Blog

  • Reflections on the demand for higher education – and what UCAS data reveal ahead of Results Day 2025

    Reflections on the demand for higher education – and what UCAS data reveal ahead of Results Day 2025


    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Maggie Smart, UCAS Director of Data and Analysis

    As we pass the 30 June deadline for this year’s undergraduate admissions cycle, UCAS’ data offers an early view of applicant and provider behaviour as we head into Confirmation and Clearing. It also marks a personal milestone for me, as it’s my first deadline release since rejoining UCAS. I wanted to take a deeper look at the data to reflect on how much things have changed since I worked here 10 years ago.

    Applicant demand has always been shaped by two key elements: the size of the potential applicant pool, and their propensity to apply. Since I last worked at UCAS in 2016, these two factors have continuously interchanged over the better part of the past decade – sometimes increasing or decreasing independently but often counterbalancing each other. Let’s take a look at how things are shaping up this year.

    Overall, by the 30 June there have been 665,070 applicants (all ages, all domiciles) this year, compared to 656,760 (+1.3%) in 2024. This is an increase in applicants of over 64,000 since UCAS last reported in January, although the profile of these additional applicants is very different. At the January Equal Consideration Deadline (ECD), over half of the total number of applicants were UK 18-year olds, who are the most likely group to have applied by that stage in the cycle. They represent just 8% of the additional applicants since January, among a much larger proportion of UK mature and international students.

    As we saw at January, the differences in demand for places between young people from the most advantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 5) and most disadvantaged (POLAR4 Quintile 1) areas at June remain broadly the same as last year – with the most advantaged 2.15 times more likely to apply to HE than those from the least advantaged backgrounds, compared to 2.17 last year.

    UK 18-year-old demand

    Demand for UK higher education (HE) has long been shaped by the 18-year-old population – the largest pool of applicants. Despite the well-known challenges facing the HE sector at present, at the 30 June deadline we see record numbers of UK 18-year-old applicants, with 328,390 applicants this year – up from 321,410 (+2%) in 2024. This trend was almost entirely locked in by the January deadline, given the vast majority of UK 18-year-old applicants have applied at this stage in the cycle.

    During my previous tenure at UCAS, the size of the UK 18-year-old population had been falling year on year but from 2020, it began to increase. This continued growth drives the increase in UK 18-year-old applicant numbers we have observed in recent cycles. But when we look at their overall application rate to understand the strength of demand among this group, the data shows a marginal decline again this year – down to 41.2% from 41.9% in 2024. The historically strong growth in the propensity of UK 18-year-olds to apply for HE, which we’ve observed across the last decade, has clearly plateaued.

    This could be due to a range of factors, such as young people choosing to take up work or an apprenticeship, or financial barriers. We know that cost of living is increasingly influencing young people’s decisions this year, with pre-applicants telling us that financial support – such as scholarships or bursaries – ranks as the second most important consideration for them (46%), followed closely by universities’ specific cost-of-living support (34%).

    Interesting to note is the number of UK 19-year-old applicants. When separating the data to distinguish 19-year-olds applying for the first time (as opposed to those reapplying), there has been a decent increase – from 46,680 last year to 48,890 this year (+4.7%). For many years, the number of first-time UK 19-year-old applicants had been falling year on year, but since 2023 this trend has started to reverse. This suggests that demand among young people may be holding up as they decide to take a year out before applying to university or college.

    Mature students

    For UK mature students (aged 21+), the picture looks very different. The number of mature students applying to university or college ebbs and flows depending on the strength of the job market, so since I was last at UCAS, we have typically seen applications decrease when employment opportunities are strong and vice versa. Alongside fluctuations linked to the employment market, rising participation at age 18 means there is a smaller pool of potential older applicants who have not already entered HE. The falling demand from mature students continues in 2025, although in recent years there have been small but significant increases in the volume of mature applicants applying after the 30 June deadline and directly into Clearing. 

    As of this year’s 30 June deadline there have been 86,310 UK mature (21+) applicants, compared to 89,690 (-3.8%) in 2024, meaning a fall in demand compared to the previous year at this point in the cycle for the fourth year in a row. However, whereas at the January deadline mature applicants were down 6.4% compared to the same point last year, at June the figure is only 3.8% down showing some recovery in the numbers. This is another indication that mature students are applying later in the cycle. While it remains too early to say whether we will see continued growth in mature direct to Clearing applicants in 2025, last year 9,390 UK mature students who applied direct to Clearing were accepted at university or college, an increase of 7.4% on 2023 and 22.7% higher than 2022.

    International students

    When looking at the UCAS data through the lens of international students, the landscape has changed significantly since 2016. Brexit led to a sharp decline in EU applicants, offset by strong growth elsewhere, the pandemic caused disruption to international student mobility, and we’ve seen intensified global competition, shifting market dynamics and geopolitics which are increasingly influencing where they choose to study. This year we’re seeing growth once more, with 138,460 international applicants compared to 135,460 in 2024 (+2.2%) – although this stood at +2.7% at January. It should be noted that UCAS does only see a partial view of undergraduate international admissions (we tend to get a more complete picture by the end of the cycle) and we don’t capture data on postgraduate taught and research pathways.

    Interest among Chinese students in UK education has held firm since my time at UCAS, and this year we’re seeing a record number of applicants from China – 33,870, up from 30,860 (+10%) in 2024. This year’s data also shows increases in applicants from Ireland (6,060 applicants, +15%), Nigeria (3,170 applicants, +23%) and the USA (7,930 applicants, +14%). 

    Offer-making

    We are releasing a separate report on offer-making this year, alongside the usual data dashboard for applications. This additional data covers offers and offer rates over the past three years, from the perspective of applicants according to their age and where they live, and from the perspective of providers by UK nation and tariff group.

    What we’re seeing as the natural consequence of increased applications this year is an uplift in offers. Universities have made more offers than ever before this year, with 2.0 million main scheme offers to January deadline applicants overall, largely driven by the rise in UK 18-year-olds applicants (who are the most likely to use their full five choices while applying). This record high surpasses the previous peak of 1.9 million offers set last year (+3.8%).

    While the main scheme offer rate has increased across all provider tariff groups, the most notable uplift is for higher tariff providers – up 3.2 percentage points to 64.4% this year.  Despite the increase in offer rates, higher tariffs do still remain the lowest, partly due to being the most selective institutions. Offer rates by medium and lower tariff providers have also increased, by 0.9 percentage points to 77.0% among medium tariff providers, and by 1.5 percentage points to 81.7% among lower tariff providers. This means that, among those who applied by the Equal Consideration Deadline in January, 72.5% of main scheme applications received an offer this year, also a record high, and 1.8 percentage points higher than in 2024.

    It’s worth noting that we’ll be updating our provider tariff groupings in time for the 2026 cycle, to reflect changes in the higher education landscape.

    Looking ahead

    For students who are intent on going to university or college, it makes this a very good year, with more opportunities than ever before. A record 94.5% of students who applied by the January deadline will be approaching the critical summer period having received at least one offer. High levels of offer-making by universities and colleges typically translates into more acceptances, which should give applicants plenty of confidence heading into results day. 

    I’m delighted to be back at UCAS, and my team will continue to dig further into the data as Confirmation and Clearing draws nearer to see how demand translates into accepted places come results day.

    UCAS

    UCAS, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, is an independent charity, and the UK’s shared admissions service for higher education.

    UCAS’ services support young people making post-18 choices, as well as mature learners, by providing information, advice, and guidance to inspire and facilitate educational progression to university, college, or an apprenticeship.

