Blog

  • Federal judge gives DOGE access to education data

    Federal judge gives DOGE access to education data

    The University of California Student Association’s request to block Department of Government Efficiency staffers from accessing student data at the Department of Education was denied Monday by a federal district judge. 

    The lawsuit, filed earlier this month, accused the department of illegally sharing confidential student data, arguing it violated the 1974 Privacy Act and confidentiality provisions of the Internal Revenue Code by giving DOGE access to records that contain tax information. 

    But Judge Randolph D. Moss of the District Court for the District of Columbia said there wasn’t an immediate threat, citing testimony from Adam Ramada, a DOGE staffer, who said that he and his team were only assisting the department with auditing for waste, fraud and abuse and that DOGE staffers understood the need to comply with data privacy laws. 

    “None of those initiatives should involve disclosure of any sensitive, personal information about any UCSA members,” Moss, an Obama appointee, wrote in his ruling. “The future injuries that UCSA’s members fear are, therefore, far from likely, let alone certain and great.”

    Other higher education groups have raised concerns about DOGE’s access to education data, as the department’s databases house students’ personal information, including dates of birth, contact information and Social Security numbers. Some student advocates worry the data could be illegally shared with other agencies and used for immigration enforcement. Moss, however, called those harms “entirely conjectural,” saying Ramada had attested that the data was not being used in such ways.

    Although the temporary restraining order was denied, the overall lawsuit will continue to work its way through the courts, and other legal challenges are emerging, The Washington Post reported.

    A coalition of labor unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, is also suing to block DOGE’s access to the sensitive data. This latest lawsuit argues that agencies—including Education, Labor and Personnel Management—are improperly disclosing the records of millions of Americans in violation of the Privacy Act.

    Source link

  • Free higher education in Syria and inequalities

    Free higher education in Syria and inequalities

    by Oudai Tazan

    HE and inequality

    The debate over whether higher education (HE) serves as a vehicle for social mobility that nurtures meritocracy or as a mechanism for social reproduction that reinforces and exacerbates inequalities in society has persisted for some time. The first perspective regards HE as a meritocratic, achievement-based system of stratification that selects and allocates individuals to societal roles based solely on their merit (in line with Émile Durkheim’s theories). Conversely, the second viewpoint sees education as a means that perpetuates social stratification and the cultural hegemony of the elite (reflecting Bourdieu’s perspective). This phenomenon occurs because students’ socio-economic backgrounds significantly influence their access to, decisions regarding, and success within HE.

    To mitigate the impact of socioeconomic background on individuals’ educational opportunities, a movement of research and activism spans from South America to Africa and the Far East, advocating for free HE. To investigate this claim, I examined the situation in Syria, which has consistently asserted that it possesses a meritocratic HE system aimed at fostering societal equality through the provision of free public HE for all since the 1970s. I analysed the Ministry of Higher Education (MoHE) database for 15 academic years, from 2001 to 2015. This dataset encompassed information on student access and graduation rates, categorised by type of education (public, private, higher institutes, and technical institutes), education level (undergraduate and postgraduate), gender (male and female), city, faculty, and specialisations. This analysis revealed various forms of inequality, specifically class-based inequalities, city-based inequalities, and gender-based inequalities.

    Class-based inequalities

    Although every citizen in Syria who finishes school can access free public HE, many students from high socio-economic backgrounds choose private HE to obtain better education or to pursue specific courses unavailable in the free public tracks. An analysis of the data reveals that the graduation rate in private institutions is almost double that of public institutions. One of the reasons behind this discrepancy in graduation rates between free public HE and private HE is the lack of funding for free public HE. Public university students suffer from a high student-teacher ratio (in some cases, 140 students per teacher) and poor infrastructure compared to the low student-teacher ratio (around 20 students per teacher) and better infrastructure in private universities. Furthermore, inadequate funding for free public universities has led qualified lecturers to prefer teaching at private institutions. This has widened the inequality between public and private HE institutions, as students with the financial capacity to access private HE learn from the most qualified teachers in Syria and receive the best knowledge available.

    City-based inequalities

    Although Syria has 14 cities, during the analysis period (2008–2013), it had only 5 free public universities located in 5 different cities. These universities have small branches or centres in all Syrian cities, offering limited course options. This design of the HE system has neglected some cities in Syria, leaving them without a proper educational framework. Having only one large university in select cities advantages students who reside in those areas, as they do not endure the added financial and mental pressures that students from other cities face to access education, such as paying for accommodation, living away from home, and travelling to see their families. Consequently, many students from cities without a university may encounter additional barriers to accessing HE, negatively affecting their academic, professional, and personal opportunities and choices. This could explain why cities like Damascus, Homs, and Latakia (where universities are located) are consistently overrepresented in HE, while students from Hama, al-Hasakeh, and al-Rakka (which lack universities) are consistently underrepresented.

    In addition to the inequality of access to HE, city-based inequalities also encompass disparities in accessing the various specialisations and faculties offered by HE. This is further exacerbated by the sector’s design as not all faculties or specialisations are available at every university or branch. For instance, undergraduate media studies are solely taught in Damascus. Although Damascus constitutes only 8.75% of the Syrian population, students from Damascus account for 23.9% of the total number of media students. This representation is nearly three times their percentage of the overall population. This significant overrepresentation of students in certain courses occurs at the expense of those from other cities who are unable to access these courses and faculties because they are not available in their localities. This trend of unequal access to specialisations applies to numerous disciplines (eg Pharmacy, Dentistry, Medicine, Arts, IT, Mechanical Engineering, and Architecture). In each of these specialisations, students in the cities where the courses are taught have a distinct advantage over students from other cities in terms of access.

