Blog

  • The Platform Monopoly on Jobs and Careers

    The Platform Monopoly on Jobs and Careers

    In the platform-dominated economy, Indeed.com has established itself as the central marketplace for jobseekers and employers alike, boasting tens of millions of listings across industries and geographies. But behind its user-friendly design lies a powerful, opaque system that reinforces labor precarity, exploits the desperation of the underemployed, and facilitates fraud and exploitation—including through job scams designed to funnel people into for-profit colleges and dubious training schemes.

    Indeed’s rise is emblematic of a larger pattern in the U.S. political economy, where platforms extract profit from human need—especially from the millions of Americans struggling to find secure employment in a shrinking labor market. While claiming to connect jobseekers with opportunity, Indeed increasingly operates as a gatekeeper and a filter, favoring employers with the ability to pay for prominence, and quietly profiting from a user base navigating worsening inequality.

    From Opportunity to Exploitation: The Platform Economy

    Indeed’s near-monopoly over online job listings positions it as the Amazon of employment—a central aggregator of job ads, resume submissions, employer reviews, and workforce data. Its business model is rooted in ad-based revenue: companies pay to boost job visibility, while jobseekers receive a flood of suggested listings—many of which are irrelevant, low-quality, or outright deceptive.

    One particularly disturbing trend: a growing number of “job postings” on Indeed are not job offers at all, but veiled advertisements for for-profit colleges and unaccredited training programs. These listings typically appear legitimate, bearing the titles of medical assistant, phlebotomist, cybersecurity technician, or paralegal. But once an applicant shows interest, they are quickly routed to admissions representatives, not employers. In short, they’ve fallen for a bait-and-switch scheme.

    Indeed does little to prevent these tactics. Despite flagging mechanisms and user complaints, scammers and aggressive recruiters return repeatedly under new listings or shell company names. And because these advertisers pay to promote their listings, there is a built-in conflict of interest: Indeed profits from ads designed to exploit vulnerable jobseekers, many of whom are already burdened by unemployment, underemployment, or student debt.

    The Job Training Charade: A National Problem

    As labor economist Gordon Lafer argues in The Job Training Charade, job training programs have long functioned as a public relations tool for elected officials, who promise “skills-based solutions” rather than structural labor reform. Publicly funded retraining programs and for-profit career schools capitalize on this narrative, convincing jobseekers that their struggles stem from a personal “skills gap” rather than systemic inequality.

    Indeed’s platform reinforces this logic by flooding users with listings that promote training and certification programs as prerequisites for jobs that often don’t exist or pay poorly. Even in legitimate industries—like healthcare and IT—the overabundance of credential inflation and unnecessary gatekeeping leads to further debt accumulation without guaranteeing meaningful work.

    As Lafer writes, “Training has become a substitute for economic policy—a way of appearing to do something without actually improving people’s lives.” And Indeed is a willing partner in this substitution, profiting from a constant churn of dislocated workers trying to retool their résumés and lives to meet an ever-shifting set of employer demands.

    The Educated Underclass and Platform Paternalism

    Gary Roth, in The Educated Underclass, identifies another critical aspect of this ecosystem: the overproduction of college graduates relative to the needs of the labor market. As more people earn degrees, the wage premium diminishes, and once-secure professions become crowded with overqualified applicants chasing scarce opportunities.

    Indeed’s platform becomes the proving ground for this underclass: college-educated workers competing for service jobs, temp contracts, or entry-level roles barely above minimum wage. Meanwhile, the site’s tools—resume scores, AI-based job match algorithms, and automated rejection letters—reinforce the idea that unemployment is a personal failure rather than a structural outcome.

    This is platform paternalism at its worst. Jobseekers are “nudged” into applying for low-quality work, “encouraged” to pursue unnecessary training, and surveilled through behavioral data that is packaged and sold to employers and third-party marketers. Career development becomes not a public good but a private product—sold back to workers in pieces, with no guarantee of outcome.

    Job Scams and Regulatory Blind Spots

    The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and state attorneys general have received thousands of complaints about online job scams—including fake recruiters, phony employers, and misleading school advertisements. Yet enforcement remains weak, and platforms like Indeed enjoy limited legal liability, protected by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which shields them from responsibility for user-generated content.

    Even when caught, fraudulent advertisers often reappear. As one whistleblower told The Higher Education Inquirer, “We’d flag scam listings, and two days later they’d pop back up under a new name. It was like a game of whack-a-mole—and no one at the top cared.”

    Indeed’s user agreement explicitly disclaims responsibility for the authenticity of job listings. And although the company has instituted basic verification and reporting tools, they are inadequate to stem the tide of predatory postings, especially those tied to the multibillion-dollar for-profit education industry.

