Blog

Bill Would Require More Small Businesses to Give Paid Family Leave – The 74

Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

A state Senate panel advanced a bill Monday that would expand New Jersey’s family leave law to businesses with at least 15 workers, a change from the current threshold of 30 employees.

The bill has seen some changes since it passed the Assembly in February. It had initially lowered the worker threshold to five, to widespread criticism from the business community. Business groups remain opposed, saying that encompassing businesses with fewer than 30 employees would deter hiring and potentially force small businesses to close their doors.

“New Jersey small businesses are already shouldering some of the highest operating costs in the country, including labor, insurance, property taxes, and compliance obligations,” said Amirah Hussain of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce. “Imposing these mandates introduces a new layer of risk and unpredictability.”

Yarrow Willman-Cole, with consumer advocacy group New Jersey Citizen Action, testified in favor of the bill, saying 1.7 million workers are not covered by the state’s current family leave law.

“We passed paid family leave 17 years ago. It took us 10 years to improve it. It should not take another decade to get this right,” Willman-Cole said. “Our laws should reflect our society’s growing caregiving needs. New Jersey is, in fact, not keeping up.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republicans and Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), the panel’s chair, voted against advancing the bill.

New Jersey law requires that businesses provide eligible workers with up to 12 weeks of paid leave to bond with a new child or to care for a loved one. Workers pay into the fund that pays out benefits, and the benefits are based on a worker’s earnings. Workers’ jobs are protected until their leave ends.

The committee amended the bill Monday to include employees who have worked for a company for six months — current law says 12 months — and for 500 hours, down from 1,000 hours. The bill would take two years to phase in.

Elizabeth Zuckerman of the state chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association said that whatever “small burden” the bill puts on an employer is justified to keep parents from choosing between bonding with their children or keeping their job.

“We are a pro-family country. We should support our families by allowing employers or encouraging employers to give employees time off when they need to care for a child or a family member,” Zuckerman said.

Businesses remain concerned that the bill would put an “unsustainable burden” on small employers, said Frank Jones with Big I New Jersey, which advises independent and locally owned insurance agencies.

Jones said he supports the goal of the bill to give more workers access to family leave, but when businesses with 15 employees lose one person, it’s difficult for the remaining workers to juggle the work. He also said it would drive up liability insurance costs. He stressed that paid benefits and job-protected reinstatement should be separate issues.

“The mandatory reinstatement requirement, regardless of business conditions, removes the flexibility small business employers need to survive,” Jones said. “Agencies may be forced to permanently restructure or hire to maintain client service, only to face liability for not reinstating later, even if decisions were made in good faith.”

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: [email protected].

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

Source link

December 21, 2025
Structural Advantage and Financial Resilience in American Higher Education
Historically White Institutions (HWIs) occupy a distinctive position in the U.S. higher education landscape. Defined by their origins as institutions serving predominantly White students during eras of segregation, HWIs today include many of the nation’s most prominent colleges and universities. While often overlooked in discussions about equity, their historical and structural context provides key insight into why these institutions remain financially resilient even as other colleges, particularly smaller or more diverse institutions, struggle (Darity & Hamilton, 2015; Jackson, 2018).

Understanding HWIs

HWIs are schools founded to educate White students in a segregated society. Unlike Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) or tribal colleges, HWIs historically excluded students of color. Today, they often enroll more diverse student populations than in the past, but their demographic and financial legacies remain.

Some of the largest and most prominent HWIs in the U.S. include:
- Brigham Young University (UT) — affiliated with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS); majority White enrollment; nationally recognized academic and athletic programs.
- University of Notre Dame (IN) — Catholic research university with a large endowment and historically majority White student body; high national profile academically and athletically.
- Boston College (MA) — Catholic research university; historically White, strong alumni networks, and notable national reputation.
- Marquette University (WI) — Catholic university; majority White; prominent regionally and nationally in academics and athletics.
- Select public flagships in predominantly White states — such as University of Wisconsin–Madison and University of Michigan, whose student bodies historically reflect state demographics and remain disproportionately White relative to national averages.
These institutions collectively represent a significant portion of the elite, high-profile U.S. higher education sector, and they share common financial and structural advantages rooted in their historical composition (Smith, 2019; Harper, 2020).

Financial Advantages Linked to Demographics

Several factors stemming from HWI status contribute to financial stability:
1. Alumni Wealth and Giving
  
  Historically, HWIs drew students from communities with greater intergenerational wealth. Today, this translates into strong alumni giving networks, major gifts, and multi-generational planned giving (Darity & Hamilton, 2015; Gasman, 2012). Universities like Notre Dame, BYU, and Boston College leverage these networks to maintain robust endowments and fund major campaigns.
2. Endowment Growth and Stability
  
  HWIs often have substantial endowments accumulated over decades. Early access to philanthropic networks and preferential funding opportunities during eras when colleges serving communities of color were systematically underfunded contributed to long-term financial resilience (Gasman, 2012; Perna, 2006). Endowments provide flexibility for scholarships, faculty hiring, campus infrastructure, and new initiatives — crucial buffers against enrollment volatility.
3. Religious and Regional Networks
  
  Many prominent HWIs are faith-based (BYU, Notre Dame, Boston College, Marquette). Their institutional networks foster recruitment, donations, and career placement. These social structures create operational and financial advantages that are difficult for newer or demographically diverse institutions to replicate (Harper, 2020; Museus & Quaye, 2009).
Comparative Risks: HWIs vs. Other Institutions

The financial and structural advantages of large HWIs become especially apparent when compared to smaller or mid-sized colleges that have closed or struggled in recent years, including faith-based and regional institutions with smaller endowments or more diverse student populations (Perna, 2006; Gasman, 2012). The historical demographic composition of HWIs — and the associated alumni wealth and networks — provides a buffer that allows them to weather challenges that might otherwise threaten institutional survival.

