Blog

  • Why Small Colleges Matter—Now More Than Ever – Edu Alliance Journal

    Why Small Colleges Matter—Now More Than Ever – Edu Alliance Journal

    June 2, 2025, by Dean Hoke: In the ongoing debate about the future of higher education, small colleges are often overlooked—yet they are indispensable. On May 21st, Higher Education Digest published my article, “Small Colleges Are Essential to American Higher Education,” in which I make the case for why these institutions remain vital to our national educational fabric.

    Small colleges may not grab headlines, but they provide transformative experiences, especially for first-generation students, rural communities, and those seeking a deeply personal education. As financial pressures mount and demographic shifts continue, it’s easy to underestimate the impact of these campuses—but doing so comes at a cost. These schools are not only educators; they are regional economic engines, community partners, and laboratories for innovation.

    In the article, I outline key reasons why we need to support and strengthen small colleges, including their unique role in economic development, workforce provider, and civic engagement. I also explore the consequences of neglecting this sector and what we can do about it.

    I hope you’ll take a few minutes to read the whole piece and share it with your colleagues and networks. Read the article here.

    As always, I welcome your thoughts and reflections.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 

    Source link

  • Universities UK’s new era of collaboration

    Universities UK’s new era of collaboration

    The first major report of Universities UK’s transformation and efficiency taskforce – Towards a new era of collaboration – is a milestone in the ongoing national debate about unlocking maximum value from state investment in the higher education system.

    Though “transformation and efficiency” is the headline, the focus of the group has largely been on collaboration – ways in which universities and other providers can work together, and ways in which government and regulators can make it easier for this to happen.

    The drive for transformation came slowly at first and then all at once. The financial pressures on the sector – arising from Covid recovery, uneven patterns of student recruitment, rising pensions costs and erosion of the unit of resource for undergraduate tuition – are long standing (remember then chief of staff Sue Gray’s “shitlist” for the new government which featured the financial collapse of a large university?)

    Why and how

    The election of a new Labour government prompted the publication of the Universities UK Blueprint which hoped for a shift in relations between government and the sector based on effort on both sides to address the structural challenges facing higher education, of which a taskforce on transformation was one recommendation.

    Even at the point of the formation of the taskforce, led by former University of the Arts London vice chancellor Nigel Carrington, there was a degree of scepticism about how feasible the promised “new era of collaboration” might be. Wonkhe and Mills & Reeve’s Only Connect report on the opportunities for cooperation in the English sector found an appetite in principle among university leadership for new models for collaboration, along with a sense that the cultural and regulatory barriers were so significant as to make meaningful exploration of those opportunities unlikely.

    The taskforce, through a series of in-depth interviews with stakeholders, and detailed work with sector organisations, professional bodies and external experts, has therefore made an enormous stride forward in setting out the potential for system-wide change.

    The case for change

    There is a genre of departmental spending review submission called the “bleeding stumps” report, wherein civil servants offer up apocalyptic and or foolish ways in which spending constraints can be overcome – ex-DfE adviser Sam Freedman loves to tell the story of a pre-spending review report that suggested that pupils could attend school either in the morning or the afternoon.

    What Universities UK has produced is pretty much the diametric opposite of this approach. While recognising the dwindling availability of cash, the impact of these circumstances is set out via the results of a survey conducted in May of this year. While this is pretty bleak reading – 55 per cent of universities are consolidating courses (94 per cent would consider in the next three years), 25 per cent have seen compulsory staff redundancies already (up 14 percentage points on last year) and 36 per cent are cutting student support services (77 per cent would consider) – it comes across neither as sensationalist nor overblown to reflect the way the sector is having to change.

    The “would consider in next three years” column will be of most concern to the government, even beyond DfE: 79 per cent would consider cutting academic research activity, 71 per cent would be looking at cutting civic and local growth activity. To be clear this is based on a survey completed by 57 providers, so while it does show a concerning direction of travel you couldn’t expect a precise picture of what is happening on the ground everywhere.

    One interesting nugget within this section is a call for sector stewardship – with OfS focusing on teaching through a market-based regulatory lens, and Research England acting as a research council UUK argues that no single body has an eye on the health of the sector as a whole with the ability to intervene where action is needed. The declining value of tuition fee income and other state support is part of the issue, but a rise in the number of providers and what is described as “an increasingly competitive environment” has played a part in many of the pressures universities are facing. As consultees told the taskforce:

    the focus had shifted too far to the individual student or institution, even where that created conflict with wider national interests, including disadvantaging activity that could benefit economic objectives and wider society but may not translate into student demand, such as the provision of highly specialised skills to meet the needs of certain industries or the protection of universities playing important civic roles in parts of the country with higher levels of disadvantage.

    Opportunities and actions

    The taskforce’s findings are neatly split across seven “opportunities”, each with associated actions for university leaders, Universities UK itself, other organisations, and government:

    1. Pursuing innovative collaborative structures
    2. Sharing more services and infrastructure
    3. Leveraging sector buying power
    4. Supporting digital transformation
    5. Adopting a common approach to assessing efficiency and benchmarking costs
    6. Developing leadership skills in those mandated to deliver change and further improving governance
    7. Developing the current regulatory environment and supportive structures to help collaboration and transformation to go further, faster

    Each is also supported by case studies (drawing primarily on existing work in the UK higher education sector, though the net is occasionally cast further afield) and indications of appetite from consultation respondees.

    Collaboration and sharing

    The case for university collaboration in the UK has been made with increasing frequency as the financial squeeze starts to make itself felt in profound ways. That said, there has been little tangible activity – the report points to longstanding structures such as the University of London federation, existing networks of research collaborations, and strategic working with local stakeholders. The taskforce adds the multi-academy trust-esque group structures employed by the (HE and FE) University of the Highlands and (cross sector) London South Bank to the list., and there is a nod to the world of sharing expensive research infrastructure too.

    A third strand covers the sharing of infrastructure and services – major examples here include UCAS and the Jisc Janet network, alongside more specialist activity like Uniac on auditing services (further examples are worth digging into via the recent Jisc/KPMG report).

    Though the big newsworthy two-become-one moments exemplified by ARU Writtle may be few and far between, what comes across powerfully is just how much of this stuff is going one, and the potential that exists to do more. One of the big gaps is expertise and understanding – tackling the legal, technical, and process aspects of joint working is not for the faint of heart and if this is the direction of travel both specialist staff and institutional leaders need to be clear and up to date on how this works. There’s scope for detailed advice and guidance (that the taskforce itself will produce) alongside an ongoing support function at Universities UK – we need regulatory tweaks to allow for innovation in organisational forms too.