    A Broken System Masquerading as Innovation

    The consolidation of online job markets under platforms like Indeed represents a profound shift in the political economy of labor. No longer mediated by public institutions or strong unions, the search for work is now a privatized experience, managed by algorithms, monetized through ads, and vulnerable to deception.

    To be clear: Indeed does not create jobs. It creates the illusion of access. It obscures labor precarity behind UX design and paid listings. It enables fraudulent training pipelines while pushing the burden of risk and cost onto workers. And it profits from the widening chasm between what higher education promises and what the economy delivers.

    At The Higher Education Inquirer, we demand accountability—not just from institutions of higher learning but from the platforms that now mediate our futures. The illusion must be pierced, and jobseeking must be reclaimed as a public function, free from predation, profiteering, and platform capture.

    Sources:

    • Lafer, Gordon. The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press, 2002.

    • Roth, Gary. The Educated Underclass: Students and the Promise of Social Mobility. Pluto Press, 2019.

    • U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC). “Job Scams: What You Need to Know.” 2024.

    • Recruit Holdings. Annual Reports and Investor Presentations, 2020–2024.

    • U.S. Department of Labor. “Contingent and Alternative Employment Arrangements.” 2023.

    • Brody, Leslie. “Students Lured Into For-Profit Colleges Through Fake Job Ads.” Wall Street Journal, 2022.

    • Zuboff, Shoshana. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs, 2019.

    • Glassdoor, Indeed, and CareerBuilder community complaint forums (2021–2025).

    Source link

  • All that glitters is not gold: A brief history of efforts to rebrand social media censorship

    All that glitters is not gold: A brief history of efforts to rebrand social media censorship

    Whenever a bill aimed at policing online speech is accused of censorship, its supporters often reframe the conversation around subjects like child safety or consumer protection. Such framing helps obscure government attempts to shape or limit lawful speech, yet no matter how artfully labeled such measures happen to be, they inevitably run headlong into the First Amendment.

    Consider the headline-grabbing Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA). Re-introduced this year by Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tennessee) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut) as a measure to protect minors, KOSA’s sponsors have repeatedly characterized its regulations as merely providing tools, safeguards, and transparency. But in practice, it would empower the federal government to put enormous pressure on platforms to censor constitutionally protected content. This risk of government censorship led KOSA to stall in the House last year after passing the Senate. 

    Child safety arguments have increasingly surfaced in states pursuing platform regulation, but closer inspection reveals that many such laws control how speech flows online, including for adults. Take Mississippi’s 2024 social media law (HB 1126), which was described as a child safety measure, that compelled platforms to verify every user’s age. Beneath that rhetoric, however, is the fact that age verification affects everyone, not just children. By forcing every user — adult or minor alike — to show personal identification or risk losing access, this law turned a child-safety gate into a universal speech checkpoint. That’s because identity checks function like a license: if you don’t clear the government’s screening, you can’t speak or listen. 

    A judge blocked HB 1126 last month, rejecting the attorney general’s argument that it only regulated actions, not speech, and finding that age verification gravely burdens how people communicate online. In other words, despite the bill’s intentions or rationales, the First Amendment was very much at stake.

    Utah’s 2023 Social Media Regulation Act demanded similar age checks that acted as a broad  mandate that chilled lawful speech. FIRE sued, the legislature repealed the statute, and its 2024 replacement — the Minor Protection in Social Media Act — met the same fate when a federal judge blocked it. Finding there was likely “no constitutionally permissible application,” the judge underscored the clear conflict between such regulations and the First Amendment. 

    Speech regulations often show up with different rationales, not just child safety. In Texas, HB 20 was marketed in 2021 as a way to stop “censorship” by large social media companies. By trying to paint the largest platforms as public utilities and treating content moderation decisions as “service features,” the legislature flipped the script on free expression by recasting a private actor’s editorial judgment as “conduct” the state could police. When the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the law, in a decision that was later excoriated by the Supreme Court, the court repeated this inversion of the First Amendment: “The Platforms are not newspapers. Their censorship is not speech.” 

    Florida tried a similar strategy with a consumer-protection gloss. SB 7072 amended the state’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act to include certain content moderation decisions, such as political de-platforming or shadow banning, exposing platforms to enforcement and penalties for their speech. Unlike the Fifth Circuit, the Eleventh Circuit blocked this law, calling platform curation “unquestionably” expressive and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment. 

    In July 2024, the Supreme Court took up the question when considering challenges to these two state laws in Moody v. NetChoice. Cutting through the branding, the Court rejected the idea that these laws merely regulated conduct or trade practices. Instead, it said content moderation decisions do have First Amendment protection and that the laws in Texas and Florida did, in fact, regulate speech. 