Challenges and Future Considerations

While HWIs enjoy structural advantages, they are not invulnerable. Changing demographics, particularly declining percentages of White high school graduates in key regions, present long-term enrollment challenges (Harper, 2020). HWIs that fail to diversify both their student bodies and donor bases may find these historical advantages eroded over time.

Moreover, institutions must balance financial stability with commitments to equity and inclusion. Over-reliance on historically White alumni networks can reinforce systemic inequities if not paired with active strategies to support students of color and broaden philanthropy (Smith, 2019; Jackson, 2018).

Legacies of Religion and White Privilege

Historically White Institutions provide a clear example of how demographic legacy intersects with financial resilience in higher education. Large HWIs such as Notre Dame, BYU, Boston College, Marquette, and select public flagships have leveraged endowments, alumni networks, and religious and regional structures to maintain stability and prominence.

Yet these advantages carry responsibilities: HWIs must adapt to shifting demographics, diversify both student and donor populations, and ensure that financial strength supports equity alongside institutional growth. Understanding HWIs is essential for policymakers, educators, and funders seeking to navigate the complex landscape of American higher education.

Selected Academic Sources
- Darity, W.A., & Hamilton, D. (2015). Separate and Unequal: The Legacy of Racial Segregation in Higher Education. In The Color of Crime Revisited.
- Gasman, M. (2012). The Changing Face of Private Higher Education: Wealth, Race, and Philanthropy. Journal of Higher Education, 83(4), 481–508.
- Harper, S.R. (2020). Racial Inequality in Higher Education: The Dynamics of Inclusion and Exclusion. Review of Research in Education, 44(1), 113–141.
- Jackson, J.F.L. (2018). Diversity and Racial Stratification at Predominantly White Colleges. New Directions for Higher Education, 181, 7–23.
- Museus, S.D., & Quaye, S.J. (2009). Toward an Understanding of How Historically White Colleges and Universities Handle Racial Diversity. ASHE Higher Education Report, 35(1).
- Perna, L.W. (2006). Understanding the Relationship Between Resource Allocation and Student Outcomes at Predominantly White Institutions. Review of Higher Education, 29(3), 247–272.
Source link
December 21, 2025
WEEKEND READING: The changing geography of research

In November HEPI, with support from Elsevier, hosted a roundtable dinner to discuss the changing geography of research. This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from the discussion.

Fifty years ago, less than 10 per cent of authors of research articles worked in low and middle-income countries – those in which average annual incomes are below around $14,000. By 2024, the proportion of research authors from these countries had reached 56 per cent. Even excluding China, 28 of them, combined, had more authors than the 27 countries of the European Union plus the UK.

Meanwhile, since 1990, the number of doctorates awarded in China has gone from a few thousand to more than 80,000, while Brazil and India now graduate approximately 30,000 doctorates per year, compared to the UK’s 25,000.

What this means for research collaboration, for research funders and for the UK’s future as a leading research nation was the topic of a recent roundtable discussion, hosted by HEPI in conjunction with the academic publishers Elsevier and attended by senior university and research leaders and funders.

Participants in the roundtable agreed that the research landscape was experiencing major change, with the centre of gravity shifting away from traditional western and northern dominance, to countries including China, India, Brazil, Iran and Mexico, and that the pace of change was accelerating.

This was not just happening in terms of numbers of researchers and research outputs but also in terms of their quality. Many countries not historically considered strong in research are producing original research at scale, developing cross-disciplinary fields and paying close attention to research culture as well as to convergence with the United Nation’s sustainable development goals.

Participants suggested that research in European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, may be moving more sluggishly due to out-dated hierarchies, infrastructure and equipment that is expensive to maintain. University and research leaders often feel overlooked by their governments, which face pressures to direct funding elsewhere, in contrast to Low and Middle Income Countries where Governments are actively driving research and innovation growth.

This shift may not necessarily be negative, participants in the roundtable recognised. Any overall increase in research is a good thing for the advancement of knowledge worldwide, and more postgraduates mean more post-doctorates wanting to travel and more researchers seeking partnerships.

Participants noted the symbiosis between research strength and economic strength, with one tending to feed off the other. Perhaps it is time for science to move elsewhere, suggested one speaker. “We’ve had a good run.”

But he questioned what it could mean for the future nature of science. While it may not be worse, it was likely to be different in terms of ideas around disciplines, education and working practices and “we are going to have to live with that world”.

Many felt that for the UK, a long-time research power, the prospect of relative decline this presented should be ringing alarm bells.

One speaker asked: “Are we Rome?”