    The bigger asks are for a transformation fund, and specific advice from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on what would constitute a breach of competition law in this space. The latter appears to be in progress – there was an encouraging blog post from CMA at the end of last week. The cost of transformation (ie investing in the infrastructure and systems that can enable efficiency) could, the taskforce suggests, arrive in a straightforward way by allowing universities to access a “small portion” of the existing £3.25bn Transformation Fund available to the public sector.

    Spending and benchmarking

    Taken as a whole, the higher education sector spends £20.1bn on operating expenses each year – much of the non-pay end of this happens via procurement processes at individual institutions. The cumulative impact of all this spending can often enable the sector to get a better deal, but this needs to be coordinated across multiple providers for the benefits to kick in. Initiatives like the UK University Purchasing Consortia and Jisc’s procurement on behalf of the sector are unlocking big, existing, savings – the report suggests savings of £116m via UKUPC, and £138m for the Jisc activity – taking maximum advantage of these proven schemes could drive further savings.

    But there is potential to unlock even more – the work of the taskforce indicates that there is both scope and appetite for this kind of collaborative spending in information technology (ask your IT department, the cost of software licenses and cloud-based solutions are spiralling) and estates (bear in mind the maintenance backlog that the precarious financial environment has led to).

    Another angle is making it easier to understand when your university is spending over the odds. Finance teams are very keen on benchmarking spending with comparable institutions – why should it cost more to do fundamental stuff than at the university down the road? – but it is difficult to access reliable and comparable data. There’s a suggestion that an Association of the Heads of University Administration (AHUA) organisational efficiency maturity model (basically best practice on understanding and reporting spending) could help get the sector on the same page, and that UUK could drive a more collaborative approach to sharing and using this data to drive savings.

    Digital transformation

    There’s any number of promises that the latest and greatest software can save your university time and money, but your IT director will tell you that such promises take substantial time and money to realise. The rise of large language model generative tools has unlocked another round of wild claims, and both institutional leaders and IT and administrative specialists are being asked to evaluate spending even more to make these efficiencies a reality. There’s so many questions – not least around whether your shiny new system will work with the systems and processes you already use.

    The trouble is, understanding and implementing this stuff takes time and expertise at both specialist and leadership levels – and both are at a premium in higher education. Jisc is already supporting 24 providers in understanding and benchmarking their digital transformation maturity – helping, in essence, to understand where further help may be needed. There’s also a need to actively and meaningfully involve senior leaders, and to understand the digital competencies of staff and students. The taskforce calls for a wider roll-out of this maturity model, and for Jisc and UCISA to promote shared standards around software and processes.

    Regulation and leadership

    The need for an advancement in leadership skills runs throughout the taskforce report. Transformations like the ones advocated require competencies and knowledge that go far beyond business as usual, and correspondingly more is being asked of senior staff and governors – all of which comes alongside a more onerous (and fast-moving) regulatory regime that requires its own expanding set of skills.

    The report is supportive of the current Committee of University Chairs (CUC) initiative to review university governance (via updating its current code for governors), and Universities UK proposes to facilitate ongoing and sector-led improvement activity.

    There’s immediate stuff that can be done on cost pressures – there’s a specific ask of government on relaxing the rules that require some universities to enroll all staff onto the increasingly expensive teacher’s pension scheme (TPS), and a more general suggestions that the government avoid putting additional costs on the sector such as introducing new and unfunded expectations, or inventing new levies.

    There is clearly scope to address the regulatory burden placed on the sector – one easy win would be to address the barriers to collaboration. Recent regulatory activity (particularly in England) has focused on individual providers – the recent shift in the OfS remit to consider the wider health of the sector offers scope to reestablish the idea of a “custodian” of the sector that could deliver on the long-term goals set all levels of government and by wider civic society.

    What’s next?

    This report marks the end of the first phase of Universities UK work on transformation and efficiency. Phase two will create an oversight group to keep an eye on the various asks from sector agencies and monitor both progress and impact. This is not in any sense a political report – though it is clearly politically useful – and it is clear that both UUK and the sector are in this for the long haul.

    More broadly the report stands as another signal to government that the sector is prepared to go further and faster on transformation and collaboration that has previously been the case – but there is a clear desire for a reciprocal “vision” or plan from government around which the sector can do, ideally backed up with some investment in that vision.

    The rather dour communications that have so far issued from DfE on HE reform and funding suggest that the government is not yet prepared to give the sector a full-throated endorsement, but there is scope for that to change following next week’s spending review and the publication of the post 16 education and skills and HE reform white paper this summer.

    Economic circumstances notwithstanding the policy agenda in the next few months will set a course for HE for the rest of this parliament and beyond – it would be a real own-goal not to seize the opportunity to work with the sector to get things onto a firmer footing.

    Source link

  • For women athletes, world recognition is a long time coming

    For women athletes, world recognition is a long time coming

    Last year was arguably the best year for women’s sports yet.

    According to data analysis company S&P Global, in-person attendance and viewership were higher, with women’s professional sports sponsorships increasing by 22% since 2023. According to UN Women Australia, globally, there has been a lack of interest in women’s sports. But it seems that they might finally be getting the attention they deserve.

    To find out what is driving this change in attitude towards women’s sports, I interviewed 10 women athletes across high school, university, and coaching. 

    Historically, women’s sports have not gotten the recognition that they deserve. However, during 2024, women’s collegiate basketball had a significant increase in viewership compared to the previous year. The Final Four game in 2024 was a showdown between two players from two U.S. universities: Caitlin Clark of the University of Iowa and Paige Bueckers of the University of Connecticut. The game drew in a peak audience of 16.1 million, according to an article in Sports Illustrated. 

    Women’s media coverage has tripled since 2019. At this rate, if coverage trends continue, women’s share of coverage could reach 20% by the end of this year, according to Women.org, an organization within the United Nations devoted to gender equality and the empowerment of women. 

    Gender parity in sports

    The Paris Olympic and Paralympic Games were officially the first to see 50:50 coverage in gender equality.