    UCAS manages almost three million applications, from around 700,000 people each year, for full-time undergraduate courses at over 380 universities and colleges across the UK.

    UCAS is committed to delivering a first-class service to all our beneficiaries — they’re at the heart of everything we do.

    Source link

  • Savvy Cyber Kids Appoints New Members to Board of Directors

    Savvy Cyber Kids Appoints New Members to Board of Directors

    Atlanta, Georgia,(GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Savvy Cyber Kids, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, appointed new members to the Board of Directors starting July, 1, 2025. 

    Joining the Board of Directors for Savvy Cyber Kids are James Azar, Anne-Marie Brockwell, Jason Cenamor, Nelson Soares, and Dr. Jasyn Voshell. 

    Savvy Cyber Kids enables youth, families and school communities empowerment through technology by providing age-appropriate cyber safety, cyber ethics and digital parenting resources and education starting at three years old.

    ———-

    “As a father, cybersecurity practitioner, and advocate for creating a safer digital environment for all children, I was compelled to join the board of Savvy Cyber Kids,” states James Azar, CISO and Host, CyberHub Podcast. “The organization’s mission, under the leadership of Ben Halpert, deeply resonates with me. Promoting responsible internet use begins at home, and Savvy Cyber Kids equips parents with the guidance and talking points they need to raise digitally aware and cyber-safe children.”

    James Azar is a dedicated cybersecurity practitioner and CISO in industries like FinTech, Banking, Energy and Oil and Gas with over 20 years of experience. He has a passion for aligning security and business goals, believing that innovation and creative thinking are key to solving today’s security challenges. As the host of the CyberHub Podcast, James enjoys sharing insights and fostering conversations around cybersecurity, technology, and business. He’s had the privilege of speaking at industry-leading events like RSA and CyberTech Israel and contributing to well-known publications. When not immersed in security, James enjoys espresso, good food, and a fine whiskey.

    ———-

    “I’m thrilled to join the board of Savvy Cyber Kids, where I can further my commitment to empowering families, educators, and students with the knowledge to navigate the digital world safely and responsibly,” states Anne-Marie Brockwell, Account Executive, Microsoft. “Through my advocacy for proactive digital learning and community engagement, I aim to expand awareness and foster a more inclusive, ethical online future. I look forward to using my network to amplify this vital mission.”

    Anne-Marie Brockwell is a seasoned Account Executive and strategic education leader with a deep commitment to empowering learners and advancing digital citizenship. At Microsoft, she leads partnerships with premier higher education institutions across New England, helping them accelerate AI innovation, modernize infrastructure, transform data strategies, and strengthen cybersecurity postures—all in service of their ultimate stakeholders: the students. With over a decade of experience spanning education technology and enterprise sectors, Anne-Marie brings a global, cross-industry perspective shaped by leadership roles at Rosetta Stone, Sanofi/Genzyme, Imagine Learning, and Deloitte. Her career has consistently focused on consulting selling, strategic partnerships, and operational excellence, underpinned by a passion for equity, access, and innovation in education.

    ———-

    “As technology becomes increasingly more prominent in our everyday lives, so does the need for increased education around cybersecurity,” states Jason Cenamor, Founder, Confide Group and The CISO Society. “Like all important things, cybersecurity education starts at the grassroots, and organizations like Savvy Cyber Kids will ensure cyber safety becomes as natural as looking both ways before you cross the road. Witnessing so many people fall victim to bad actors every day, I could not be more passionate about ensuring the next generation is prepared to navigate the new world equipped with the knowledge and tools to avoid the same fate.”

    Jason is the Founder and CEO of Confide Group – a cybersecurity advisory firm, and the Founder and Chief Community Officer of The CISO Society – a private community where members collaborate and share expertise on security strategy, project roadmaps, technology partners, CISO jobs, talent acquisition, industry news, and more. As a community figurehead and advocate, Jason possesses a passion for relationship building, networking, events, and providing an environment for security leaders to connect and learn from one another.

    ———-

    “As a father, cybersecurity advocate, and entrepreneur passionate about digital education, I’m honored to join the Board of Directors at Savvy Cyber Kids,” states Nelson Soares, Founder & CEO, C-Vision International and CEO, NS Advisory Group Inc. “Today’s children are growing up in a world shaped by rapid technological change—one that demands both awareness and resilience. I’ve spent my career helping organizations navigate innovation responsibly, and I believe there’s no greater mission than empowering our youth to do the same. I look forward to contributing to this critical cause and supporting Savvy Cyber Kids in building a safer digital future for families everywhere.”

    Nelson Soares is a dynamic entrepreneur and executive with deep expertise in leadership, consulting, and go-to-market strategy. As the Founder & CEO of C-Vision International, he has played a pivotal role in producing global thought leadership experiences for C-suite executives. He is also the CEO of NS Advisory Group Inc., where he advises startups and enterprise technology providers on scale, sales, and strategic growth. Nelson’s work bridges innovation and executive influence, particularly in cybersecurity and enterprise software, and his network spans the U.S., EMEA, LATAM, and APAC. He also serves on the board of Pocket Security, a nonprofit. A proud husband and father of two daughters, Nelson brings a personal and professional commitment to helping the next generation thrive in the digital age.

    ———-

    “I’ve had the privilege of knowing and working with Ben Halpert for over 20 years, including some of his earliest projects in cybersecurity education,” states Dr. Jasyn Voshell, Senior Director, Products and Solutions Security, Zebra Technologies. “Joining the Savvy Cyber Kids Board is especially meaningful to me as an uncle to nieces and nephews who are growing up in a world where digital technology is ever-present. Being part of an organization that empowers families to navigate the online world safely and confidently is both a personal passion and professional commitment I hold close to my heart.”

    Dr. Jasyn Voshell is the Senior Director of Products and Solutions Security at Zebra Technologies, where he leads the global Product & Solutions Security Program. He is responsible for the strategy, planning, and execution of Zebra’s enterprise-wide security initiatives across all products and solutions. Jasyn works closely with engineering and business teams to ensure security is embedded throughout the product lifecycle—secure by design, secure in use, and secure through trust. Jasyn was instrumental in establishing the Product Security Organization at Zebra, significantly reducing risk exposure while reinforcing customer trust in Zebra’s solutions. Under his leadership, the organization has delivered measurable improvements in secure software development practices, vulnerability management, and risk governance across the product portfolio. He holds bachelor’s degrees in Mathematics and Physics, a master’s degree in Applied Mathematics and Computer Information Systems, and a doctorate in Civil Law and Cybersecurity. Jasyn also maintains numerous industry-recognized certifications in cybersecurity and audit.

    ———-

    “Our children are frontline warriors pitted against threats delivered by today’s latest technology they can’t even comprehend,” states Ben Halpert, Founder, Savvy Cyber Kids. “Parents and schools unwittingly place the children they are responsible for up against harms they are not equipped to triumph over in their daily battles, both physically and mentally.” 

    Making meaningful, long term, generational change for the world’s most vulnerable population which is young children, takes dedication. “In today’s reality of youth sextortion related suicide, AI suicide encouragement, 24/7 cyberbullying, and the realization of harms against our children delivered through technology, educating young children starting at age three is paramount,” said Ben Halpert.

    “Most people want to believe quick fixes will work; when it comes to shaping human behaviors to build individual resilience, that is not the case. Our dedicated team looks forward to expanding our reach for the benefit of the world’s children,” said Ben Halpert.

    Learn more about the Board of Directors and their passion for Savvy Cyber Kids at https://savvycyberkids.org/about/board-of-directors/

    Savvy Cyber Kids is grateful for the ongoing support of its sponsors: CISO Horizon, C-Vision International, VIPRE Security Group, PWC US, Yass Partners, Jodi Fink Halpert Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices Georgia Properties, Vercel,and SecurityScorecard.