Others suggested that it wasn’t that simple. Optimists pointed out that the UK still enjoys extensive soft power and respect for its research and education system. It has one of the highest proportions of co-authored research publications in the world and clever people continue to want to work and study here. Even if its share of world research and researchers is declining, the numbers involved remain high.

On the other hand, pessimists argued that if other countries build up their own university systems, they will have less need to send their students and graduates or even post-doctorates to the UK. One speaker noted the impressive lab equipment he had seen in China.

Meanwhile, old hierarchies still dominate global research structures, partly helped by the English language. While the UK benefits from that, participants were challenged to consider reform of global research governance to better reflect the new geography of research.

Some participants expressed concern about UK research becoming increasingly inward-looking, in response to pressures from politicians to concentrate on particular research areas related to Government priorities.

It was noted that the UK conveys mixed messages around attracting talent from overseas. Other countries make clear they want to be global research players; UK politicians, appealing to anti-immigration sentiment, are more ambivalent. And while the EU presents the only research bloc big enough to compete with China and America, the UK is barely in it.

Some pointed out that the UK is unusually reliant on its universities since it lacks independent research institutes. Others highlighted the country’s problems with scaling up spin outs.

What about potential solutions?

One speaker suggested that while having lots of exciting science happening around the world was wonderful, it threatened what in the UK had become an industry. Perhaps it was therefore time to make more of a case for higher education not as an industry but as a public good.

Another suggested learning from other countries about how to work in more equitable and meaningful partnerships with partners around the world and how to conduct research in different – and perhaps more cost effective – ways.

One warned that higher income countries often fell into the trap of seeing partnerships with lower income countries in terms of offering aid. Collaborations should instead involve both sides recognising each other’s strengths and both benefitting in an equal way.

Similarly, when it comes to attracting overseas students, the UK should think in terms of how its own students benefit from the arrangement, said another. Curricula may also need to be re-assessed to make them more suitable to the different world future researchers will face.

One suggestion was to identify where the UK is particularly strong and to become more competitive by developing those specialisms. Another participant pointed out that it was important not only to identify specialisms that others do not have, but to identify areas where others are also strong and where collaboration can therefore be especially productive.

Work is needed to put in place facilities and mechanisms to enable those researchers who would benefit from working together to find each other, said one participant. Another said it was important to ensure a balance between a centralised system for identifying potential collaborations and allowing individual researchers and departments to find their own partners.

It is not just about strategies led from the top, one speaker stressed. Those working across global borders need a rich understanding of the context in which institutions in other countries operate and how collaborations are conducted on the ground.

Researchers also need to be aware that the current world is a hugely unstable one and to be prepared to meet that challenge with equal partners.

The kind of challenges involved was made clear by one speaker who pointed out that America has recently turned off satellite climate data, which had been free for low and middle income countries to use, and has withdrawn from Antarctica its last ice-breaker ship, which monitored the melting of ice shelves threatening coastal cities.

The result of this loss of data could affect not only individual countries of all income levels around the world but the very planet they occupy.

Elsevier’s have produced a useful briefing paper on these issues: The changing geography of research.

Source link

December 21, 2025
Media Request to Turning Point USA about Protecting Children

Turning Point USA (TPUSA) presents itself as a youth-driven organization committed to “freedom,” “family values,” and protecting young people from ideological harm. Its events, chapters, conferences, and online ecosystem actively recruit high school and college students, many of them minors. That reality alone demands scrutiny. When an organization mobilizes thousands of young people, invites them into closed social networks, overnight conferences, mentorship relationships, and ideologically intense spaces, the question of safeguarding is not optional. It is foundational.

The Higher Education Inquirer is formally requesting that Turning Point USA explain—clearly, publicly, and in detail—how it protects its juvenile members from abuse, exploitation, harassment, grooming, and radicalization.

History shows what happens when powerful institutions prioritize reputation, growth, and loyalty over the safety of children. The Boy Scouts of America concealed decades of sexual abuse. The Catholic Church systematically reassigned abusive clergy while silencing victims. In both cases, leadership claimed moral authority while “looking the other way” to preserve power and legitimacy. These failures were not accidents; they were structural. They occurred in organizations that mixed hierarchy, ideology, secrecy, and minors.

TPUSA operates in a similarly charged environment. Its chapters are often led by young adults with little training in youth protection. Its national leadership cultivates celebrity figures, informal mentorships, and a grievance-driven culture that discourages internal dissent. Its conferences place minors in proximity to adult influencers, donors, and political operatives. Yet TPUSA has not meaningfully explained what independent safeguards are in place to prevent abuse or misconduct.

This concern is heightened by TPUSA’s proximity to extremist online subcultures. The organization has repeatedly intersected with or failed to decisively distance itself from INCEL-adjacent rhetoric and Groypers—a network associated with white nationalism, misogyny, antisemitism, and harassment campaigns targeting young people, especially women and LGBTQ students. Groypers, in particular, have demonstrated an ability to infiltrate conservative youth spaces, weaponize irony, and normalize dehumanizing ideas under the guise of “just asking questions.” These are not abstract risks. They are documented dynamics in digital youth radicalization.

