Blog

  • Effective regulation requires a degree of trust

    Effective regulation requires a degree of trust

    At one point in my career, I was the CEO of a students’ union who’d been charged with attempting to tackle a culture of initiation ceremonies in sports clubs.

    One day a legal letter appeared on my desk – the jist of which was “you can’t punish these people if they didn’t know the rules”.

    We trawled back through the training and policy statements – and found moments where we’d made clear that not only did we not permit initiation ceremonies, we’d defined them as follows:

    An initiation ceremony is any event at which members of a group are expected to perform an activity as a means of gaining credibility, status or entry into that group. This peer pressure is normally (though not explicitly) exerted on first-year students or new members and may involve the consumption of alcohol, eating various foodstuffs, nudity and other behaviour that may be deemed humiliating or degrading.

    The arguments being advanced were fourfold. The first was that where we had drawn the line between freedom to have fun and harmful behaviour, both in theory and in practice, was wrong.

    The second was that we’d not really enforced anything like this before, and appeared to be wanting to make an example out of a group of students over which a complaint had been raised.

    They said that we’d failed to both engender understanding of where the line was that we were setting for those running sports clubs, and failed to make clear expectations over enforcing that line.

    And given there been no intent to cause harm, it was put to us that the focus on investigations and publishments, rather than support to clubs to organise safe(er) social activity, was both disproportionate and counter-productive.

    And so to the South coast

    I’ve been thinking quite a bit about that affair in the context of the Office for Students (OfS) decision to fine the University of Sussex some £585k over both policy and governance failings identified during its three-year investigation into free speech at Sussex.

    One of the things that you can debate endlessly – and there’s been plenty of it on the site – is where you draw the line between freedom to speak and freedom from harm.

    That’s partly because even if you have an objective of securing an environment characterised by academic freedom and freedom of speech, if you don’t take steps to cause students to feel safe, there can be a silencing effect – which at least in theory there’s quite a bit of evidence on (including inside the Office for Students).

    You can also argue that the “make an example of them” thing is unfair – but ever since a copper stopped me on the M4 doing 85mph one afternoon, I’ve been reminded of the old “you can’t prove your innocence by proving others’ guilt” line.

    Four days after OfS says it “identified reports” about an “incident” at the University of Sussex, then Director of Compliance and Student Protection Susan Lapworth took to the stage at Independent HE’s conference to signal a pivot from registration to enforcement.

    She noted that the statutory framework gave OfS powers to investigate cases where it was concerned about compliance, and to enforce compliance with conditions where it found a breach.

    She signalled that that could include requiring a provider to do something, or not do something, to fix a breach; the imposition of a monetary penalty; the suspension of registration; and the deregistration of a provider if that proved necessary.

    “That all sounds quite fierce”, she said. “But we need to understand which of these enforcement tools work best in which circumstances.” And, perhaps more importantly “what we want to achieve in using them – what’s the purpose of being fierce?”

    The answer was that OfS wanted to create incentives for all providers to comply with their conditions of registration:

    For example, regulators assume that imposing a monetary penalty on one provider will result in all the others taking steps to comply without the regulator needing to get involved.

    That was an “efficient way” to secure compliance across a whole sector, particularly for a regulator like OfS that “deliberately doesn’t re-check compliance for every provider periodically”.

    Even if you agree with the principle, you can argue that it’s pretty much failed at that over the intervening years – which is arguably why the £585k fine has come as so much of a shock.

    But it’s the other two aspects of that initiation thing – the understanding one and the character of interventions one – that I’ve also been thinking about this week in the context of the Sussex fine.

    Multiple roles

    On The Wonkhe Show, Public First’s Jonathon Simons worries about OfS’ multiple roles:

    If the Office for Students is acting in essentially a quasi-judicial capacity, they can’t, under that role, help one of the parties in a case try to resolve things. You can’t employ a judge to try and help you. But if they are also trying to regulate in the student interest, then they absolutely can and should be working with universities to try and help them navigate this – rather than saying, no, we think we know what the answer is, but you just have to keep on revising your policy, and at some point we may or may not tell you got it right.

    It’s a fair point. Too much intervention, and OfS appears compromised when enforcing penalties. Too little, and universities struggle to meet shifting expectations – ultimately to the detriment of students.

    As such, you might argue that OfS ought to draw firmer lines between its advisory and enforcement functions – ensuring institutions receive the necessary support to comply while safeguarding the integrity of its regulatory oversight. At the very least, maybe it should choose who fronts out which bits – rather than its topic style “here’s our Director for X that will both advise and crack down. ”

    But it’s not as if OfS doesn’t routinely combine advice and crack down – its access and participation function does just that. There’s a whole research spin-off dedicated to what works, extensive advice on risks to access and participation and what ought to be in its APPs, and most seem to agree that the character of that team is appropriately balanced in its plan approval and monitoring processes – even if I sometimes worry that poor performance in those plans is routinely going unpunished.

    And that’s not exactly rare. The Regulator’s Code seeks to promote “proportionate, consistent and targeted regulatory activity” through the development of “transparent and effective dialogue and understanding” between regulators and those they regulate. Sussex says that throughout the long investigation, OfS refused to meet in person – confirmed by Arif Ahmed in the press briefing.

    The Code also says that regulators should carry out their activities in a way that “supports those they regulate to comply” – and there’s good reasons for that. The original Code actually came from something called the Hampton Report – in 2004’s Budget, Gordon Brown tasked businessman Philip Hampton with reviewing regulatory inspection and enforcement, and it makes the point about example-setting:

    The penalty regime should aim to have an effective deterrent effect on those contemplating illegal activity. Lower penalties result in weak deterrents, and can even leave businesses with a commercial benefit from illegal activity. Lower penalties also require regulators to carry out more inspection, because there are greater incentives for companies to break the law if they think they can escape the regulator’s attention. Higher penalties can, to some extent, improve compliance and reduce the number of inspections required.”

    But the review also noted that regulators were often slow, could be ineffective in targeting persistent offenders, and that the structure of some regulators, particularly local authorities, made effective action difficult. And some of that was about a failure to use risk-based regulation:

    The 1992 book Responsive Regulation, by Ian Ayres and John Braithwaite, was influential in defining an ‘enforcement pyramid’, up which regulators would progress depending on the seriousness of the regulatory risk, and the non-compliance of the regulated business. Ayres and Braithwaite believed that regulatory compliance was best secured by persuasion in the first instance, with inspection, enforcement notices and penalties being used for more risky businesses further up the pyramid.

    The pyramid game

    Responsive Regulation is a cracking book if you’re into that sort of thing. Its pyramid illustrates how regulators can escalate their responses from persuasion to punitive measures based on the behaviour of the regulated entities:

    In one version of the compliance pyramid, four broad categories of client (called archetypes) are defined by their underlying motivational postures:

    1. The disengaged clients who have decided not to comply,
    2. The resistant clients who don’t want to comply,
    3. The captured clients who try to comply, but don’t always succeed, and
    4. The accommodating clients who are willing to do the right thing.

    Sussex has been saying all week that it’s been either 3 or 4, but does seem to have been treated like it’s 1 or 2.