    The Court clarified in no uncertain terms that “a State may not interfere with private actors’ speech to advance its own vision of ideological balance.” And it added that “[o]n the spectrum of dangers to free expression, there are few greater than allowing the government to change the speech of private actors in order to achieve its own conception of speech nirvana.”

    California tried the dual framing of both child safety and consumer protection. AB 2273, the California Age Appropriate Design Code Act, was described as a child-safety bill that just regulated how apps and websites are built and structured, not their content. The bill classified digital product design features, such as autoplaying videos or default public settings, as a “material detriment” to minors as well as an unfair or deceptive act under state consumer-protection statutes. But this too failed and is now blocked because, the court noted, “the State’s intentions in enacting the CAADCA cannot insulate the Act from the requirements of the First Amendment.”

    Multiple nationwide lawsuits now claim social media feeds are defective products, using product-liability law to attack the design of platforms themselves. But by calling speech a “product” or forcing it into a product liability claim, it recharacterizes the editorial decisions of lawful content as a product flaw, which attempts to shift the legal analysis from speech protections to consumer protection. State attorneys general, however, cannot erase the First Amendment protections that still apply.

    A sound policy approach to online speech looks not at branding, but impact. Even when packaged in terms of child safety, consumer protection, or platform accountability, it is essential to ask whether the rule forces platforms to host, suppress, or reshape lawful content. Regardless of the policy goal or rhetorical framing, if a requirement ultimately pressures platforms to host or suppress lawful speech, expect judges to treat it as a speech regulation. 

    Unfortunately, re-branding speech regulations can obfuscate their censorial ends and make them politically attractive. That’s what’s happening with KOSA’s obvious appeal of protecting children, combined with the less obvious censorship threat from targeting “design features,” has made it popular in the Senate.

    Giving the government power to censor online speech puts everyone’s liberty at risk. Just as Americans enjoy the right to read, watch, and talk about whatever we want offline, those protections extend to our speech online as well. Protecting free expression now keeps the marketplace of ideas open and guards us from sacrificing everyone’s right to free expression.

    Source link

  • Department of Education Blocks Undocumented Students from Career and Technical Programs

    Department of Education Blocks Undocumented Students from Career and Technical Programs

    The U.S. Department of Education announced it will no longer allow federal funds to support career, technical, and adult education programs for undocumented students, rescinding a nearly three-decade-old policy that permitted such access.

    The department said it is rescinding a 1997 “Dear Colleague Letter” from the Clinton administration that allowed undocumented immigrants to receive federal aid for career, technical, and adult education programs. The interpretive rule, published in the Federal Register, clarifies that federal programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act and the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act are “federal public benefits” subject to the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon stated that “under President Trump’s leadership, hardworking American taxpayers will no longer foot the bill for illegal aliens to participate in our career, technical, or adult education programs or activities”.

    The policy change affects access to dual enrollment programs, postsecondary career and technical education, and adult education programs. The department said it will send letters to postsecondary schools and adult education programs clarifying that undocumented immigrants cannot receive federal aid and may take enforcement actions against schools that do not comply by August 9.

    Augustus Mays, vice president of partnerships and engagement at EdTrust, a Washington-based education equity advocacy organization, condemned the decision.

    “This move is part of a broader, deeply disturbing trend,” Mays said. “Across the country, we’re seeing migrant communities targeted with sweeping raids, amplified surveillance, and fear-based rhetoric designed to divide and dehumanize.”

    Mays argued the change “derails individual aspirations and undercuts workforce development at a time when our nation is facing labor shortages in critical fields like healthcare, education, and skilled trades”. He noted the decision compounds existing barriers, as undocumented students are already prohibited from accessing federal financial aid including Pell Grants and student loans.

    The department maintains that the Clinton-era interpretation “mischaracterized the law by creating artificial distinctions between federal benefit programs based upon the method of assistance,” a distinction the department says Congress did not make in the 1996 welfare reform law.

    The change comes as President Trump proclaimed February 2025 as Career and Technical Education Month, stating his administration will “invest in the next generation and expand access to high-quality career and technical education for all Americans”.

    Career and technical education programs served approximately 11 million students in 2019-20, with about $1.3 billion in federal funds supporting such programs through the Department of Education in fiscal year 2021.

    The interpretive rule represents the department’s current enforcement position, though officials indicated they do not currently plan enforcement actions against programs serving undocumented students before August 9.

    EdTrust called on policymakers, education leaders, and community advocates to oppose the change. 

    “We must fight for a country where every student, regardless of where they were born, has access to the promise of education and the dignity of opportunity,” Mays said.