    Gender-based inequalities

    Officials in the Syrian HE sector have consistently celebrated the progress they have made, asserting that free HE has eliminated gender-based inequality by achieving near parity in enrolment rates. Although noticeable progress has indeed occurred, this claim does not hold up under scrutiny as it obscures other gender inequalities affecting certain groups within the population.

    An analysis of the database reveals that, while there is no overarching gender gap in the sector, apart from in undergraduate public universities, disparities exist across all other educational tracks. Moreover, the higher the level of education (Master’s, PhD, etc), the more pronounced the gap becomes. The analysis further indicates that gender-based inequalities extend beyond females’ access to specific tracks and impact female academic representation within the sector. A 14-year average shows that female teachers constitute less than 25% of the total teaching staff in the sector. However, in lower-paid and less prestigious roles, such as technical and administrative positions, females occupy more jobs than their male counterparts (57%).

    Conclusion

    Simply offering free HE does not address the broader socio-economic inequalities that limit people’s opportunities in HE. Assuming that free HE will foster equality in society presumes that everyone has an equal capacity to access education. This paper demonstrates that HE, if not paired with an inclusive sectoral design, increased funding, and a comprehensive strategy to alleviate socioeconomic inequalities, will persist as a site of social reproduction that creates and exacerbates disparities within societies, even if provided at no cost.

    Dr Oudai Tozan recently finished his PhD at the University of Cambridge, researching the potential role of exiled Syrian academics and researchers in rebuilding the higher education sector of Syria. This blog is based on an article published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education: Tozan, O. (2024) ‘Peeling the multiple layers of inequalities in free higher education policies’ (online 12 July 2024).  

    https://www.syria-education.com/

    https://www.linkedin.com/in/oudai-tozan/

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Education Department Publishes Guidance Letter Deeming Race-Conscious Programs, Activities and Practices Illegal

    Education Department Publishes Guidance Letter Deeming Race-Conscious Programs, Activities and Practices Illegal

    by CUPA-HR | February 18, 2025

    On February 14, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) published a “Dear Colleague” letter “to clarify and reaffirm the nondiscrimination obligations of schools … that receive federal financial assistance” from the department. The letter specifically states that “Federal law … prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” (emphasis added).

    The department warns that “institutions that fail to comply with federal civil rights law may, consistent with applicable law, face potential loss of federal funding,” and cites the government’s authority to do so under “Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and other relevant authorities.”

    The letter reiterates institutions’ existing legal requirements under federal antidiscrimination laws and is intended to provide clarity to institutions of their nondiscrimination obligations. However, in addition to pointing to existing federal antidiscrimination laws, OCR expands upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA) — which banned the use of race-conscious admissions practices at institutions of higher education — to apply more broadly to programs and practices at institutions. Specifically, OCR states that the court’s decision and applicable federal law prohibits covered entities “from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.”

    OCR provides a few examples of practices that would be illegal under federal antidiscrimination law. One example, which was prohibited in the text of the SFFA decision, is using “students’ personal essays, writing samples, participation in extracurriculars, or other cues” as a means to determine a student’s race to grant preferences to that individual. Additionally, the letter states that using proxies like the one just described is illegal on the systematic level, stating that it is unlawful for institutions to eliminate standardized testing to “achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity.” In both examples, OCR appears focused on the motive for the action rather than the action itself. Thus, an institution can choose to use or not use standardized tests or focus on certain criteria in applications as long it is not doing so for an impermissible reason.

    The letter also says that other programs violate antidiscrimination laws in less direct ways. Specifically, the letter states that “DEI programs … frequently preference certain racial groups and teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” and that “such programs stigmatize students who belong to particular racial groups based on crude racial stereotypes.” They assert that these programs ultimately deny students the ability to fully participate in “the life of a school.”

    The letter states that the Department of Education will begin to assess institutional compliance with antidiscrimination law and regulations no later than 14 days after of the date of publication of the letter. In the letter, OCR advises schools to:

    • Ensure that their policies and actions comply with existing civil rights law.
    • Cease all efforts to circumvent prohibitions on the use of race by relying on proxies or other indirect means to accomplish such ends.
    • Cease all reliance on third-party contractors, clearinghouses, or aggregators that are being used by institutions in an effort to circumvent prohibited uses of race.

    Possible Implications for Higher Education HR Professionals

    As noted above, the letter specifies using race in hiring, promotion and compensation decisions is prohibited under federal law, though the Department of Education does not provide examples of hiring and compensation practices that could be violations of such laws. While the primary federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment are Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and similar equal employment opportunity laws enforced by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Title VI can apply to employment decisions. It is unclear how the department intends to enforce this letter with respect to hiring, promotion and compensation practices and whether the Department of Labor or the EEOC will provide further guidance. CUPA-HR intends to seek clarification from the Education Department and the other agencies.

    CUPA-HR is assessing the impact that this enforcement letter will have on institutions and will keep members apprised of further developments related to the Trump administration’s DEI orders.



    Source link

  • Harrow International announces first Middle Eastern school 

    Harrow International announces first Middle Eastern school 

    The UK’s 450-year-old Harrow boarding school has unveiled plans for its first international school in the Middle East, opening a campus on Saadiyat Island, Abu Dhabi.

    “The opening of Harrow International School in the UAE is a testament to the strong educational ties between the UK and the UAE and our shared aspiration for academic excellence,” said Edward Hobart, British Ambassador to the UAE.  

    The flagship school will be operated by UAE education provider, Taaleem, which last year acquired the rights to operate Harrow’s international schools across the Gulf Cooperation Council countries.  

