Blog

How Can Small Colleges Survive in an Era of Consolidation? – Edu Alliance Journal

January 5, 2026 – Editor’s Note: Last week we published a synthesis of insights from Small College America’s 2025 webinar series, featuring voices from seven leaders navigating change, partnerships, and strategic decisions. Here, two expert panelists from the December webinar on mergers and partnerships provide a deeper analytical examination of the economic forces and partnership models reshaping small colleges.

By Dr. Chet Haskell and Dr. Barry Ryan. During a recent national webinar titled Navigating Higher Education’s Existential Challenges: From Partnerships and Mergers to Reinvention, in which we served as panelists, we were struck by both the familiarity and the seriousness of the questions raised by senior higher education leaders—particularly those concerning the growing consideration of mergers and partnerships. Most were no longer asking whether change is coming, but which options remain realistically available.

This article builds on conversations from that webinar and complements the recent synthesis of insights shared by our fellow panelists and the college presidents who participated in Small College America’s fall webinar series. Here we examine more systematically the economic forces and partnership models small colleges must now navigate. This article represents our attempt to step back from that conversation and examine more deliberately the forces now reshaping higher education.

Anyone involved with higher education is both aware and concerned about the struggles of small, independent colleges and the challenges to their viability. Defined as having 3000 or fewer students, more than 90% of these institutions lack substantial endowments and other financial assets and thus are at risk.

For many of these institutions, the risk is truly existential. Many simply are too small, too under-financed, too strapped to have any reasonable path to continuity. The result is the almost weekly announcement of a closure with all the pain and loss that accompanies such events.

Why is all this happening? Most of the problems are well known and openly discussed. Since almost all of these institutions are tuition revenue dependent, the biggest threat is declining enrollments. Demographic changes leading to fewer high school graduates are central, a situation exacerbated in many cases by Federal policy changes that discourage international students. But there are many others: excessive tuition discounting leading to reduced net tuition revenue, rising operating costs for everything from facilities to insurance to employee salaries, changes in state and Federal policies, especially student aid policies and restrictions on international students are just some examples.

The reality is that higher education is in a period of consolidation. After decades of growth beginning after the Second World War, the basic economic drivers of the private, non-profit residential undergraduate institutions are slowing down or even reversing. There simply are not enough traditional students to make all institutions viable. The basic financial model no longer works. If it did work, one could expect to see new institutions springing up. This has not happened except in the for-profit sphere, a totally different model known mostly for its excesses and failures. While there is a place for the for-profit approach, it is not in the small liberal arts college world. This is true for the same reason that the small institutions are under stress: the economics do not work.

One crucial challenge is simple scale or, rather, lack thereof. Small institutions have fewer opportunities for achieving economies of scale. Unlike larger public institutions (that have different challenges of their own) these colleges cannot have large classes as a significant characteristic of their modes of delivery. Their basic model assumes a relatively comprehensive curriculum provided through small classes, giving a wide variety of choices and pathways to a degree for undergraduates. But the broader the curriculum, the fewer students per program, almost always without commensurate faculty reductions. The economic inefficiency of the current model is clear.

And there are certain base personnel costs beyond the faculty. Every institution needs a range of administrative personnel (often required by accreditors) regardless of size. Attracting experienced personnel to such institutions is neither easy nor inexpensive.

The undergraduate residential model is both a key element in the American higher education ecosystem and a beloved concept for those fortunate enough to have experienced it. These schools are often cornerstones of small communities. They have produced an inordinate number of future professors and scholars. For example, a 2022 NCSES study provided evidence of doctoral degree attainment being at higher ratios for graduates of baccalaureate arts and science institutions than for baccalaureate graduates of R1 research universities.* The basic matter of scale is central to the liberal arts institutions’ attractiveness for students who may go on to doctoral study: small classes with high levels of faculty interaction; a focus on teaching instead of research; the sense of intimacy and a clear mission.

With proper planning and courage, some of these colleges may yet find ways to survive through some form of merger with – or acquisition by – a larger and stronger institution. Further, with sufficient foresight, many other seemingly more solid colleges may find ways to assure survival through other forms of partnerships.

However, the fact is that only the wealthiest 10% of institutions are not at immediate risk, even though prudence would suggest even they should be considering possible changes in their paths.

What can be done?

There have been multiple efforts to reimagine higher education. Some have been based on technology and have led to the growth of various distance or remote models, some quite successful, other less so. MOOCs were going to take over education generally, but have faded. For-profit models have all too often led to abuses, especially of poorer students. Artificial intelligence is at the forefront of current change concepts, but it is too early to assess outcomes. But small residential colleges have resisted such innovations, in part because they are clear about their education model and in part because they often lack the expertise or the resources to take advantage of change.