    As such, Responsive Regulation argues that regulators should aim to balance the encouragement of voluntary compliance with the necessity of enforcement – and of course that balance is one of the central themes emerging in the Sussex case, with VC Sacha Roseneil taking to PoliticsHome to argue that:

    …Our experience reflects closely the [Lords’ Industry and Regulators] committee’s observations that it “gives the impression that it is seeking to punish rather than support providers towards compliance, while taking little note of their views.” The OfS has indeed shown itself to be “arbitrary, overly controlling and unnecessarily combative”, to be failing to deliver value for money and is not focusing on the urgent problem of the financial sustainability of the sector.

    At roughly the same time as the Hampton Report, Richard Macrory – one of the leading environmental lawyers of his generation – was tasked by the Cabinet Office to lead a review on regulatory sanctions covering 60 national regulators, as well as local authorities.

    His key principle was that sanctions should aim to change offender behaviour by ensuring future compliance and potentially altering organisational culture. He also argued they should be responsive and appropriate to the offender and issue, ensure proportionality to the offence and harm caused, and act as a deterrent to discourage future non-compliance.

    To get there, he called for regulators to have a published policy for transparency and consistency, to justify their actions annually, and that the calculation of administrative penalties should be clear.

    These are also emerging as key issues in the Sussex case – Roseneil argues that the fine is “wholly disproportionate” and that OfS abandoned, without any explanation, most of its provisional findings originally communicated in 2014.

    The Macory and Hampton reviews went on to influence the UK Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, codifying the Ayres and Braithwaite Compliance Pyramid into law via the Regulator’s Code. The current version also includes a duty to ensure clear information, guidance and advice is available to help those they regulate meet their responsibilities to comply – and that’s been on my mind too.

    Knowing the rules and expectations

    The Code says that regulators should provide clear, accessible, and concise guidance using appropriate media and plain language for their audience. It says they should consult those they regulate to ensure guidance meets their needs, and create an environment where regulated entities can seek advice without fear of enforcement.

    It also says that advice should be reliable and aimed at supporting compliance, with mechanisms in place for collaboration between regulators. And where multiple regulators are involved, they should consider each other’s advice and resolve disagreements through discussion.

    That’s partly because Hampton had argued that advice should be a central part of a regulators’ function:

    Advice reduces the risk of non-compliance, and the easier the advice is to access, and the more specific the advice is to the business, the more the risk of non-compliance is reduced.

    Hampton argued that regulatory complexity creates an unmet need for advice:

    Advice is needed because the regulatory environment is so complex, but the very complexity of the regulatory environment can cause business owners to give up on regulations and ‘just do their best’.

    He said that regulators should prioritise advice over inspections:

    The review has some concerns that regulators prioritise inspection over advice. Many of the regulators that spoke to the review saw advice as important, but not as a priority area for funding.”

    And he argued that advice builds trust and compliance without excessive enforcement:

    Staff tend to see their role as securing business compliance in the most effective way possible – an approach the review endorses – and in most cases, this means helping business rather than punishing non-compliance.

    If we cast our minds back to 2011, despite the obvious emerging complexities in freedom from speech, OfS had in fact done very little to offer anything resembling advice – either on the Public Interest Governance Principles at stake in the Sussex case, or on the interrelationship between them and issues of EDI and harassment.

    Back in 2018, a board paper had promised, in partnership with the government and other regulators, an interactive event to encourage better understanding of the regulatory landscape – that would bring leaders in the sector together to “showcase projects and initiatives that are tackling these challenges”, experience “knowledge sharing sessions”, and the opportunity for attendees to “raise and discuss pressing issues with peers from across the sector”.

    The event was eventually held – in not very interactive form – in December 2022.

    Reflecting on a previous Joint Committee on Human Rights report, the board paper said that it was “clear that the complexity created by various forms of guidance and regulation is not serving the student interest”, and that OfS could “facilitate better sharing of best practice whilst keeping itself apprised of emerging issues.”

    I’m not aware of any activity to that end by October 2021 – and even though OfS consulted on draft guidance surrounding the “protect” duty last year, it’s been blocking our FOI attempts to see the guidance it was set to issue when implementation was paused ever since, despite us arguing that it would have been helpful for providers to see how it was interpreting the balancing acts we know are often required when looking at all the legislation and case law.

    The board paper also included a response to the JCHR that said it would be helpful to report on free speech prompted by a change in the risk profile in how free speech is upheld. Nothing to that end appeared by 2021 and still hasn’t unless we count a couple of Arif Ahmed speeches.

    Finally, the paper said that it was “not planning to name and shame providers” where free speech had been suppressed, but would publish regulatory action and the reasons for it where there had been a breach of registration condition E2.

    Either there’s been plenty of less serious interventions without any promised signals to the sector, or for all of the sound and fury about the issue in the media, there really haven’t been any cases to write home about other than Sussex since.

    Willing, but ready and able?

    The point about all of that – at least in this piece – is that it’s actually perfectly OK for a regulator to both advise and judge.

    It isn’t so much to evaluate whether the fine or the process has been fair, and it’s not to suggest that the regulator shouldn’t be deploying the “send an example to promote compliance” tactic.

    But it is to say that it’s obvious that those should be used in a properly risk-based context – and where there’s recognised complexity, the very least it should do is offer clear advice. It’s very hard to see how that function has been fulfilled thus far.

    In the OECD paper Reducing the Risk to Policy Failure: Challenges for Regulatory Compliance, regulation is supposed to be about ensuring that those regulated are ready, willing and able to comply:

    • Ready means clients who know what compliance is – and if there’s a knowledge constraint, there’s a duty to educate and exemplify. It’s not been done.
    • Able means clients who are able to comply – and if there’s a capability constraint, there’s a duty to enable and empower. That’s not been done either.
    • Willing means clients who want to comply – and if there’s an attitudinal constraint, there’s a duty to “engage, encourage [and then] enforce”.

    It’s hard to see how “engage” or “encourage” have been done – either by October 2021 or to date.

    And so it does look like an assumption on the part of the regulator – that providers and SUs arguing complexity have been being disingenuous, and so aren’t willing to secure free speech – is what has led to the record fine in the Sussex case.

    If that’s true, evidence-free assumptions of that sort are what will destroy the sort of trust that underpins effective regulation in the student interest.

    Source link

  • Cal State is Automatically Admitting High School Students With Good Grades – The 74

    Cal State is Automatically Admitting High School Students With Good Grades – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    More than 17,400 high school seniors last fall got the sweetest news any anxious student can get: Congratulations, because of your high school GPA, you’re automatically admitted to one of 10 California State University campuses of your choice — and they’re all relatively affordable.

    Even with less than a week to go before the campuses wrap their final decisions about whom to admit, a pilot program focusing on Riverside County is already showing that more students have been admitted from the county than last year, about 10,600 so far in 2025 compared to last year’s roughly 9,800.

    The pilot builds on Cal State’s efforts to enroll more students and works like this: High school seniors receive a notice in the mail that they’re automatically admitted as long as they maintain their grades, finish the 15 mandatory courses necessary for admission to a Cal State, and complete an admissions form to claim their spot at a campus. Cal State was able to mail the notices because it signed an agreement with the Riverside County Office of Education that gave the university eligible students’ addresses.

    Now in the program’s first year, Cal State joins other public universities across the country in a growing national movement to automatically admit eligible students. From November through January, Cal State informed students they were accepted to the 10 campuses. To claim a spot, students needed to go online and pick at least one campus.