    The launch of Harrow’s first international school in the region marks Taaleem’s strategic expansion into the “super-premium” education sector, said the organisation’s chairman Khalid Al Tayer. 

    Boarding at Harrow’s UK school costs upwards of £20,000 per term, though tuition fees have not been released for the new Abu Dhabi location.  

    The opening of Harrow International School in the UAE is a testament to the strong educational ties between the UK and the UAE

    Edward Hobart, British Ambassador

    One of the region’s largest K-12 providers with over 30 schools across the UAE, Taaleem will independently own and operate the running of the school.  

    The Abu Dhabi location will initially cater to students from early years to year six, with gradual expansion through the higher years and a total capacity of 1,800 students.  

    “Class sizes will be optimised to ensure personalised attention, with a focus on academic rigour and holistic development,” the school group stated. 

    It is expected to soon announce an additional Harrow school in Dubai, subject to government approval

    Harrow school said that the “landmark agreement” would bring Harrow’s “rich heritage and values-driven education to the UAE capital”.  

    “Rooted in tradition yet designed for the future, Harrow Abu Dhabi will offer an exceptional learning environment that nurtures character, leadership, and a global outlook,” it added. 

    Source link

  • Advantages of student information systems in Higher Education

    Advantages of student information systems in Higher Education

    Tune In To Our Audio Blog

     

    In this changing landscape, with constant shifts in student demographics, and enrollment behaviors due to globalization, can a rigid administrative process or a legacy student information system foster student success? As higher education decision-makers, provosts, and chief information officers, you know much better. With this as a starting point, the blog intends to discuss the several advantages of student information systems and how an expert solution provider adds to the effectiveness of an overall institution.
     

    The Advantages of Student Information System

    A Student Information System (SIS) offers numerous advantages for higher education institutions. An SIS manage and store student-related data throughout their academic journey.

    Here are some key advantages of implementing a Student Information System in higher education:

     

     

    1. A focused student performance

    The Student Information System offers a comprehensive and integrated platform with features that today’s students must look for.

    With smooth, efficient, and friendly student self-service options, the system rules out the challenges encountered by students while navigating complex administrative processes. Rather, the students have the advantage of focusing on their academics without running around for frustrating services related to their records, accounts, personal information, access to academic policies, registration and degree planning, dates and deadlines, financial aid and scholarships, grades, transcripts, etc.

    This online service mode lets students efficiently manage their tasks proactively, positively impacts their institution, and allows them to claim it publicly.

     

    2. Newer insights into student data

     

    student information system insights

     

    To institutions that struggle to collate meaningful and actionable data to make smart decisions, the SIS can be a boon. 

    Student Information System gives the decision-makers the advantage of key reporting features so institutions gain deeper insights into students’ data related to academics, attendance, assessments, credits, finances, library, grade book, etc. With instant data in hand, the institutional heads can compare, identify trends, report, and work towards continuous improvement towards improvement.

     

    3. A time saver with simplified and streamlined tasks

     

    how student information system saves time

     

    With role-based dashboard configuration, the entire team of faculty, student, and staff know their priorities that need to be performed, along with the tasks already done and accomplished. 

    The dashboard helps in reminding which activities an individual needs to perform and which of them are already done. For any action undone, the system keeps sending automated reminders and alerts so the stakeholders stay on track. 

    With every bit of data highlighted in a single view, users can channel their time and effort for better productivity and growth with minimum effort.
     

    4. A connecting point between faculty, students, and management

     

    student information system connects students and faculty

     

    Another advantage of the Student Information System lies in its capacity to easily connect Administrators, Teachers, and Parents under a single platform. Often integrated with the parent’s portal, the system sends push notifications and updates regularly about students’ marks, grades, attendance, and overall performance. 

    On the other hand, the staff, faculty, and parents can interact at different levels using the user-friendly web interface that discusses and improves student performance. Every role in the campus can have roles defined to them, which allows them to access the information they need, securely.
     

    5. Offers unlimited flexibility

    Most of the student information systems come with a flexible architecture with room for the greatest level of personalization. This gives institutions a boost to use tools that facilitate system alignment with the way they do things at their institution. 

    This way whenever the institution faces change, the SISs can change with it through configuration capabilities and a continuous delivery model. Curriculum planning, scheduling, academic policies, grading schemes, finance, billing, and more come with configuration options.
     

    6. Helps institutions envision student success

    Student Information System has tools to envision student success throughout the student journey. With successful LMS integration, it can have native engagement tools, enabling students to actively engage in the events that matter the most. Even for students who refrain from openly communicating inside a classroom, these tools instill the confidence to coordinate, raise a query, and get clarified.

     

    Conclusion

    Designed solely for higher education campuses, Creatrix Campus Student Information System offers comprehensive tools to make it easier for users to access the records they need to achieve their goals—from admission to alumni and beyond.
     

    Creatrix student information system features

     

    We have powerful tools to connect multiple departments on multiple campuses and automate academic processes so your institution can help students succeed. With a lower cost of ownership, easy customization and implementation, straightforward pricing, and customer support options for your institution’s evolving needs, Creatrix SIS helps you manage your campus community easily.  Some of our unique features are:

    • Intuitive user experience throughout the student lifecycle
    • Student data management with reports and dashboards
    • Self-service and mobile application capabilities
    • Seamless academic planning with student advising
    • Agility to change requirements as per institutional needs

    To unite your whole campus under an efficient, configurable, easy-to-use application that is delivered in the cloud, contact our team or request a demo.

    Source link

  • What’s all the flap about bird flu?

    What’s all the flap about bird flu?