    Avery Elliot, a track and field athlete from the University of Pennsylvania, attended the Paris Olympics as a spectator and said she noticed the change – more social media presence and sponsorships, particularly highlighting women of color, especially in women’s gymnastics, spurred by the popularity and success of U.S. athletes Simone Biles and Jordan Chiles and Brazilian Rebeca Andrade. 

    The lack of media coverage of women has always played a role in the lack of recognition that they receive. Lanae Carrington, a track star at Lehigh University in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, said that in the past, women athletes would get dismissed for getting a low number of views or for the belief that women’s games were not as entertaining as those of men. “Overall, women are making a stronger impact in the entertainment industry, whether that’s more highlight reels on TikTok or screen time on TV,” Carrington said. “It’s finally becoming normalized.” 

    One of the hardest things to deal with as an athlete is a lack of support, whether from the media, in person or on the sidelines. 

    Brianna Gautier, a volleyball and basketball sensation at Neumann University in Pennsylvania, said it is hard to play a game where you’re not going to have a full house. “But it’s kind of helped me learn to just play for myself instead of waiting for people to show up and relying on that to bring some type of energy because I feel like it starts within you and your teammates,” she said.

    Play for yourself first

    As a track and field athlete, I have seen this firsthand. It is unfortunate to see people walk away after the men are finished competing. But I found that when you start showing up for yourself with energy, success comes rolling in. Gautier has embraced the idea of playing for herself and nobody else.

    It used to be that at Neumann, people would attend the men’s basketball games but never stay afterward to support the women. She also expressed the importance of the support of NBA players such as Steph Curry, who came out to watch several women’s Stanford basketball games in 2023. Gautier said that people think to themselves that if their favorite male basketball players are tuning in to watch women’s sports, it must be worthwhile. 

    Carrington said parents also need to support their daughters in athletics. “This is important because many girls don’t have parents who encourage them to play more traditionally masculine sports, such as basketball and soccer,” she said. 

    Most of the women I interviewed commented on the change in the WNBA as the catalyst for the change in women’s sports.. 

    Liz Spagnolo is a soccer player at Tower Hill High School in the U.S. state of Delaware who appreciates the opportunities she now has. “Women in sports is big for us because based on women 100 years ago, we wouldn’t be expected to play sports, or be expected to do something like cheer,” Spagnolo said. 

    The Caitlin Clark effect

    Arianna Montgomery, an athlete at The Tatnall School, the private school in Delaware that I also attend, said she appreciates the change in women’s basketball.

    “It’s gotten a lot more fame, definitely more college sports have gotten a lot more fame,” Montgomery said. “I think women’s games are starting to become more popular. People are starting to look more towards women’s sports as well as men’s sports, and even since before, instead of men’s sports now, a decade ago, that wasn’t the case.”

    Many of the women I spoke to said that a big contributor to the success of women’s sports is due to the Catlin Clark effect. The Caitlin Clark effect is a term that was created after her record-breaking seasons playing women’s basketball at the University of Iowa during the years of 2023-2024.

    As a result, she has become the all-time leading scorer in college basketball before entering the WNBA,  and has reportedly signed sponsorship deals worth more than $11 million. 

    Ruth Hiller, a lacrosse coach at my school said that are a number of successful women athletes that young women can now look up to, including tennis superstars Venus and Serena Williams and Alex Morgan, the former captain of the U.S. women’s soccer team, women’s tennis pioneer Billie Jean King and Charlotte North, a professional lacrosse player who broke the all-time goals record in college lacrosse. 

    Women now rack up medals and points

    Daija Lampkin, my track and field coach, pointed to Alison Felix, who won more medals than any other U.S. track and field athlete, and tennis superstar Serena Williams.

    It is important, Lampkin said, that women support women. “Our body is critical, and some women are self-conscious that they are going to be muscular,” Lampkin said. “It can tear down your confidence. It’s not talked about in sports how women look at their bodies. People tear down Serena Williams and her body all the time, but look at where she is and how much she has accomplished”. 

    I have been participating in sports since I was 3 years old, when my parents signed me up for gymnastics. I run track and field and am a runner, jumper and hurdler. I began training for track and field competitions at the age of 8, and my dad has been my coach since the very beginning. 

    In my experience, my father was instrumental in encouraging me to participate in dance and gymnastics growing up, while also encouraging me to run track and play basketball and soccer for fun.

    With opportunity comes pressure, and Gautier said it is important for girls not to put too much pressure on themselves. “When you are an athlete, you tend to feel that you have to perform a certain way to be successful or please everyone else, but I feel you kind of get blinded by the fact that you are doing it for yourself,” she said. 

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why have women not gotten the same recognition and pay as male athletes in sports? 

    2. What does “parity” mean when it comes to gender in sports?

    3. Should there be any differentiation when it comes to gender in sports and why?

     

    Source link

  • A Twilight Zone Warning for the Trump Era and the Age of AI

    A Twilight Zone Warning for the Trump Era and the Age of AI

    Rod Serling’s classic 1961 episode of The Twilight Zone, “The Obsolete Man,” offers a timeless meditation on authoritarianism, conformity, and the erasure of humanity. In it, a quiet librarian, Romney Wordsworth (played by Burgess Meredith), is deemed “obsolete” by a dystopian state for believing in books and God—symbols of individual thought and spiritual meaning. Condemned by a totalitarian chancellor and scheduled for execution, Wordsworth calmly exposes the cruelty and contradictions of the regime, ultimately reclaiming his dignity by refusing to bow to tyranny.

    Over 60 years later, “The Obsolete Man” feels less like fiction and more like a documentary. The Trump era, supercharged by the rise of artificial intelligence and a war on truth, has brought Serling’s chilling parable into sharper focus.

    The Authoritarian Impulse

    President Donald Trump’s presidency—and his ongoing influence—has been marked by a deep antagonism toward democratic institutions, intellectual life, and perceived “elites.” Journalists were labeled “enemies of the people.” Scientists and educators were dismissed or silenced. Books were banned in schools and libraries, and curricula were stripped of “controversial” topics like systemic racism or gender identity.

    Like the chancellor in The Obsolete Man, Trump and his allies seek not just to discredit dissenters but to erase their very legitimacy. In this worldview, librarians, teachers, and independent thinkers are expendable. What matters is loyalty to the regime, conformity to its ideology, and performance of power.