    Source link

  • IRS: Churches Can Now Back Political Candidates, But Scholars Remain Concerned

    IRS: Churches Can Now Back Political Candidates, But Scholars Remain Concerned

    In a July 7 court filing, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced that churches can now endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status. This news follows over seven decades since the Johnson Amendment, a U.S. tax code provision that prohibited non-profit organizations and churches from intervening in political campaigns.

    Religion, American public life, and Black church studies scholars argue that this moment marks a significant erosion of the separation of church and state.

    Dr. Valerie Cooper“Both the government and the church are incredibly powerful institutions,” says Dr. Valerie Cooper, an associate professor of religion and society and Black church studies at Duke Divinity School and senior fellow at the Center for Theological Inquiry (CTI). “While it is important for citizens to be able to bring their religious convictions to their civic life, there is a concern, for me, as a person who loves the Christian church, about churches selling out for government power and losing their ability to be a prophetic voice.”

    Since 1954, only one house of worship has lost its tax-exempt status for violating this amendment.

    “The law has not changed, but the interpretation has,” says Dr. Corey D.B. Walker, Dean of Wake Forest University’s School of Divinity and a professor of the humanities. “What the IRS has said is that they’re not going to bring any cases for churches violating the Johnson Amendment.”

    According to Cooper, “conservative churches, particularly, white evangelicals, have been after this for years, if not decades,” she says in an interview with Diverse. “There are hot-button issues, and they’ve distributed information doing everything short of endorsements.”

    The issue has caught the attention of civil rights leaders like the Reverend Al Sharpton who said that the issue has to be studied carefully to ensure that “it does not create a double-edged sword.”Dr. Corey D.B. WalkerDr. Corey D.B. Walker

    “We cannot have a system in which right-wing congregations may endorse political candidates and others of a different political persuasion remain under scrutiny and lead to a situation that is not beneficial to all,” says Sharpton, the founder and president of National Action Network (NAN). 

    Sharpton, and NAN’s Board Chairman Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, have convened a Zoom call with Black pastors and legal experts to explore the pros and cons of the decision

    Scholars of African American religion and religion in American public life have been tracking this movement for decades as well, says Walker. 

    “That danger the founders of the nation saw, that’s also the danger that we saw,” he says. “One of the real and understated issues that this new interpretation brings is that partisan political actors can now fund whatever limit they want into religious bodies to then instill and support particular political ideologies and projects, and that’s the danger of continually eroding the line between church and state.”

    Cooper, who was the first African American woman to earn tenure at Duke Divinity School in 2014, examines the ways religion does or does not impact other existing structures, like racism or inequality. 

    “I’m not just a religious scholar,” she adds. “I’m a religious person, and so I’m concerned about what appears to be a kind of political intervention.”

    Cooper says this kind of engagement could end with churches compromising their principles for political reasons.

    “Almost exactly a year before his assassination, Martin Luther King Jr. gives us a speech/sermon where he comes out against the Vietnam War, and many people in the Civil Rights Movement were horrified by this choice, because Johnson had been such an ally,” she says. “But King really felt that it was his obligation to speak prophetically and according to his faith, not according to what was maybe even wise political policy.”

    Cooper questions how this new development might impact church leaders’ ability to speak prophetically in the present day. 

    “What does that mean? Does that mean that the pastor is then no longer free to speak, even to call out the candidate, if he or she stops doing what is in the interest of the church,” she asks.

    Walker says that he is concerned about making absolute claims on public life that bypass shared beliefs, languages, and common frameworks.

    “So, the question becomes, what is the Court of Appeal when individuals are discriminated against, such as our LGBTQ brothers and sisters, or when individuals find themselves without funding for public schools because public school funding has been funneled into private religious schools,” he says. “What happens when you have reproductive rights no longer supported because reproductive rights are seen as anathema to God?”

    Walker adds that this development blurs the lines between churches and families.

    “Churches, congregations, religious bodies and worship are not the same as families discussing politics,” he says. “Families belong in the private sphere, so the idea that a worship service and a sermon are the same as a family in their living room discussing politics begs the question, what logic is operative at this moment?” 

    Cooper believes that this intervention on churches will impact everyone, even those who fought to remove the restrictions of the Johnson Amendment.

    “If people begin winning elections at the cost of the health and vitality of churches, we have not won anything,” she says.

    Source link

  • Expanded AI Makes Active, Personalized Learning More Accessible

    Expanded AI Makes Active, Personalized Learning More Accessible

    Top Hat’s AI-powered assistant, Ace, just got even better. Two new features—example generation and personalized practice—make it easier than ever for educators to personalize learning and give students the support they need to stay on track.