    Avian influenza has scared doctors and scientists for a generation. But its arrival in the United States might finally give the H5N1 bird flu virus the combination of factors it needs to cause a global pandemic.

    Those factors include a new carrier; dairy cattle; a regulatory system that protects farmers at the expense of human health; and a government bent on taking down an already weak public health infrastructure.

    The H5N1 avian influenza virus making headlines around the world — and driving up the price of eggs — in the United States is no youngster. It’s been around since at least 1996, when it was first spotted in a flock of geese in Guangdong in southern China.

    Since then it has spread around the entire world, tearing through flocks of poultry in Asia, Europe and the Americas and wiping out birds and mammals on every continent, including Antarctica. H5N1 bird flu only rarely infects people but as of the end of January 2025, the World Health Organization reported 964 human cases globally and 466 deaths, although many milder cases are likely to have been missed.

    Vets and virus experts have had their eyes on H5N1, in particular, for decades. It didn’t look like a serious threat when it killed geese in 1996. But the next year the virus caused an outbreak in people just over the border from Guangdong in Hong Kong.

    It infected 18 people and killed six of them before it was stopped. That got people’s attention. A 30% fatality rate is exceptionally high for a virus — something approaching the mortality of smallpox.

    Mutations and swap meets

    The virus gets its name from two prominent structures: the hemagglutinin, or H designation, and the neuraminidase, or N. All influenza A viruses get an HxNx name. The current circulating viruses causing human flu misery right now are H1N1 and H3N2, for example, as well as influenza B, which doesn’t get any fancy name.

    But influenza viruses are exceptionally mutation-prone, and even the extra designation doesn’t tell the whole story about the changes the virus has undergone. Every time a flu virus replicates itself, it can make a mistake and change a little. This is called antigenic shift. As if this wasn’t enough, flu viruses can also meet up inside an animal and swap large chunks of genetic material.

    The result? The H5N1 viruses now circulating are very different from those that were seen back in 1996 and 1997, even though they have the same name.

    This is what’s been going on over the past 30 years. H5N1 has been cooking along merrily in birds around the world. So, after the 1997 outbreak, not much was seen of H5N1 until 2003, when it caused widespread outbreaks in poultry in China. Researchers discovered it could infect wild waterfowl without making them sick, but it made chickens very sick, very fast. And those sick chickens could infect people.

    The best way to control its spread among poultry was to cull entire flocks, but if people doing the culling didn’t take the right precautions, they could get infected, and the virus caused serious, often fatal infections. Doctors began to worry that the virus would infect pigs. Pigs are often farmed alongside chickens and ducks, and they’re a traditional “mixing vessel” for flu viruses. If a pig catches an avian flu virus, it can evolve inside the animal to adapt more easily to mammals such as humans. Pigs have been the source of more than one influenza pandemic.

    Pandemic planning

    In the early 2000s, scientists and public health officials took H5N1 so seriously that they held pandemic exercises based on the premise that H5N1 would cause a full-blown pandemic. (Journalists were included in some of these exercises, and I took part in a few.)

    But it didn’t cause a pandemic. Vaccines were developed and stockpiled. Pandemic plans were eventually discarded, ironically just ahead of the Covid pandemic.

    However, flu viruses are best known for their confounding behavior, and H5N1 has always been full of surprises. It has evolved as it has spread, sometimes popping up and sometimes disappearing, but never causing the feared human pandemic. It has not spread widely among pigs although it has occasionally infected people around the world, as well as pet cats, zoo animals, wild seals, polar bears, many different species of birds and, most lately, dairy cattle.

    It’s this development that might finally be a turning point for H5N1.

    For a virus to start a human pandemic, it must acquire the ability to infect people easily; it must then pass easily from person to person; and it must cause significant illness.

    Competing interests

    So far, this hasn’t happened with H5N1. It has infected 68 people in the United States, mostly poultry or dairy workers. Mostly, it causes an eye infection called conjunctivitis, although it killed one Louisiana man. But it is spreading in a never-before-seen way — on milking equipment and in the raw milk of the infected cattle.

    “The more it spreads within mammals, that gives it more chances to mutate,” said Nita Madhav, a former U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researcher who is now senior director of epidemiology and modeling at Ginkgo Biosecurity. I interviewed her for a podcast for One World One Health Trust. “As it mutates, as it changes, there is a greater chance it can infect humans. If it gains the ability to spread efficiently from person to person, then it would be hard to stop,” Madhav said.

    And while some states are working to detect and control its spread, the federal government is not doing as much as public health experts say it should. Two agencies are involved: the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC).

    Dr. John Swartzberg, a health sciences clinical professor emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley said in an interview with the UC Berkeley School of Public Health that the USDA is charged with two responsibilities that only sometimes work in concert.

    “One of the responsibilities they have is to assure a healthy agricultural industry for the United States,” Swartzberg said. “The second responsibility is to assure safety of the human beings who consume agricultural products in the United States.”

    More information, not less, is needed.

    Dairy farmers feared they’d lose money if their farms were identified as sources of infection. And it’s a lot more expensive to cull cattle than it is to cull chickens.

    “And I think what we’ve seen with this bird flu problem is that the USDA is tilted in favor of protecting the industry, as opposed to protecting the health of humans,” Swartzberg said. “CDC is also involved, but the CDC has no authority to go into states and tell them what to do. It has to be done state by state.”

    On top of that, U.S. President Donald Trump has ordered the CDC to take down websites reporting on avian flu and other issues. He is withdrawing U.S. membership from WHO, crippling the ability to coordinate with other countries on controlling outbreaks of disease.

    He notably tried to suppress reporting about Covid during his previous presidency and promoted unproven and disproven treatments.