Some institutions have sought to mitigate the impacts of their scale limitations through consortia arrangements with other institutions. While significant savings may be achieved through the sharing of administrative costs, such as information technology systems or certain other “back office” functions, these savings are unlikely to be more than marginal in impact.

Other impacts for a consortium may come from cost sharing on the academic side. Small academic departments (foreign languages, for example) may permit modest faculty reductions while providing a wider range of choices for students. Athletic facilities and even teams may be shared, as well as some academic services such as international offices or career services operations. In the case of two of the most successful consortia, the Claremont Colleges and the Atlanta University Center, the schools share a central library. Access to electronic databases certainly creates an easier and less expensive pathway to increased economically efficient use of critical resources.

While the savings in expenses may be considered marginal, the true potential in such arrangements is the chance to grow collective student enrollments by offering more options and amenities than would be possible for a single institution.

However, there are other challenges to the consortium model. A primary one relates to location. Institutions near each other likely can find more ways to take advantage of the contiguity than those widely separated. Examples might be the Five Colleges in Western Massachusetts, the previously noted Claremont Colleges or the Atlanta University Center that links four HBCU institutions in the same city. New examples of cooperation include the recently announce CaliBaja Higher Education Consortium, a joint effort of both private and public institutions reaching across the border in the San Diego/Baja California region.

A different kind of sharing arrangement is represented by initiatives to share academic programs though arrangements where one institution provides courses and programs to others through licensing agreements and the like. An example would be Rize Education, an initiative that seeks to enable undergraduate institutions to expand and enhance academic offerings through courses designed elsewhere that can be readily integrated into existing curricula, thus avoiding the costs of time and money needed to build new programs.

At the other end of the spectrum are straightforward mergers and acquisitions. One institution takes over another. Sometimes this is accomplished in ways that preserve at least parts of the acquired school, even if only for political reasons related to alumni, but the reality is that one institution swallows another.

Another version is a true merger of rough equals. There are numerous examples, one of the best known being Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. In this situation, two separate institutions decided they could both be better together and, over time, they have built an integrated university of quality. A recent example may be the announced merger of Willamette University and Pacific University in Oregon. Such arrangements are quite complex, but may provide a model for certain institutions.

A third model might be the new Coalition for the Common Good. Initially a partnership of two independent universities, Antioch and Otterbein Universities, the Coalition is built on three principles: symbiosis, multilateralism and mission. The symbiosis involves Antioch taking on and expanding Otterbein’s graduate programs for the shared benefit of both institutions. Multilateralism refers to the Coalition basic concept of being more than two institutions as the goal: a collection of similar institutions. Mission is central to the Coalition. The initial partners share long histories of institutional culture and mission, as reflected in the name of the Coalition itself.

Other partnership models are possible and should be encouraged. While it is rare to see a partnership of true equals, as one partner is usually dominant, this middle ground between a complete merger or acquisition and consortia should be fertile ground for innovation for forward thinking institutions not in dire straits. Since there is no single approach to such structures, the benefits to participating partners should be at the core of the approach. These partnerships may be able to address the challenge of scale and provide opportunities for shared costs. Properly presented, they should be attractive to potential students and provide a competitive edge in a highly competitive environment.

The importance of mission and culture

While the root cause of most college declines and failures is economic in nature, it is all too easy to forget the role of an institution’s mission and culture. Many colleges look alike in terms of academic offerings, yet institutions usually have a carefully defined and defended mission or purpose. These missions are important because they help define the college as more than just a collection of courses. Education can serve many different missions and thus mission clarity is crucial to institutional identify. And identity is one way for institutions to differentiate themselves from competition, while also helping to attract students.

Mission is also tied to institutional culture. Colleges have different subjective cultures that serve to attract certain students, as well as faculty and staff members. Spending four years of one’s life ought not to be spent in an impersonal organizational setting. There are multiple individual personal reasons for attending one institution instead of another. Most of these reasons are not entirely objective, but instead depend on an individual’s sense of ‘fit’ in the college setting.

What should institutions be doing?

The stark reality is that for many smaller institutions the alternative to some sort of partnership is likely to be closure. But closure is not to be taken lightly. The impact of these institutions is far-reaching and the human, educational and community costs are very real.

All institutions, regardless of financial assets, should be openly discussing their futures in a changing world. As noted, a few may be able to simply proceed with what they have been doing for years. But this luxury (or blindness) is not a viable or attractive option for most.