Young men who feel isolated, humiliated, or angry are especially vulnerable to grooming—not only sexual grooming, but ideological grooming that funnels resentment into rigid hierarchies and scapegoating narratives. When organizations valorize grievance, masculinity panic, and enemies within, they create conditions where abuse can flourish and victims are pressured into silence for the “greater cause.”

TPUSA frequently positions itself as a protector of children against educators, librarians, and public schools. That posture invites reciprocal accountability. Who conducts background checks for chapter leaders and event staff? What mandatory reporting policies exist? Are there trauma-informed procedures for handling allegations? Are minors ever placed in unsupervised housing, transportation, or digital spaces with adults? What training is provided on boundaries, consent, and power dynamics? And crucially, what independent oversight exists beyond TPUSA’s own leadership and donors?

Safeguarding cannot be reduced to slogans or moral posturing. It requires transparency, external review, and a willingness to confront uncomfortable truths—even when they implicate allies. Institutions that refuse such scrutiny do not protect children; they protect themselves.

The Higher Education Inquirer awaits Turning Point USA’s response. Silence, deflection, or culture-war theatrics will only deepen concern. If TPUSA truly believes in protecting young people, it should welcome this scrutiny—and prove that it has learned from the catastrophic failures of institutions that came before it.

Sources

Wikipedia, “Turning Point USA”

Wikipedia, “Boy Scouts of America sex abuse cases”

Wikipedia, “Catholic Church sexual abuse cases”

Anti-Defamation League, “Groyper Movement”

Southern Poverty Law Center, reports on white nationalist youth recruitment and online radicalization

Moonshot CVE, research on incel ideology and youth radicalization

New York Times, reporting on abuse scandals in youth-serving institutions

ProPublica, investigations into institutional cover-ups involving minors

Source link

December 21, 2025
Launching my new book, Peak Higher Ed

Greetings from the darkest week of the year in the northern hemisphere. As winter solstice draws nigh I’m preparing some end-of-year posts. But first, this month Johns Hopkins University Press is publishing my new book, Peak Higher Ed: How to Survive the Looming Academic Crisis. and I’m very excited. Go, little book!

On Thursday we held a Future Trends Forum session officially launching Peak. For fun we switched up the usual arrangement, as I became a guest, not the host, and friends Wesson Radomsky and Brent Anders ran the show.

I wanted to write about it here to share the news, but also because this book grew out of a blog post. Let me explain.

A dozen years ago I was doing some environmental scanning and was struck by some data which surprised me. In 2012-13 American higher ed enrollment had declined slightly and this got me thinking. As far as I knew student numbers had always been rising, at least in my experience. What might a reversal mean? If this one year’s decline wasn’t an aberration, what might a further decrease look like? If higher ed was starting to slide down past its peak, what could happen to colleges and universities? I did some futures analysis then jotted down thoughts in a blog post.

In the ways blogs worked back then, this post stirred some comments and interest. I reflected and noodled at the idea, next writing up the idea as an Inside Higher Ed column. Josh Kim wrote a riposte which helped develop things further. People wrote me offline and approached me in person, worried about what post-peak academia might become. I developed peak higher ed into a future scenario and started presenting on it to in-person and virtual audiences, adjusting it as feedback rolled in, while continuing to blog about it as new data appeared. For example, in 2018 I noted that enrollment was still declining, as per the peak model. Again, Josh Kim responded. In 2019 I turned in the book manuscript for Academia Next and it included a peak higher ed scenario chapter. That book covered a lot of ground, dwelling on many trends and multiple scenarios.

Time passed. I continued to track and analyze trends reshaping higher education, including those which formed the peak model. I bounced the idea around with many people (see the book’s acknowledgements). I published a second Hopkins book, Universities on Fire, which focused on one single trend, climate change.

In 2023 I wanted to change from writing about a trend to focusing on a scenario at length and pitched a book proposal to Johns Hopkins University Press. In my offer I worked in many issues besides the core peak idea to see how they might intersect. The publisher agreed to a contract. Being a pro-open person, I quickly blogged my proposal and plan in 2024 then set to work. I actually followed the plan closely, developing each chapter in the proposed sequence, and now the book is in the world. As a lifelong science fiction fan, I’m delighted to have a trilogy in print.

That’s quite a journey starting from a single blog post.

Let me say a bit more about what the book contains. The first two chapters sketch out the scenario in some detail, describing how enrollment and the number of post-secondary institutions rose, peak, and fell. Next, “After the Consensus Shattered” examines that story in light of the call for “college for everyone,” which has fallen on hard time (as I blogged). A major and open question is: what collective understanding of higher education will succeed it?

The next three chapters engage with three major forces or problems in the world and how they might intersect with post-peak academia. “Automation Comes for the Campus” focuses on AI and ends up offering several scenarios for how that technology might impact colleges and universities. “The Anthropocene Is Here, Ready or Not” addresses climate change, the subject of my previous book, and explores several ways higher ed might engage that enormous force. Then “Academia and the Struggle for Humanity’s Future” picks up my hypermodern/demodern idea to ponder how post-secondary education could grapple with emerging ideologies of human progress.

The book concludes with two visions of the academy’s next phase. One, “Managed Descent,” imagines the sector continuing to slide down away from peak. The last, “Climbing Back to Peak,” offers some ways by which academics might reverse course and transform our institutions. We could, if we dream boldly and with care, realize “peak” as in “peak performance.”