    His newly confirmed Health and Human Services Secretary, who will oversee CDC and other agencies charged with human health, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, is a vaccine denier, proponent of raw milk and has no public health qualifications.

    The stubbornness of people in the United States doesn’t help. When public health officials warned against drinking raw milk last year, raw milk sales actually went up.

    “Food safety experts like me are just simply left shaking their heads,” Donald Schaffner, a Rutgers University food science professor, told PBS News.

    The big fear? That in flu season, someone will catch both seasonal flu and H5N1, giving the viruses a chance to make friends in the body, swap genetic material and make a deadly new virus that can infect people easily.


     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. How can politics affect public health risk?
    2. How does public understanding and trust affect the risk of disease?
    3. Countries often blame one another for the spread of disease, but should they?

     


    Source link

  • Phone-free multi-factor authentication is key to K12 cybersecurity strategy

    Phone-free multi-factor authentication is key to K12 cybersecurity strategy

    As cyber threats against educational institutions continue to rise, the need to protect sensitive data and maintain secure, accessible learning environments is more crucial than ever. Authentication has always been a cornerstone of cybersecurity, but traditional methods are proving insufficient. For educational institutions facing unique challenges, deviceless authentication (which doesn’t require a cell phone) is emerging as an innovative solution, allowing schools to secure their networks without requiring users to have access to physical devices. Identity Automation’s RapidIdentity platform offers versatile deviceless options, including WebAuthn and Pictograph, which deliver robust, device-free authentication tailored to the needs of schools.

    Why Authentication Matters in Education Today

    With sensitive student data, health records, and other critical information at stake, cybersecurity in schools is a priority. Federal agencies like the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Department of Education (ED) have increasingly emphasized the need for multi-factor authentication (MFA) as an essential security measure. They urge schools to strengthen their defenses with MFA, advocating for security standards that go beyond passwords. Guidance from federal government’s K-12 Cybersecurity Act and the Department of Education’s resources on protecting student privacy provide best practices guidelines, but implementing MFA in education brings its own challenges.

    Access to physical devices isn’t universal in education, and institutions are increasingly adopting device restrictions. Many students do not own personal devices, while others may be prohibited from using them on campus. Teacher unions often object to districts requiring teachers to use their personal phones for school activities. This is where deviceless authentication becomes critical: it enables every user to securely access school systems without needing an additional device, creating a seamless, secure experience for students and staff alike.

    Trends in Deviceless Authentication

    Across sectors, authentication methods are evolving to increase security while minimizing reliance on devices, passwords, and other traditional methods. Here are a few key trends:

    1. WebAuthn for Passwordless Security: WebAuthn is a leading technology enabling secure, passwordless authentication across platforms. By using biometric sensors or hardware keys, WebAuthn eliminates the need for passwords entirely. For schools, WebAuthn provides a versatile deviceless solution by allowing users to authenticate through built-in or connected hardware options on any device available in the school setting, such as a laptop or desktop computer.
    2. Pictograph Authentication for Visual Simplicity: Pictograph offers a unique, highly accessible way to authenticate by allowing users to choose and memorize a series of images rather than passwords or device-based codes. This method is ideal for students of all ages, as it does not require any device ownership and is easy for younger users to remember. Pictograph aligns well with educational environments, where students can log in quickly without needing a phone or other hardware.
    3. Adaptive and Contextual MFA: Adaptive authentication adjusts security requirements based on factors like user location or behavior, providing extra layers of security without requiring a device. Schools benefit from these dynamic adjustments, allowing students and teachers to access resources with minimal friction while ensuring that the security adapts to higher-risk scenarios.
    4. Zero-Trust Frameworks: Educational institutions increasingly adopt Zero Trust models, which prioritize strict identity verification at every access point. Deviceless options like WebAuthn and Pictograph fit seamlessly into this framework, making it possible for schools to implement Zero-Trust principles even in challenging environments where users may not have access to dedicated devices.

    RapidIdentity’s Deviceless Authentication Solution

    At Identity Automation, we understand the unique security needs in education and the critical importance of balancing secure access with usability. Our RapidIdentity platform is designed to provide flexible, deviceless authentication options, including WebAuthn and Pictograph, that address the specific challenges of school districts.

    • WebAuthn Integration: WebAuthn allows users to authenticate with cryptographic keys generated by their devices, such as biometric sensors or security keys. RapidIdentity’s support for WebAuthn enables schools to offer passwordless, device-independent security that fits naturally within classroom settings. Whether a student is using a computer lab or a shared school device, WebAuthn provides a frictionless and secure way to log in without needing to rely on personal devices.
    • Pictograph for Visual Authentication: Designed with younger students and device-limited environments in mind, RapidIdentity’s Pictograph feature offers a user-friendly alternative to traditional authentication methods. Instead of entering a password or using an SMS code, students can select a personalized sequence of images. This solution is particularly useful for younger students who may struggle with text-based passwords or who lack access to personal devices, providing an easy-to-remember and device-free way to log in securely.
    • Role-Based Access and Adaptability: With thousands of students, teachers, and staff accessing systems daily, RapidIdentity’s platform provides adaptable, role-based access specifically designed for educational institutions. Users are only prompted for higher levels of authentication when necessary, reducing friction while enhancing security. Deviceless options like WebAuthn and Pictograph make this process even smoother by offering flexible solutions that require no additional hardware for authentication.
    • Compliance and Federal Mandates: RapidIdentity’s solutions are built to help schools align with federal guidelines, offering a secure yet flexible way to implement MFA without compromising accessibility. With deviceless options, schools can protect student data and meet cybersecurity mandates without requiring users to carry devices, making compliance achievable for districts of all sizes and means.
    • Scalability and Cost-Effectiveness: Schools can avoid the high costs of purchasing, deploying, and managing hardware tokens or mobile-based authentication solutions by using RapidIdentity’s deviceless authentication. For cash-strapped districts, the ability to secure their environments without extensive device investments is a game-changer, offering schools a highly scalable and economically feasible solution.