    About Savvy Cyber Kids

    Savvy Cyber Kids (SCK), a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization whose mission is to enable youth, families, and school communities to be empowered by technology, recognizes that children may be Digital Natives but are also “Digital Naives”, who, without intervention, completely lack understanding of the implications of their digital actions. Founded in 2007 by noted speaker and author Ben Halpert, Savvy Cyber Kids resources are used in 50 states and 54 countries around the world to help parents and teachers educate today’s youth on cyber safety and cyber ethics topics of cyberbullying, digital reputation, technology and screen-time balance, mental health, body and self-image, physical safety, sexting, privacy, gaming, child sexual predators, and more starting at 3 years old.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Choosing the Right Enrollment Management System

    Choosing the Right Enrollment Management System

    Reading Time: 12 minutes

    Enrollment is no longer a funnel. It’s a journey.

    One shaped by search queries, digital experiences, instant communication, and high expectations. Today’s prospective students demand speed, personalization, and clarity from their first interaction. For institutions that want to grow, scale, and compete, relying on spreadsheets or legacy databases is no longer sustainable.

    You need a system that works as hard as your team does. One that doesn’t just manage applicants, but empowers strategy, fosters connection, and drives retention.

    That’s the promise of a modern Enrollment Management System (EMS), but only if you choose the right one.

    What Is an Enrollment Management System?

    An Enrollment Management System is more than a tool for admissions; it’s a digital backbone for your recruitment, application, and onboarding processes. Think of it as an intelligent, data-powered engine that drives student acquisition and supports institutional growth goals.

    While many systems include basic applicant tracking and form building, a true EMS integrates across departments, touching admissions, marketing, student services, financial aid, and beyond. It’s designed to give your team a real-time view of the applicant pipeline while also enabling automation, analytics, and multichannel communication.

    Example: Mautic by HEM is a dedicated, all-in-one CRM and marketing automation platform for education, built on the open-source Mautic tool. It facilitates thorough applicant tracking by letting schools define custom stages and funnels for the enrollment journey: admissions teams can monitor each contact’s progress through stages (inquiry, application, accepted, etc.) and even apply lead scoring to prioritize the most engaged prospects.

    Source: HEM

    The best platforms don’t just move information. They orchestrate outcomes.

    A modern EMS aligns your people, data, and processes so that your team spends less time chasing forms and more time building relationships. It adapts to your enrollment strategy, whether that’s growing international reach, increasing diversity, boosting conversion, or all of the above.

    What Does an Enrollment System Do?

    It streamlines student recruitment and admissions, enabling your team to launch campaigns, collect inquiries, and track applicant engagement without toggling between multiple platforms. While “enrollment management” is often associated with software, it’s fundamentally a strategic function, and the right EMS becomes a catalyst for this function to succeed.

    Here’s how:

    • It streamlines student recruitment and admissions, enabling your team to launch campaigns, collect inquiries, and track applicant engagement without toggling between multiple platforms. From inquiry to enrollment, every stage is logged, measured, and improved.
      • Example: Tools like TargetX make it easy to launch campaigns, track lead engagement, and move prospects from inquiry to enrollment. TargetX is built on Salesforce and tailored for higher education, especially career colleges that need efficient outreach.
    • It enables marketing and communications teams to segment audiences, trigger campaigns, and personalize outreach across email, text, and student web portals, all with full visibility into what converts.
      • Example: EMS platforms such as Finalsite Enrollment combine CRM and marketing automation to segment audiences and personalize outreach across email, SMS, and web. Designed for independent K–12 schools, Finalsite ensures your message resonates from the first click.
    • It supports financial aid and yield strategy by syncing with your student information system (SIS) or CRM. That means your staff can track aid packages, award statuses, and net tuition impact, all within the same ecosystem.
      • Example: Integrated EMS like Anthology allows institutions to view aid packages, tuition forecasts, and academic data in one place. Anthology is especially powerful for institutions with complex admissions models or rolling start dates.
    • It strengthens student retention by providing advisors with access to academic history, risk indicators, and automated nudges that support at-risk students from the very start of their academic journey.
      • Example: By giving advisors access to risk flags and real-time data, platforms like Salesforce Education Cloud enable timely interventions that support students long after they’ve enrolled.
    • And most importantly, it delivers data analysis and forecasting that lets institutional leaders plan with precision. From demographic breakdowns to conversion rates, it provides insight into not just who applied but why they enrolled.
      • Example: With advanced analytics, tools like Technolutions Slate offer actionable insights into yield, demographics, and conversion rates, helping you refine your enrollment strategy over time.

    What is the point of strategic enrollment management? The point of strategic enrollment management (SEM) is to align an institution’s recruitment, admissions, retention, and graduation strategies with its long-term goals, using data and coordinated planning to optimize student success and institutional sustainability. An effective EMS ensures that your strategic enrollment plan becomes an operational reality, daily, seamlessly, and at scale.

    Core Features to Look For in an EMS

    1. Centralized Database and CRM

    A unified database helps you keep track of every applicant and their journey, from interactions and submitting forms to uploading documents and communication history. Look for systems that include robust CRM tools with inquiry tracking, source attribution, and segmentation capabilities.

    Example: TargetX (Liaison): Provides a single dashboard with a 360° view of each student, consolidating everything from event registrations and communication touchpoints to financial aid info, all in the same place. This unified database supports data-driven decision making in recruitment and admissions.

    Source: TargetX

    2. Online Application and Form Management

    Choose a system with customizable forms, document upload functionality, e-signature support, and user-friendly applicant portals. Features like drag-and-drop form builders and application status tracking can greatly improve the experience for both students and staff.

    Example: Classe365 supports paperless admissions with custom online application forms. Students can easily apply from home, and submitted form data is automatically mapped into the school’s SIS to avoid manual re-entry. This makes the entire application-to-enrollment workflow smooth and efficient for both applicants and staff.

    Source: Classe365

    3. Automated Multichannel Communication

    A strong student enrollment management system allows you to send personalized, automated messages via email, SMS, or in-app notifications. You should be able to build workflows, for example, a welcome message on inquiry, a reminder to complete an application, or an invitation to an open house. Some systems even offer AI chatbots for 24/7 engagement.

    Example: Mautic by HEM features built-in email and text messaging automation, enabling schools to send personalized emails or SMS updates triggered by prospect behavior.

    Source: HEM

    4. Workflow Automation and Task Management

    Look for features that reduce manual work, automatic task assignment, follow-up reminders, and to-do lists. These help your admissions team stay on top of deadlines and reduce errors.

    Example: Blackbaud Enrollment Management allows schools to tailor their admissions process with configurable workflows and checklists in one centralized system. Staff have personalized task dashboards, and the system automatically triggers next steps, sending follow-up reminders, updating statuses, or notifying counselors based on defined rules. This saves time and keeps the team on schedule

    Source: Blackbaud

    5. Seamless Integration

    Your EMS should integrate with your SIS, LMS, financial software, and marketing tools. Data should flow without duplication. Look for open APIs or pre-built integrations with platforms you already use.

    Example: Slate supports bi-directional data exchange with campus systems. It can push and pull data to external SIS, LMS, financial aid systems, content management systems, and more via its Integration Center. This means application data or status updates in Slate can automatically appear in the SIS, and vice versa, ensuring consistency across all systems.

    Source: Slate

    6. Analytics and Reporting

    Analytics tools allow you to track conversion rates, demographic trends, and recruitment performance. Some EMS platforms even offer predictive analytics to identify at-risk applicants or forecast yield.

