Dr. Marlene TrompThe University of Vermont (UVM) Board of Trustees has selected Dr. Marlene Tromp as the institution’s 28th president.
Tromp, who is currently serving as president of Boise State University, will assume her new role later this summer.
“Dr. Tromp brings with her the experience and ability for great success that will benefit the university, community, and state,” said Cynthia Barnhart, Board of Trustees chair and co-chair of the Presidential Search Advisory Committee.
A first-generation college student raised in rural Wyoming,Tromp brings nearly 30 years of experience in higher education. During her six-year tenure at Boise State, she successfully navigated the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic while increasing student enrollment and improving affordability. Under her leadership, the university achieved record graduation rates and philanthropic funding while expanding its research footprint.
“This is a university that has the power to truly lead the nation and even the world on several fronts,” Tromp said of UVM. “I’m so excited to work with my colleagues, the students, alumni, and friends to improve individual lives and the life of the community.”
Tromp’s rural background appears to have been a significant factor in her selection.
“She grew up with the experience of being in a rural state and understanding the importance of the flagship institution to that state, both urban and rural parts of the state. She really demonstrated an ability to connect well with Vermont culture, given that upbringing,” said Ron Lumbra, immediate past chair of the Board of Trustees and co-chair of the search committee.
A humanities scholar with a concentration in Victorian literature and culture, Tromp has published nine books and dozens of peer-reviewed papers. Her administrative experience includes serving as campus provost and executive vice chancellor at the University of California at Santa Cruz and vice provost and dean at Arizona State University.
Senator Patrick Leahy, who met with Tromp during her campus visit, expressed confidence in her leadership abilities.
“Dr. Tromp seems poised and ready to lead UVM. She clearly understands the impact and responsibilities UVM has in our state,” Leahy said.
Campus leaders have also voiced strong support for the appointment. Athletic Director Jeff Schulman praised Tromp’s “experience, commitment to excellence and passion for UVM,” while Bill Falls, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, described her as “an empathetic and collaborative leader.”
Tromp holds a Bachelor of Arts from Creighton University, a Master of Arts in English from the University of Wyoming, and a Ph.D. from the University of Florida. She currently serves on the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and consults on higher education with the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco.
She will succeed Dr. Suresh Garimella, who led UVM from 2019 until October 2024 when he became president of the University of Arizona. Provost Dr. Patricia Prelock has been serving as interim president since Garimella’s departure.
There are many approaches to designing an online course, and finding the right balance may depend on a variety of factors ranging from content topics to types of assessments. Students who opt for e-learning likely prefer it for the flexibility it affords, but that doesn’t mean they want to miss out on engaging with their classmates or instructor in a meaningful way. So, educators must continue to shift their thinking and go back to the basics to deliver their online course content in a way that creates a direct relationship with their students (Meyer, 2014). One way to incorporate human engagement is through a synchronous seminar—nothing beats live interaction—, where learners and educators can convene for a meaningful exchange.
Survey Says
Seminars are not new to the online environment, although for anyone who has taught in this environment there have been many iterations over the years as technology and curriculum have dramatically changed. So, after many years of teaching online courses, we firmly believe that a weekly one-hour seminar with our students is one of the most valuable aspects of the e-learning experience. However, to determine if our assessment was correct, we surveyed virtual instructors and students gathering both quantitative data and qualitative data. It was clear that while there were many differences in the presentation techniques, seminars were considered of great value to all.
Here are the four top take-aways from our survey.
First, students and faculty both felt that spending time in the seminar was most beneficial in helping students gain greater understanding of the material for that unit. Students were able to ask questions and get immediate answers or feedback, which was particularly satisfying and gave them confidence to move forward.
Second, students expressed the need for more connectivity through live seminars with fellow classmates and this concept mimics the physical classroom setting where students engage with one another. This also led to the point that instructors believed these virtual conversations helped build greater networking skills and they could see that in other areas of the asynchronous aspects of the course.
Third, instructors mentioned that they found better academic results from students participating in the weekly sessions, while students expressed that they felt more engaged in the course material which substantiated the reason they were more successful.
Fourth and finally, students and instructors shared that participating in live sessions resulted in having an attitude of greater interest and there was markedly more enthusiasm generated. Student and faculty behavior became more meaningful as they shared these personal emotions in the weekly session together.
Suggestions for Creating an Engaging Live Seminar
Reflecting on the survey responses, we noticed a direct relationship between how instructors presented their material, and the value students derived from participating in these one-hour, live sessions. We also have learned, through student feedback in our own courses, how to truly engage with a wide range of learning personalities, so we have come up with the top five suggestions for you to consider using in your presentations during online seminars.
This is not a lecture. Students do not want to be sermonized or given a one-hour soliloquy that doesn’t give them the opportunity to speak. They want live interaction that gives them the sense of being heard. So, give them audio and video permissions so they can see each other and build connections.