    Wordsworth’s crime—being a librarian and a believer—is mirrored in real-life purges of professionals deemed out of step with a hardline political agenda. Public educators and college faculty who challenge reactionary narratives have been targeted by state legislatures, right-wing activists, and billionaire-backed think tanks. In higher education, departments of the humanities are being defunded or eliminated entirely. Faculty governance is undermined. The university, once a space for critical inquiry, is increasingly treated as an instrument for ideological control—or as a business to be stripped for parts.

    The Age of AI and the Erasure of the Human

    While authoritarianism silences the human spirit, artificial intelligence threatens to replace it. AI tools, now embedded in everything from hiring algorithms to classroom assessments, are reshaping how knowledge is produced, disseminated, and controlled. In the rush to adopt these technologies, questions about ethics, bias, and human purpose are often sidelined.

    AI systems do not “believe” in anything. They do not feel awe, doubt, or moral anguish. They calculate, replicate, and optimize. In the hands of authoritarian regimes or profit-driven institutions, AI becomes a tool not of liberation, but of surveillance, censorship, and disposability. Workers are replaced. Students are reduced to data points. Librarians—like Wordsworth—are no longer needed in a world where books are digitized and curated by opaque algorithms.

    This is not merely a future problem. It’s here. Algorithms already determine who gets hired, who receives financial aid, and which students are flagged as “at risk.” Predictive policing, automated grading, and AI-generated textbooks are not the stuff of science fiction. They are reality. And those who question their fairness or legitimacy risk being labeled as backwards, inefficient—obsolete.

    A Culture of Disposability

    At the heart of “The Obsolete Man” is a question about value: Who decides what is worth keeping? In Trump’s America and in the AI-driven economy, people are judged by their utility to the system. If you’re not producing profit, performing loyalty, or conforming to power, you can be cast aside.

    This is especially true for the working class, contingent academics, and the so-called “educated underclass”—a growing population of debt-laden degree holders trapped in precarious jobs or no jobs at all. Their degrees are now questioned, their labor devalued, and their futures uncertain. They are told that if they can’t “pivot” or “reskill” for the next technological shift, they too may be obsolete.

    The echoes of The Twilight Zone are deafening.

    Resistance and Redemption

    Yet, as Wordsworth demonstrates in his final moments, resistance is possible. Dignity lies in refusing to surrender the soul to the machine—or the regime. In his quiet defiance, Wordsworth forces the chancellor to confront his own cowardice, exposing the hollow cruelty of the system.

    In our time, that resistance takes many forms: educators who continue to teach truth despite political pressure; librarians who fight book bans; whistleblowers who challenge surveillance technologies; and students who organize for justice. These acts of courage and conscience remind us that obsolescence is not a matter of utility—it’s a judgment imposed by those in power, and it can be rejected.

    Rod Serling ended his episode with a reminder: “Any state, any entity, any ideology that fails to recognize the worth, the dignity, the rights of man—that state is obsolete.”

    The question now is whether we will heed the warning. In an age where authoritarianism and AI threaten to render us all obsolete, will we remember what it means to be human?

    The Higher Education Inquirer welcomes responses and reflections on how pop culture can illuminate our present crises. Contact us with your thoughts or your own essay proposals.

    Source link

  • Aerial Aviators: Helping STEM minds soar one afternoon at a time

    Aerial Aviators: Helping STEM minds soar one afternoon at a time

    After a long day of school, most kids are ready to head home—but in San Antonio, teachers across Northside Independent School District’s (NISD) several middle schools are giving them a reason to stay.

    Amanda Quick, NISD’s K–8 STEM Coordinator, organizes Aerial Aviators for the district—an out-of-school time (OST) program that skips the busy work. Instead, students are learning to fly drones, solve problems, and build real skills they can apply in school, at work, and in life. 

    The Newest OST Program Takes Off

    Middle school is when students start figuring out who they are—caught between wanting more independence and being open to new challenges. It’s also when out-of-school-time programs have the most potential to make an impact.

    “We were looking at additional afterschool STEM opportunities for our middle school students that would build upon the coding skills they learn in elementary STEM classes,” Amanda explains. “We already offered a robotics program and a solar-car design program that have been highly engaging. With all the local development that uses drones in industry, having an afterschool drone program was a natural addition.”

    In San Antonio—home to the nation’s second-largest cybersecurity hub—the answer was practically built into the landscape: drones.

    With Echo Drones in hand and a city full of real-world inspiration, NISD launched Aerial Aviators, a program that goes far beyond the basics. Students take part in flight challenges, work together on real missions, and build the kind of confidence that sticks. It’s not just about learning to fly—it’s about seeing where they’re capable of going.

    Never Leaving Relevance Up in the Air

    Even with exposure to aviation, cybersecurity, construction, and engineering, not every student saw themselves heading into those fields. Instead, many came to the afterschool program thinking drones would be fun—but not exactly tied to their future plans.

    While visiting one school’s Aerial Aviators program, Amanda noticed a girl who had more of an entrepreneurial spirit than an engineering one. “Drones don’t feel like something I can use in my future. I want to own a restaurant,” she explained.

    Despite the depth of her imagination, the girl struggled to see how drones could be connected to her ambitions. But with some critical thinking and a fresh perspective, Amanda helped her see things differently.

    “Remember the Covid pandemic? What if you didn’t have the option of using people to deliver food? How could you solve this problem to keep your business running?” 

    Suddenly, “women in STEM” took on new meaning for the girl as she realized how much her dream job depended on technology. “I could use drones!”

    Like the girl, some students had their futures already mapped out, while others hadn’t even started to imagine careers beyond what they saw through the classroom window. No matter whether the students had their sights set on adulthood, or just their afternoon, Amanda and campus program sponsors knew the right opportunity would be memorable for everyone.

    “We want kids to see drone knowledge as a skill, not just a trend. We can’t predict exactly how drones will be used in the future, but we want them to ask, ‘How does this connect to something I’m already passionate about?’”

    The goal wasn’t to change their dreams, but to mold them—and for some, to show how a STEM mindset could make those dreams more attainable.

    Skilled Students are Soaring Students

    Students don’t have to look far to see how STEM technology fuels innovation. Right in their own community, drones are elevating industries—helping strip and repaint airplanes to protect workers from harmful chemicals, and delivering medical supplies in emergencies. As students get hands-on with drones, they begin to see how industries are connected and how transferable skills—beyond coding, engineering, and tech literacy—are key to making it all happen.