Every institution should be looking into the future at its basic model. Is there a realistic path to assuring enrollment and revenue growth in excess of expenses over time? Is there a budget model that provides regular surpluses that can provide a cushion against unanticipated challenges or can enable investment in new initiatives? Are there alternative paths to revenues that can augment tuition, such as fundraising, auxiliary enterprises or the like? And in looking at such questions, an institution should be asking how it can be better off over time with a partner or partners.

Even institutions that examine such matters and conclude it would be advantageous to engage a partner are faced with daunting challenges. First is determining what is desired in a partner and then identifying one. Some colleges feel bound by geography, so can only think about like institutions nearby. Others are more creative, looking to use technology to enable a more widely dispersed partnership.

Once a partner is identified, the path to an agreement is arduous, complex, lengthy and costly. Accreditors, the Department of Education, state boards of higher education, alumni, and all manner of other interested parties must be addressed. This requires external legal and financial expertise. This process is excessively demanding of an institution’s leaders, especially presidents, provosts and chief financial officers. Boards must be deeply involved and internal constituencies of faculty and staff must be brought along.

And once a final agreement is reached, signed and approved, the work has only begun. The implementation of any partnership is also arduous, complex, lengthy and costly. Furthermore, implementation involves deep human factors, as institutional cultures must be aligned and new personal professional partnerships must be developed.

The fact is that many institutions will either enter into some form of partnerships in the coming years, as the alternative will be closure. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking, and unnecessary delays create limitations on available options and increase risks. Every institution’s path into partnerships will vary, as will the particulars of each arrangement. It is incumbent upon boards of trustees and institutional leaders to face such facts realistically and to devise practical plans to move forward. Not doing so would be a dereliction of duty.

Dr. Chet Haskell is an experienced higher education consultant focusing on existential challenges to smaller nonprofit institutions. and opportunities for collaboration. Dr. Haskell is a former two-time president and, most recently, a provost directly involved in three significant merger acquisitions or partnership agreements. including the coalition. for the common good, the partnership of Antioch and Otterbein University.

Barry Ryan is an experienced leader and attorney. has served as a president and provost for multiple universities. He helped guide several institutions through mergers, acquisitions, and accreditation. Most recently, he led Woodbury University through its merger. with the University of Redlands. He also serves on university boards and is a commissioner for WASC.

Haskell and Ryan are the Co-Directors of the Center for College Partnerships and Alliances, launched by Edu Alliance Group in late 2025. It is dedicated to helping higher education institutions explore and implement college partnerships, mergers, and strategic alliances designed to strengthen sustainability and mission alignment.

Source link

January 5, 2026
$Teachers who use math vocabulary help students do better in math$

Teachers who use math vocabulary help students do better in math

by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report
January 5, 2026

Students, parents and school principals all instinctively know that some teachers are better than others. Education researchers have spent decades trying — with mixed success — to calculate exactly how much better.

What remains far more elusive is why.

A new study suggests that one surprisingly simple difference between stronger and weaker math teachers may be how often they use mathematical vocabulary, words such as “factors,” “denominators” and “multiples,” in class.

Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

Teachers who used more math vocabulary had students who scored higher on math tests, according to a team of data scientists and education researchers from Harvard University, Stanford University and the University of Maryland. The size of the test score boost was substantial. It amounted to about half of the benefit researchers typically attribute to having a highly effective teacher, which is among the most important school-based factors that help children learn. Students with highly effective teachers can end up months ahead of their peers.

“If you’re looking for a good math teacher, you’re probably looking for somebody who’s exposing their students to more mathematical vocabulary,” said Harvard data scientist Zachary Himmelsbach, lead author of the study, which was published online in November 2025.

The finding aligns with a growing body of research suggesting that language plays a critical role in math learning. A 2021 meta-analysis of 40 studies found that students with stronger math vocabularies tend to perform better in math, particularly on multi-step, complex problems. Understanding what a “radius” is, for example, can make it more efficient to talk about perimeter and area and understand geometric concepts. Some math curricula explicitly teach vocabulary and include glossaries to reinforce these terms.

Related: Three reasons why so few eighth graders in the poorest schools take algebra

But vocabulary alone is unlikely to be a magic ingredient.

“If a teacher just stood in front of the classroom and recited lists of mathematical vocabulary terms, nobody’s learning anything,” said Himmelsbach.