    Ace was designed to take the heavy lifting out of creating assessments and provide students with help when they need it. Now, it’s enabling educators to make learning more relevant by connecting course content to student interests and career goals and by offering targeted practice based on where students are struggling most.

    “Each of these features reflects our belief that great teaching and learning happens when technology helps people do what they do best,” said Maggie Leen, CEO of Top Hat. “With Ace, we’re building an experience that empowers busy educators and motivates students to connect, explore, practice, and succeed.”

    Since its introduction in 2023, Ace has become a trusted partner for instructors seeking to deepen engagement and boost learning outcomes. The new enhancements make it simple for educators to implement teaching practices shown to improve learning, and enhance student success through on-demand, personalized study support.

    Example Generation: Make Content More Relevant and Engaging

    One of the biggest challenges in teaching is helping students see why what they’re learning actually matters. With Ace’s new example generation feature, educators can highlight any part of their course material and ask Ace to create a scenario that ties the concept to something students might encounter in their future careers—or even in everyday life. For instance, an educator teaching anatomy to nursing students might ask Ace to show how muscle function affects patient mobility. When content is connected to students’ goals or lived experiences, it becomes more relevant and meaningful.

    This new capability builds on Ace’s popular question generation tool used by faculty to create formative assessments from their content with just a few clicks. With example generation, educators have another fast and flexible way to personalize course material and make learning more engaging.

    Personalized Practice: Turn Mistakes Into Learning Opportunities

    Many students want more chances to practice but often don’t know what to review or where to start. Ace’s new personalized practice feature gives them just that. As students work through assigned readings and questions, Ace pinpoints where they’re struggling and creates targeted practice sets based on those areas. Feedback is instant, helping students stay on track and build confidence before high-stakes tests.

    More than 100,000 students have used Ace for on-demand study help—from chat-based explanations to unlimited practice questions tied directly to their course content. The new personalized practice feature builds on these tools by offering even more tailored support. It’s a smarter, more continuous way to learn, to build confidence, and deepen understanding over time.

    “Ace shows what’s possible when AI is used thoughtfully to empower instructors, reflect students’ interests, and elevate the learning experience,” said Hong Bui, Chief Product Officer at Top Hat. “As Ace continues to evolve, we’ll add new capabilities to help educators teach more efficiently and create more impactful, engaging experiences for their students.”

    Source link

  • Heroic Telephone Operator saved the lives of others in the Folsom, New Mexico Flood of 1908 (Friday’s Labor Folklore)

    Heroic Telephone Operator saved the lives of others in the Folsom, New Mexico Flood of 1908 (Friday’s Labor Folklore)

    According to Tom Drake of the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division, “the town never recovered from the disastrous flood of 1908.”  

    On that day – August 27, 1908 – a freak storm struck the town with only a few hours warning, leading to tragic results. Earlier that summer hay was cut and the leftover stalks littered the fields around the river’s headwaters. “When the rains came the water collected the hay stalks and other debris and carried them along until they began to block the small railroad bridges. When these impromptu dams gave way, the resulting surge added to the already swelling river.” (Mike Schoonover, Folsom Area History, 2010)

    People living upriver sounded the alarm by calling Folsom’s switchboard operator, Sally Rooke. Sally began ringing townspeople who had a telephone, warning them to escape the impending flood. She stayed at her station, contacting over 40 people who were saved from the flood. Then the rushing waters washed away her building. 

    “Residents of the town who lived on high ground and beyond the reach of the torrent, saw houses containing families crying for aid swept away before their eyes, powerless to render them any assistance.”

    Along with drowned cattle and horses, Sally’s body was found 12 miles downstream still wearing the headpiece worn by telephone operators. She died along with 17 other people that day.

    Eighteen years later the town honored her with a small memorial, donated by the contributions of telephone operators around the country. In 2007 the New Mexico Dept. of Cultural Affairs erected a historic marker in her name. Sally Rooke joins other notable women of New Mexico as part of that state’s Historic Women Marker Initiative.  

    Source link

  • Documents from US Department of Education (Federal Register)

    Documents from US Department of Education (Federal Register)

    Notices

    Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposals, Submissions, and Approvals:

    Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grants
    FR Document: 2025-13011
    Citation: 90 FR 30895    		 PDF Pages 30895-30896 (2 pages)
    Permalink
    Abstract: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).