    “We’re seeing a lot of students troubleshooting when they connect devices to the wrong drone,” Amanda shares. “They’re collaborating, thinking critically, communicating with peers and tech support, and developing grit—lots of it.”

    When students get the chance to lead flight challenges, they don’t just show off their skills—they gain the confidence to share what they’ve learned with others. The campus program sponsors have seen this firsthand, noting how eager the kids are to include everyone in the fun:

    “At a family event held at one of our high schools where Aerial Aviators students displayed their knowledge and skills, one mom was nervous about her child struggling or breaking something. But before she could worry too much, one student stepped up and reassured her: ‘Don’t worry! If he breaks it, we know how to fix it!’ That moment left everyone smiling.”

    Although each student has different interests, the drone program’s design and flight challenges make sure every kid feels their talents are recognized. And the results speak for themselves: 100% of students in the post-program survey said they had a great time.

    Just the Beginning

    Aerial Aviators has already made an impact on students. Even when things don’t go according to plan—like a broken propeller or a misconfigured drone—these middle schoolers stay motivated, always eager to learn from setbacks.

    Looking ahead, students are eager to deepen their STEM experience—especially through coding. Many have even expressed interest in competitions where they can showcase their skills. It’s a level of enthusiasm that educators are proud of—and one they’re ready to champion. Amanda and the campus sponsors are now exploring ways to weave these opportunities into the program, ensuring student voice continues to shape its future.

    The success of Aerial Aviators has sparked growing interest, with the program expanding from three schools last year to seven this year. With more funding, the goal is to continue this growth and reach even more students in the year ahead.

    No matter how the program evolves, it’s leaving a lasting legacy with the students—whether they’re back in class, opening their own restaurant, applying to college, or building with friends. Equipped with critical 21st century skills, these kids will step into high school, careers, and society as inspired leaders, ready to lend a hand so everyone’s dreams can take flight.

    More Out of School Time Resources

    Source link

  • Week in review: Trump administration targets Chinese student visas

    Week in review: Trump administration targets Chinese student visas

    Most clicked-on story from last week: 

    House Republicans passed — by one vote — a massive spending bill backed by President Donald Trump with heavy implications for higher education. Among other proposals, it would raise and expand the endowment tax, introduce a risk-sharing program that would put colleges on the hook for unpaid student debt, nix subsidized loans and narrow eligibility for Pell Grants. Many expect the Senate to make changes to the bill.

    Number of the week

     

    7

    That’s how many regional branch campuses Pennsylvania State University is set to close after a 25-8 vote by its trustee board. The plan will pare down the university’s commonwealth campuses to 13 to cope with demographic declines and budget pressure. Detractors said the decision was made too hastily, ignored some campuses’ recent progress and could hurt the state’s rural areas.

    Trump administration updates:

    • The Trump administration aims to “aggressively revoke visas for Chinese students” while ramping up scrutiny and changing criteria for student visa applications from China and Hong Kong, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Wednesday. With nearly 278,000 students from China studying in the U.S. during the 2023-24 academic year, the move could have a steep impact on U.S. colleges.
    • Sixteen states sued the National Science Foundation over the agency’s 15% cap on indirect research costs and its mass termination of grants related to diversity, equity and other topics. The states’ colleges “will not be able to maintain essential research infrastructure and will be forced to significantly scale back or halt research, abandon numerous projects, and lay off staff,” plaintiffs said in their complaint. 
    • The Trump administration plans to cut Harvard University’s remaining federal contracts, amounting to about $100 million. An official with the U.S. General Services Administration cited what he alleged was “Harvard’s lack of commitment to nondiscrimination and our national values and priorities.” The salvo is the latest in the federal government’s escalating battle with the Ivy League institution. 

    Texas legislators look to tighten control of colleges:

    • The Texas House approved a bill that would give the state’s regents — who are appointed by the governor — the power to recommend required courses at public colleges and to reject courses deemed too biased or ideological. Regents would also gain approval authority over the hiring of administrators. 
    • Another bill approved by the House would limit where and how students can protest on campuses. The Texas House and Senate are working to resolve their differences over the bill, according to The Texas Tribune. 

    Quote of the week:

    “There’s a bit of anxiousness among accreditors and institutions and state legislators because of the uncertainty. Is it that they are intentionally being vague or general until they can work out all of the nuances of the policies that they want to implement? I can tell you, less is not more in this situation.”

    That’s Cynthia Jackson Hammond, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation, on the effects of Trump’s executive order on college accreditation.

    Source link

  • College parents speak out in new survey: Weekly updates, mental health info and more access needed

    College parents speak out in new survey: Weekly updates, mental health info and more access needed

    As colleges nationwide double down on enrollment, retention, and student success strategies, one key voice is becoming harder to ignore: the family. According to the 2025 Current Families Report released by CampusESP, families want more updates, more access, and more say in the college journey, and they’re increasingly dissatisfied when they don’t get it. In addition, when parents do receive the information they need to support their student, research shows significant gains in student yield and retention.

    The survey, conducted across 81 colleges and universities and with more than 32,000 parents and supporters of current students, is the most comprehensive look at family engagement to date. And the findings are impossible to miss.

    Mental health, money, and mentorship

    Nearly half of all parents talk to their student daily, with the number jumping to over 60% for low-income and first-generation households. These families aren’t just chatting about weekend plans — they’re offering support on mental health (53%), academic advice (57%), and student life (69%).

    “Parents aren’t bystanders — they’re active advisors,” says the report. “And they need the right tools to guide their students.”

    Communication expectations are high

    A staggering 77% of families want to hear from their student’s college weekly or more, up 12% in just four years. While email is still the go-to channel, the demand for text messaging is surging, especially among Black, Hispanic, low-income, and first-gen families.

    However, a gap remains: 48% of families prefer text, but only 28% of colleges offer it.

    Trust wavers without transparency

    Families are becoming more skeptical about the return on their tuition investment. Only 59% say college is worth the cost — a sharp drop from 77% the year before. Their #1 request? More info on career services and job placement, which ironically ranked lowest in satisfaction.

    Families want in, but feel left out

    Even when they receive a high number of communications from their student’s college, families still feel sidelined. Just 46% are satisfied with their opportunities to get involved on campus, down from 63% last year. And only 30% feel they have good ways to connect with other families.