    If past admissions and enrollment trends hold, Cal State as a system will educate hundreds of more students, all from Riverside, than they would have without the pilot. That’d be a boon for a system that prides itself on its affordability and motto that it’s the people’s university; Cal State admits a far higher percentage of students than the University of California. It also could serve as a much-needed budget boost from the extra tuition revenue those students bring, especially at campuses with sinking enrollment.

    Eight campuses — Channel Islands, Chico, East Bay, Humboldt, Maritime Academy, Monterey Bay, San Francisco​, and Sonoma — are so under-enrolled that Cal State is pulling some of their state revenues to send to campuses that are still growing. Cal Maritime is soon merging with another campus because of its perilous finances. The pilot also includes the two closest campuses to the county, San Bernardino and San Marcos.

    The system chose Riverside County because all of its public high school students were already loaded onto a state data platform that can directly transmit student grades to Cal State — a key step in creating automatic admissions. Riverside is also “ethnically and economically representative of the diversity of California — many of the students the CSU is so proud to serve,” a spokesperson for the system, Amy Bentley Smith, wrote in an email.

    At Heritage High School, a public school in Riverside County, the pilot encouraged students who previously didn’t even consider attending a public four-year university to submit the automatic admission forms to a Cal State.

    Silvia Morales, a 17-year-old senior at Heritage, got an automatic admissions letter. “I was pretty set on going to community college and then transferring, because I felt like I wasn’t ready for the four-year commitment to a college,” she said.

    Even with a 3.0 GPA, higher than the 2.5 GPA Cal State requires for admission, she nearly didn’t submit the forms to secure her admission until early January. That’s well past the standard Nov. 30 admissions deadline.

    It wasn’t until her counselor, Chris Tinajero, pulled her into a meeting that she decided to opt into the pilot. “I went through the sales pitch like, ‘Hey, you get this guaranteed admission, you’re an amazing student,’” he recounted.

    The pitch worked. Though Cal State sent a physical pamphlet and her high school also emailed her about the pilot, “I wasn’t really paying attention,” Morales said. She needed an adult she trusted at the school to persuade her that the applications were worth the effort, she said.

    Morales applied to three Cal State campuses in the pilot plus two outside the program that were still accepting late applications — Chico, Humboldt, Los Angeles, Northridge and San Bernardino. She got into each one, she said.

    Her parents are “proud of me because I want to go to college,” Morales said. Neither went to college, she added.

    Final enrollment figures won’t be tallied until August, including how many of the students admitted through the pilot attended one of the 10 campuses. But the system’s chancellor’s office is already planning to replicate the pilot program in a Northern California county, which will be named sometime in April, Cal State officials said.

    A bill by Christopher Cabaldon, a state senator and Democrat from Napa, would make automatic enrollment to Cal State for eligible students a state law. The bill hasn’t been heard in a committee yet.

    A boost in application numbers

    Of the 17,000 students who received an invitation to secure their automatic admissions, about 13,200 submitted the necessary forms. That’s about 3,000 more students who applied from the county than last year.

    Those who otherwise wouldn’t have applied to a Cal State include students who were eyeing private colleges, said Melina Gonzalez, a counselor at Heritage who typically advises students who are already college-bound.

    Nearby private colleges offer all students application fee waivers; at Cal State, typically only low-income students receive fee waivers. But the pilot provided each Cal State student one fee waiver worth $70, which was a draw to students and their parents who don’t qualify for the fee waiver but might struggle to pay.

    Last year, 10 of the 100 senior students Gonzalez counseled didn’t apply to a Cal State. This application season, all her students submitted at least one Cal State application, she said.

    “It was big, it was really cool, their eyes, they were so excited,” she said of the automatically admitted students. “They would come in and show me their letters.”

    Parents called her asking if the pamphlet from Cal State was authentic. With guaranteed admission, some parents ultimately decided to pay for additional applications to campuses in the pilot, knowing it wasn’t in vain.

    At Heritage, high school counselors reviewed Cal State’s provisional list of students eligible for the pilot to add more seniors, such as those who hadn’t yet completed the mandatory courses but were on track to do so.

    Tinajero was also able to persuade some students who hadn’t completed all the required courses for Cal State entry to take those, including online classes. Still, others with qualifying grades didn’t apply because they weren’t persuaded that a four-year university was for them. Tinajero sees program growth in the coming years, assuming Cal State continues with the pilot. Younger high school students who witnessed the fanfare of automatic admissions may take more seriously the need to pass the 15 required courses to be eligible for a Cal State or University of California campus, he said.

    That’s part of Cal State’s vision for this pilot, said April Grommo, the system’s assistant vice chancellor of strategic enrollment management: Begin encouraging students to take the required courses in ninth grade so that by 11th and 12th grade they’re more receptive to applying to Cal State.

    Pilot leads to more applications

    The automatic admissions pilot is likely what explains the jump in overall applicants, said Grommo. “If you look at the historical numbers of Riverside County students that have applied to the CSU, it’s very consistent at 10,000, so there’s no other accelerator or explanation for the significant increase in the applications,” she said.

    Some campuses in the pilot are probably going to see more students from Riverside County than others. The eight under-enrolled Cal State campuses each enrolled fewer than than 100 Riverside students as freshmen, a CalMatters review of 2024 admissions data show. Two enrolled fewer than 10 Riverside students as freshmen.

    Cal State isn’t solely relying on past trends to enroll more students. Grommo cited research that suggests direct admissions programs are associated with increases in student enrollment, but not among low-income students, who are less familiar with the college-going process or have additional economic and family demands, like work and child care.

    The quad at San Francisco State University in San Francisco on July 7, 2023. Photo by Semantha Norris, CalMatters

    Even after students are admitted, some don’t complete key steps in the enrollment process, such as maintaining their grades in the second semester, completing registration forms to enroll, and paying deposits. Others, especially low-income students, have a change of heart over summer about attending college, which scholars call “summer melt.” Then there are the students who got into typically more selective campuses, such as at elite private schools and the University of California, and choose instead to go to those.

    To prompt more students to actually enroll, Cal State officials in early March hosted two college fairs in Riverside County for students admitted through the pilot. About 2,600 students signed up to be bussed from their high schools to large venues, including the Riverside Convention Center, where they met with staff, alumni and current students from all 10 Cal State campuses participating in the program. Those were followed by receptions with students and parents.

    Grommo said they maxed out capacity at both venues for the student events. While it’s common for individual campuses to host events for admitted students, it was a first for Cal State’s central office.

    The event costs, physical mailers to students about their admissions guarantee, invitation to the college fairs and another flyer about the relative affordability of a Cal State cost the system’s central office around $300,000, Grommo estimates. But if the event moves the needle on students agreeing to attend a Cal State, the tuition revenue at the largely under-enrolled campuses alone would be a huge return on investment.

    The effort is a far more targeted approach than another admissions outreach effort Cal State rolled out last fall to inform students who started but didn’t finish their college applications that they’re provisionally accepted, as long as they complete and send their forms. The notification went to 106,000 students and was the result of a $750,000 grant Cal State won from the Lumina Foundation, a major higher education philanthropy. The system will know by fall if this notification resulted in more students attending a Cal State.