    Partnering with Identity Automation for a Safer Future

    In a landscape where cyber threats are increasingly sophisticated, RapidIdentity’s deviceless authentication options, including WebAuthn and Pictograph, stand as versatile and powerful tools in an educational institution’s security arsenal. With Identity Automation, school districts can confidently adopt robust, compliant, and user-friendly authentication solutions designed specifically for the education sector.

    To explore how RapidIdentity can strengthen your school’s cybersecurity posture, reach out to Identity Automation today. Our team is ready to help you navigate these challenges and implement solutions that keep your data secure while making authentication easy for every user. Contact us to learn more about deviceless authentication and other ways RapidIdentity can empower your school with comprehensive, modern security.

    Source link

  • 39% of colleges rely on donors to address food insecurity

    39% of colleges rely on donors to address food insecurity

    Jason Koski, Cornell University

    College students are more likely to experience food insecurity, compared to the general population, but funding and support for programs that address basic needs in higher education remains limited.

    A 2024 survey by Swipe Out Hunger, a nonprofit group that addresses hunger among college students, found while a majority of colleges have a pantry for student supports, most are supported by philanthropy and not the institution.

    The campus leader survey, released last month, included responses from 347 of Swipe’s 850 partner campuses, representing over 766,600 students who engaged with basic needs resources, whether through the food pantry, SNAP enrollment program or a basic needs hub.

    The most popular campus support program was a food pantry, with almost all respondents (95 percent) indicating their college offers one for students. In 2024, campus pantries distributed over eight million meals and 687,000 additional items, such as toiletries, diapers or appliance lending.

    Campus leaders shared their primary win in the past year was expanding their program (56 percent) and supporting students (20 percent), but only 1 percent of respondents said they had administrative support, and 8 percent indicated they earned additional funding to aid expansion.

    In a similar vein, when asked what their primary challenges were, the greatest share identified funding (47 percent), followed by staffing (16 percent), space (11 percent) and support (10 percent).

    Two in five campuses identified donations as their primary funding source, which included staff payroll deductions and crowdsourcing. Only 5 percent of campus leaders said they had a dedicated budget from campus as their primary source of funding for programming.

    “This severe lack of sustainable funding for antihunger programs is preventing students from accessing the food they need to survive, which in turn affects their ability to stay enrolled,” says Jaime Hansen, executive director of Swipe Out Hunger. “With rising food costs and the lack of government support, campus food pantries and similar resources are becoming the only lifeline for students. If these programs continue to be overburdened and underfunded, we can expect to see less students being able to afford to stay in college.”

    A corresponding student experience survey found 40 percent of program users engaged with on-campus services weekly, and an additional 8 percent used resources every day.

    The top barriers to accessing nutritious food, students reported, were time constraints due to multiple responsibilities; the cost of meal plans, including on-campus food costs; anxiety about resource scarcity (taking away from peers who need it more); elevated costs of diet-specific foods; and living far away from affordable foods.

    Tackling basic needs insecurity: Some of the ways other organizations and institutions are addressing college student hunger include these efforts:

    • Believe in Students created an online curriculum to empower faculty to engage in basic needs support, providing relevant data and insights as well as how-to advice and encouragement.
    • Community colleges utilize FAFSA data to notify learners of their eligibility for SNAP or other state-level food assistance programs.
    • A group of students at Anne Arundel Community College contributed to a faculty-led cookbook featuring students’ nostalgic recipes adapted to utilize campus pantry ingredients.
    • New Jersey built a centralized website to help college students identify basic needs resources across the state.
    • Virginia Commonwealth University built miniature food pantries, modeled off little lending libraries, to increase access to shelf-safe food items across campus.

    How is your campus addressing food insecurity among students? Tell us more.

    Source link

  • Three questions for Joe Diamond, CEO of AllCampus

    Three questions for Joe Diamond, CEO of AllCampus

    The reason that I wanted to do this Q&A with Joe Diamond, CEO of AllCampus, is that I don’t know too much about AllCampus. I’m frequently asked to speak about the status of the online program management industry, and my lack of knowledge about AllCampus is a blind spot.

    Q: Where does AllCampus fit in the OPM ecosystem? How many universities and online programs do you partner with? How is AllCampus differentiated from 2U, Noodle and other companies in this space?

    A: “OPM” has come to mean something negative to many because of the high revenue share and highly public shortcomings of the most prominent players in the space. We never felt the term fit us because we are so different from what people associate with OPM—high revenue shares, a one-size-fits-all model and the high up-front costs associated with fee-for-service (FFS) agencies. Yet, it’s fair to say we help schools with a similar range of services and sometimes compete for deals, but we are just so different, which I’ll explain below.

    We’re a mission-driven company that has quietly been making an impact for our university partners for 14 years. Our mission is to make education more affordable and accessible for all. We’ve been growing slowly and steadily all along. We didn’t raise hundreds of millions of capital and then go and spend it all on Google ads. We invested in our technology, our people, and prioritized servicing our clients really well. We’ve been highly disciplined and careful with our expansion.