    Example: TargetX goes beyond basic reporting by incorporating predictive analytics features. It includes a Prospect Scoring tool that lets schools apply tailored scoring models to their applicant pool. This means the system can automatically evaluate and rank prospective students based on likelihood to enroll (or other success indicators), helping admissions teams focus their efforts on the best-fit leads. Of course, standard reports and real-time dashboards are also available in TargetX for monitoring application trends and campaign performance at a glance.

    Source: TargetX

    7. Customization and Scalability

    No two schools are the same. Ensure your EMS allows you to customize application workflows, add custom fields, configure user roles, and scale as your institution grows.

    Example: A cloud-based SaaS platform, Slate, is designed to “scale seamlessly” with an institution’s growth. All technical infrastructure is managed in modern, secure data centers, and Slate regularly updates with new features at no extra cost. This means an organization can start small and trust that Slate will accommodate more applicants, programs, or campuses over time without needing a major system overhaul. In short, EMS vendors focus on both customization (to meet unique local needs) and scalability (to support more users, records, and features as needed).

    Source: Slate

    8. User-Friendly Design

    Adoption hinges on usability. During demos, pay attention to how intuitive the interface is for both staff and applicants. If the system is difficult to use, your team simply won’t use it to its full potential.

    Example: User experience drives adoption. During evaluations, platforms like Classe365 and Class by Infospeed regularly earn praise for intuitive interfaces, which is important when your team has limited tech support.

    Source: Classe365

    9. Mobile Accessibility

    Modern students (and parents) expect mobile-friendly platforms. Responsive design or dedicated mobile apps improve application completion rates and accessibility.

    Example: Slate: Entirely web-based and built with responsive HTML5 design, so all end-user interfaces are mobile-ready by default. Admissions officers and applicants can access Slate “anytime, anywhere,” and the system is compatible across iOS, Android, and other modern smartphones without any special app required.


    Source:
    Slate

    10. Security and Compliance

    Data privacy is critical. Look for FERPA, GDPR, or other compliance features, role-based access controls, encryption, and regular security audits.

    Example: Slate emphasizes that security is an “absolute commitment.” Slate encrypts all data in transit and at rest, and is fully compliant with regulations including PCI-DSS, NACHA, FERPA, GDPR, ADA Section 508, and more. Each client institution’s data is siloed in its own private database, and features like single sign-on integration and multi-factor authentication are supported, all to protect sensitive student information.

    Source: Slate

    How to Choose the Right System: The Smart Institution’s Guide

    Too often, institutions jump into vendor demos before clearly understanding their own needs. But choosing an EMS isn’t like buying a software license. It’s like hiring a new department, one that will touch nearly every part of your student journey.

    Too many schools choose an EMS the way they might buy a printer—look at features, pick the cheapest, hope for the best.

    That’s a mistake.

    Here’s how to do it right:

    1. Audit Your Current Process

    Bring your admissions, marketing, IT, and registrar teams together. Map the journey from first touch to enrolled student. Identify bottlenecks, duplicate data entry, communication gaps, and missed opportunities.

    Ask:

    • Where are we losing leads?
    • What’s manual that should be automated?
    • What data are we not capturing?

    Example: EMS tools like LeadSquared often shine here by centralizing fragmented workflows.

    Source: LeadSquared

     

    2. Define (and Prioritize) Your Needs

    Don’t go in with a wishlist. Go in with a mission-critical checklist. Keep these in mind when choosing features:

    • Must-haves (SIS integration, mobile access)
    • Nice-to-haves (AI-driven insights, alumni modules)
    • Deal-breakers (data residency, language support)

    Example: If your institution works with international agents, Class by Infospeed is built for managing agent relationships and complex course offerings, a crucial feature for language schools and ESL programs.

    Source: Class Systems

    3. Involve Your End-Users

    Admissions staff. Recruiters. Advisors. These are the people who will live in the system every day. Their input is gold. Make them part of demos. Let them ask tough questions. Choosing a solution like SchoolMint, praised for its intuitive design, becomes easier when usability is prioritized.

    4. Research Vendors Strategically

    Not all systems serve all markets equally. Some are better for K-12. Others shine in graduate admissions. Some are strong in portfolio management; others in agent tracking.

    Look for:

    • Reviews from schools like yours
    • Live or recorded demos
    • Transparent pricing models
    • Implementation timelines

    Shortlist 3–5 vendors. Your shortlist should reflect your institution’s specific context. For graduate schools, Liaison CAS platforms are especially effective. For community colleges, TargetX offers a powerful combination of CRM and enrollment tools without requiring heavy configuration.

    5. Evaluate Integration and Migration

    Ask each vendor:

    • How do you integrate with our SIS, LMS, and payment gateways?
    • Can you support our CRM, or replace it?
    • How will you handle data migration?
    • Do you offer API access?

    A disconnected EMS is a ticking time bomb. Ask vendors like Technolutions Slate or Salesforce Education Cloud about APIs and migration support—they’re known for smooth onboarding and flexibility.

    6. Test the User Experience

    Never buy blind. Ask for a sandbox account or personalized demo. Simulate key tasks: submitting an application, assigning leads, pulling a report. Include both staff and mock student journeys.

    What feels intuitive? What’s clunky? What’s fast?

    Your system is only as good as the people who use it.

    7. Scrutinize Support and Training

    Great technology without support is useless. Ask:

    • Who handles onboarding?
    • Is training included or extra?
    • What’s your support SLA?
    • Can we talk to a current client?

    Look for a partner, not just a vendor. Look to vendors like Anthology, which are known for offering detailed implementation timelines, role-based training, and strong post-launch support.

    8. Evaluate Total Cost and ROI

    Look beyond license fees. Consider:

    • Implementation and training costs
    • User seat pricing
    • Support packages
    • Future upgrade fees
    • Opportunity cost of inefficiency

    For example, Classe365 offers bundled modules that can be more cost-effective for institutions seeking an all-in-one platform.

    Then flip the question:

    How much time, enrollment yield, and data quality could we gain?

    What to Avoid: Mistakes That Derail Enrollment Success

    Let’s be clear: choosing the wrong EMS won’t just slow you down, it can undermine your enrollment goals for years.

    Common mistakes include:

    • Prioritizing brand over fit. The best-known system is not always the best match for your institution’s size, staff capacity, or audience.
    • Skipping the discovery phase. Without understanding your real process needs, you risk choosing a tool that solves the wrong problems.
    • Overcomplicating the solution. Feature-rich platforms are great—if your team has the time and training to use them. Don’t choose complexity over usability.
    • Neglecting integration. A system that doesn’t talk to your CRM or SIS will create data silos and extra work.
    • Ignoring security and compliance. Your EMS will hold sensitive student data. Ensure it meets regulatory requirements like FERPA or GDPR, and ask vendors for proof of their data protection protocols.
    • Leaving end-users out of the process. If admissions and marketing staff don’t weigh in, you may end up with a system that leadership likes, but staff resents.
    • Rushing implementation. A fast deployment might sound appealing, but skipping onboarding, testing, and training will lead to low adoption and missed ROI.

    A better approach? Take your time. Do the homework. Involve your people. And choose a system that solves your real problems, not just your imagined ones.

    A Strategic Investment, Not Just a Tech Upgrade

    The right Enrollment Management System is more than a technology purchase. It’s a strategic accelerator. When implemented well, it becomes the operating system for your admissions engine, fueling smarter campaigns, stronger applicant engagement, faster decision-making, and ultimately, better student outcomes.

