learning are to be integrated, will students navigate one central dashboard or juggle 10 separate platforms?

    Improving the student experience is essential to achieving the Accord’s vision. Without a seamless, supportive and accessible student journey, the ambitious goals of expanding participation, reducing inequality and building a highly skilled workforce simply won’t be met.

    Delivering on the Accord’s goals will mean strengthening digital infrastructure and taking a holistic view of how students interact with services, from enquiry and enrolment to study and graduation.

    Student experience can be Australia’s global edge

    Student experience is also a powerful competitive advantage. International education is one of Australia’s largest exports. Recent discussions around student caps have created uncertainty, but a stable government may help clear the path.

    With rising tensions in countries like the US, Australia is well-positioned to attract more students, as long as it can compete. And student experience is a key part of that value proposition.

    From easy access to support services to the ability access resources from anywhere in the world, the small things make a big difference. Admin should be smooth. Communication should be seamless. The better the student experience, the higher Australia’s competitive advantage becomes.

    AI has changed the rules of engagement

    The pandemic fast-tracked digital adoption across universities and the AI boom is driving another major shift. Students are now interacting daily with AI-powered tools that offer personalised, intelligent, and immediate support. They’ll expect the same from their institution. Think AI chatbots for self-service, automated timetables, study recommendations, and more intuitive platforms.

    The question for institutions is what their student experience actually looks like right now, and how quickly they can evolve it. Keeping up with the modern market demands continuous adaptation.

    This is a critical moment to evaluate the entire student journey and make intentional improvements. Institutions have a choice: steer the ship with purpose or risk being swept off course by rapid change. A strong, student-centred experience is the compass that will keep them on track.

    Turning complexity into connection: where to focus next

    From admissions to graduation, there are countless ways to improve the student journey. But right now, many institutions are held back by legacy systems, under-resourcing, and tighter budgets.

    A bigger and more immediate challenge is the number of disconnected systems in use. When platforms don’t talk to each other, students feel the impact. You can have the best AI chatbot in the world, but if it’s buried across five different logins, the value is lost.

    The good news is, these problems aren’t new and there are technologies designed to solve them. Digital experience platforms (DXPs) act as a bridge between systems, bringing them together into one simple, seamless interface. Whether it’s a student portal, public-facing website, or alumni platform, DXPs let institutions improve the student-facing experience without having to rebuild their entire backend systems.

    That means you can start by improving how students interact with your institution – such as by creating a modern student portal that centralises resources and streamlines communication, then updating older systems over time.

    Once the right digital foundations are in place, you can unlock the power of your data, using insights to deliver personalised, real-time communication that meets students where they are.

    Right now, there’s a real opportunity for institutions to lead. The policy environment is shifting, AI is changing expectations, and students are demanding more flexible and human experiences. Institutions that can simplify the complexity and focus on what matters to students won’t just keep up, they’ll set the standard.

    Liferay’s education portal solutions are designed to meet the unique needs of your institution, from online student portals to alumni networks and research collaboration platforms. Download our exclusive e-book, which explores how three Australian institutions leveraged Digital Experience Platforms (DXPs) here.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Trump Targets Chinese Students, a Harsh Blow to Higher Ed

    Trump Targets Chinese Students, a Harsh Blow to Higher Ed

    Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Wednesday night that the Trump administration will “aggressively revoke” Chinese college students’ visas and heighten scrutiny of visa applicants from China. The new policy specifically targets “those with connections to the Chinese Communist Party or studying in critical fields.”

    It’s the administration’s latest move in what has been a sudden resurgence in its attacks on international students, which it seemed to suspend in April after legal efforts led to the restoration of the legal status of thousands of students.

    The news sent shock waves through higher education and could lead to a major reduction in foreign students at American universities, especially public research institutions. China contributes the largest number of international students to the U.S., with nearly 280,000 enrolled in 2023–24, according to data from the Institute of International Education—about a quarter of the total international student population in the country. 

    That share, however, has been shrinking since the COVID-19 pandemic; last year, India overtook China as the No. 1 source country of international students. But Chinese students are far more likely to enroll in undergraduate programs and pay more in tuition. They also make up a significant slice of STEM researchers: 16 percent of all U.S. graduate students in STEM fields and 2 percent of undergraduates are Chinese nationals, according to a 2020 report from the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University.

    It’s not clear whether the visa revocations would be accompanied by legal status terminations in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System or prompt deportation proceedings, as they did for thousands of international students in March and April. Those steps would be the purview of the Department of Homeland Security.

    The targeting of students in “critical fields” in particular could devastate STEM programs and research labs at smaller universities across the country, where Chinese international students are heavily represented. Rubio did not clarify what fields could be considered critical, potentially setting the stage for a sweeping focus on areas where GOP lawmakers have raised concerns about sensitive national security research being shared with the Chinese government.