There’s a little website for the book, where you can learn more about it, and which includes ordering links from Amazon, Bookshop.org, and Johns Hopkins. I’m so grateful to the many people who helped me realize this book. And as always, I’d love to hear from readers.

Liked it? Take a second to support Bryan Alexander on Patreon!

Related

Source link

December 20, 2025
Texas Universities Deploy AI Tools to Review How Courses Discuss Race and Gender – The 74

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

A senior Texas A&M University System official testing a new artificial intelligence tool this fall asked it to find how many courses discuss feminism at one of its regional universities. Each time she asked in a slightly different way, she got a different number.

“Either the tool is learning from my previous queries,” Texas A&M system’s chief strategy officer Korry Castillo told colleagues in an email, “or we need to fine tune our requests to get the best results.”

It was Sept. 25, and Castillo was trying to deliver on a promise Chancellor Glenn Hegar and the Board of Regents had already made: to audit courses across all of the system’s 12 universities after conservative outrage over a gender-identity lesson at the flagship campus intensified earlier that month, leading to the professor’s firing and the university president’s resignation.

Texas A&M officials said the controversy stemmed from the course’s content not aligning with its description in the university’s course catalog and framed the audit as a way to ensure students knew what they were signing up for. As other public universities came under similar scrutiny and began preparing to comply with a new state law that gives governor-appointed regents more authority over curricula, they, too, announced audits.

Records obtained by The Texas Tribune offer a first look at how Texas universities are experimenting with AI to conduct those reviews.

At Texas A&M, internal emails show staff are using AI software to search syllabi and course descriptions for words that could raise concerns under new system policies restricting how faculty teach about race and gender.

At Texas State, memos show administrators are suggesting faculty use an AI writing assistant to revise course descriptions. They urged professors to drop words such as “challenging,” “dismantling” and “decolonizing” and to rename courses with titles like “Combating Racism in Healthcare” to something university officials consider more neutral like “Race and Public Health in America.”

Read Texas State University’s guide to faculty on how to review their curriculum with AI

While school officials describe the efforts as an innovative approach that fosters transparency and accountability, AI experts say these systems do not actually analyze or understand course content, instead generating answers that sound right based on patterns in their training data.

That means small changes in how a question is phrased can lead to different results, they said, making the systems unreliable for deciding whether a class matches its official description. They warned that using AI this way could lead to courses being flagged over isolated words and further shift control of teaching away from faculty and toward administrators.

“I’m not convinced this is about serving students or cleaning up syllabi,” said Chris Gilliard, co-director of the Critical Internet Studies Institute. “This looks like a project to control education and remove it from professors and put it into the hands of administrators and legislatures.”

Setting up the tool

During a board of regents meeting last month, Texas A&M System leaders described the new processes they were developing to audit courses as a repeatable enforcement mechanism.

Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs James Hallmark said the system would use “AI-assisted tools” to examine course data under “consistent, evidence-based criteria,” which would guide future board action on courses. Regent Sam Torn praised it as “real governance,” saying Texas A&M was “stepping up first, setting the model that others will follow.”

That same day, the board approved new rules requiring presidents to sign off on any course that could be seen as advocating for “race and gender ideology” and prohibiting professors from teaching material not on the approved syllabus for a course.

In a statement to the Tribune, Chris Bryan, the system’s vice chancellor for marketing and communications, said Texas A&M is using OpenAI services through an existing subscription to aid the system’s course audit and that the tool is still being tested as universities finish sharing their course data. He said “any decisions about appropriateness, alignment with degree programs, or student outcomes will be made by people, not software.”

In records obtained by the Tribune, Castillo, the system’s chief strategy officer, told colleagues to prepare for about 20 system employees to use the tool to make hundreds of queries each semester.

The records also show some of the concerns that arose from early tests of the tool.

When Castillo told colleagues about the varying results she obtained when searching for classes that discuss feminism, deputy chief information officer Mark Schultz cautioned that the tool came with “an inherent risk of inaccuracy.”

“Some of that can be mitigated with training,” he said, “but it probably can’t be fully eliminated.”

Schultz did not specify what kinds of inaccuracies he meant. When asked if the potential inaccuracies had been resolved, Bryan said, “We are testing baseline conversations with the AI tool to validate the accuracy, relevance and repeatability of the prompts.” He said this includes seeing how the tool responds to invalid or misleading prompts and having humans review the results.

Experts said the different answers Castillo received when she rephrased her question reflect how these systems operate. They explained that these kinds of AI tools generate their responses by predicting patterns and generating strings of text.

“These systems are fundamentally systems for repeatedly answering the question ‘what is the likely next word’ and that’s it,” said Emily Bender, a computational linguist at the University of Washington. “The sequence of words that comes out looks like the kind of thing you would expect in that context, but it is not based on reason or understanding or looking at information.”

Because of that, small changes to how a question is phrased can produce different results. Experts also said users can nudge the model toward the answer they want. Gilliard said that is because these systems are also prone to what developers call “sycophancy,” meaning they try to agree with or please the user.

“Very often, a thing that happens when people use this technology is if you chide or correct the machine, it will say, ‘Oh, I’m sorry’ or like ‘you’re right,’ so you can often goad these systems into getting the answer you desire,” he said.