    Clarification of Federal Public Benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

    FR Document: 2025-12925
    Citation: 90 FR 30896    		 PDF Pages 30896-30901 (6 pages)
    Permalink
    Abstract: The U.S. Department of Education (Department) issues this interpretation to revise and clarify its position on the classification of certain Department programs providing “Federal public benefits,” as defined in Title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA), Public Law 104-193. The Department concludes that the postsecondary education programs and “other similar benefit” programs described within this interpretive rule, including adult…

    Notices

    Hearings, Meetings, Proceedings, etc.:

    Committee and Quarterly Board
    FR Document: 2025-13008
    Citation: 90 FR 30893    		 PDF Pages 30893-30895 (3 pages)
    Permalink
    Abstract: This notice sets forth the agenda, time, and instructions to access the National Assessment Governing Board’s (hereafter referred to as the Board or Governing Board) standing committee meetings and quarterly Governing Board meeting. This notice provides information to members of the public who may be interested in attending the meetings and/or providing written comments related to the work of the Governing Board. The meetings will be held either in person and/or virtually, as noted below….

    Matching Documents

    Subscribe to Any Search Result

    Did you know that you can subscribe to any search result? After performing any search on FederalRegister.gov you can choose to receive any future documents that match your search via email. Just click the subscribe button on the right side of the search box.

    Subscribe to an Agency’s Documents

    From any agency page on FederalRegister.gov you can choose to receive email updates of new documents from that agency. Choices of subscriptions include Documents on Public Inspection, Newly Published Documents, and Documents Deemed Significant.

    Source link

  • 8 under-the-radar digital learning resources

    8 under-the-radar digital learning resources

    Key points:

    Digital learning resources are transforming classrooms, and educators are always on the lookout for tools that go beyond the standard platforms. There are numerous lesser-known digital platforms that offer unique, high-quality learning experiences tailored to students’ and teachers’ needs.

    Here are ten standout resources that can enhance instruction, boost engagement, and support deeper learning.

    1. CurrikiStudio

    Subject areas: All subjects
    Best for: Interactive learning content creation

    CurrikiStudio is a free, open-source platform that allows teachers to design interactive learning experiences without needing coding skills. Educators can create multimedia lessons, games, and assessments tailored to their curriculum. It’s ideal for flipped classrooms, project-based learning, or blended learning environments.

    2. InqITS (Inquiry Intelligent Tutoring System)

    Subject areas: Science
    Best for: Developing scientific inquiry skills

    InqITS offers virtual science labs where students can conduct experiments, analyze results, and receive real-time feedback. The platform uses AI to assess student performance and provide just-in-time support, making it a great tool for teaching scientific practices and critical thinking aligned with NGSS.

    3. Parlay

    Subject areas: ELA, Social Studies, Science
    Best for: Structured online and in-class discussions

    Parlay enables educators to facilitate student discussions in a more inclusive and data-informed way. With written and live discussion formats, students can express their ideas while teachers track participation, collaboration, and the quality of responses. It’s an excellent tool for fostering critical thinking, debate, and reflective dialogue.

    4. Geoguessr EDU

    Subject areas: Geography, History, Global Studies
    Best for: Geospatial learning and global awareness

    Geoguessr EDU is an educational version of the popular game that drops players into a random location via Google Street View. Students use context clues to determine where they are, building skills in geography, culture, and critical observation. The EDU version allows teachers to control content and track student progress.

    5. Mosa Mack Science

    Subject areas: Science
    Best for: Middle school science with an inquiry-based approach

    Mosa Mack offers animated science mysteries that prompt students to explore real-world problems through investigation and collaboration. With built-in differentiation, hands-on labs, and assessments, it’s a rich resource for schools seeking engaging science content that supports NGSS-aligned inquiry and critical thinking.

    6. Listenwise

    Subject areas: ELA, Social Studies, Science
    Best for: Listening comprehension and current events

    Listenwise curates high-quality audio stories from public radio and other reputable sources, paired with interactive transcripts and comprehension questions. It helps students build listening skills while learning about current events, science topics, and historical moments. It’s especially helpful for English learners and auditory learners.

    7. Mind Over Media

    Subject areas: Media Literacy, Social Studies
    Best for: Analyzing propaganda and media messages

    Created by media literacy expert Renee Hobbs, Mind Over Media teaches students to critically analyze modern propaganda in advertising, news, social media, and political content. Through guided analysis and opportunities to submit their own examples, students build essential digital citizenship and media literacy skills.

    8. Brilliant

    Subject areas: Math, Science, Computer Science
    Best for: Problem-solving and conceptual learning

    Brilliant.org offers interactive lessons and puzzles that teach students how to think logically and apply concepts rather than simply memorize formulas. With content tailored for advanced middle schoolers and high school students, it’s ideal for enrichment, gifted learners, or students seeking challenge and depth in STEM topics.

    Each of these digital learning tools brings something unique to the table–whether it’s fostering deeper discussion, building scientific inquiry skills, or promoting digital literacy.