    A spokesperson for the State Department did not respond to a list of questions, including requests to clarify the scope of the new policy’s target and the timeline for visa revocations, in time for publication. At a press conference yesterday, department spokesperson Tammy Bruce declined to “get into the details” of how the new visa scrutiny would be applied or what “critical fields” the department was referring to, because it “might give up our hand and make certain things less effective.”

    “When we think of critical fields, we think of national security, the nature of how we keep America safe and secure and more prosperous,” she said. “It is important to keep a broad base, because that could mean many things.”

    The new policy’s focus on students with ties to the Chinese Communist Party has also raised concerns about academic freedom and free speech violations. Jonathan Friedman, managing director of U.S. free expression at PEN America, said the new policy targeting Chinese students would “hold student visas hostage to an ideological litmus test and disrupt the open exchange of ideas across cultures and borders.”

    “‘Aggressively revoking’ visas based on political ideology is a gross violation of basic free expression principles that anchor the academy,” he wrote to Inside Higher Ed.

    William Brustein, a retired longtime international student administrator, said the vague nature of Rubio’s directive could enable a sweeping dragnet that catches the majority of Chinese students—especially since association with the ruling Communist Party is difficult to avoid in China.

    “How will they know who’s a member? Maybe they’ll say if you were in a Chinese-sponsored youth group as a child, that could prevent you,” Brustein said. “Right now that policy is so vague that it could cover all Chinese students who want to study in the U.S.”

    Revocation Resurgence

    The administration briefly retreated from its persecution of international students late last month, after targeting pro-Palestine student protesters and expanding its scope to terminate the legal residency of thousands of students at institutions across the country. But a spate of successful court challenges halted the campaign in April, spurring the Trump administration restore more than 5,000 students’ SEVIS statuses.

    A lull followed the restoration as students, advisers and lawyers waited for the administration’s next move. It came two weeks ago, when the Department of Homeland Security released a new Immigration and Customs Enforcement policy granting the agency more leeway to revoke students’ SEVIS status with little justification.

    The Trump administration’s new strategy seems to target specific international student populations. So far, those have been recent graduates on Optional Practical Training visa extensions, students at Harvard University and potentially other institutions in their crosshairs, and now students from China, who Rubio claims are more likely to be national security threats.

    The State Department has also begun to tighten visa restrictions for applicants and incoming students. On Tuesday, Rubio announced a pause on all new student and exchange visa interviews while the administration implements an intensive new social media screening policy. The latest announcement on China also said the State Department would review application criteria to “enhance scrutiny of all future visa applications” from China and Hong Kong.

    Marjorie Hass, president of the Council of Independent Colleges, said there’s already a process for vetting international students, and that the administration’s new policy seems more aimed at scoring political points and justifying deportations than enhancing national security.

    “Institutions have their own admissions standards and the embassies do vet students who come into the country,” she said. “It’s not currently the Wild West.”

    Brustein said that if international students from China weren’t already moving away from American colleges en masse due to this spring’s targeting of foreign students, the latest move is sure to discourage future applicants.

    “We’re shooting ourselves in the foot,” he said. “Even if some of these decisions are reversed, we’re undoing the progress we’ve made over so many years in being this welcoming environment for the best and brightest in the world.”

    “That harm I don’t think can be undone.”

    A Blow for Research Universities

    Brustein has led international student offices at West Virginia University, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and Ohio State University, where he said there were “thousands” of Chinese students who often paid three times as much as their domestic peers.

    He said the colleges likely to be hit hardest by a major reduction in current and future Chinese students are public ones, especially regional institutions in areas with shifting demographics and declining college-going rates.

    “There are regional public universities and flagships across the Midwest, in the South, that have a large contingent of Chinese students who are coming particularly for STEM education,” Brustein said. “It’s those ones that survive on a thin revenue stream who are going to suffer the most.”

    He added that a sizable reduction in Chinese international students would likely hit scientific research hardest.

    “Many Chinese students get degrees in computer science, engineering, and go on to go to grad school or do an OPT,” he said. “They stay in the country, work in our labs, contribute significantly to innovation in this country, not China. To lose that is going to be a very big blow to our capacity for innovation.”

    Hass said that Chinese students have been both a financial lifeline and a source of cross-cultural exchange between the two countries for more than a decade. She said the benefits for higher education and for American diplomacy have been overwhelmingly positive, and a large-scale rollback of that relationship would be destructive for both.

    “This is a place where the balance of trade is very much in favor of the U.S.,” she said. “It’s mystifying why we would be undermining that.”

    She added that for many colleges, international students—and the volume of full-paying Chinese students in particular—help institutions improve access for local students.

    “Colleges will miss out on a lot of revenue,” she said. “That means the burden has to be borne by domestic students.”

    Source link