    Yet the desire is there: 38% want to be more involved, and 22% say they’re more likely to donate to their student’s college than their own alma mater.

    Financial aid frustration runs deep

    Navigating costs is a pain point. 59% say it’s hard to pay for college, and only 25% found financial aid information easy to understand.

    And with confusion comes attempts at self-education. Nearly half of families rely on their student’s login to access key financial records—posing serious data privacy concerns.

    The report confirms what many enrollment leaders have long suspected: families aren’t just part of the support system — they are the support system. The challenge for institutions? Reaching them with the right information, in the right format, at the right time.

    “Family engagement isn’t optional — it’s a strategic advantage,” the report concludes.

    Download the full 2025 Current Families Report from CampusESP to explore the findings and access actionable strategies for turning family influence into institutional success.

    Source link

  • Fake Citations Appeared in Federal Chronic Diseases Report

    Fake Citations Appeared in Federal Chronic Diseases Report

    The Department of Health and Human Services cited fake publications in a report on children’s health issues issued last week, The New York Times reported. 

    The Make America Healthy Again Commission claims its report—which blamed chronic disease in children on ultraprocessed foods, pesticides, lack of physical activity and excessive use of prescription drugs, including antidepressants—was produced with a “clear, evidence-based foundation.”

    However, some of the researchers it cited said they didn’t write the papers the report attributed to them. 

    In one example, the report cited a paper on the link between mental health and substance use in adolescents by Katherine Keyes, an epidemiology professor at Columbia University. But Keyes told the Times that she didn’t write the paper. And no paper by the title cited—written by anyone—appears to exist at all. 

    The report cited another paper about psychiatric medications and advertising that was allegedly published in 2009 in The Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology by “Findling, R. L., et al.” But the Times confirmed that Robert L. Findling, who is a psychiatry professor at the University of Virginia, did not author the paper. 

    The newspaper also found numerous other instances of mischaracterized or inaccurate summaries of research papers. 

    After both the Times and NOTUS reported on the false citations Thursday, the White House promptly updated the report with corrections. In response to questions from reporters about whether generative artificial intelligence—which is notorious for “hallucinating” information and failing to provide accurate citations—was used to produce the errant report, Emily Hilliard, a spokesperson for HHS, did not provide an answer.

    Instead, she characterized the false citations as “minor citation and formatting errors,” according to the Times, and doubled down on the report’s “substance” as “a historic and transformative assessment by the federal government to understand the chronic-disease epidemic afflicting our nation’s children.”

    Source link

  • Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

    Accelerating Innovation From Lab to Market (opinion)

    American universities are dynamic engines of deep technological innovation (deep tech), responding to a growing demand for STEM research innovations that can reach the market quickly and at scale. In order to remain competitive in a fast-moving global scientific landscape and strengthen national research dominance, universities need to accelerate their innovation outputs by shortening the time it takes for research products from graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields to reach the market, while providing these early-career researchers with the necessary mentorship and resources needed to translate their academic research projects into high-impact startup companies. By targeting these highly qualified scientists at the juncture of innovative university research and entrepreneurial ambition, we can more effectively advance academic research discoveries from early-career STEM talent into commercially viable new companies (NewCos) at scale.

    To fully capitalize on this immense potential, America must transcend the current national innovation paradigms. We argue that our nation’s global leadership in science and technology could be maintained through strategically scaled and nationally coordinated approaches to innovation, including cross-cutting and cross-sectoral approaches. Additionally, to retain American scientific and technological leadership on the global stage, we must confront the inherent risks of deep tech ventures head-on and decisively maximize our national “shots on goal,” which can lead to developing a truly robust and self-sustaining innovation ecosystem.

    A Scalable Model for National STEM Innovation

    The foundation of a new American innovation model lies in the urgent creation of new and effective cross-sectoral partnerships involving universities, industry, government and philanthropic players. Existing models supporting American innovation rely heavily on public seed funding, which, while valuable, often falls short in meeting the needs for the capital-intensive process of commercializing deep tech ventures from university lab research. Historically, the federal government has borne much of the early risk for deep tech company formation such as through the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs, administered by agencies including the Department of Defense, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.

    These programs have served as important launchpads for many academic entrepreneurs, including early-career scientists. However, early-phase SBIR/STTR grants typically range around $150,000 for durations of six months to one year. While this funding provides critical seed capital, it represents only a fraction of the substantial investment required for R&D, prototyping and market validation for deep tech ventures. Compounding this challenge, the acceptance rate for SBIR grants has declined sharply, from approximately 30 percent in 2001 to just 10 percent in 2024 in some sectors, further straining the pipeline necessary for deep tech innovation.

    Current federally focused financial support systems are falling short. Start-up success rates remain low, and private venture capital is unlikely to close the funding gap, especially for university-based early-career scientists. As competition for SBIR funding intensifies and global venture capital investment drops by 30 percent, America’s scientific and technological competitiveness is at risk without stronger shared-risk models and expanded backing for academic innovation.

    In today’s highly commercialized and globally competitive research landscape, the quality and quantity of start-ups emerging from academic labs are critical parameters for developing the next generation of entrepreneurs. A strong pipeline of NewCos enables more innovations to be tested in real-world markets, increasing the chances that transformative companies will succeed and attract external investment from industry. To meet this challenge, America needs a bold vision focused on maximizing national shots on goal through strategic scaling, proactive risk management and innovative risk-sharing models. This framework must not only rely on investment from the federal government but also from a strategically blended funding model that includes state and local governments, industry, philanthropy, venture capital, mission-driven investors, and other nontraditional funding sources.

    A nationally coordinated cross-sector pooled NewCo fund, supported by federal agencies, universities, industry, philanthropy, private equity and venture capital, partnering together, is essential for rapidly advancing national innovation at scale.

    This idea is not unique to us; it has been proposed in Europe and Australia and has been part of the science policy conversation for some time. However, the current historical moment in American science offers a unique opportunity to move from conversation to action.

    Impacts of Research Funding Cuts

    This year, significant reductions in federal funding for R&D at multiple federal agencies have posed substantial challenges to universities striving to remain global-leading STEM innovation hubs. Reductions in staff at the NSF have implications for SBIR programs, which rely on robust institutional support and agency capacity to guide early-stage innovation effectively. In addition, proposed reductions in indirect cost reimbursements for grantees at multiple agencies including NIH, DOD, NSF and the Department of Energy may also pose a challenge to research institutions and resulting start-ups in covering essential overhead expenses, impacting the transition of federally-funded research from labs to market-ready applications.