    As schools look to personalize learning and prepare students for a complex, fast-evolving world, these lesser-known platforms provide meaningful ways to deepen engagement and understanding across subjects.

    By incorporating these tools into your classroom, you not only diversify your digital toolkit but also give students access to a wider range of learning modalities and real-world applications. Whether you’re looking for curriculum support, project-based tools, or enrichment resources, there’s a good chance one of these platforms can help meet your goals.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education, High Hopes, and Heavy Bureaucracy

    Higher Education, High Hopes, and Heavy Bureaucracy

    by Phil Power-Mason and Helen Charlton

    UK higher education is pulled between its lofty ambitions for transformative learning and the managerialism that sometimes constrains their realisation. This tension defines the contemporary Higher Education workplace, where the mantras of “more with less” and “highly regulated freedom” collide with the desire for rich, personalised student experiences amidst fiscal belt-tightening, quantification, and standardisation. Bubbling through the cracks in any long-term political or economic vision for the sector is a professional identity steeped in ambivalence of purpose and position, one whose contradictions are nowhere rendered more vividly than in England’s higher and degree apprenticeships (HDAs). Conceived to braid university learning with workplace productivity, HDAs promise the best of both worlds yet must be delivered within one of the most prescriptive funding and inspection regimes in UK higher education. This provision also sits amidst a precarious and volatile political landscape, with continuous changes to funding rules, age limits and eligibility of different levels of study, and ‘fit’ within a still poorly defined skills and lifelong learning landscape.  

    At the heart of this ongoing policy experiment stands an until-recently invisible workforce:  Higher Education Tripartite Practitioners (HETP). These quiet actors emerged as a series of pragmatic institution level responses to the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA, now subsumed into the Department of Education) related to progress reviews involving the provider, apprentice, and employer. Yet, as we argued in our paper at the SRHE International Conference in December last year, they have evolved into nuanced, often misunderstood boundary-spanners who simultaneously inhabit academia, industry, and compliance. Part coach, part conduit, part compliance specialist, they facilitate developmental conversations, broker cultural differences, and ensure every clause of the ESFA rulebook is honoured. The quality of this brokerage is decisive; without it even the most carefully designed apprenticeship fractures under audit pressure.

    Consider the core activities of HETPs. Much of their time is spent in close personal engagement with apprentices – fostering professional growth, guiding reflective practice, and offering pastoral support traditionally associated with mentoring. They encourage apprentices to think holistically, integrate theory with workplace reality, and map long-term career aspirations. Almost simultaneously, they must document progress reviews, monitor the evidence of every single hour of learning, and tick every regulatory box along a journey from initial skills analysis through to end point assessment.

    This duality produces a daily oscillation between inspiring conversations and tedious paperwork. The tension is palpable and exhausting, revealing a deeper struggle between two visions of education: one expansive, transformative, and relational; the other restrictive, measurable, and dominated by compliance. Fuller and Unwin’s expansive–restrictive continuum maps neatly onto this predicament, underscoring how universities are urged by policymakers to deliver high-skilled graduates for economic growth while simultaneously squeezed by intensifying regulation and managerial oversight.

    Little wonder, then, that HETPs describe their roles with the language of complexity, ambiguity, and invisibility. They are neither purely academic nor purely administrative. Instead, they occupy a liminal institutional space, mediating competing demands from employers, regulators, apprentices, and colleagues. Esmond captures the resulting “subaltern” status of these practitioners, whose contributions remain undervalued even as they shoulder the brunt of institutional attempts to innovate without overhauling legacy systems.

    Their experiences lay bare the contradictions of contemporary university innovation. Institutions routinely trumpet responsiveness to labour-market need yet bolt new programmes onto structures optimised for conventional classroom delivery, leaving HETPs to reconcile expansive educational ideals with restrictive managerial realities. The role becomes a flashpoint: universities ask boundary-spanners to maintain quality, build relationships, and inspire learners within systems designed for something else entirely.

    Yet amidst these tensions lies opportunity. The very ambiguity of the HETP role highlights the limits of existing support systems and points towards new professional identities and career pathways. Formal recognition of boundary-spanning expertise – relationship-building, negotiation, adaptability – would allow practitioners to progress without abandoning what makes their contribution distinctive. Communities of practice could break the apprenticeship echo-chamber and enrich the wider HE ecosystem, while institutional investment in bespoke professional development would equip practitioners to navigate the inherent tensions of their work.

    Senior leadership must also acknowledge the strategic value of these hidden roles, reframing them not as incidental administrative burdens but as essential catalysts for integrated educational practice. Making such roles visible and valued would help universities reconcile expansive aspirations with regulatory realities and signal genuine commitment to reshaping education for contemporary challenges.