Poll questions and chat boxes. This follows clearly after the last one, in which students want engagement in conversation about the subject matter. Most platforms have a tool that allows you to ask students questions, and they can select answers in the form of polls with true/false, multiple choice or other response scales. You can also include what we call a “chat box” which is a specific titled slide that has an open-ended question and students are asked to brainstorm ideas or practice the topics being presented followed by the instructor offering a guided response from the textbook or reliable source that gives students some additional feedback on their thinking.
No black and white slides. Instructors should remember that they are meeting with many different students, so constructing a visual PowerPoint to go along with the audio is a great idea but be succinct and creative. Consider including 4-5 bullet points used as talking points and give each slide some pizazz by using color and graphics from which a natural conversation flows. Students may see something in the graphics or the points that might help to generate a deeper dive into the topic taking the group in a new and unexpected direction that can personalize the presentation.
Breakout rooms. This activity can take anywhere from a few minutes to even half of the class session. Give students the opportunity to connect in smaller groups, just like in the on-ground classes, giving them a topic to discuss and then bring back to the larger group. Change out your groups each week so students can engage with other classmates and visit each breakout room to build on that engagement.
Field trips. Take your students outside this live classroom. Perhaps you already share links for them to view short videos online, but have you considered going on a live visit? I once had a student in my food and beverage class who was actually in the kitchen at her restaurant during a seminar. She walked us through the kitchen and dining area with her webcam explaining the exact topics we were focusing on for that week. It was a spontaneous, yet memorable experience for everyone in the class. You might want to set up a guest speaker or visit in advance to test the technology, review the expectations and practice, so determine what works best for you and meet your university guidelines.
Remember, students not only want to connect with the subject matter, but most importantly to their classmates and instructors.
Why Adopt Some of These Practices
If you are not currently hosting weekly live seminars, consider the reasons and determine if you and your students could benefit from live sessions. Maybe surveying your department or simply asking informally about their opinion would give you and your colleagues some better guidance regarding reaction to the value of live seminars. Don’t you want your students to find greater value in your course?
If you do have synchronous learning in your course, perhaps some of these points will help to validate the work you are doing and if you are not using any of them, we hope you might consider experimenting in an upcoming session to investigate how they change the engagement in your classroom.
We have found that students who attend live seminars are more likely to reach out when they encounter life challenges or to ask further questions about assignments because they feel connected to us. We have also determined that the engaged student is more academically successful, and this supports retention efforts.
Whether you are new to online teaching or a seasoned instructor, we’d love to hear from you about your online seminar experience after trying out one or two of these practices. Feel free to email us with your results: Mimi Gough, [email protected] and Glenn Walton, [email protected]
Mimi Gough, MBA, MSED, Professor, Business and IT Department, Purdue University Global is a Certified Hospitality Educator (CHE) and course lead in Hospitality and Tourism Services and Hospitality Sustainability. She teaches undergraduate topics related to management, customer service and the tourism/hospitality industry. Gough began her teaching career in higher education in 1991 and facilitated the transition of ground campus courses to online courses in 2007. She has presented research and workshops on topics ranging from Marketing Destinations to Online Curriculum culminating with numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals since 2013.
Glenn L. Walton, MS, Professor, Business and IT Department, Purdue University Global teaches undergraduate courses in Management and Marketing. After working for a Fortune 500 company in advertising for over two decades, he began his higher education teaching career 15 years ago. He currently serves as a member of the university Futures Thinking & Innovation Team and has experience in teaching on ground, hybrid, and online courses.
References:
Meyer, K. A. (2014). Student engagement in online learning: What works and why. ASHE Higher Education Report, 40(6), 1–114. doi:10.1002/aehe.20018
Charlotte, NC —Discovery Education, the creators of essential K-12 learning solutions used in classrooms around the world, today announced a host of exciting product updates during a special virtual event led by the company’s Chief Product Officer Pete Weir. Based on feedback from the company’s school-based partners, these updates make teaching and learning even more relevant, engaging, and personalized for users of Discovery Education products.
Among the enhancements made to Discovery Education Experience, the essential companion for engaged K-12 classrooms that inspires teachers and motivates students, are: teachers and motivates students, are:
Improved Personalized Recommendations for Teachers: With thousands of resources in Experience, there is something for every classroom. The new Core Curriculum Complements feature in Experience automatically surfaces engaging resources handpicked to enhance school systems’ core curriculum, simplifying lesson planning and ensuring tight alignment with district priorities. Additionally, Experience now offers educators Personalized Content Recommendations. These content suggestions made to individual teachers are based on their unique profiles and preferences, or what is frequently used by other educators like them.
An Enhanced AI-Powered Assessment Tool: Originally launched in 2024, this tool is the first in a new suite of AI-powered teaching tools currently under development, and it empowers educators to create high-quality assessments using vetted resources right from within Experience. Educators can now more easily customize assessments according to reading level, question type, Bloom’s Taxonomy, and more – ensuring optimal learning experiences for students. Educators can also review and tailor the questions and, once ready, export those questions into a variety of formats.