    AllCampus offers a flexible and partnership-driven approach rather than a one-size-fits-all model. We help the partner select the best fit for them—from revenue share, fee-for-service and hybrid/co-investment options—and tailor the services to each institution’s unique needs. Our approach prioritizes affordability and accessibility for students and collaboration with our university partners to meet their mission and goals. Beyond supporting online programs, we also help drive campus enrollment through a wide range of media expertise, brand building, consultation and technology solutions that make us more efficient than if the university were to do this on its own. We know that if we aren’t more efficient than a school can be, we are out of business. So, our mission is also at the heart of our business case for our partners.

    We have built top-tier programs with schools like UCLA, Northeastern University, George Washington University, the University of Florida and dozens more. Our regional offerings include Indiana Wesleyan University; Middle Tennessee State University; University of Missouri, St. Louis; West Texas A&M and many others. In all, we have about 50 partners, with 25 universities and 140 programs in the bundle of services people think of as OPM.

    We service another 25 universities in our Workplace Network, which has over 1,200 programs. On this network, the aim is for low-cost or even no-cost degrees that their employer pays for. The platform gives employees access to programs that help them develop or expand their skill sets, reach career goals, and, for many, return to school to finish their degree. Employees and their employers gain access to a tool that simplifies the complex process of selecting the right program and navigating tuition reimbursement through hands-on guidance. Fourteen million people have student debt and no degree, so we’re certain our Workplace offering can help address that personal crisis for millions and help reduce the education divide in our country.

    In short, we’re content with who and where we are, and we don’t mind that we remained under the radar and even an insider like you doesn’t know much about us. It’s probably because we’re just different and less provocative than others that are classified as OPMs. I’m most proud that we have an impeccable reputation for integrity.

    Q: How much of the partnerships with universities for online programs are based on revenue share versus fee for service? One of the criticisms of the OPM industry is that the companies take a high percentage of tuition and require long contract lock-ins. How is AllCampus different?

    A: Just like OPMs, not all revenue-share agreements are created equal. AllCampus has the lowest tuition-sharing fees in the industry—typically between 25 and 35 percent compared to our competitors at 40 to 50 percent—which enables us to offer universities a cost-effective way to deliver online education.

    We are neutral to our partners’ preference between revenue share, FFS, co-investment, hybrid, etc. In fact, we share very detailed pro formas with our partners to transparently understand the trade-offs. Among those trade-offs are contract length and required up-front investment. Those are all levers that the university controls in setting up the agreement with us so that we arrive at a partnership that fits their needs and has their buy-in. As to which model is most popular, most universities opt for revenue share, and to be candid, it would be better for us if it were more balanced, because it would make managing cash easier.

    I believe the reason universities usually opt for revenue share is that fee-for-service models place the up-front financial burden on the university. FFS also carries the criticism that it’s a risk-free structure for the vendor (the OPM)—they get their money no matter what and have historically behaved accordingly. We’ve won many frustrated former FFS clients whose prior agencies overpromised and underdelivered. Revenue share has the benefit of pure alignment with student and program success. I will say that our hybrid and co-investment models have been gaining traction, as they seem to strike the right balance for some new partners.

    Counter to the narrative for OPMs, at AllCampus, we always advocate for affordable and accessible education for all students. We routinely provide data to help schools evaluate their pricing against the market, ensuring their programs remain accessible, affordable and attractive to students. We often recommend that our partner institutions lower the cost of tuition and have refused to sign partnerships with universities unless they agree to drop the price of their programs. In the end, it’s the ultimate win-win because the university gains in overall revenue, and more students get access to these fantastic programs at a more affordable price.

    Q: Where do you see the online degree market going in the next five years? What do you tell university leaders how they need to position their institutions to be competitive?

    A: I anticipate the online degree market growing significantly in the next five years. Pre-pandemic projections estimated the market would reach $74 billion by 2025, doubling from $36 billion in 2019. The pandemic accelerated this trajectory and will cause the market to grow well beyond this estimate.

    University leaders need to consider a variety of strategies to remain competitive:

    • Embracing flexibility and accessibility: With a plateau of traditional undergraduate students, universities should consider attracting adult learners through flexible, affordable and career-focused online programs. Students are demanding more offerings that accommodate a variety of schedules and learning styles. Offering a blend of synchronous and asynchronous courses can help cater to the needs of diverse learners.
    • Expanding nondegree and accelerated degree programs: Accelerated degree programs are on the rise due to their lower cost, increased flexibility and changing employer demands. There is also a growing demand for short-term, more skill-specific courses to help students in fields like AI and cybersecurity. Developing these types of programs can help universities attract professionals seeking targeted skill development.
    • Aligning education offerings with workplace needs: By carefully analyzing employee market trends and skill gaps, universities can design programs that directly address employer skill demands. Partnering with employers—either independently or through organizations like ours—ensures their new and existing programs attract a broader student base and their outcomes are relevant for the evolving workplace.

    Source link

  • Ask not what you can do for engineering…

    Ask not what you can do for engineering…

    • Professor Beverley Gibbs, Director of the Dyson Institute for Engineering & Technology, and Chair or the Engineering Professors’ Council’s Education, Employability & Skills Committee; and Johnny Rich, Chief Executive of the Engineering Professors’ Council
    • Last Thursday 13 February 2025, HEPI published One Step Beyond: How the school and college curriculum in England can prepare young people for higher education. This piece considers how the school curriculum can be adapted to develop creativity, practical skills, and inclusive, real-world learning.

    Engineering is a UK powerhouse sector, growing in all UK regions and impacting all economic sectors. Engineers design, build and maintain the infrastructure, products and services that our economy and society depend on, provide life-saving medical devices, and are the drivers in our transition to a more sustainable world.