T. Philip Nichols, a Baylor University professor who studies how technology influences teaching and learning in schools, said keyword searches also provide little insight into how a topic is actually taught. He called the tool “a blunt instrument” that isn’t capable of understanding how certain discussions that the software might flag as unrelated to the course tie into broader class themes.

“Those pedagogical choices of an instructor might not be present in a syllabus, so to just feed that into a chatbot and say, ‘Is this topic mentioned?’ tells you nothing about how it’s talked about or in what way,” Nichols said.

Castillo’s description of her experience testing the AI tool was the only time in the records reviewed by the Tribune when Texas A&M administrators discussed specific search terms being used to inspect course content. In another email, Castillo said she would share search terms with staff in person or by phone rather than email.

System officials did not provide the list of search terms the system plans to use in the audit.

Martin Peterson, a Texas A&M philosophy professor who studies the ethics of technology, said faculty have not been asked to weigh in on the tool, including members of the university’s AI council. He noted that the council’s ethics and governance committee is charged with helping set standards for responsible AI use.

While Peterson generally opposes the push to audit the university system’s courses, he said he is “a little more open to the idea that some such tool could perhaps be used.”

“It is just that we have to do our homework before we start using the tool,” Peterson said.

AI-assisted revisions

At Texas State University, officials ordered faculty to rewrite their syllabi and suggested they use AI to do it.

In October, administrators flagged 280 courses for review and told faculty to revise titles, descriptions and learning outcomes to remove wording the university said was not neutral. Records indicate that dozens of courses set to be offered by the College of Liberal Arts in the Spring 2026 semester were singled out for neutrality concerns. They included courses such as Intro to Diversity, Social Inequality, Freedom in America, Southwest in Film and Chinese-English Translation.

Faculty were given until Dec. 10 to complete the rewrites, with a second-level review scheduled in January and the entire catalog to be evaluated by June.

Administrators shared with faculty a guide outlining wording they said signaled advocacy. It discouraged learning outcomes that describe students “measure or require belief, attitude or activism (e.g., value diversity, embrace activism, commit to change).”

Administrators also provided a prompt for faculty to paste into an AI writing assistant alongside their materials. The prompt instructs the chatbot to “identify any language that signals advocacy, prescriptive conclusions, affective outcomes or ideological commitments” and generate three alternative versions that remove those elements.

Jayme Blaschke, assistant director of media relations at Texas State, described the internal review as “thorough” and “deliberative,” but would not say whether any classes have already been revised or removed, only that “measures are in place to guide students through any adjustments and keep their academic progress on track.” He also declined to explain how courses were initially flagged and who wrote the neutrality expectations.

Faculty say the changes have reshaped how curriculum decisions are made on campus.

Aimee Villarreal, an assistant professor of anthropology and president of Texas State’s American Association of University Professors chapter, said the process is usually faculty-driven and unfolds over a longer period of time. She believes the structure of this audit allows administrators to more closely monitor how faculty describe their disciplines and steer how that material must be presented.

She said the requirement to revise courses quickly or risk having them removed from the spring schedule has created pressure to comply, which may have pushed some faculty toward using the AI writing assistant.

Villarreal said the process reflects a lack of trust in faculty and their field expertise when deciding what to teach.

“I love what I do,” Villarreal said, “and it’s very sad to see the core of what I do being undermined in this way.”

Nichols warned the trend of using AI in this way represents a larger threat.

“This is a kind of de-professionalizing of what we do in classrooms, where we’re narrowing the horizon of what’s possible,” he said. “And I think once we give that up, that’s like giving up the whole game. That’s the whole purpose of why universities exist.”

The Texas Tribune partners with Open Campus on higher education coverage.

Disclosure: Baylor University, Texas A&M University and Texas A&M University System have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

This article first appeared on The Texas Tribune.

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

Source link

December 20, 2025
Whitmer Calls Literacy Her ‘Number One Priority’ for Final Year as Governor – The 74

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

In a keynote speech at the Michigan Literacy Summit, held Tuesday at the Michigan Science Center, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said that improving literacy rates would remain her top priority in her final year as governor.

“Helping every child read is tough. It’s a worthwhile goal,” she said. “It’s a long term project that will pay off in decades, not days. It’s a team effort that requires buy-in from students, parents, teachers and policy makers.”

She referenced the increased implementation of the “science of reading” law, which she signed in October 2024, as part of this priority. That law standardized literacy teaching methods across the state and implemented regular dyslexia testing for students up to third grade. She also touted the free school breakfast and lunch program, a key piece of the state’s education budget, and funding to reduce class sizes.

Michigan currently ranks 44th in the nation for 4th grade reading skills, Whitmer said, calling it a “crisis.”

“The vast majority of people in our state agree this isn’t the fault of any one person or any one policy or any one political party,” she continued. “I know how hard every one of our educators works every day, but we’re all feeling the impact of our literacy crisis.”

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and State Superintendent Glenn Maleyko pose for a photograph before her speech at the Michigan Literacy Summit. Dec. 16, 2025. | Photo by Katherine Dailey/Michigan Advance.