A New Career Exploration Tool for All Discovery Education Experience Users: Career Connect – the award-winning tool that connects K-12 classrooms with real industry professionals – is now accessible to all Discovery Education Experience users. With this new feature, classrooms using Experience can directly connect to the professionals, innovations, and skills of today’s workforce. Furthermore, Experience is now delivering a variety of new career pathway resources, virtual field trips, and career profiles – building career awareness, inviting exploration, and helping students prepare for their future.
A newly enhanced Instructional Strategy Library: To elevate instruction and better support teachers, Discovery Education has enhanced its one-stop-spot for strategies supporting more engaging, efficient, and effective teaching. The improved Instructional Strategy Library streamlines the way educators find and use popular, research-backed instructional strategies and professional learning supports and provides connected model lessons and activities.
Also announced today were a host of improvements to DreamBox Math by Discovery Education. DreamBox Math offers adaptive, engaging, and scaffolded lessons that adjust in real time to personalize learning so that students can build confidence and skills at their own pace. Among the new improvements to DreamBox Math are:
Major Lesson Updates: Based on teacher feedback, Discovery Education’s expert curriculum team has updated DreamBox Math’s most popular lessons to make them easier for students to start, play, and complete successfully. Students will now encounter lessons with updated scaffolding, enhanced visuals, greater interactivity, and added context to ground mathematical concepts in the curriculum and the world they live in.
A New Look for Middle School: Middle school students will encounter a more vibrantly colored and upgraded user interface featuring a reorganized Lesson Chooser whose intuitive design makes it easy to identify teacher-assigned lessons from their personalized lesson options. Additional updates will follow throughout the year.
New Interactive Curriculum Guide: Discovery Education has strengthened the link between DreamBox Math and school systems’ core instruction with an Interactive Curriculum Guide. Educators can now explore the breadth and scope of DreamBox content by grade and standard to locate, preview, and play lessons, increasing familiarity with lessons, and enhancing targeted instruction. The DreamBox Math team will continue to make updates to standards and curriculum alignments throughout the year.
To watch a replay of today’s special event in its entirety, and to learn about additional updates to Discovery Education’s suite of K-12 solutions, visit this link.
“Discovery Education understands teachers’ sense of urgency about closing the achievement gaps highlighted by recent NAEP scores,” said Pete Weir, Discovery Education’s Chief Product Officer. “In response, we accelerated the development and deployment of what has traditionally been our ‘Back-to-School’ product enhancements. The stakes for our students have never been higher, and Discovery Education is dedicated to putting the highest-quality, most effective resources into teachers and students’ hands as soon as possible.”
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
Media attention has emphasised that the financial issues facing universities continue to worsen. While research is a cornerstone and strength of the sector, it is often regarded as a cost, which leads to scrutiny as part of institutional savings targets. Despite calls to acknowledge the value of research, the focus understandably remains on research costs.
The focus of universities on the volume and cost of unfunded research, or more accurately, internally funded research, is a question that must be addressed. Institutions are reflecting on and revising internal research allowances as part of their efforts to achieve a more sustainable financial position, as the cross-subsidy from international student fees is no longer as viable as it once was.
The question of funded research, however, is a different matter. For quite some time, there have been questions about what constitutes the full economic cost (FEC) and how these costs are recovered when projects are funded. Both issues have once again come to the forefront in the current climate, especially as institutions are failing to recover the eligible costs of funded projects.
As part of the Innovation & Research Caucus, an investment funded by UKRI, we have been investigating why the recovery of UKRI-funded research is often below the stated rates. To put it simply, if the official recovery rate is 80 per cent FEC, why is 80 per cent not being recovered on UKRI-funded projects?
Understanding under-recovery
We conducted a series of interviews with chief financial officers, pro vice chancellors for research, and directors of research services across mission groups, the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) group, and various geographic regions. They identified several key reasons why universities are not recovering the funding to which they are entitled.
Before exploring the causes of under-recovery on UKRI-funded projects, the project aimed to establish the extent to which TRAC data was curated and utilised. Notably, the study found that the data collected for TRAC does not exist within research organisations and would not otherwise be collected in this form if it were not for the TRAC reporting requirement.
While scrutinising TRAC data was less of a priority when the financial situation was more stable, in many institutions, it is now of interest to the top table and serves as the basis for modelling, projections, and scenario planning. That said, such analysis did not always recognise TRAC’s limitations in terms of how it was compiled and, therefore, its comparability.
In many of the research organisations consulted, the responsibilities for TRAC, project costing, and project delivery are distinct. Given the growing significance of TRAC data in influencing resource allocation and strategic decision-making, it is essential for research organisations to adopt a more integrated approach to compiling and utilising TRAC data to achieve improved outcomes.