    Institutions that invest intentionally in their EMS see tangible results: higher yield rates, improved retention, deeper applicant insights, and more efficient operations. They don’t just fill classes, they shape them.

    But none of this happens by chance. It requires a clear vision, a methodical evaluation, and a commitment to ongoing improvement.

    Partnering for Enrollment Success

    Choosing an EMS is just the beginning. Implementing it well, and aligning it with your enrollment strategy requires experience, insight, and a steady hand.

    That’s where Higher Education Marketing (HEM) comes in. We’ve helped institutions across Canada and beyond design, implement, and optimize enrollment solutions that work. Whether you need a student-facing CRM portal, a smarter communication strategy, or guidance on vendor selection, our team can help.

    Book a free consultation with HEM today, and let’s build an enrollment strategy that’s as forward-thinking as your institution. Because better tools don’t just make your job easier, they make your goals achievable.

    Need help sorting through the multitudes of enrollment management systems for the right one for your school? Contact HEM today for more information. 

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: What is an enrollment management system?

    Answer: An Enrollment Management System is more than a tool for admissions; it’s a digital backbone for your recruitment, application, and onboarding processes

    Question: What does an enrollment system do?

    Answer: It streamlines student recruitment and admissions, enabling your team to launch campaigns, collect inquiries, and track applicant engagement without toggling between multiple platforms.

    Question: What is the point of strategic enrollment management?

    Answer: The point of strategic enrollment management (SEM) is to align an institution’s recruitment, admissions, retention, and graduation strategies with its long-term goals, using data and coordinated planning to optimize student success and institutional sustainability. 

    Source link

  • Project POTUS 2025 Middle School Winners Announced

    Project POTUS 2025 Middle School Winners Announced

    Indianapolis, IN — Project POTUS, a national middle school history initiative from the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site, has named winners for this year’s competition. 

    Since the founding of our nation, there have been nearly half a billion American citizens. Of those, over 12,000 of us have served in Congress. Just 115 have become Supreme Court Justices. Only 45 citizens have become President of the United States. There’s something exceptional about each POTUS — good, bad, or otherwise. Project POTUS? challenges students in middle school to research an American president and create a video, 60 seconds or less, representing the POTUS chosen in a way that is creative, supported by good history research, and fun. A Citizen Jury made up of nearly 100 people reviewed all qualifying submissions and selected this year’s winners.

    Grand Jury’s Grand Prize and Spotlight Award Selections  

    Grand Prize Winner ($500 award) 

    • 6th grader Peter Gestwicki from Muncie, Indiana won grand prize for his video about Theodore Roosevelt. Watch his winning video  here.

    Spotlight Award  Winners ($400 award winners) 

    • 8th grader Grace Whitworth from St. Richard’s Episcopal School in Indianapolis, Indiana won for her video about President Thomas Jefferson. Watch her winning video  here.
    • 8th grader Izzy Abraham from Sycamore School in Indianapolis, Indiana for her video about President Calvin Coolidge. Watch his winning video  here.
    • 8th grader Clara Haley from St. Richards Episcopal School in Indianapolis, Indiana for her video about President George W. Bush. Watch his winning video  here
    • 8th graders Delaney Guy and Nora Steinhauser from Cooperative Middle School in Stratham, New Hampshire for their video about President James Polk. Watch their winning video  here.

    37 students throughout the country each won their Presidential Category and received $100 awards. Check out all of their videos  here.

    The 2026 Project POTUS competition begins Election Day, November 4, 2025 and all submissions must be entered by Presidents Day, February 16, 2026. Learn more  here.

    Project POTUS is made possible by the generous support from Russell & Penny Fortune. 

    About the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site

    The Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site is the former home of the 23rd U.S. President. Now celebrating its 150th anniversary, it is a stunningly restored National Historic Landmark that shares the legacy of Indiana’s only President and First Lady with tens of thousands of people annually through guided tours, educational programs, special events and cultural programs. Rated “Top 5 Stately Presidential Homes You Can Visit” by Architectural Digest, the Harrison’s 10,000 square foot Italianate residence in downtown Indianapolis houses nearly 11,000 curated artifacts spanning more than two centuries of American and presidential history. Recently expanded and restored through a $6 million campaign, the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site is also consistently ranked a Top 5 Thing To Do in Indianapolis by TripAdvisor. Signature programs and initiatives include: Future Presidents of America; Project POTUS, Candlelight Theatre; Juneteenth Foodways Festival; Wicket World of Croquet; and Off the Record. Founded in 1966 as a private 501c(3) that receives no direct federal support, the Benjamin Harrison Presidential Site is dedicated to increasing public participation in the American system of self-government through the life stories, arts and culture of an American President. Find out more at PresidentBenjaminHarrison.org

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Using MindTap for English to Help Monitor Students’ Use of AI

    Using MindTap for English to Help Monitor Students’ Use of AI

    Reading Time: 4 minutes

    Depending on the era in which we began learning, formally or informally, we all have a diverse range of valuable definitions and perspectives about artificial intelligence pertaining to teaching and learning.

    Teaching and learning with AI

    When I was a student in elementary school during the 1980s, AI was using a calculator rather than longhand or a traditional adding machine for arithmetic. Additionally, the entire school only had six computers for student use, which were housed in the library. Only students acting responsibly earned access to time on these devices to play The Oregon Trail, “an educational game that simulates the hardships of [1848] …”

    With all of this in mind, AI has been teaching us, and we’ve been learning from it, for quite some time, in and out of school.

    However, with the advancement of generative AI, the implications for teaching and learning now have to do more with academic integrity. And academic dishonesty policies about original work vs. AI in education have come into the conversation. This is where MindTap features like Turnitin can be applied to help monitor students’ acceptable and ethical use of AI in English composition courses.

    My conversation with students

    My students may engage in conversations about acceptable, ethical uses of GenAI and academic integrity before they even enroll in my courses. This is because I post the policies in my syllabus. Students learn that there is a monitoring system in place in MindTap for English by Turnitin. Once enrolled in MindTap, there are discussions, in both online and face-to-face modalities, about these policies at length. Policies are also copied into each of the writing assignments in MindTap. Our focus is on ethics, or academic integrity, to ensure students’ coursework is original. Valuable feedback, information and resources can be provided for students to learn and progress rather than to get a grade.

    Since students cannot prove learning and mastery of learning outcomes without work being original, I discuss with them and copy in their assignments that they should not use any words that are not original. MindTap provides me with access to Turnitin to monitor academic integrity.

      Turnitin AI detector screenshot

    Suggestions for monitoring

    To help monitor students’ use of AI, parameters in MindTap for English with Turnitin should be set. For example, students need to submit more than 300 words for the detector to perform. Once students submit work, the detector generates an originality report. This can be downloaded to provide the instructor and learner with feedback about the percentage amount of acceptable and ethical usage of AI or plagiarism.

    Turnitin inbox where the similarity percentage can be viewed and clicked on for expanded, detailed information.
    Inbox where the similarity percentage can be viewed and clicked on for expanded, detailed information.

    The report highlights where originality is in question directly on the student’s document. Some instructors will set percentage parameters as well, instructing students that there cannot be more than 15% flagged by the detector in MindTap. Clicking on what the detector has highlighted shows the possible source where information may have been taken or just generally that AI has been used. Note: this is just a monitoring system. So, please be mindful that the report is a tool instructors can use to have conversations with their students. We cannot accuse academic dishonesty based on a report alone.

    Turnitin shows the match overview with all of the plagiarism flagged, which can also be AI. Each part can be clicked on and expanded to show the original source.
    Shows the match overview with all of the plagiarism flagged, which can also be AI. Each part can be clicked on and expanded to show the original source.