State Superintendent Dr. Glenn Maleyko, who officially took over the role leading the state’s department of education on Dec. 8, introduced Whitmer to a crowd of educators and advocates, who had gathered in Detroit for the day-long event that included panels with teachers and school leadership.

“What stood out to me the most was the governor’s genuine commitment to partnership,” Maleyko said. “She understands that improving outcomes for students is not about politics, it’s about listening, working together and staying focused on what matters most.”

This was Whitmer’s first public appearance since Michigan House Republicans canceled nearly $650 million in spending for departmental projects, a move heavily criticized by Democrats as “untransparent” and “cruel”. While Whitmer’s press secretary shared similar criticism from the governor’s office, Whitmer herself has yet to make a statement on the cuts, and left the summit before speaking to the press.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: [email protected].

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

Source link

December 20, 2025
Happy Holiday! I’ll be Dark Dec. 20-Jan 4th!

I’ll be taking a few weeks off to edit/format my website, work on projects with a deadline, prioritize life, and wish my two adult military children could come home to visit. I may drop in on you-all as you enjoy holidays, but mostly I’ll be regenerating.

I wish you a wonderful season, safe and filled with family.

–image credit Deposit Photo

Copyright ©2025 askatechteacher.com – All rights reserved.

Here’s the sign-up link if the image above doesn’t work:

https://forms.aweber.com/form/07/1910174607.htm

“The content presented in this blog are the result of creative imagination and not intended for use, reproduction, or incorporation into any artificial intelligence training or machine learning systems without prior written consent from the author.”

Jacqui Murray has been teaching K-18 technology for 30 years. She is the editor/author of over a hundred tech ed resources including a K-12 technology curriculum, K-8 keyboard curriculum, K-8 Digital Citizenship curriculum. She is an adjunct professor in tech ed, Master Teacher, freelance journalist on tech ed topics, and author of the tech thrillers, To Hunt a Sub and Twenty-four Days. You can find her resources at Structured Learning.

Source link

December 20, 2025
Blog » ReachIvy
Reading Time: 3 minutes

Whether you’re a high school student applying for college, a recent graduate preparing for internships, or a working professional looking for your next role, one thing remains constant—your resume is your first impression.

In 2025, admissions officers and recruiters skim resumes in 7 seconds or less, often using AI-powered tools before a human even reviews your profile.
That means your resume must be clear, structured, keyword-rich, and impact-driven.

Here’s your complete guide to building a resume that truly stands out.
1. Start with Clear & Updated Contact Information
At the top of your resume, include:
- Phone number (active and reachable)
- Professional email address
- LinkedIn profile or personal website (optional but highly recommended)
Pro Tip:
Use the same name and format across all applications to maintain digital consistency.
1. Showcase Work Experience with Actionable Impact
List your experiences in reverse chronological order. For each role, add:
- 2–4 bullet points with action verbs + quantifiable impact
Example:
Increased student engagement by 30% by redesigning social media strategy.

Even if you have limited experience, include:

2025 Tip:
Applicant tracking systems (ATS) pick up keywords—mirror the language used in university or job descriptions.
1. Highlight Your Education Clearly
List your highest education first:
- Graduation year (or expected year)
- Relevant coursework (especially helpful for students)
Also include:
- Online courses (Coursera, edX, Udemy)
- AI-related certifications (highly valued today)
1. Add a Skills Section That Reflects Today’s Demands
Showcase both technical skills and soft skills, but be honest and specific.

Technical Skills Examples:
- AI tools (ChatGPT, Notion AI, Midjourney)
Soft Skills Examples:

2025 Tip: AI literacy is increasingly becoming a required skill—include it if relevant.
1. Share Achievements & Awards That Add Credibility
Highlight achievements that reinforce your strengths.

Examples:

Focus on recent, relevant achievements rather than outdated school awards.
1. List Projects & Internships Thoughtfully
Projects show initiative and hands-on learning—include:

For each, include:
Role → Objective → Tools Used → Outcome / Impact

This gives universities and employers insight into your problem-solving and execution abilities.
1. Include Extracurricular Activities & Volunteering
This section demonstrates your personality, leadership, and values.

Examples:

Pick experiences that highlight your core strengths and growth mindset.
1. Add a Languages Section (Very Useful for Global Applications)
Mention:
- Proficiency levels (Beginner → Native)
This is particularly valuable for study abroad and global job opportunities.

Bonus Tip: Keep It Clean, Crisp & Easy to Scan
- Stick to one page (for students) or two pages max (for professionals).
- Use consistent fonts and spacing.
- Avoid long paragraphs—use bullet points.
- Save your resume as PDF, unless otherwise requested.
You can also use ReachIvy’s FREE Resume Builder Tool to create a polished resume in minutes—pick a template, fill your details, and download instantly.

]

Ready to Take Your Resume from Good to Exceptional?

Once your draft is ready, elevate it with expert review.

ReachIvy’s Resume Review Service connects you with alumni from Harvard, Oxford, Cornell, and other top global universities.
You’ll receive:
- Detailed line-by-line feedback
- Impact-enhancing rewrites
👉 Get your resume reviewed by experts today.
Make your first impression count.
Source link
December 20, 2025
WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation
This blog was kindly authored by Martin Lowe, Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding and Mary Lawler from the University of Lancashire, authors of Student Working Lives (HEPI report 195).