    But that was aimed at students who already applied. The Riverside pilot brings in students, like Morales, who wouldn’t have applied without the mailers and entreaties from counselors. She’s leaning toward picking Cal State San Bernardino for next fall. It’s close to home and an older cousin recently graduated who had a good experience there, she said.

    Her next task? Working with her parents to complete the federal application for financial aid by April 2, the deadline for guaranteed tuition waivers for low- and middle-income students.

    It’s possible that Cal State may take the direct admissions pilot statewide. All counties are required by state law to join the state-funded data system that Riverside is already a part of to electronically transmit students’ high school grades to Cal States and UCs. Doing so removes the need for schools to send campuses paper transcripts. The deadline for all counties to join the state data system is summer of 2026.

    This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Conversations on the Future and Impact of Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Conversations on the Future and Impact of Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small colleges have long played a significant role in shaping American higher education. They may not make national headlines every day, but their impact on students, communities, and the broader landscape of learning is undeniable. That’s why Kent Barnds and I, Dean Hoke, created Small College America. Its mission is to present critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast delves into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.

    Each episode explores the distinctiveness of small colleges—through conversations with presidents, provosts, foundation leaders, and changemakers who are deeply engaged in the work of shaping the future. We focus on the real issues small colleges face—from enrollment shifts and financial pressures to mission clarity, leadership, and collaborative innovation.

    Why is now the perfect time for this podcast? Higher education faces unprecedented challenges, and small colleges, with their adaptability and personalized approaches, offer valuable lessons and innovative solutions critical to the broader education landscape.

    Our most recent episodes include:

    • Wendy Sherman Heckler and Chet Haskell – From Otterbein University and Antioch University, respectively these two leaders discuss their groundbreaking collaboration known as the Coalition for the Common Good. It’s a bold new model for partnership between mission-driven institutions focused on shared values and long-term sustainability.
    • Eric Lindberg—Executive Director of the Austin E. Knowlton Foundation in Cincinnati, Ohio, shares insights into the Foundation’s commitment to supporting small colleges, reflects on his own liberal arts experience, and outlines how strategic philanthropy can strengthen institutional resilience.
    • Dr. Paaige Turner, Provost and Executive Vice President at Aurora University discusses her transition into the role after serving as Dean at Ball State University. She brings a fresh perspective on leadership, regional relevance, and the evolving communication needs of today’s students.

    Upcoming Guests:

    We’re excited to welcome several new voices to the podcast in upcoming episodes:

    • Charles Kim, retired Managing Director at Kaufman Hall and former head of its Higher Education division, now serves on the boards of Augustana College and Westminster College.
    • Scott Wiegandt, Director of Athletics at Bellarmine University, who helped lead the university’s move from NCAA Division II to Division I.
    • Karin Fischer, senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of the Latitudes newsletter, brings deep insight into the global and domestic challenges facing small colleges.
    • Steve Bahls, President Emeritus of Augustana College and national expert on shared governance, discusses how collaboration can lead to institutional agility and long-term success.
    • Matthew Ward, Vice President of Enrollment Management at California Lutheran University.
    • Liz Nino, Executive Director of International Enrollment at Augustana College.
    • Dr. Marco Clark, President of Holy Cross College at Notre Dame, Indiana.

    Whether you’re a small college president, a prospective student, an alum, or simply someone passionate about the future of higher education, we invite you to join us. Each episode of Small College America is a chance to learn, reflect, and engage with the people who are shaping this vital sector.

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform or listen directly at https://www.podpage.com/small-college-america/. We hope you’ll tune in. If there’s a story or college you think we should feature, let us know.

    Small colleges are changing higher education—be part of the conversation.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. 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, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 

    Source link

  • Show Up, Fight Back! Protest in San Diego, April 8, 2025

    Show Up, Fight Back! Protest in San Diego, April 8, 2025

     

    Source link

  • Profit, Indoctrination, and the Dangers of Faith-Based Online Education

    Profit, Indoctrination, and the Dangers of Faith-Based Online Education

    As online education becomes an ever-expanding force in both K-12 and higher education, a disturbing trend has emerged with the rise of Christian cybercharter schools and online academies. While these institutions promise faith-based education and an alternative to secular public schooling, they also raise serious concerns about indoctrination, the commodification of education, and the profit-driven motives of their for-profit operators. For many families seeking an education aligned with their Christian values, these digital platforms offer an attractive solution. However, as the lines between faith-based learning and corporate interests blur, the question remains: what are we sacrificing in the pursuit of religiously guided education?

    The Growing Influence of Christian Cybercharters

    Christian cybercharter schools are part of a broader trend in which private, for-profit companies deliver education to students via online platforms. These schools, often designed to serve as alternatives to secular public education, integrate Christian teachings into core subjects such as history, science, and literature. While these schools may offer a semblance of flexibility for students in rural areas or families dissatisfied with traditional schooling, their model poses unique challenges.

    Cybercharter schools are, by definition, public schools that operate entirely online and are funded with taxpayer dollars. Yet, the rise of Christian cybercharters, run by private companies, complicates the traditional understanding of education. These institutions, rather than simply providing secular education, often incorporate Christian teachings into all aspects of learning. Students may study math, science, and history through a Christian lens, learning creationism instead of evolution or receiving a heavily filtered view of history. In some cases, controversial issues such as LGBTQ+ rights and reproductive health are taught in ways that align with conservative Christian values, potentially ignoring or dismissing broader social, legal, and ethical considerations.

    While these schools may appeal to parents seeking religiously grounded education for their children, concerns about the quality of education and the potential for indoctrination are mounting. Instead of offering an objective, well-rounded academic experience, these institutions may turn into ideological factories, promoting a singular worldview at the expense of critical thinking, intellectual curiosity, and open-mindedness.

    James Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong serves as a cautionary tale when examining the educational landscape shaped by these faith-based online programs. In his book, Loewen critiques the sanitized, biased versions of American history often taught in public schools—narratives that ignore uncomfortable truths about racism, inequality, and colonialism. This phenomenon is mirrored in some Christian cybercharters, where history is frequently reinterpreted to promote a specific religious or political agenda, potentially leaving students with a distorted, incomplete understanding of the world. The difference here, of course, is that rather than the state pushing a particular narrative, these programs are driven by religious agendas that prioritize faith-based views over academic rigor and historical accuracy. Just as Loewen critiques the “lies” of public school textbooks, one could argue that these Christian educational platforms sometimes present a faith-filtered version of reality—one that aligns more with ideological conformity than intellectual exploration.

    The Profit Motive: Corporations, Private Equity, and the Business of Faith-Based Education

    At the heart of the Christian cybercharter movement is a growing involvement of private equity firms and publicly traded companies eager to profit from the expanding online education sector. Venture capitalists have increasingly poured investments into education technology companies, including Christian online platforms. As a result, more and more online education providers—particularly Christian cybercharter schools—are becoming businesses in the traditional sense, with financial returns prioritized over educational outcomes.

    Much like other for-profit charter schools, these Christian cybercharters face the same pressures to maximize revenue. While proponents of this model argue that parents should have the option to select an education aligned with their values, critics argue that profit-driven motives overshadow educational quality. In many cases, the companies running these online schools are more focused on expansion, enrollment, and financial performance than on fostering critical thinking or providing a rigorous, well-rounded education.