    An Updated Framework

    The national shots on goal framework is a potential remedy to the currently changing landscape imposed by federal science funding cuts. By emphasizing public-private-philanthropic partnerships, scaled seed investments and improved use of existing infrastructure within universities, this framework can help mitigate the impact of research funding cuts at federal agencies on early-career researchers.

    This framework can be especially impactful for graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields whose scientific projects, entrepreneurial endeavors and research careers require robust and sustained federal support from multiple funding sources over a longer period of time. It also allows universities to maintain and expand deep tech innovation without relying solely on federal agency funding.

    For example, targeted one-year investments of $200,000 per NewCo can provide an essential and low-risk commercialization runway, similar in scale to the NIH R21 program. This fund would be sustained through contributions from a broad coalition of federal agencies, philanthropies, state governments, regional industries, universities and venture and private equity partners. By distributing risk across the ecosystem and focusing on returns from a growing pipeline of NewCos, this coordinated effort could partially counteract the losses sustained by the research enterprise as a result of federal agency funding cuts and accelerate university-driven scientific innovation nationwide.

    To support the long-term sustainability of these start-up companies, a portion of national NewCo funds could be reinvested in traditional and emerging markets, including crypto. This would help grow the NewCo funds over time and de-risk a pipeline of start-ups led by early-career scientists pursuing high-risk research.

    A Pilot Program

    To validate the national shots on goal vision, we propose a targeted pilot program initially focused on graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields pursuing NewCo formation at select U.S. land-grant universities. Land-grant universities, which are vital hubs for STEM research innovation, workforce development and regional workforce growth, are uniquely positioned to lead this effort. Below, we suggest a few elements of effective pilot programs, bringing together ideas for outreach, partnerships, funding and relevant STEM expertise.

    • Dedicated, national risk-mitigating funding pool: To minimize capital risk, provide one-year seed grants of $200,000, along with subsidized or free access to core facilities. By the end of the year, each venture must secure external funding from the commercial sector, such as venture capital, or it will be discontinued, given that follow-on support cannot come from additional federal grants or the seed fund itself.
    • Targeted, risk-aware STEM outreach and recruitment: Implement a national outreach campaign explicitly targeting STEM graduate students and postdoctoral researchers at land-grant universities, highlighting risk-managed opportunities and participation pathways. Industry and philanthropic partners should be included in outreach and recruitment steps, and promote projects that meet high-priority industrial and/or philanthropic R&D strategic interests.
    • Specialized, STEM-oriented risk management–focused support network: Develop a tailored mentorship network leveraging STEM expertise within land-grant universities. The network should include alumni with entrepreneurial talent and economic development partners. It should also include training for academic scientists on risk modeling and corporate strategy, and actively incorporate industry experts and philanthropists.
    • Earmarked funding for STEM-based graduate and postdoctoral programs: In addition to the above, new funding streams should be specifically allocated to graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in STEM fields. This framework would grant them an intensive year of subsidized financial support and access to the university’s core facilities, along with support from business experts and technology transfer professionals to help them launch a company ready for external venture funding within one year. Critically, during this process, the university where academic research was conducted should take no equity or intellectual property stake in a newly formed company based on this research.
    • Rigorous, risk-adjusted evaluation and iteration framework: Establish a robust national evaluation framework to track venture progress, measure performance and iteratively refine the framework based on data-driven insights and feedback loops to optimize risk mitigation.
    • Leverage existing programs to maximize efficiency and avoid duplication: Entrepreneurial talent and research excellence are nationally distributed, but opportunity is not. Select federal programs and initiatives can help level the playing field and dramatically expand STEM opportunities nationwide. For example, the NSF I-Corps National Innovation Network provides a valuable collaborative framework for expanding lab-to-market opportunities nationwide through the power of industry engagement.
    • Prioritize rapid deep tech commercialization through de-risking models that attract early-stage venture and private equity: Transformative multisector funding models can unlock NewCo formation nationwide by combining public investment with private and philanthropic capital. The Deshpande Center at MIT demonstrates this approach, offering one-year seed grants of $100,000, with renewal opportunities based on progress. These early investments can help deep tech entrepreneurs tackle complex challenges, manage early risk and attract commercial funding. ARPA-E’s tech-to-market model similarly integrates commercialization support early on. Additionally, the mechanism of shared user facilities at DOE national labs reduces R&D costs by providing subsidized access to advanced infrastructure for academic researchers in universities, thereby supporting the formation of NewCos through strong public-private partnerships.
    • Bridge the academic-industry gap: Given the central role of universities in national innovation, building commercially viable deep tech ventures requires bridging the science-business gap through integrated, campus-based STEM ecosystems. This requires strengthening internal university connections by connecting science departments with business schools, embedding training in risk modeling and corporate strategy and fostering cross-disciplinary collaboration. These efforts will support the creation of successful start-ups and equip the next generation of scientists with skills in disruptive and inclusive innovation.

    Conclusion

    As American scientific innovation continues to advance, this moment presents an opportunity to rethink how we can best support and scale deep tech ventures resulting in start-up companies emerging from university research labs. In the face of federal funding cuts and ongoing barriers to rapid commercialization at scale within universities, these institutions must adopt bold thinking, forge innovative partnerships and exhibit a greater willingness to experiment with new models of innovation.

    By harnessing the strengths of land-grant universities, deploying innovative funding strategies and driving cross-disciplinary collaboration, we can build a more resilient and globally competitive national research and innovation ecosystem.

    Adriana Bankston is an AAAS/ASGCT Congressional Policy Fellow, currently working to support sustained federal research funding in the U.S. House of Representatives. She holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry, cell and developmental biology from Emory University and is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Michael W. Nestor is board director of the Government-University-Industry-Philanthropy Research Roundtable at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. He directed the Human Neural Stem Cell Research Lab at the Hussman Institute for Autism, where his work led to the founding of start-ups Synapstem and Autica Bio, and contributed to early-stage biotech commercialization at Johnson & Johnson Innovation–JLABS. He holds a Ph.D. in neuroscience from the University of Maryland School of Medicine and completed postdoctoral training at the NIH and the New York Stem Cell Foundation.