Drivers of under-recovery
A wide range of factors explains why the cost recovered at the end of a funding grant is less than anticipated at the point of submission and award. Almost all respondents highlighted three factors as significant in low cost recovery:
Equipment and facilities costs were consistently cited as a factor, including issues associated with allocating and costing overheads and estates. Several institutions highlighted the difficulty in realistically costing equipment and facilities shared between research projects or between research projects and teaching.
Staff under-costing was frequently mentioned, as principal investigators (PIs) underestimated their own and their colleagues’ time commitment to projects. This ineffective practice was driven by a (mis)perception that lower costs will likely improve success rates – despite the emphasis being on value rather than cost within a specific funding envelope.
Inflation has been identified as a factor affecting all cost elements – from staff costs related to pay settlements and promotions to the rising expenses associated with consumables, equipment, and energy. This reveals a growing gap in applications, delivery, and reporting.
Beyond these top three, the report highlights the implications of the often “hidden” costs associated with supporting and administering UKRI grants, the perennial issues of match funding, and the often inevitable delays in starting and delivering projects – all of which add to the cost and increase the prospect of under-recovery.
In addition, an array of other contributing factors were also raised. These included the impact of exchange rates, eligibility criteria, the capital intensity of projects, cost recovery for partners, recruitment challenges, lack of contingency, and no cost extensions. While not pinpointing the importance of a single factor, the interplay and cumulative effect were considered to result in under-recovery.
Addressing under-recovery
Universities bear the cost of under-recovery, but funders and universities can take several actions to improve under-recovery – some of which are low- or no-cost, could be implemented in the short term, and would make a real difference.
Funders, such as UKRI, should provide clearer guidance for research organisations on how to cost facilities and equipment, as well as how to include these costs in research bids. Similarly, applicants and reviewers should receive clearer guidance regarding realistic expectations from PIs in leading projects, emphasising that value should be prioritised over cost. Another area that warrants clearer guidance is match funding, specifically for institutions regarding expectations and for reviewers on how match funding should be assessed. We are pleased to see that UKRI is already taking steps to address these points in its funding policies [editor’s note: this link will be live around 9am on Friday morning].
In the medium term, research funders could also review their approaches to indexation, which could help mitigate the impact of inflation in driving under-recovery, although this is, of course, not without cost. Another area worth exploring by both research organisations and funders is the provision of shared infrastructures and assets, both within and across institutions – again, a longer-term project.
We are already seeing institutions taking steps to manage and mitigate under-recovery, and there is scope to extend good practice. Perhaps the main challenge to improving cost recovery is better managing the link between project budgets – based on proposal costs – and project delivery costs. Ensuring a joined-up approach from project costing to reporting is important, but more important is developing a deeper understanding across these areas.
A final point is the need to ensure that academics vying for funding really understand the new realities of cost and recovery. This has not always been the case, and arguably still is not the case. These skills – from clarifying the importance of realistic staff costs to accurately costing the use of facilities to effectively managing project budgets – will help close the cost recovery gap.
The real FEC of research funding
The current project has focused on under-recovery in project delivery. The next step is to understand the real cost to research organisations of UKRI grant funding.
This means understanding the cost of developing, preparing and submitting a UKRI grant application – whether successful or not. It means understanding the costs associated with administering and reporting on a UKRI grant during and beyond the life of a project (think ResearchFish!).
For more information, please get in touch – or watch this space for further findings.
In 1862 the United States passed the first of a series of laws – known as the Morrill Land-Grant Acts – which allowed states to sell federally owned land to fund the creation of colleges. These colleges – known now as land-grant universities – form a large chunk of the US higher education system. And its important to note – as America tries to forget its history – that the land sold to fund them was often bought, granted by or stolen from Native American tribes.
The state of Indiana decided in 1865 to take advantage of the act, and a process to decide where and how to spend the money began. The state could have chosen a couple of existing institutions, but in 1869 was swayed by proposals from Tippecanoe County which included pledges of $200,000 (about worth $4.6 million today) and 100 acres of land. And so Purdue University, named after the benefactor who had pledged the lion’s share of the $200,000, was established in West Lafayette, on the Wabash River.
Purdue developed into a university focusing on engineering and agricultural subjects. This was under the guidance of Emerson E White, president of Purdue from 1876 to 1883. He sought to differentiate Purdue from the “classical” American universities, and the syllabus reflected this. Humanities and social sciences were not prohibited, but were not prioritised. He sought also to ban fraternities from campus, and when the Indiana state legislature required the university to allow fraternities, he resigned. But it was too late, and that year Purdue received no state grant.
Purdue became a leading institution for research into steam traction on the railways. By the 1890s it owned several locomotives, and a railway dynamometer which enabled research. There was a local railroad – the Monon railroad – which operated works near Purdue. In 1891 the Purdue football team (gridiron, not association or union or league) beat neighbours Wabash College 44–0; there were suggestions that the team had included some ringers – boilermakers from the Monon works. Which led to the nickname Boilermakers, given to the university’s sports teams.