    In the case of for-profit Christian cybercharters, this business model often leads to a corporate agenda that prioritizes market share rather than genuine educational development. Whether or not these schools offer the best or most effective education is secondary to their role as vehicles for profit. Furthermore, because many of these institutions are delivered through online platforms, the lack of direct teacher-student interaction and oversight further diminishes the opportunity for intellectual debate and inquiry.

    Indoctrination vs. Education: The Risks of Religious-Based Learning

    One of the most significant concerns with Christian cybercharters is the potential for indoctrination. Unlike secular education, where students are encouraged to explore various ideas, form their own opinions, and critically engage with the material, Christian cybercharters often deliver content that aligns solely with religious teachings. In many cases, students are not encouraged to question or challenge the material they are given, but rather to accept it as the unquestionable truth.

    For example, in science courses, students may be taught creationism in place of evolution or may receive instruction that contradicts widely accepted scientific principles. In history classes, there may be a deliberate effort to present historical events through a Christian lens, prioritizing religious interpretations and avoiding broader, secular understandings. This framing can affect the way students understand the world and interact with it, teaching them to see things in a way that aligns with specific religious views, rather than providing them with the tools to critically evaluate the world around them.

    Loewen’s Lies My Teacher Told Me warns of the dangers of sanitized history education. The same critique can be applied to some Christian online academies. Just as Loewen highlights how mainstream textbooks gloss over the uncomfortable truths of American history—such as the treatment of Native Americans or the legacy of slavery—Christian cybercharter schools may whitewash history to fit a specific theological or political narrative. Students may learn that America is a “Christian nation,” without an in-depth exploration of the diversity of belief systems that have shaped the country, or the ways in which Christianity’s role in history has been contested and debated. The problem arises when children, instead of being equipped to navigate complex historical realities, are taught to passively accept an ideological version of the past.

    When education becomes synonymous with religious indoctrination, the line between objective knowledge and belief becomes dangerously blurred. Students are taught not to think critically about their beliefs or values but to accept them as fact, leaving little room for exploration, dialogue, or intellectual growth. The digital environment, where much of the learning takes place through pre-recorded lessons and automated grading systems, exacerbates this issue by limiting opportunities for meaningful teacher-student interaction.

    The Corporate Takeover of Higher Education: Robocolleges and Faith-Based Learning

    The influence of private companies and venture capital isn’t just limited to K-12 education. As online education expands, the model of faith-based learning is also infiltrating higher education. Many institutions are now offering Christian-based online degree programs, promising students a “Christian worldview” in subjects ranging from business to theology. While these programs may appeal to individuals seeking a religiously informed education, they raise concerns about the quality and breadth of education students receive.

    The rise of “Robocolleges”—virtual universities run by corporations that offer online degrees—is another manifestation of the growing corporate control over education. These online programs, often funded by investors looking for high returns, can prioritize cost-efficiency and marketability over rigorous academic standards. In the case of faith-based online institutions, the goal can shift from providing a comprehensive education that challenges students to think critically about the world, to creating a narrow ideological framework where students are encouraged to see the world solely through the lens of Christianity.

    In this environment, the rise of “Robostudents”—individuals who navigate education through algorithms and automated platforms—further deepens the risk of creating a generation of individuals who are highly specialized but lack the broad intellectual and social competencies needed to thrive in a diverse world.

    Christian Robokids: The Future of Digital Indoctrination

    A particularly concerning aspect of the rise of Christian cybercharters and online academies is the emergence of Christian Robokids—students who, in addition to receiving a faith-based education, are increasingly immersed in a highly automated, digital, and corporate-driven learning environment. As Christian cybercharters adopt more sophisticated AI and data-driven learning platforms, children may begin to engage with content not only through pre-recorded lessons but through AI-powered tutors and personalized learning paths that adapt to each student’s “progress.” While this may sound appealing in theory, it opens the door for a future in which students are not only learning religious doctrine but are also being trained to conform to predetermined educational frameworks, shaped more by corporate interests than intellectual freedom.

    Christian Robokids would navigate a digital education system where their learning is increasingly controlled by algorithms designed to maximize efficiency and profitability. These students could interact with content tailored to reinforce a singular religious viewpoint, with little to no exposure to diverse perspectives. In a world of Robokids, students might not engage in real discussions with teachers or peers, but instead follow rigid, automated curriculums. Their development into “robostudents” is further cemented by the complete absence of opportunities for face-to-face interaction, debate, and critical engagement with differing worldviews.

    Moreover, the lack of teacher oversight in an entirely virtual system means that students may miss out on developing social and emotional intelligence, important for engaging in the complex, pluralistic world beyond the screen. The robotic nature of learning—where students become passive recipients of information rather than active participants—poses long-term risks to the intellectual and social development of children in these environments.

    The Biggest Christian Online Academies

    Several major Christian online academies are leading the charge in this digital faith-based education landscape, offering K-12 programs that blend academic rigor with Christian values. These academies not only cater to homeschool families but also serve as alternatives to public school systems, providing religiously grounded curricula that focus on both intellectual development and spiritual growth. Some of the largest and most well-known Christian online academies include:

    1. Liberty University Online Academy – This academy offers a comprehensive K-12 online program with a strong focus on biblical teachings alongside standard academic subjects. Liberty University, a major Christian institution, has established a reputation for delivering accredited programs that combine faith and learning.

    2. BJU Press Online Academy – Known for its biblical integration and classical Christian education approach, BJU Press offers a fully accredited K-12 online program that focuses on a Christ-centered worldview while delivering high-quality academics.

    3. Alpha Omega Academy (AOP) – A significant player in the Christian homeschooling space, AOP’s online academy offers a customizable, accredited K-12 curriculum. Its flexible approach allows families to integrate Bible-based teachings into core subjects.

    4. The King’s Academy – A Christian online school that blends academic excellence with spiritual development, providing a biblically integrated curriculum from kindergarten to high school.

    5. Veritas Scholars Academy – Known for its classical Christian education model, Veritas offers online courses with a focus on critical thinking, intellectual development, and biblical integration for students in K-12.

    These online academies reflect the growing demand for faith-based education in the digital era, offering flexible options for families who prioritize both academic excellence and spiritual growth. However, as these institutions scale and continue to integrate new technologies, the risk of further corporate influence and educational homogenization grows, raising questions about the long-term impact on students’ ability to think critically and engage with a diverse world.

    The Danger of “Garbage In, Garbage Out” in Faith-Based Education

    A worrying byproduct of the corporate-driven Christian cybercharter model is the “Garbage In, Garbage Out” phenomenon. Just as for-profit companies may prioritize profits over educational outcomes, so too does this model risk producing students who are poorly prepared for the real world. If the content students are being fed is biased, ideologically driven, or scientifically flawed, the result will be a generation of graduates whose knowledge is narrow, incomplete, and disconnected from the realities of an increasingly diverse and complex world.

    Christian cybercharters, while offering a religious alternative to public schools, risk leaving students unprepared for intellectual challenges and social engagement. Without the opportunity to engage with diverse perspectives or develop critical thinking skills, students may find themselves ill-equipped to navigate the broader society or the ever-changing workforce.