The clearest finding of our recent HEPI report, Student Working Lives, was the growing prevalence of paid work among students and its profound impact on their experiences and outcomes.

This trend is not confined to disadvantaged groups; it is now a reality for the majority of students, with the Advance HE and HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey revealing how 68% of students now work during term time. Yet, despite its significance, paid work remains largely absent from regulatory frameworks designed to promote equality of opportunity in higher education.

As the Office for Students (OfS) reviews its approach to access and participation, we argue that paid work should be recognised as a distinct risk on the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR). Doing so would enable providers to respond more effectively to the challenges students face and ensure that widening participation efforts reflect the realities of modern student life.

A risk-based future for access and participation

Since taking office, the Labour Government has placed widening participation as a central pillar of its higher education agenda. From the introduction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to the creation of a new Access and Participation Task and Finish Group, ministers have signalled their determination to open doors to learners from non-traditional backgrounds.

This ambition was reiterated in the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, which proposed a significant shift in the regulatory approach in England:

We will reform regulation of access and participation plans, moving away from a uniform approach to one where the Office for Students can be more risk-based.

While this statement attracted less attention than the more headline-grabbing measures on tuition fees and maintenance grants, it represents a potentially transformative change. A risk-based model could allow the OfS to focus on the most pressing barriers to equality of opportunity, provided those risks are accurately identified.

The existing EORR complements this approach. Having been introduced under the leadership of outgoing Director of Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, John Blake, the register has already been widely welcomed by the sector. By identifying factors that threaten access and success for disadvantaged student groups, it enables providers to design interventions tailored to their own context. Rather than simply seeking to address outcome gaps, the EORR encourages institutions to tackle the underlying causes.

However, the register is not static. If it is to remain relevant, it must evolve to reflect emerging challenges. One such challenge is the growing necessity of paid work alongside study, a risk that intersects the financial pressures felt by students but extends far beyond them.

Paid work is more than a financial issue

The current EORR already identifies ‘Cost Pressures’ as a risk, acknowledging that rising living costs can undermine students’ ability to complete their course or achieve good grades. Yet this framing is too narrow on its own. Paid work is not merely a symptom of financial strain; it’s a complex factor that shapes engagement, attainment, and progression into graduate employment.

Our research shows that paid work is a necessity for most students, regardless of background, with average hours worked remaining static across each Indices of Deprivation (IMD) quintile. However, its impact is uneven. Students having to work more than 20 hours per week, those employed in particularly demanding sectors and those balancing caring responsibilities may all face challenges due to increased workload. However each should be supported in different ways.

Figure 1: Likelihood of obtaining a ‘good’ honours degree by work hours

These patterns matter because they influence both academic performance and participation in enrichment activities that support retention and employability. Paid work is a structural feature of student life that can amplify existing inequalities, but present specific nuances depending on the local context.

Our analysis highlights how the risks associated with paid work differ across institutions and how regional labour markets shape patterns of student employment. For instance, our survey indicates a higher proportion of students working in health and social care in Lancashire, where the sector represents 15% of total employment. In contrast, Liverpool’s relatively large share of hospitality student workers reflects the sector’s prominence, accounting for around 10% of jobs in the city region. These different contexts can help steer local interventions to reduce risk associated with particular sectors.

Figure 2: Employment by top four sectors (multiple responses accepted)

Recognising paid work as a formal risk would help empower institutions to develop context-sensitive strategies. These might include the crediting of paid work within the curriculum, embedding guidance on employment rights within pastoral support, or designing schedules that accommodate students’ working patterns.

Access and participation – two sides of the same coin

As the OfS explores separating out the “Access” and “Participation” strands of its regulatory framework – as outlined in their recent quality consultation – paid work should feature prominently in supporting both ambitions. Widening access is not simply about opening the door; it is about ensuring wider groups of students see themselves as being part of that experience. For some mature learners, carers, and those with financial dependencies (who may feel excluded by the traditional delivery model of higher education) the support to balance paid work and study is critical.

Ignoring this reality risks undermining the very goals of widening participation. Higher education must adapt to the evolving profile of its students, who increasingly diverge from the outdated stereotype of the full-time undergraduate.

Our recommendation is for the OfS to prioritise paid work as a key aspect of the future of Access and Participation regulation, inserting it as a distinct risk within the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register. Doing so would:
- signal its importance as a structural factor affecting equality of opportunity;
- enable targeted interventions that reflect institutional and regional contexts;
- support innovation in curriculum design, pastoral care, and timetabling;
- and promote collaboration between universities, employers, and policymakers to improve job quality and flexibility.
This is not about discouraging students from working. For many, employment provides valuable experience and skills. Instead, it is about recognising that when work becomes a necessity rather than a choice, it can compromise educational outcomes, especially for those already at the margins.

The OfS has an opportunity to lead the sector in addressing one of the most pressing challenges facing students today. By treating paid work as a formal risk, it can help ensure that access and participation strategies are grounded in the lived realities of learners.

As we look to the future, one principle should guide the sector: widening participation does not end at the point of entry. It extends throughout the student journey, encompassing the conditions that enable success. Paid work is now not only part of that journey, but a critical factor.
Source link
December 20, 2025