(Its a bit of a tradition in American universities for their teams to have nicknames; a little like the now sometimes quaint nicknames used for football teams in Britain. A few still have local meaning, but other than journalists looking for copy, do many people still call their team by its nickname? Answers in the chat, please. But in America they are still used, it seems.)
Purdue became the first US university to have its own airport, in 1934, and introduce credit bearing courses in learning to fly. Amelia Earhart was an instructor for those courses, and a career counsellor for women students. Her round-the-world flight attempt in 1937, in which she disappeared, used an aeroplane funded by Purdue’s research foundation.
Purdue scientists discovered properties of the element germanium which enabled the invention of transistors. Transistors were fundamental to the development of electronics and computing. Transistors themselves were invented at Bell Laboratories but without germanium semiconducting crystals, which the Purdue team produced, transistors would not have operated quickly enough.
In 2017 Purdue University bought Kaplan, the early online university, and transformed it into Purdue University Global.
The card – here’s a jigsaw – shows the Boilermaker Special, Purdue’s official mascot. The Boilermaker was introduced in 1940, paid for by alumni and members of the Purdue Reamer Club, a student club formed as an alternative to the fraternity societies. The first vehicle comprised a body made by the Baldwin Locomotive Works, mounted on a Studebaker chassis. The card shows the third Boilermaker Special, which was in service from 1960 to 1993. It was made by General Motors, on a bus chassis. The current Boilermaker Special is the eighth; a ninth is expected to be in service from this summer.
The card was posted in February 1973 to a couple in Washington DC:
Came out here yesterday to let M.G. take a look at Purdue…
On March 20, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The order directs the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”
The order additionally states that the secretary of education “shall ensure that the allocation of any Federal Department of Education funds is subject to rigorous compliance with Federal law and Administration policy.” According to the order, this includes compliance with federal requirements to terminate “illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” and to terminate programs that promote gender ideology.
With respect to higher education, the executive order asserts that closure of the ED “would drastically improve program implementation.” It specifically discusses ED’s role in managing the federal student loan debt portfolio, and it claims that ED “is not a bank, and it must return bank functions to an entity equipped to serve America’s students.”
It is still unknown how Secretary McMahon will execute this order. Despite Trump’s clear intentions to close ED, Congress would still need to pass legislation to officially dissolve the department. It remains to be seen whether McMahon and the Trump administration will move ED’s subagencies and their functions to other federal agencies as speculated.
More information is needed from ED to understand how this order will be implemented. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for additional news and guidance from ED as it relates to the order.
The University of California is implementing a hiring freeze across its 10 campuses as it navigates potential funding cuts at both the federal and state levels, system President Michael Drake said in a message Wednesday.
Drake also directed UC locations to roll out other cost-cutting measures, such as delaying maintenance and reducing travel expenses.
“I recognize this is a time of great uncertainty for many in our UC community and in higher education across the country,” Drake said. “Throughout our history as an institution and as a nation, we have weathered struggles and found new ways to show up for the people we serve.”
Dive Insight:
UC joins an ever-growing cohort of higher education institutions taking preemptive steps to brace their budgets against a storm of funding cuts and financial attacks coming from the Trump administration.
Many institutions have cited the 15% cap on indirect research cost funding that the National Institutes of Health announced in February. Such a reduction would amount to billions of dollars collectively and could translate into funding shortfalls in the tens of millions of dollars for many universities.
NIH is the largest funder of UC research, having provided a total $2.6 billion to the system in the 2023-24 academic year, according to the system. Among the system’s campuses that could be hardest hit, UCLA stands to lose $65 million under the funding cap, UC San Francisco $121 million and UC San Diego $102 million, according to a New York Times analysis.
Faced with massive cuts to its research funding from the agency, UC filed a declaration in support of the lawsuit against NIH brought by the California attorney general and more than 20 other states.
A judge overseeing multiple lawsuits against NIH has paused the funding cap, but uncertainty abounds among higher education leaders over the issue and other potential funding stoppages in Washington.
“The University’s legal team prepared for this moment and has been working diligently to protect the University and our mission through the courts,” Drake said. “These efforts have allowed us to stave off some of the immediate and projected financial impacts — but not all.”
Even before President Donald Trump took office, UC faced potential future budget strains from state-level cuts. A fiscal 2025-26 budget proposal unveiled in January by Gov. Gavin Newsom would reduce UC’s funding by $271 million. At the time, Drake— who plans to step down as system leader at the end of the 2024-25 academic year — expressed concern about how the cuts would affect UC students and services.
Prior to that, the system had been improving its financial trajectory, with the system’s overall total budget loss shrinking significantly in fiscal 2024 to $178 million, less than a tenth of the prior year’s shortfall.