Instead, Himmelsbach suspects that vocabulary is part of a broader constellation of effective teaching practices. Teachers who use more math terms may also be providing clearer explanations, walking students through lots of examples step-by-step, and offering engaging puzzles. These teachers might also have a stronger conceptual understanding of math themselves.

It’s hard to isolate what exactly is driving the students’ math learning and what role vocabulary, in and of itself, is playing, Himmelsbach said.

Himmelsbach and his research team analyzed transcripts from more than 1,600 fourth- and fifth-grade math lessons in four school districts recorded for research purposes about 15 years ago. They counted how often teachers used more than 200 common math terms drawn from elementary math curriculum glossaries.

The average teacher used 140 math-related words per lesson. But there was wide variation. The top quarter of the teachers used at least 28 more math terms per lesson than the quarter of the teachers who spoke the fewest math words. Over the course of a school year, that difference amounted to roughly 4,480 additional math terms, meaning that some students were exposed to far richer mathematical language than others, depending on which teacher they happened to have that year.

The study linked these differences to student achievement. One hundred teachers were recorded over three years, and in the third year, students were randomly assigned to classrooms. That random assignment allowed the researchers to rule out the possibility that higher performing students were simply being clustered with stronger teachers.

Related: A theory for learning numbers without counting gains popularity

The lessons came from districts serving mostly low-income students. About two-thirds of students qualified for free or reduced-price lunch, more than 40 percent were Black, and nearly a quarter were Hispanic — the very populations that tend to struggle the most in math and stand to gain the most from effective instruction.

Interestingly, student use of math vocabulary did not appear to matter as much as teacher use. Although the researchers also tracked how often students used math terms in class, they found no clear link between teachers who used more vocabulary and students who spoke more math words themselves. Exposure and comprehension, rather than verbal facility, may be enough to support stronger math performance.

The researchers also looked for clues as to why some teachers used more math vocabulary than others. Years of teaching experience made no difference. Nor did the number of math or math pedagogy courses teachers had taken in college. Teachers with stronger mathematical knowledge did tend to use more math terms, but the relationship was modest.

Himmelsbach suspects that personal beliefs play an important role. Some teachers, he said, worry that formal math language will confuse students and instead favor more familiar phrasing, such as “put together” instead of addition, or “take away” instead of subtraction. While those colloquial expressions can be helpful, students ultimately need to understand how they correspond to formal mathematical concepts, Himmelsbach said.

This study is part of a new wave of education research that uses machine learning and natural language processing — computer techniques that analyze large volumes of text — to peer inside the classroom, which has long remained a black box. With enough recorded lessons, researchers hope not only to identify which teaching practices matter most, but also provide teachers with concrete, data-driven feedback.

Related: A little parent math talk with kids might really add up

The researchers did not examine whether teachers used math terms correctly, but they noted that future models could be trained to do just that, offering feedback on accuracy and context, not just frequency.

For now, the takeaway is more modest but still meaningful: Students appear to learn more math when their teachers speak the language of math more often.

Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

This story about math vocabulary was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-math-vocabulary/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114152&ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-math-vocabulary/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

Source link

January 5, 2026
The political weaponry of disinformaton

Begoña Gómez, the wife of Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, was born a man by the name of Begoño. Some 500 kilos of gold were once found in her house on the Canary Islands. She is now being blackmailed with material stolen from her mobile phone while she was on a trip to Morocco. Oh, and she headed a drug-trafficking cartel.

If you believe even some of these stories as a Spaniard, you’d think your country had gone insane. You’d think you were being ruled by a class of deceiving drug traffickers. Lies, or rather disinformation, are nothing new in Spain, but in recent years they have been forming increasingly coherent narratives of an alternative reality.

They are often a fantasy that sometimes does brush up against reality: last June, several higher-ranking members of the governing party Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE), or Spanish Socialist Workers’ Party, were forced to step down due to a corruption case. Private messages emerged in which they talked about large sums of money and escort services.

The case was particularly painful for Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, who came into power fighting corruption.

In 2018, as leader of the opposition, he called a vote of no confidence involving then Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. That government fell, and since then Sánchez has led consecutive governments, on a promise to finally eradicate the systemic corruption that plagues Spain.

“This [latest corruption case] is confirming the narrative that all politicians lie, all politicians steal, all politicians are there for their personal gain,” said Alba Tobella, director of Catalan fact-checking platform Verificat. “Every case of corruption serves to further reinforce this idea.”

A flood of falsehoods

Through their website and social media, Verificat checks the accuracy of news spread over the internet. They noticed that from the moment Sánchez came into power, institutions on the right have tried hard to discredit him.