    It might be reasonable then to suppose that the school curriculum would be designed to prepare pupils for a sector that accounts for a fifth of UK jobs and a quarter of vacancies.[i] On the contrary, engineering is almost entirely absent from the school curriculum. To the age of 16, a pupil can pass through education blithely unaware that engineering exists, let alone what it entails. Its closest correspondent is the Design & Technology GCSE. But due to costs, equipment needs and teacher shortages, even that declined by two-thirds between 2011 and 2023.

    Post-16, the BTEC pathways are also under threat. In the past they have provided a critical entry route into engineering for a diversity of students, particularly those from lower socioeconomic groups or who were keen to give engineering a try.

    They are being displaced by the Engineering T-level route – courses which, because they cannot be combined in the same way as BTECs, require a full-time commitment to a single subject and subsequent career. That’s quite an ask to make of a 15-year-old with no prior educational experience in engineering.

    Moreover, as a recent study by the Engineering Professors Council found, many universities feel that the mathematical content of T levels fails to meet the entry requirement for undergraduate Engineering courses.[ii]

    But Professor Francis’s review of the curriculum and assessment is not about engineering. No doubt every discipline and sector would want to make its own special pleading, and while few would have as good a case as engineering might, we want to focus on wider benefits to the education system (that would also happen to serve engineering better).

    Engineers are creative, but practical; analytical, but hands-on; dreamers, but problem-solvers. They often work in teams, crossing disciplines, especially with business and design. And often, their driving passion is to make the world a better place. Are these not traits we’d want to instil in every school-leaver?

    One of the reasons engineering is neglected in the school curriculum is perhaps because it is (wrongly) considered analogous to applied sciences and mathematics. That’s a deeply reductive view. The approaches adopted by contemporary engineering have much to offer the school curriculum, with implications far broader than engineering’s own interests.

    Creativity

    Ours will not be the only voice calling for more creativity in schools. This would, of course, support the UK’s creative arts economy, but engineers also use their creativity to imagine, design, solve problems and challenge the status quo. Creativity in the school curriculum nurtures resilience and a healthy ability to be comfortable with subjectivity.

    A skills-based curriculum

    The tide towards a ‘knowledge-rich curriculum’ in recent years has set up a false dichotomy with the development of skills. What is lost is the conscious focus on that development, and so the acquisition of skills becomes an accidental and devalued by‑product rather than a deliberate outcome.

    For example, no one doubts the cardinal importance of mathematics and the sciences, but in learning about them, engineers synthesise these concepts to create reality.  In an information-rich age it is critical that future generations can turn knowledge into know-how, discriminate between good and bad sources, and develop subject-specific and transversal skills along the way. This is not about becoming engineers, but twenty‑first‑century citizens.

    One of the most effective ways to develop and assess skills-based approaches is through problem- (or project-) based learning (PBL) strategies. PBL comprises a spectrum of active learning techniques that ground (ideally, cross-subject) knowledge in relevant, real-world situations with students working in teams, learning to collaborate, reflect and accommodate one another’s strengths and weaknesses. Long‑standing critiques of the ‘work-readiness’ of engineering graduates have stimulated a growing implementation of PBL approaches in engineering courses, championed by professional bodies, employers and faculties alike.

    We would encourage schools to consider what it would look like to adopt a similar approach: active learning focused on a project, acquiring the interdisciplinary knowledge to address the challenge. Could we replace pupils pleading, “Why do I have to learn this?” with stimulating their curiosity?

    Assessment

    Examinations are, generally, a poor imitation of the way in which knowledge is put to use in modern life and they rarely even attempt to assess skills or behaviours – except, of course, one: the ability to perform recall under high-stakes pressure. This shouldn’t be regarded as life’s pre-eminent performance metric, especially given the inherent sexism it involves.[iii]

    In engineering education, we take inspiration from a raft of professional artefacts to create interesting and diverse assessment formats. Alongside tutorial sheets and examinations, we use designs, proposals, plans, specifications, portfolios, presentations, debates, and creative media. Students are assessed individually but also in teams, because teamwork in itself is a valuable attribute. This approach is not merely fairer and less anomalous, but we are also discovering how much more inclusive it is to draw on a varied assessment regime. Different intelligences are given the opportunity to shine, and diversity becomes an asset, not an incongruity.

    It is not coincidental that these approaches that are common in engineering – creativity, skills-based orientation, learning through application, and diverse ‘authentic’ assessment – are also approaches that are inclusive of neurodiverse minds. Engineers are more likely to suffer from the symptoms of autism-related disorders than any other profession, and dyslexia is thought to be three times more prevalent amongst engineers than in the general population (30% compared to 10%). We know the great contributions neurodiverse minds make to engineering and recognise this diversity of thinking as the strength it is. 

    A school curriculum and assessment strategy that is overly compartmentalised and rigid is in danger of disenfranchising large groups of young people, kettling them into narrow career paths, when, given the right opportunities, they would become leading thinkers, doers, makers and entrepreneurs.  


    [i]  EngineeringUK: https://www.engineeringuk.com/media/319071/euk-key-facts-and-stats-sept23.pdf

    [ii] Makramalla, M., Atkins, C., and Rich, J., Engineering Professors Council, 2024: Maths for Engineering: Do T levels add up? https://epc.ac.uk/article/maths-for-engineering-do-t-levels-add-up/

    [iii] During an exam period of around a month, half the students are likely to have to sit between a fifth and a quarter of their exams while menstruating. Two-thirds of girls report feeling less able to perform in time-limited assessments during their period (Plan International 2021, https://www.hepi.ac.uk/2024/01/22/period-poverty-in-uk-higher-education-addressing-stigma-and-empowering-students/) and accommodations are challenging to secure for an eventuality that – despite its ubiquity – carries much stigma.

    Source link