    Conclusion: The Future of Faith-Based Education

    As the trend of Christian cybercharters and online academies continues to grow, the future of faith-based education remains uncertain. Will these digital platforms provide students with the academic rigor, critical thinking skills, and social understanding they need to thrive in a complex world, or will they become vehicles for ideological conformity and corporate profit? As parents and educators, it is critical to carefully evaluate these programs, balancing faith-based values with a commitment to fostering intellectual independence and a well-rounded education that prepares students for life beyond the classroom.

    Source link

  • Bridging the Gap: Why Intergenerational Learning is Crucial Now More Than Ever

    Bridging the Gap: Why Intergenerational Learning is Crucial Now More Than Ever

    Dr. Maureen RubyAccording to the Stanford Center on Longevity, “The hundred year life is here. And we’re not ready.” The Center identified 10 principles to guide working through the challenges of longevity and capitalize on the opportunities. As a soon-to-be septuagenarian, current university faculty member and educational researcher, the guiding principle “learn throughout life” resonates with me. In my personal journey, I completed a second doctorate as I reached the half-century mark. Both then, as K-12 educator and grandmother of six, and now in my university work, my life is iteratively enriched through intergenerational learning. I am lucky.

    While we may not share the 122-year life span of Jeanne Calmet, Stanford’s The New Map of Life Years to Thrive reports that half of current kindergartners will have a life expectancy of 100. Given the projected certainty of a future of centenarians, universities must embrace intergenerational learning. The OECD states that education is a predictor of the quality of life as it positively influences physical and mental health, financial stability, cognitive functions, resilience social status and engagement. Thus, with our unprecedented longevity, it’s important for the traditional image of college students, those transitioning from high school and primarily in the second and third decades of life, to evolve. The work and research of the Stanford Center on Longevity and the Age-Friendly University Global Network advocate for supporting our “globally aging world” by harnessing the power of intergenerational learning. 

    Intergenerational learning engages different generations in learning together, exchanging knowledge and experiencing mutual growth. Beyond coexisting, it is about genuine dialogue, connection and shared learning. Intergenerational learning programs combat ageism, reduce social isolation, promote community and demonstrate benefits to both older adults and younger generations. Age diversity in colleges and universities is a net asset for our global society.

    For college students, intergenerational learning is more than interacting with older adults. It provides valuable perspectives to challenge assumptions and deepen understanding of the world. Through the “elders’” firsthand accounts of history, culture or societal events, students gain insights unavailable from textbooks and PowerPoints. Imagine hearing directly from a participant in the Civil Rights Movement in history class; a person living the aging process in a sociology class; a retired bank executive or CEO in an accounting or finance class; or a physical therapist in an anatomy class. Such interactions bring together research and theory with lived experience and practice and contribute to an enriched learning culture that capitalizes on empathy, critical thinking and authenticity.

    Social media, virtual interactions, and fragmented communication are abundant today and have negative consequences for our youth. As shared by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL), developing empathy and strong social-emotional skills are essential to future success. Intergenerational learning offers students opportunities to engage in face-to-face dialogue with people from different generations and backgrounds. Through these interactions, students practice active listening, respect for diverse perspectives, development of interpersonal skills and emotional awareness. These skills are essential for effective communication and building healthy relationships in academic settings, the workplace and personal life. 

    For older adults, in addition to the intellectual stimulation so essential for cognitive wellness, a college environment offers opportunities to remain socially connected, contribute meaningfully, and participate in cultural, sports, personal conditioning and academic activities offered on campus. Intergenerational programs reduce time spent alone and ignite an augmented sense of belonging and purpose. Older adults feel valued for the knowledge and experience they bring to the table while also reaping opportunities to learn new skills and stay mentally sharp. Intergenerational program participation increases life satisfaction, while mentoring younger generations promotes a sense of accomplishment and a positive outlook on life. 

    Intergenerational learning also fosters mutual understanding, reduces ageism and helps break down stereotypes. In an increasingly polarized society, where the media and social media often reinforce generational biases, divisions and misunderstandings and create barriers between generations, intergenerational learning leads to social cohesion and inclusive communities, and bridging generational divides.

    Through seeking and celebrating diversity of thought, intergenerational learning in academia will advance more holistic, compassionate learning environments. Colleges and universities, as centers of learning and innovation, are uniquely positioned to lead the way in supporting a new learning paradigm by incorporating intergenerational programs into their curricula and campus life. From shared classrooms to mentorship programs, the integration of older adults into the academic experience is an essential step toward creating a culture of inclusive learning requisite for our changing global demographics. Intergenerational learning supports creation of a society that values mutual respect, shared knowledge and lifelong growth. It’s time for educational institutions to embrace intergenerational learning, paving the way for a future where people of all ages learn, grow and thrive together. We will be learning alongside our grandchildren. I am excited for my next 30 years!

    Dr. Maureen Ruby is an associate professor at the Farrington College of Education & Human Development at Sacred Heart University in Fairfield, CT.

    Source link

  • Building a Foundation for Innovation and Empathy Through Arts Education

    Building a Foundation for Innovation and Empathy Through Arts Education

    From fostering creativity and critical thinking to enhancing emotional intelligence and cultural awareness, arts education plays a crucial role in shaping future leaders.

    Martine Kei Green-Rogers, Ph.D.

    Dean, The Theatre School at DePaul University

    Artists want to be in conversation with other artists, artforms, and disciplines of study. An arts education is valuable because we need people who are interested in exploring, highlighting, and sharing our collective humanity. We need people to tell the history of our global societies and help us recognize how to make what may seem foreign to us more familiar.  

    A conservatory model encourages other artforms and disciplines to play together by establishing a place where artists can fail miserably, pick back up, and start again. Students not only learn the technical skills of their craft, but they also learn creative problem-solving, collaboration and communication, and discipline and adaptability. These are the skills needed for a person to be successful, no matter what they decide to do later in life.  

    100 years of arts education

    At The Theatre School at DePaul University, modeling new paths for what one can do with conservatory training is our future. We are an amazing school with a rich heritage. This year, we celebrate 100 years of training theatre professionals, and this milestone has given us an opportunity to reflect on how our students have taken their training and gone on to do so many phenomenal things both inside and out of the theatre world. Our graduates use their arts training to make the world a better place and to provide opportunities for the next generation of artists.  

    At the heart of who we are as an educational institution, and as a value based collective of artists, we embody in our spaces everyday why the arts are necessary.

    Rebecca Ryan, the director of admissions for The Theatre School, summarizes who we are succinctly: ”Nestled in the heart of Chicago, a city renowned for its vibrant and diverse theatre scene, The Theatre School at DePaul University offers a cutting-edge education with 15 highly specialized Bachelor of Fine Arts programs ranging from Acting and Comedy Arts to Projection Design and Theatre Management, a Master of Fine Arts program in Acting, and a new Certification for Intimacy Professionals in Theatre & Cinema.

    “With over 30 productions each year, students engage in immersive, hands-on experiences. Faculty — all professional theatre artists active in the industry — bring their real-world expertise to the classroom, along with their professional network and connections. Students develop skills that prepare them to innovate and excel in the dynamic entertainment landscape.”