    MindTap’s monitoring system has always been correct for me, but conversations are still beneficial for assurance. I use this monitoring document for every submission in MindTap.

    The big picture to consider

    AI can be used ethically as a tool for teaching and learning, bridging student learning gaps and strengthening their mastery of skills. However, when it comes to academic integrity, the concern is that GenAI is being used not as an aid, but as a tool devoid of the values of teaching and learning. According to Cengage’s recent research, 82% of instructors expressed concern specifically about AI and academic integrity. Setting policies and parameters with clear definitions and having conversations with students is essential to my ability to monitor my students’ acceptable use of AI.

    Do you use AI in your English composition classroom? Reach out to discuss the ways you’re utilizing AI as an ethical tool to advance teaching and learning.

    Written by Faye Pelosi, Professor in the Communications Department at Palm Beach State College and Cengage Faculty Partner. 

    Stay tuned for Professor Pelosi’s upcoming video demo of how she uses the MindTap Turnitin feature in her English course.

    Source link

  • Jessica Berger | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Jessica Berger | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

    Jessica BergerJessica Berger has been appointed Executive Vice President and Chief Advancement Officer at Chapman University.

    Berger brings nearly two decades of advancement and fundraising leadership experience across multiple institutions. Most recently, she served as vice president for university advancement and executive director of the foundation at California State University, San Marcos (CSUSM), where she led a team of nearly 50 professionals across fundraising, alumni and donor relations, marketing and communications, events and government relations.

    Prior to CSUSM, Berger spent seven years at Harvey Mudd College, rising to the role of assistant vice president for development. Earlier in her career, Berger contributed to fundraising efforts at Polytechnic School in Pasadena during a $93 million campaign, raised private support for a children’s home in Kenya and served in the U.S. House of Representatives as a congressional staff member focused on constituent advocacy.

    Berger earned a Master of Social Work from Cleveland State University and a Bachelor of Arts in Psychology from Wittenberg University, both with honors.

     

    Source link

  • Editorial: The Society for Research into Higher Education in 1985

    Editorial: The Society for Research into Higher Education in 1985

    by Rob Cuthbert

    In SRHE News and Blog a series of posts is chronicling, decade by decade, the progress of SRHE since its foundation 60 years ago in 1965. As always, our memories are supported by some music of the times (which had improved somewhat after the nadir of 1975).

    In 1985 Ronald Reagan became the US President, which seemed improbable at the time, but post-Trump now appears positively conventional – that joke isn’t funny any more. Reaganomics fuelled the present US multi-$trillion national debt; it was the era of supply-side economics. President Reagan was of course popular with UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. She was by then at her peak after the 1982 Falklands War restored her own popularity, helping her in 1985 to bring an end to the miners’ strike and to ride out riots in Handsworth in Birmingham and Broadwater Farm in London.

    Vodafone enabled the first commercial mobile phone call in the UK; the BBC micro was the computer of choice for schools. Beverley Hills Cop was one of the top movies in 1985, with Eddie Murphy featured by the Pointer Sisters as they sang “I don’t wanna take it any more”, a 1980s theme song for some in universities. Globalism was in vogue; everybody wants to rule the world. International pop stars came together to sing We are the world in January and then perform at the Live Aid concert at Wembley in July with Queen’s legendary showstopping performance. Nintendo prepared to conquer the world with the launch of Super Mario, but global multinationals took a hit with one of the biggest marketing blunders ever, as Coca-Cola changed its formula, released New Coke in April, then went back to the original less than three months later.

    Higher education in 1985

    Global HE had its own marketing and governance issues after what Guy Neave (then UCL, now Twente) described as a period of consolidation from 1975 to 1985:

    “ … it was during this decade … that these systems assumed the level of dealing with mass higher education … By the late 1980s or 1990s … there are certain countries which anticipate participation rates in higher education of over 30% (Neave, 1984a). Highest amongst them are Denmark and Finland with 40% of the appropriate age group, the Federal Republic with 35% and France with 33%. … In effect, transition to mass higher education gave rise to additional bodies to control, monitor and hold accountable a sector of increasing significance in government social expenditure. Such intermediary agencies stand as a response to the advent of mass higher education, not an anticipation of it.”

    This was prescient: who’s gonna tell you things aren’t so great? Later Paul Windolf (Heidelberg) would take a very long view in his comparative analysis of Cycles of expansion in higher education 1870-1985 in Higher Education (1992:23, 3-19): “For most countries the data confirm the theory of ‘status competition’ (perverse effects): universities expand particularly fast during times of an economic recession … The human capital theory is not confirmed by this longitudinal analysis.” However human capital theory dominated policy thinking in many parts of the world, especially the UK, as Adam Matthews (Birmingham) argued in his blog for Wonkhe on 12 June 2024:

    “Despite so much adversarial and ideologically polarised politics in the 1980s domestically and internationally, we do find consensus around higher education and universities. Growth was still on the agenda. As the country found itself economically struggling, teaching and research was seen as the solution rather than the problem, particularly around research findings being applied to real world issues.”

    UK HE in 1985: a ferment of planning

    In that decade of consolidation after 1975, in the UK no new universities were created until the 1980s. By 1985 there were just two: the University of Buckingham and the University of Ulster. Expansion of UK HE in the 1980s was driven by the polytechnics, especially after the UGC’s unevenly distributed and dramatic financial cuts of 1981. The universities and UGC had tried and failed to protect the so-called ‘unit of resource’, the level of funding per full-time equivalent (FTE) undergraduate student, and the UGC’s established pattern of quinquennial funding had been reluctantly abandoned. Neave noted that:

    “Strictly speaking, university finance in the United Kingdom did not involve change to the basic unit of resource, an issue raised only under dire economic pressure in the period following the 1981 reductions in university budgets. Nor was the abandonment of quinquennial funding a response to mass higher education per se, so much as to the country’s parlous economic status.”

    The UK economy and HE were in Dire Straits: there was no money for nothing. The rapid expansion of the polytechnics, driving down costs, was the dominant influence on policy. A National Advisory Body for Local Authority Higher Education (NAB) had been set up on 1 February 1982 to advise the Secretary of State for Education and Science on matters relating to academic provision and the approval of advanced courses, reconstituted as the National Advisory Body for Public Sector Higher Education (PSHE) from 1 February 1985. In 1985 there were 503,000 students in PSHE in Great Britain, of whom 214,000 were part-time. Universities had 291,000 full-time and 114,000 part-time students. PSHE in England included 29 polytechnics, 30 major colleges, 21 voluntary colleges, and 300 others. In Wales there was one polytechnic, 7 major colleges and 16 others. The Further Education Act 1985 gave more powers to local authorities, who still governed the whole of PSHE, to supply goods and services, especially teaching and  research, through educational institutions.

    Clive Booth, principal private secretary to the Secretary of State for Education and Science since 1975, later to become Director of Oxford Polytechnic, foretold government policy in 1987, reviewing HE planning since 1965 in Higher Education Quarterly:

    “The development of a planning body for public sector higher education in England has created the potentiality for an integrated planning approach to university and non-university higher education.”

    Booth had been involved in the production of a series of significant DES papers: the 1978 Report of the Working Group on the Management of Higher Education in the Maintained Sector (the Oakes Report); in 1981 Higher Education in England outside the Universities: Policy, Funding and Management, a consultative document; and finally the 1985 Green Paper The Development of Higher Education into the 1990s. We saw the present, he saw the whole of the Moon.