    The views expressed by the authors of this article do not represent the views of their organizations and are written in a personal capacity.

    Source link

  • Securing the Future: The case for Pension Reform in Post-92 Institutions

    Securing the Future: The case for Pension Reform in Post-92 Institutions

    • By Fiona Hnatow, Chief People Officer at the University of Portsmouth.

    In an era of mounting financial pressures across the UK higher education sector, the University of Portsmouth has not been immune to these difficulties. However, through considered efficiency programmes and an innovative approach to pension reform, we are emerging from the initial financial pressures into a stronger and sustainable position.  As one of the largest Post-92 institutions in the UK, the University plays a vital role in the local and national economy. With nearly 4,000 staff and 29,000 students, 6,000 of whom are international, the University is not only a major employer in the Solent region but also a hub of innovation, research and global engagement.

    In 2024 alone, the University contributed an impressive £1.4 billion to the UK economy, including £658 million in the Solent region and £505 million in Portsmouth, supporting over 8,800 jobs locally. These figures underscore the University’s critical role in regional development and its broader impact on the national landscape.

    By early 2023, it became increasingly clear that the UK higher education sector was heading towards a financial crisis. A combination of declining undergraduate and international student applications, rising utility and employment costs and inflexible pension obligations created a perfect storm, particularly for Post-92 universities.

    One of the most significant financial burdens facing these institutions is the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS). Mandated by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, Post-92 universities are required to offer TPS to all academic staff, with no option to opt out. In contrast, non-Post-92 institutions can offer alternative schemes, such as the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which carry significantly lower employer contribution rates.

    As of April 2025, TPS employer contributions rose from 23.68% to 28.68%. This means that employing an academic on a £50,000 salary now costs Post-92 institutions nearly £9,000 more per year than their competitors. With further increases projected in 2026, the financial strain is only expected to intensify.

    The Reset Programme: A Strategic Pivot

    Recognising the urgency of the situation, the University of Portsmouth launched its ‘Reset’ programme in early 2023. This comprehensive initiative was designed to reduce both staff and non-staff costs, streamline operations and build a digitally enabled, efficient institution. The goal: to ensure both operational and financial sustainability in the face of unprecedented challenges.

    The Reset programme introduced a series of targeted workstreams over an 18-month period, including:

    • Creation of a staffing subsidiary (UASL) to employ new staff under a more affordable pension scheme.
    • Voluntary Severance Scheme to reduce the need for compulsory redundancies.
    • Enhanced vacancy management, filling only business-critical roles.
    • Non-pay budget reductions, including cuts to travel, training, printing, and consumables.
    • Removal of budget contingencies during annual planning.
    • Policy changes to limit professional accreditation and subscription costs.
    • Professional services reviews to centralise functions and reduce staffing levels.
    • Academic restructuring, including faculty mergers and rebalancing student/staff ratios.
    • Contracted services reviews to improve value for money.
    • Student retention initiatives to reduce withdrawals and protect tuition income.

    UASL: A Bold and Necessary Innovation

    In August 2024, the University launched University of Portsmouth Academic Services Limited (UASL), a wholly owned subsidiary created to employ new academic and professional services staff. While maintaining existing terms and conditions, UASL introduced a new Defined Contribution (DC) pension scheme through Aviva, offering a 12% employer contribution for permanent staff and 6% for casual staff. Additionally, the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) scheme was introduced for casual workers, primarily students.

    This move was not taken lightly as the University recognises how important pensions are to attract and retain staff. However, it was essential to avoid the unsustainable costs associated with TPS and the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). Importantly, all staff employed before August 2024 retained their existing pension arrangements, helping to maintain strong relationships with unions such as UCU and Unison.

    The TPS, and its statutory imposition on Post-92 providers, is a throwback to when institutions like the University of Portsmouth, as former polytechnics, were administered by their local authority. At the time, it made sense. But in the thirty years since we achieved full University status, it has become impossible to justify the retention of this outdated system. It is clear that those bodies responsible for setting and monitoring higher education funding, who are admittedly not known for their responsiveness, have failed to adapt to the realities of the higher education landscape. When vast swathes of the sector are faced with a worsening financial position, many of those being post-92 institutions, it is baffling that this outdated system remains to hinder determined efforts to manage institutional finances.

    The results have been significant. In 2024/25 alone, the University is on track to save over £1 million, with projected savings rising to £2.8 million in 2025/26 and £4.4 million in 2026/27. Moreover, the new pension schemes have proven attractive, particularly to early-career professionals, international staff, and those on lower salaries—groups that had previously opted out of TPS due to affordability concerns.

    Balancing Innovation with Risk

    While the creation of UASL has delivered substantial financial benefits, it has also introduced new challenges. Notably, Research England and UKRI have begun placing restrictions on the eligibility of subsidiary-employed academics for research funding and participation in the Research Excellence Framework (REF). This poses a significant risk to the University’s research ambitions and its ability to compete on a national and global scale.

    Despite these concerns, the University had to weigh the risks of innovation against the very real threat of insolvency. Without decisive action, the financial outlook would have been dire. In 2023/24, the University had budgeted for an income of £321 million but achieved only £304 million, resulting in a £9.2 million deficit—despite achieving £19.7 million in Resetsavings. For 2024/25, the budgeted income is £290.5 million, with a projected deficit of £2.9 million, inclusive of £24 million in planned savings.

    A Call for Sector-Wide Reform

    The University of Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. Many Post-92 institutions across the UK are being forced to consider similar measures, simply to remain viable. In Scotland, the government has stepped in to support institutions facing equivalent pension cost increases, highlighting the uneven playing field across the UK.

    The University is now calling on the Department for Education and the UK Treasury to reform elements of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 that tie Universities to an outdated, restrictive and overly costly pension scheme and advocates for greater flexibility in pension arrangements. Such reform would allow institutions to manage their finances more effectively, attract and retain top talent, and avoid widespread job losses and regional economic disruption. Our view is that it is wholly unfair that the Government have subsidised schools and further education colleges in England to compensate for the rising cost of TPS, yet Higher Education Institutions have not.

    Conclusion: Leading Through Change

    The University of Portsmouth has demonstrated that with strategic foresight, bold decision-making, and a commitment to collaboration, it is possible to navigate even the most challenging financial landscapes. However, we continue to advocate that reform is urgently needed for the good of the sector as a whole, to ensure long-term sustainability.

    Source link