    More than art for art’s sake

    We help students find their path by providing numerous opportunities to delve into the real-world applications for their art that goes beyond “art for art’s sake” (not that this is a bad thing). For example, we devised a theatrical piece in May 2024 as a response to an exhibition by Selva Aparicio at the DePaul Art Museum to bring awareness to domestic violence, we are currently partnering with the College of Science and Health at our university to train emerging healthcare professionals, and provoking conversations about our contemporary society through the lens of historical events via our partnership with the american vicarious and TimeLine Theatre.   

    These kinds of collaborative projects expand the world of possibilities for our students and the ability to experiment allows for someone to have the fortitude to carve their own paths and create their own opportunities. 

    While resilience, emotional intelligence, and critical-thinking skills might not be in the course catalog per se, these transferable skills not only prepare students for a wide range of careers, but an education in the arts also deeply connects students to our shared humanity. The world needs more innovators who lead with empathy.

    Click here to learn more about The Theatre School at DePaul University

    Author bio

    Martine Kei Green-Rogers is the dean at The Theatre School at DePaul University in Chicago. She earned her Ph.D. from the Department of Theatre and Drama at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She received her bachelor’s in theatre from Virginia Wesleyan College and her master’s in theatre history and criticism from The Catholic University of America. A director and writer, Martine has a long history in the theatre. She has held several positions in dramaturgy, literary management, writing, directing and creative storytelling in the professional theatre and entertainment industries. Her portfolio includes positions at the Oregon Shakespeare Festival and the Court Theatre in Chicago. Martine previously served as interim dean of the Division of Liberal Arts at the University of North Carolina School for the Arts. She also is the immediate past president of the Literary Managers and Dramaturgs of the Americas and the current President-Elect of the Association for Theatre in Higher Education (ATHE).

    Source link

  • Florida Virtual School Partners with University of Florida and Concord Consortium to Launch ‘Artificial Intelligence in Math’ Online Certification for Middle, High School Students 

    Florida Virtual School Partners with University of Florida and Concord Consortium to Launch ‘Artificial Intelligence in Math’ Online Certification for Middle, High School Students 

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Florida Virtual School (FLVS) is partnering with the University of Florida (UF) and the Concord Consortium to introduce a groundbreaking year-long “Artificial Intelligence (AI) in Math” supplemental certification for FLVS middle and high school students enrolled in the school’s Flex option. FLVS instructors who teach Algebra 1 will lead this innovative program, teaching the online courses while also supplementing students’ learning with activities that build students’ understanding of math and AI concepts. FLVS students enrolled in Algebra 1 who elect to earn the certification will begin April 7. 

    The certification will introduce students to the foundational principles of AI that intersect with core math topics while offering insights into real-world applications, ethical considerations, and career opportunities in AI-related fields. By merging 21st-century technology with education, the program aims to boost students’ math skills, cultivate positive attitudes toward mathematics, and expose them to the rapidly evolving AI landscape.

    “As a leader in online education for more than 27 years, Florida Virtual School is committed to being at the forefront of educational innovation,” said Dr. Louis Algaze, president and CEO of Florida Virtual School. “By partnering with the University of Florida and the Concord Consortium, we are equipping our students with essential math skills and the knowledge to navigate and succeed in an AI-enhanced world.”

    The certification also includes a collaborative feedback loop between FLVS teachers and UF and Concord Consortium researchers. Teachers will provide critical insights into the online course structure and student outcomes, helping to refine and improve the certification’s effectiveness for future online learners.

    “AI is revolutionizing industries worldwide, creating new opportunities,” said Jie Chao, project director at the Concord Consortium. “Our partnership with FLVS allows us to offer robust AI learning opportunities to students with limited access to such resources, bridging the educational gaps and preparing young people for an AI-powered future.”

    FLVS teachers will also complete 40 hours of online professional development as part of the program. The training will include learning about specialized learning technologies designed to help visualize abstract math concepts and create interactive AI model explorations to ensure students engage with the AI development process in meaningful and dynamic ways.

    FLVS Flex students who are either currently enrolled or are interested in taking Algebra 1 can now sign up for the “AI in Math” certification by filling out this survey. Students who complete the program as part of their FLVS math class will receive enrichment credit and the AI Literacy certificate issued by UF and the Concord Consortium.  

    About Florida Virtual School (FLVS) 

    At Florida Virtual School (FLVS), the student is at the center of every decision we make. For 27 years, our certified online teachers have worked one-on-one with students to understand their needs and ensure their success – with FLVS students completing 8.1 million semester courses since the school’s inception. As a fully accredited statewide public school district, Florida students in grades Kindergarten through 12 can enroll tuition-free in full-time and part-time online education options. With more than 200 effective and comprehensive courses, and over 80 fun and exciting clubs, FLVS provides families with a safe, reliable, and flexible education in a supportive environment. As a leading online education provider, FLVS also offers comprehensive digital learning solutions to school districts, from online courses that result in high student performance outcomes, to easy-to-use online platforms, staff training, and support. To learn more, visit  our website.

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

    Source link

  • Columbia’s Katrina Armstrong Resigns Amid Trump’s Attacks

    Columbia’s Katrina Armstrong Resigns Amid Trump’s Attacks

    Katrina Armstrong took on the top position at Columbia after her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, stepped down amid backlash for her response to campus protests.

    Sirin Samman/Columbia University

    After agreeing to the Trump administration’s sweeping demands and then appearing to backtrack to faculty, Columbia’s interim president stepped down Friday night—a move that federal officials praised, though it may add to the upheaval at the Ivy League institution that’s facing criticism on multiple fronts, from the federal government to faculty to students.

    Katrina Armstrong, who has served as the interim president since last August, is returning to her previous post leading the institution’s Irving Medical Center, according to the Friday announcement.

    In a brief statement, she said it had been a “singular honor to lead Columbia University in this important and challenging time … But my heart is with science, and my passion is with healing. That is where I can best serve this University and our community moving forward.” Claire Shipman, a former broadcast journalist and a co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, will take over as acting president while the university begins a nationwide search for a permanent leader.

    The leadership shake-up comes after weeks of turmoil at Columbia as the Trump administration has waged war against the Ivy League institution, stripping it of $400 million in federal contracts for what it calls Columbia’s “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment” against Jewish students on campus. Trump’s antisemitism task force, which was formed by executive order in early February, then demanded the university implement a number of sweeping reforms, including restructuring its disciplinary process under the Office of the President, expanding the authority of its campus security force and placing its Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department into receivership.

    The university announced a week ago that it would comply with the demands, to the frustration of critics who argued that the demands may be unlawful and that giving in to them undermines academic freedom and free speech. On CNN, Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised Armstrong, saying she had had productive conversations with the then-interim president and that Columbia was “on the right track” to having its funding restored.

    But according to a transcript of a virtual meeting between Armstrong and faculty members obtained by Bari Weiss’s news outlet, The Free Press, Armstrong told faculty members that many of the changes the university had promised the antisemitism task force would not come to pass. She said there would be “no change” to masking and admissions policies, that the MESAAS department wouldn’t be placed into a receivership, and that the disciplinary process would not move under the Office of the President.

    Armstrong seemingly denied those claims in a statement Tuesday, writing, “Let there be no confusion: I commit to seeing these changes implemented, with the full support of Columbia’s senior leadership team and the Board of Trustees … Any suggestion that these measures are illusory, or lack my personal support, is unequivocally false.”