    The Green Paper followed the notorious Jarratt Report of 1985, which sent shock waves through the university sector. Paul Greatrix (Nottingham), a long-serving Registrar and Secretary, wrote on his Wonderful (and Frightening) World of HE blogmuch later that:

    “Looking back from 2015, some of these observations and recommendations do seem quite tentative. But in 1985 they were dynamite. After the extraordinary and unprecedented cuts of 1981 and Keith Joseph’s unsuccessful approach to introduce fees in 1984 this seemed like another attack on universities.”

    The widespread view in UK HE at the time was, in the words of the Style Council, “You don’t have to take this crap”, but the policy walls did not come tumbling down. Greatrix cited Geoffrey Alderman’s acerbic review of Malcolm Tight’s 2009 book Higher education in the United Kingdom since 1945 for Times Higher Education:

    “… to my mind one of the most damaging inquiries into higher education over the last half-century was the Jarratt report … a mischievous and malevolent investigation (which, inter alia, popularised if it did not invent the notion that students are “customers”, which foisted on the sector the delusion that factory-floor “performance indicators” are entirely suited to a higher-education setting, and which led to the abolition of academic tenure and the concomitant triumph of managerialism in the academy) … Jarratt was self-inflicted. The inquiry was not a government creation. It was established by the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals. … Jarratt was betrayal from within.”

    For Greatrix:

    “Looking back these do not look like the proposals filled with malevolence or mischief. Many of these changes were inevitable, most were long overdue, a lot would have happened in any case. … From today’s viewpoint it looks more like that what Jarratt offered were some pointers and directions in this strange new terrain.”

    With the benefit of hindsight it can be argued that in 1985 UK universities were unduly concerned, perhaps even obsessed, with what might have been lost from a supposed ‘golden age’ of autonomy. But nothing is so good it lasts eternally. The wreckage of the Titanic was finally located in 1985, another lost cause once assumed unsinkable. Universities were, like Bonnie Tyler, holding out for a hero, but Tina Turner was right, after the 1981 cuts: “Out of the ruins, out from the wreckage, can’t make the same mistake this time”.

    The Green Paper, still Green and not White, announced by Secretary of State Keith Joseph in May 1985, came as the preliminary conclusion to this ferment of planning. He said in Parliament that “… it is vital for our higher education to contribute more effectively to the improvement of the performance of the economy. This is not because the Government place a low value on the general cultural benefits of education and research or on study of the humanities.” But HE mostly heard only the first sentence, and thought we were on the road to nowhere, rather than seeing the opportunities. The Thatcher White Paper Higher Education: Meeting the Challenge would not appear until 1987, and NAB and the UGC would  survive only until 1988. REO Speedwagon captured the mood: Can’t fight this feeling any more.

    SRHE and research into higher education in 1985

    The chairs of SRHE from 1975-1985 included some great names: Lewis Elton (Surrey) 1977-78, Gareth Williams (Lancaster, later London Institute of Education) 1978-80 (and 1986-88), Donald Bligh (Exeter) 1980-82, David Warren-Piper (London Institute of Education) 1982-84, and Michael Shattock (Warwick, later London Institute of Education/UCL) 1984-86. The outstanding highlight of the decade was a major review into higher education organised by the Society. As Gareth Williams wrote:

    “With the help of a substantial grant from the Leverhulme Trust, the Society for Research into Higher Education set up a comprehensive programme of study into the future of higher education which I directed. The aim of the programme was not to undertake new research but rather to focus recent research findings and the views of informed people on the major strategic options likely to be available to higher education institutions and policy making bodies in the 1980s and 1990s.”

    The programme ran from 1980 to 1983 and led to nine themed reports, an overall review and a final report. SRHE had, in Michael Shattock’s words:

    “… established itself as an important voice in policy. It was addressed by higher education Ministers (William Waldegrave 1982, Peter Brooke 1983), at an SRHE/THES Conference on the Green Paper by Sir Keith Joseph the Secretary of State, in 1985. Most unusually it received a visit from the former Prime Minister, Edward Heath, in February 1983 who wished to seek the Society’s advice about higher education.”

    SRHE might have hoped like Madonna to be Into the Groove policywise, but the Prime Minister had a list of questions which were more about living in a material world:

    • To what extent (if any) has the balance between disciplines been inappropriate for Britain’s economic needs?
    • How far should the labour market determine the shape of higher education?
    • Are research and teaching indivisible in higher education if standards are to be maintained?
    • Is it better to have a few research institutions or many, given financial constraints?
    • Is the binary line appropriate?
    • Are the links between HE and industry poor by comparison with other major countries?
    • What are the merits of shorter courses – two years liberal arts followed by two years vocational?”

    Shattock observed:

    “The interest of these questions is both the extent to which the issues were addressed and answered in the Leverhulme Programme and the fact that their underlying assumptions formed the basis of the 1985 Green Paper. It was clear that the Society was at the sharp end of discussions about the future policy.”

    The Leverhulme findings were perhaps just too balanced for the times – can’t get there from here. Shattock as SRHE chair initiated an Enquiry on ‘Questions of Quality’ which became the theme of SRHE’s 1985 annual conference, and one of SRHE’s founders, Graeme Moodie (York), edited a 1986 bookStandards and Criteria in Higher Education. Shattock also established the influential SRHE Policy Forum, a seminar involving leading academics, civil servants and HE managers which met five times a year under the alternate chairmanship of Michael Shattock and Gareth Williams. 

    Nevertheless it was not long after 1985 that a special meeting of SRHE’s Council at the FE Staff College received a report, probably from its administrator Rowland Eustace, saying: “general knowledge and understanding of the Society remains relatively low in higher education despite attempts over recent years to give the Society a higher profile”. Perhaps still a little out of touch, hoping for glory days, still running up that hill, hoping or even believing that things can only get better.

    Rob Cuthbert is editor of SRHE News and the SRHE Blog, Emeritus Professor of Higher Education Management, University of the West of England and Joint Managing Partner, Practical Academics. Email [email protected]. Twitter/X @RobCuthbert.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Decoder Replay: Let’s celebrate Mandela Day

    Decoder Replay: Let’s celebrate Mandela Day

    February 11, 1990 was truly a turning point in the history of South Africa.

    For decades the nation at the southern tip of the continent had been pilloried by much of the rest of the world. This was because of its apartheid racial segregation laws that hugely favoured the white population over the far larger and mostly black majority.

    Apartheid means “separateness” in Afrikaans, the language rooted in Dutch that evolved when the country was a colony.

    By 1989 — itself a remarkable year for the wave of revolutions in communist East Europe — South Africa had made significant steps in its effort to end its pariah status. International sanctions were costing it dearly economically, culturally and in sporting terms.

    As a taste of events to come, the government freed senior figures in the African National Congress (ANC), the exiled organisation waging a low-level guerrilla campaign against apartheid.

    The fight against apartheid

    A favourite weapon of the ANC was small mines. One of them exploded in a shopping mall in the commercial capital Johannesburg just as I had finished shopping there and was safely in the mall’s car park.

    But there was no word when ANC leader Nelson Mandela — who ultimately spent 27 years incarcerated, much of it in an island prison — would be freed.

    Lawyer Mandela entered the world stage with a famous speech at his 1963 trial for sabotage acts against the state in which he stated that freedom and equality were “an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

    Releasing Mandela from prison was a key card that South Africa could play to regain respectability, and the government would play it “soon,” Anton Lubowski, an anti-apartheid activist and human rights advocate, told me.

    Lubowski did not live to see his forecast fulfilled. In September 1989, gunmen pumped AK-47 rifle rounds into him, with the coup de grace a pistol bullet. He was the latest in a long list of opposition figures in southern Africa to fall victim to unnamed assassins.