In his message Wednesday, Drake said he asked the presidents of all UC locations to “prepare financial strategies and workforce management plans that address any potential shortfalls,” adding that “every action that impacts our University and our workforce will only be taken after serious and deliberative consideration.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
President Donald Trump on Thursday afternoon ordered U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” marking the boldest push from the president to shut down the agency since its establishment under the Carter administration over four decades ago.
Trump also said prior to the signing that he intends to disperse the department’s core functions — such as Pell Grants, Title I funding, and providing funding and resources for students with disabilities — to other parts of the government.
“They’re going to be preserved in full and redistributed to various other agencies and departments that will take very good care of them,” he said. “My administration will take all lawful steps to shut down the department. We’re going to shut it down and shut it down as quickly as possible.”
The layoffs preceding the Thursday order impacted nearly 1,300 workers in addition to the nearly 600 employees who accepted “buyouts.”
Trump has repeatedly and forcefully threatened to shut down the department since his first term in the White House, citing what he has called the agency’s “bloated budget” and a need to return education control to the states. His push to dismantle the department is in line with the 2024 Republican agenda, which included closing the department to “let the States run our educational system as it should be run.”
In a Thursday speech, just prior to signing the order, Trump also cited low student test scores as reason to close the department.
“After 45 years, the United States spends more money in education by far than any other country, and spends, likewise, by far, more money per pupil than any country,” he said. “But yet we rank near the bottom of the list in terms of success. That’s where we are — like it or not — and we’ve been there for a long time.”
Abolishing the 45-year-old agency altogether, however, requires a Senate supermajority of 60 votes. A similar proposal from conservatives in the House failed in 2023 when 60 House Republicans joined Democrats to defeat the measure.
Given the current closely divided Congress, many have considered it a longshot that lawmakers would approve the department’s demise.
However, in his Thursday speech, Trump said he hopes Democrats would be onboard if the legislation to officially close the department eventually comes before Congressional lawmakers.
What will be impacted?
Although the administration technically needs Congressional action to close the department, the Thursday order tells McMahon to push its closures “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”
The agency is responsible for a slew of programs key to school and college operations, including conducting federal civil rights investigations, overseeing federal student financial aid, and enforcing regulations on Title IX and other education laws. It is in charge of large programs that schools depend on, like Title I, which sends aid to low-income school districts, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that supports special education services.
Following the layoffs earlier this month, the department claimed its key functions, including overseeing COVID-19 pandemic relief, wouldn’t be impacted.
“Closing the Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them — we will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs,” said McMahon in a statement praising the executive order on Thursday.
However, former employees and education policy experts have warned that a department functioning on only half its former manpower could lead to a decline in oversight, guidance and student protections while creating systemic “chaos.”
“Eliminating it would roll back decades of progress, leaving countless children behind in an education system that has historically failed the most marginalized,” said Keri Rodrigues, president of National Parents Union, in a Thursday statement responding to the order. “Without federal oversight, states will have free rein to lower standards, siphon funds from public schools, and dismantle hard-won civil rights protections.”
Educators have also warned that gutting the department would eventually lead to an increase in class sizes and reduce special education services for students with disabilities.
McMahon disagreed.
“Teachers will be unshackled from burdensome regulations and paperwork, empowering them to get back to teaching basic subjects,” she said in the statement. “Taxpayers will no longer be burdened with tens of billions of dollars of waste on progressive social experiments and obsolete programs,” she added.
Order follows McMahon’s ‘final mission’
During her Feb. 13 Senate confirmation hearing, McMahon did not commit to closing the Education Department and acknowledged that closure of the entire Education Department would need congressional approval. The White House echoed those sentiments on Thursday, just prior to the order’s signing.
McMahon also said programs established by federal statute, such as Title I for low-income schools and services to students with disabilities under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, would need to continue with or without an Education Department. But some federal education statutes are specific about certain offices’ responsibilities within the Education Department.
Still, on McMahon’s first day on the job last month, she publicly said she was planning for the “historic overhaul” of the department as its “final mission.”
“This review of our programs is long overdue,” she wrote in a letter posted by the department that same night, supporting what she called “elimination of bureaucratic bloat here at the Department of Education — a momentous final mission — quickly and responsibly.” McMahon and Trump have touted giving education decision-making power back to the states and parents.
However, “This is not about cutting bureaucracy — it’s about gutting the protections that safeguard our children’s education,” Rodrigues said in her statement.
Democratic lawmakers have also resisted the department’s recent cuts and have already pushed back against the order that followed it today.
“President Trump’s executive order to dismantle the Department of Education (ED) and ‘return education to the states’ will be challenged in the Courts,” said Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., ranking member on the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, along with two other Democratic lawmakers, also demanded answers from the agency in a 10-page letter sent Monday, asking McMahon and Institute of Education Sciences Acting Director Matthew Soldner how the agency intends to fulfill its statutory obligations with a reduced staff.
Others are celebrating the historic order.