    Her sudden resignation was met with enthusiasm from the federal antisemitism task force, which appeared to imply in a statement released Friday night that her leadership would have impeded the task force’s ability to move toward a resolution with Columbia.

    “The action taken by Columbia’s trustees today, especially in light of this week’s concerning revelation, is an important step toward advancing negotiations as set forth in the pre-conditional understanding reached last Friday between the University and the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism,” the statement read.

    While many faculty had strongly opposed Columbia’s choice to give in to the Trump administration’s demands, Armstrong appeared to be generally well-liked among the faculty; in a recent Inside Higher Ed article, Michael Thaddeus, vice president of the campus’s American Association of University Professors chapter, said she was one of the most open leaders he had worked with in his time at Columbia.

    Shipman, now the acting president, also praised Armstrong’s leadership in that article, calling her an “exceptional leader” who “came in to help us heal and get our campus in order” and who is skilled at working under “crisis conditions.”

    But one AAUP leader noted in an email to Inside Higher Ed that, though he was personally surprised that Armstrong stepped down, it will do little to change the AAUP’s ongoing work to oppose Trump’s crusade against higher education.

    “Katrina Armstrong’s resignation changes almost nothing,” wrote Marcel Agüeros, Columbia AAUP’s chapter secretary. “For the past two years, we have been advocating for a greater role for faculty in the decision-making processes of the university. That, and defending our university and all universities against unwanted and likely unlawful interference by the federal government, remains our North Star.”

    The AAUP chapter at Columbia last week sued the Trump administration in an effort to restore the $400 million in funding. The lawsuit argues that the funding freeze was a “coercive tactic” that’s already caused irreparable damage.

    Clare Shipman joined the Columbia board in 2013.

    Shipman will be the third leader of Columbia in nine months; Armstrong took over the role when Minouche Shafik, who had led the New York institution for a little over a year, stepped down in August. Shafik resigned after backlash from both pro-Palestinian students and faculty and Republican lawmakers for how she handled pro-Palestinian encampments at Columbia. Shipman testified before Congress with Shafik last April at a hearing about antisemitism at Columbia.

    “I assume this role with a clear understanding of the serious challenges before us and a steadfast commitment to act with urgency, integrity, and work with our faculty to advance our mission, implement needed reforms, protect our students, and uphold academic freedom and open inquiry,” Shipman said in a news release. “Columbia’s new permanent president, when that individual is selected, will conduct an appropriate review of the University’s leadership team and structure to ensure we are best positioned for the future.”

    In a statement, Rep. Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, warned, “Ms. Shipman, while we wish you all good success, we will be watching closely.”



    Source link

  • Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Why History Instruction is Critical for Combating Online Misinformation – The 74

    Can you tell fact from fiction online? In a digital world, few questions are more important or more challenging.

    For years, some commentators have called for K-12 teachers to take on fake news, media literacy, or online misinformation by doubling down on critical thinking. This push for schools to do a better job preparing young people to differentiate between low- and high-quality information often focuses on social studies classes.

    As an education researcher and former high school history teacher, I know that there’s both good and bad news about combating misinformation in the classroom. History class can cultivate critical thinking – but only if teachers and schools understand what critical thinking really means.

    Not just a ‘skill’

    First, the bad news.

    When people demand that schools teach critical thinking, it’s not always clear what they mean. Some might consider critical thinking a trait or capacity that teachers can encourage, like creativity or grit. They could believe that critical thinking is a mindset: a habit of being curious, skeptical and reflective. Or they might be referring to specific skills – for instance, that students should learn a set of steps to take to assess information online.

    Unfortunately, cognitive science research has shown that critical thinking is not an abstract quality or practice that can be developed on its own. Cognitive scientists see critical thinking as a specific kind of reasoning that involves problem-solving and making sound judgments. It can be learned, but it relies on specific content knowledge and does not necessarily transfer between fields.

    Early studies on chess players and physicists in the 1970s and ’80s helped show how the kind of flexible and reflective cognition often called critical thinking is really a product of expertise. Chess masters, for instance, do not start out with innate talent. In most cases, they gain expertise by hours of thoughtfully playing the game. This deliberate practice helps them recognize patterns and think in novel ways about chess. Chess masters’ critical thinking is a product of learning, not a precursor.

    Because critical thinking develops in specific contexts, it does not necessarily transfer to other types of problem-solving. For example, chess advocates might hope the game improves players’ intelligence, and studies do suggest learning chess may help elementary students with the kind of pattern recognition they need for early math lessons. However, research has found that being a great chess player does not make people better at other kinds of complex critical thinking.

    Historical thinking

    Since context is key to critical thinking, learning to analyze information about current events likely requires knowledge about politics and history, as well as practice at scrutinizing sources. Fortunately, that is what social studies classes are for.

    Social studies researchers often describe this kind of critical thinking as “historical thinking”: a way to evaluate evidence about the past and assess its reliability. My own research has shown that high school students can make relatively quick progress on some of the surface features of historical thinking, such as learning to check a text’s date and author. But the deep questioning involved in true historical thinking is much harder to learn.

    Social studies classrooms can also build what researchers call “civic online reasoning.” Fact-checking is complex work. It is not enough to tell young people that they should be wary online, or to trust sites that end in “.org” instead of “.com.” Rather than learning general principles about online media, civic online reasoning teaches students specific skills for evaluating information about politics and social issues.

    Still, learning to think like a historian does not necessarily prepare someone to be a skeptical news consumer. Indeed, a recent study found that professional historians performed worse than professional fact-checkers at identifying online misinformation. The misinformation tasks the historians struggled with focused on issues such as bullying or the minimum wage – areas where they possessed little expertise.

    Powerful knowledge

    That’s where background knowledge comes in – and the good news is that social studies can build it. All literacy relies on what readers already know. For people wading through political information and news, knowledge about history and civics is like a key in the ignition for their analytical skills.

    Readers without much historical knowledge may miss clues that something isn’t right – signs that they need to scrutinize the source more closely. Political misinformation often weaponizes historical falsehoods, such as the debunked and recalled Christian nationalist book claiming that Thomas Jefferson did not believe in a separation of church and state, or claims that the nadir of African American life came during Reconstruction, not slavery. Those claims are extreme, but politicians and policymakers repeat them.

    For someone who knows basic facts about American history, those claims won’t sit right. Background knowledge will trigger their skepticism and kick critical thinking into gear.

    Past, present, future

    For this reason, the best approach to media literacy will come through teaching that fosters concrete skills alongside historical knowledge. In short, the new knowledge crisis points to the importance of the traditional social studies classroom.

    But it’s a tenuous moment for history education. The Bush- and Obama-era emphasis on math and English testing resulted in decreased instructional time in history classes, particularly in elementary and middle schools. In one 2005 study, 27% of schools reported reducing social studies time in favor of subjects on state exams.

    Now, history teachers are feeling heat from politically motivated culture wars over education that target teaching about racism and LGBTQ+ issues and that ban books from libraries and classrooms. Two-thirds of instructors say that they’ve limited classroom discussions about social and political topics.

    Attempts to limit students’ knowledge about the past imperil their chances of being able to think critically about new information. These attacks are not just assaults on the history of the country; they are attempts to control its future.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Source link