    Freedom as news

    Knowing that Mandela was expected to be released — his freedom would be a huge news story — but not knowing how or when it would happen was particularly frustrating for a news agency reporter like me.

    Reuters and its rivals compete tooth and nail to get stories first, and to get them right. Being just one minute behind another news agency on a major story rates as a failure.

    What I dreaded most was that Mandela would be released from prison unannounced, just as his ANC colleagues had been. This possibility made it necessary for me and my colleagues to be constantly alert, straining to catch the first authentic information.

    The problem was that, then as now, the pressure to get hard information was compounded by a fog of fake news and hoaxes, saying that the release of Mandela was imminent or indeed had actually happened.

    These claims were typically relayed on pagers, the messaging devices of the pre-smartphone age. Such messages, no matter how bogus-sounding, had to be checked. This took time and energy and shredded nerves.

    Recognizing a hero

    It was one such scare that prompted reporters to flock to an exclusive clinic outside Cape Town where Mandela was known to be undergoing treatment.

    It was then that another problem surfaced: Nobody among us knew what Mandela looked like after his marathon spell in prison. There had been no pictures of him. Would we even recognise him if he walked out of the clinic?

    The hilarious result was that every black man leaving the clinic — whether porter, delivery man, cleaner or whatever — came under intense scrutiny from the ranks of the world’s press assembled outside.

    But on the timing of the release, I had a lucky break. A local journalist friend introduced me to a senior member of a secretive police unit who was willing to share with me whatever information he had on when Mandela would be a free man.

    The police official’s name was Vic — I did not then know his full name. But he was no fake policeman. He introduced me to his staff in his offices, which were in a shopping arcade concealed behind what looked like a plain mirror but was in fact also a door.

    Verifying fake claims.

    All cloak-and-dagger stuff. With enormous lack of originality, my Reuters colleagues and I referred to Vic as our “Deep Throat,” the pseudonym of the informant who provided Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein with information about the 1972 Watergate scandal.

    Some time in the latter half of 1989, Vic told me in the less than cloak-and-dagger setting of a Holiday Inn coffee shop that Mandela was likely to be released in January or February of 1990.

    This was not precise information, but at least it was better than anything that I had, or apparently anybody else in the news business.

    In later meetings, Vic refined the information without disclosing the exact day of the release, which apparently was known to just four people in the South African government.

    One of the ways Vic was valuable to us was that whenever a fake claim about Mandela’s whereabouts surfaced, I could call him, day or night, to check. And it was Vic who told me on February 10 that “it looked like” Mandela would be a free man the next day.

    And so it proved.

    Mandela instantly became universally recognisable, South Africa disbanded apartheid, elections were held in which all races voted, the ANC won, and Mandela became South Africa’s first fully democratically elected president.

    February 11, 1990 is indeed a day to remember.


     

    Three Questions to Consider

    1. Why did apartheid last so long?

    2. What was the reaction of South African whites to Mandela’s release?

    3. Can you think of someone today who is trying to fight against an system of oppression?


     

    Source link

  • Labor Department to take on day-to-day management of CTE programs

    Labor Department to take on day-to-day management of CTE programs

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Management of key federal workforce development programs will begin shifting from the U.S. Department of Education to the U.S. Department of Labor under an interagency agreement signed in May, according to a joint announcement by the agencies Tuesday.
    • Adult education and family literacy programs under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act and career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act will be managed by the Labor Department alongside Education Department staff, according to the agencies.
    • Tuesday’s announcement comes just one day after the U.S. Supreme Court stayed an injunction in McMahon v. New York, granting the Education Department the ability to move forward with a sweeping reduction in force. That decision meant the workforce development interagency agreement with the Labor Department could go forward.

    Dive Insight:

    Under the May 21 interagency agreement behind the workforce development partnership, the Labor Department will take on daily administration of the programs. The Education Department will continue statutory responsibilities, policy authority and program oversight.

    While the interagency agreement was stalled in court, leading organizations for CTE directors and professionals raised concerns over the contract. Advance CTE and the Association for Career and Technical Education predicted “far-reaching negative impacts on CTE programs and learners across the country” in a June 11 joint statement, adding that the agreement “directly circumvents existing statutory requirements” under the Perkins Act.

    These programs, the organizations said, “are not merely job training programs; these programs are comprehensive educational and career preparation programs that prepare secondary and postsecondary learners for lifelong success by connecting academic and technical learning with the real world skills that learners need to thrive.”

    The agreement, however, is in line with President Donald Trump’s April executive order, “Preparing Americans for High-Paying Skilled Trade Jobs of the Future. That order called, in part, for the secretaries of labor, commerce and education to find opportunities to integrate systems and realign resources to address critical workforce needs and in-demand skills in emerging industries, identify ineffective federal workforce development and education programs, and streamline information collection.

    “The current structure with various federal agencies each managing pieces of the federal workforce portfolio is inefficient and duplicative. Support from the Department of Labor in administering the Department of Education’s workforce programs is a commonsense step in streamlining these programs to better serve students, families, and educators,” said U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a Tuesday statement.

    Source link

  • University of Southern California signals layoffs amid $200M budget gap

    University of Southern California signals layoffs amid $200M budget gap

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • The University of Southern California plans to use layoffs and other budget austerity measures to tackle a $200 million operating deficit and gird against a massive blow to federal funding, Interim President Beong-Soo Kim said in a community message on Monday
    • On top of USC’s growing budget shortfall, which ballooned from $158 million in fiscal year 2024, officials are now grappling with federal headwinds affecting the outlook for research support, student financial aid and international enrollment, Kim said.
    • Lower federal research funding could cost the highly selective private university $300 million — or more — each year, Kim said. “To deal decisively with our financial challenges, we need to transform our operating model, and that will require layoffs,” he said. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Kim pointed out that USC isn’t alone in making painful budget decisions — but said that didn’t make the news any easier to hear. Indeed, many other well-known research universities have also been tightening their budgets and signaling layoffs amid the Trump administration’s widespread federal grant terminations. 

    That includes Stanford University, a fellow California college, and Brown University, in Rhode Island, which have both signaled potential staff reductions as they contend with federal funding shifts. Boston University, another private nonprofit, recently cut 120 employees and eliminated an equal number of vacant positions to deal with those challenges. 

    Kim did not disclose how many employees the university plans to lay off, and a USC spokesperson did not provide more details in response to questions Tuesday. But Kim said in his message to faculty and staff that USC has also taken other measures to shore up its budget. 

    The university will forego merit raises for the 2026 fiscal year, has ended certain services from third parties, and tightened discretionary and travel spending. It’s also planning to sell unused properties, streamline operations and adjust pay for the most highly compensated employees. 

    Kim, however, said it wasn’t feasible to bank on increased tuition revenue, drawing down more on the university’s endowment or taking out additional debt. 

    “Each of these ‘solutions’ would simply shift our problem onto the backs of future generations of Trojans,” Kim said, referring to the university’s mascot and student body nickname. 

    He also noted that the university could not likely count on federal funding returning to prior norms. “While we will continue to advocate for the vital importance of research and our academic mission, we cannot rely on the hope that federal support will revert to historical levels,” he said. 

    Kim’s message comes just two weeks into his tenure as the college’s interim leader, making it one of his first acts. 

    USC depends heavily on federal research funding. In fiscal 2024, the university received $569 million for federally funded research, according to a recent FAQ posted to its website. Overall, the university brought in nearly $7.5 billion in operating revenue that year and had $7.6 billion in operating expenses.

    Source link