“With the federal government stepping back, the potential for new, transformative education models has never been greater,” said Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, in a statement on Wednesday night in anticipation of today’s order. “As every great innovator knows – whether in education, business, or technology – government interference stifles progress and disruptive innovations accelerate it.”
Many Republican lawmakers are also on board with gutting the agency.
“The key to improving education is empowering parents and students and reducing the role of Washington bureaucrats,” said House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, R-Mi., in a Thursday statement. Walberg cited the Biden administration’s decisions during the pandemic, slowed student performance in the wake of the crisis, and its LGTBQ+ inclusive policies as some reasons to cut the department.
“Bottom line, the Department of Education has failed to deliver results for America’s students and today’s actions by the Trump administration will help ensure our nation’s youth are put first.”
How can you illuminate a path to success in a turbulent environment?
This last half decade has delivered unprecedented disruption for university leaders. The pandemic, economic uncertainty, greater need among students and families, and sweeping governmental changes have buffeted campuses of every size, type, and mission. As we move through 2025 and look at the landscape beyond, it’s clear that adaptability, resilience, and innovative thinking are crucial for successful university management.
As my colleagues and I partner with university leaders on key areas such as strategic enrollment planning and working with university boards, we help leaders assess and address five key challenges that impact institutional sustainability. Addressing these areas strengthens fiscal health, campus alignment and collaboration, efficiency, and other challenges that are roadblocks to a campus achieving its full potential.
Embracing Enterprise Risk Management
There is one preliminary key strategy that has become especially vital for navigating uncertain times: Enterprise Risk Management (ERM). This approach replaces siloed risk management that dilutes campus resources and responses with a stronger, integrated perspective—allowing senior leaders and boards of trustees to gain a comprehensive view of potential threats and their interconnections. By implementing ERM, universities can develop more effective strategies for identifying, mitigating, and managing risks across all aspects of their operations.
Addressing five key challenges
Once you have embraced ERM, that can help guide your strategies and tactics in addressing these five key university challenges.
1. Financial stability and funding
With potential changes in federal funding and financial aid structures, universities must diversify their revenue streams and explore new partnerships. This may include collaborations with private industry, international organizations, and philanthropic entities to sustain critical academic research and support student access to education.
Additionally and perhaps more urgently, leaders need to dive deep into financial aid budgets, leveraging strategies, funding sources, and how they tie to recruitment and admissions strategies. RNL is working closely with our partners to redesign models if/when funding sources disappear, ensuring that you can meet your enrollment goals and serve your mission amidst tremendous uncertainly regarding government sources of funding.
2. Technological integration
The rapid advancement of technology, particularly artificial intelligence, is disrupting traditional teaching and learning methods. University leaders must navigate this transformation by:
Investing in faculty training for AI integration
Updating curricula to reflect emerging technologies
Developing ethical guidelines for AI use in academia
From pandemics to natural disasters disrupting higher education, having a comprehensive crisis management plan is essential. This should include:
Regular scenario planning and contingency exercises
Clear communication protocols for all stakeholders
Ongoing training for staff and administrators
Most institutions have the logistics of crisis management figured out: crisis captains, protocols, policies, and procedures. What they have not accommodated for in the midst of myriad external forces is the long-term impact of these singular events and ongoing circumstances on their communities—students, families, faculty, and staff. The mental health crisis in education is on the rise and now, more than ever, campuses need to lead with compassion and understanding to bring communities together. Ultimately, your institution needs to be able to anticipate potential crisis and be ready to adapt rapidly to ensure that students are cared for and their college experience can continue.
4. Fostering a culture of innovation and adaptability
Taking the optimal approach to technological changes and crisis preparedness requires cultivating a culture of continuous innovation. This involves:
Creating dedicated teams to explore new areas of innovation
Encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration
Promoting flexibility in learning paths and program offerings
The higher education marketplace does not stand still, and universities therefore cannot afford to be set in their ways and be slow to adapt.
5. Prioritizing stakeholder trust and communication
Addressing these challenges and achieving goals in a period of disruption requires unity, transparency, and communication among key stakeholders. University leaders should:
Maintain open lines of communication with all stakeholders
Build trust through consistent and honest messaging
Engage in active listening to address concerns and gather feedback
Difficult messages can be difficult to deliver, but more transparency and dialogue with stakeholders will increase collaboration and focus that will produce transformative results.
Great university leadership is needed more than ever
Managing a university during times of great disruption and uncertainty requires a delicate balance of strategic foresight, agile decision-making, and compassionate leadership. By embracing risk management, fostering innovation, and prioritizing clear communication, university leaders can navigate these challenging waters and emerge stronger, more resilient, and better equipped to fulfill their educational missions in an ever-changing world.