    Policymakers and regulators, too, have lessons to learn. While accountability has its place, overly rigid compliance frameworks risk stifling innovation. Trust-based, proportionate regulation – emphasising quality, transparency, and developmental outcomes – would free practitioners to focus on learning rather than bureaucratic survival. The current neo-liberal distrust that imagines only regulation can safeguard public value inflates compliance costs and undermines the very economic ambitions it seeks to serve.

    Ultimately, the emergence of HETPs challenges HE institutions to decide how serious they are about bridging academic learning and workplace practice. Recognising and empowering these quiet brokers would signal a genuine commitment to integrated, expansive education – an education capable of meeting economic demands without losing sight of deeper human and intellectual aspirations. HETPs are far more than practitioners managing checklists; they are a critical juncture at which universities must choose either to treat boundary-spanning labour as a stop-gap or to embrace the complexity and potential it represents.

    Dr Phil Power-Mason is Head of Department for Strategic Management at Hertfordshire Business School, University of Hertfordshire, where he leads a diverse portfolio spanning executive education, apprenticeships and professional doctorates. A practice-focussed academic with a passion for innovative workforce development, Phil has overseen significant growth in the school’s business apprenticeships, MBA, and generalist provision, while nurturing cross-sector partnerships and embedding work-aligned learning at every level. With a research background in educational governance and strategy, he is a Senior Fellow of Advance HE and co-convenor of national apprenticeship knowledge networks. Phil’s research and sector leadership focus on emerging pedagogic and HE workforce practices, driving collaborative solutions that meet employer, learner and university needs. An invited speaker at national forums and a frequent contributor to sector conferences and publications, he remains committed to transforming vocational and work-ready learning practice for the future. (herts.ac.uk)

    Dr Helen Charlton is Associate Professor of Work Aligned Learning and Head of Executive Education at Newcastle Business School, Northumbria University, where she leads the school’s business apprenticeships, executive CPD and distance-learning programmes. After almost a decade steering apprenticeship design and compliance, she stays keenly attuned to each fresh regulatory tweak – and the learning opportunities it provides. A former senior HR manager in the arts and not-for-profit sectors, Helen holds a Doctorate in Education and an MSc in Human Resource Management, is a Senior Fellow of Advance HE, a Chartered MCIPD, and a Chartered Manager and Fellow of the CMI. Her research examines how learners, employers and universities negotiate the tripartite realities of degree apprenticeships. (northumbria.ac.uk)

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Top Tips: Take photos that stand out

    Top Tips: Take photos that stand out

    You want to know what it’s like being a photojournalist? Do you need to take photos to illustrate an article for school publication? We asked Simone Åbacka, a photojournalist for Vasabladet in Finland, to tell us how to get inspired and make sure your photos stand out.

    “Photos nowadays are quick and easy to make, but to get a picture that really captures your audience and the viewer, that will require a bit more from you as a photographer,” Åbacka said.

    She said that photojournalists have to be out where the action is, she said.

    “So if you’re interested in a certain person, you can follow them along for a day or find a street market or a protest or something happening in your area,” Åbacka said. “So look for something that interests you and go and shoot that.”

    When you have already done a story or you are asked to provide photos for a story that has already been done, try taking a photo yourself instead of trying to find one online.

    If the story is about traffic jams, for example, go out and take a photo of the chaos and the moving cars.

    “You want your photos to get attention and be seen,” she said.

    Åbacka’s five tips for stand out photos

             1. Move around and try different kinds of angles.

    2. Look for emotion

    3. Look for good lighting

    4. Use your environment to tell viewers more about the subject

    5. Use a clean background for your subject.

    You don’t need a professional camera to take stunning photos, a phone will do. But know its limits, Åbacka said. “It can’t do everything,” she said.

    This video was produced as part of News Decoder’s partner project Mobile Stories. Mobile Stories is a publishing tool for young people. It provides guidance on how to create trustworthy news content while upholding journalist ethics.

    Watch Simone Åbacka’s video here: 

    At News Decoder, our editors, educators and correspondents guide students through the journalistic writing process to help them get a first-hand understanding of big global issues and connect across borders. From finding a story to interviewing to editing, we work closely with students to develop their skills using our Pitch-Report-Draft-Revise technique. Student stories are published on our website, social media and in our Educators’ Catalog alongside the work of professional journalists and industry experts.

    If you’re an educator looking to engage your students in media literacy programmes, a teacher in need of interesting resources or a writer looking for an outlet, find out more and get in touch at news-decoder.com

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why would a photo you take be better than one you can find online?

    2. What kind of emotion could you capture in a photograph?

    3. How can you use your environment to tell viewers more about the subject?

    Source link