From speed-to-lead to 24/7 support: Meeting student needs in the digital age
In our recent webinar, “The Importance of Speed to Lead in Meeting Your Enrollment Goals,” we highlighted how rapid, personalized responses to prospective students can significantly impact their perception of an institution’s quality and commitment. This principle of timely, relevant communication extends beyond the admissions process and into the heart of the student experience, particularly in online education. In this post, we’ll delve into how this same philosophy applies to technical support, forming a crucial component of student success and retention.
The critical role of 24/7 technical support in online education
Building on the speed-to-lead concept, the need for swift and effective technical support in online learning environments has become paramount. As we transition from initial student engagement to ongoing support, responsive assistance becomes even more critical. Let’s explore why timely technical support is essential and how it ties to student retention, institutional credibility, and mission fulfillment.
The importance of quick response to technical needs
Just as rapid responses to inquiries can influence a student’s decision to enroll, quick resolution of technical issues can determine a student’s ability to succeed in their coursework. Student satisfaction is closely tied to the quality of the overall experience institutions provide to students, including addressing technical issues and how the institution responds to the students as individuals when they have a concern. When students encounter technical barriers without immediate resolution, their frustration can lead to disengagement and even withdrawal from courses.
The importance of swift technical support in higher education cannot be overstated, as exemplified by several leading institutions.
Penn State University’s IT Service Desk stands out with its comprehensive 24/7 technology support model. Utilizing a blend of 20 students and full-time staff members, they efficiently manage up to 600 daily requests during peak periods. This continuous operation throughout the year, pausing only for university holidays, ensures that the Penn State community receives timely assistance for diverse IT-related issues, from learning management systems to account access and new IT service implementations.
Arizona State University (ASU): ASU’s help center provides round-the-clock service for their large student body. They have 81 employees and 22 student representatives who offer 24/7 support for approximately 100,000 students, including both on-campus and online learners. The center serves as a comprehensive “front door” to the university, assisting with various inquiries beyond just technical issues.
The University of Central Florida (UCF) has adopted a strategic approach to technical support. By deploying technicians during high-demand hours, UCF effectively minimizes downtime for both students and faculty. This proactive strategy maintains the continuity of the learning process and demonstrates the institution’s commitment to student success.
In instances where staffing may be limited, universities are increasingly turning to AI-powered solutions to meet the demand for immediate, round-the-clock support. For example, Thompson Rivers University has implemented a 24/7 chatbot support system. This AI-driven tool automates 83% of incoming chats to their Future Student department, providing instant responses outside of regular business hours. Moreover, a number of innovative platforms such as RNL’s Compass digital assistant provide AI-powered chatbots designed for higher education. These AI-powered assistants can seamlessly integrate with various campus systems, including SIS/ERP, ITSM, and LMS, to address a wide range of inquiries related to IT, admissions, financial aid, and more. By leveraging such technologies, institutions can significantly reduce support costs while ensuring students and faculty receive timely, personalized assistance at any hour.
The case for a 24×7 support model
A 24/7 support model aligns with the flexibility that online education promises. Students often engage with coursework outside traditional hours, making access to technical assistance at any time a necessity rather than a luxury. Institutions like Faith Christian School emphasize the importance of uninterrupted access to educational resources, which fosters independence and self-directed learning. Similarly, Google Cloud’s Student Success Services leverage virtual assistants to provide instant answers around the clock, freeing up staff for more personalized guidance.
The availability of 24/7 technical support is increasingly viewed as a marker of institutional quality. Students now expect seamless access to both academic content and support services when selecting a university. Institutions that fail to meet these expectations risk damaging their reputation and losing prospective students. RNL student satisfaction and priorities data shows that approximately two-thirds of students value institutions addressing their personal needs throughout the recruitment process, which can factor in their decision to enroll at the institution. Offering robust technical support signals that a university is technologically advanced and committed to providing an optimal learning environment.
Enabling student success and institutional mission
Timely technical support directly contributes to student success by removing barriers to learning. When students can focus on their studies without being derailed by technical difficulties, they are more likely to persist in their programs. This aligns with the broader mission of most universities: helping students succeed academically and graduate. Demonstrating the lived expression of institutional mission through 24/7 support for student services can enhance retention and overall well-being. By addressing both academic and non-academic challenges in real-time, universities create an ecosystem where students thrive.
Conclusion: Timely support is critical to the online student experience
From the initial point of contact through to graduation, the principle of timely, personalized support remains crucial. The importance of responding quickly to students’ technical needs is a natural extension of the speed-to-lead philosophy in enrollment management. A 24/7 support model not only ensures uninterrupted learning but also strengthens institutional credibility and fosters student retention. By prioritizing timely assistance across all aspects of the student journey, universities can live up to their mission of empowering students to succeed academically and graduate with confidence. As these examples illustrate, investing in comprehensive support systems is an investment in both student success and institutional sustainability.
How can you leverage technology across the student lifecycle?
With students expecting personalized attention 24/7, you need to be able to engage them at any point in the student lifecycle. Talk with our experts about how you can use the latest technology to create those connections to strengthen recruitment and retention.