“Anything that can be used to delegitimize Pedro Sánchez will be used against him,” Tobella said. “Any failure in Spain is directly linked to Pedro Sánchez.”

These disinformation campaigns were particularly evident during the 2017 referendum for independence of Catalonia, when falsehoods from both sides were widespread. That period was one of the reasons Verificat was founded.

Another surge of false information swept through the country in 2024, following the flooding disaster in the Valencia area in which at least 229 people died. At the time, misinformation spread among the local population quickly, because people felt the government had failed to protect them.

What is new though, Tobella said, is that hoaxes are becoming increasingly complex and nuanced. She notes a normalization of these alternative realities, which some people are completely immersed in.

“It’s like a complete disconnection of the audience from the truth, as well as a lack of interest in seeking the facts,” she said.

The spreaders of fabricated “facts”

Much of the disinformation reaches people through social media and WhatsApp messages, as is shown on the websites of fact checkers like Verificat. Some websites and media outlets also contain this kind of fake news, and it is sometimes spread by politicians such as Santiago Abascal, leader of radical-right party Vox.

Now, following the latest corruption cases involving the PSOE, misinformation has again found fertile ground. Even though Sánchez has acted and those involved in the corruption have stepped down, a general feeling of being unprotected persists among the Spanish population. In a Eurobarometer survey this summer, a whopping 90% of Spaniards said they considered corruption to be “widespread” — one of the worst scores in the EU.

Sebastiaan Faber, a professor of Hispanic Studies at Oberlin College in the United States, sees parallels with what is happening in the United States and elsewhere in the world.

“What is going on is a very conscious undermining of trust,” Faber said. “Creating doubt about science, about the judicial system, public health institutions. The goal is to push people away from traditional institutions so that maintaining them will be seen as less important.”

Faber, who wrote several books about Spain, the Spanish Civil War and the long dictatorship under Francisco Franco that ended in 1975, notes clear links between the way misinformation is used as a political tool in Spain and the United States.

“They, for instance, try to keep sending the message that any left-leaning government is illegitimate,” Faber said. “That goes back to ’36. The Franco regime was based on the idea that the elected government had forged the election results and that they were financed by Russia, with anti-Spanish ideas. It’s always a repetition of portraying the left as immoral.”

Actual corruption and phony accusations

Faber sees a clear connection between these Francoist tactics and Trumpism. Figures surrounding Trump during his rise, such as his former political advisor Steve Bannon, represent a group of people that actively try to deconstruct democracy.

Bannon once famously stated: “Flood the zone with shit.” He was referring to the creation of a deluge of half-truths and lies so consistent that people lose track of reality. Social media are an effective way to do so.

These tactics of disinformation campaigns crossed the ocean twice, Faber said. It could be seen under Franco, who constantly spread lies about the legitimate Segunda Republica government of Spain.

That made its way up to the United States. There, similar lies and disinformation campaigns culminated in Trump loyalists storming the Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory. These same tactics, a deluge of disinformation, are now being copied again in Europe to delegitimize people in power, such as Pedro Sánchez.

Faber doubts that the public is ready to believe all the disinformation about Sànchez even with the proven case of corruption in the Prime Minister’s own political party. “I would say that the receptiveness for fake news is very much defined by your political preferences and the information bubbles [you] are in,” he said.

Alienating voters

The corruption case might leave those on the right feeling further alienated from the left-wing government however, and they might start to believe additional falsehoods about the government and Sánchez.

And on the left, a general sense of hopelessness has now taken hold, as becomes clear when speaking with Spaniards about the case since the story of the corruption case broke.

Tobella said that what’s important here, is that people understand that it’s never only ‘the other side’ that behaves badly. For example, from a Catalonian perspective, where sentiments can at times be very anti-Spanish, there’s a long-standing myth that Catalonian politicians are less corrupt than those politicians in the national government in Madrid.

At the time of the interview with Tobella, the corruption case involving Catalonian leader Jordi Pujol had just begun. Pujol was in power for 24 years, and now faces charges of money laundering and criminal association.

“These accusations are extremely serious,” Tobella said. “If it is said that there is no corruption in Catalonia, I think that that is maybe the oldest myth going around. It is clear that there are also very serious cases here.”

So what can be done to counter the weakening of democracy through disinformation, especially when an alternative narrative does intersect with reality, as happens with these corruption cases? Debunk the lies, sift through hoaxes and show where claims rely on questionable evidence. In short, flood the zone with truth.

“Well, what we already do, right?” Tobella said.

Questions to consider:

1. What is new about the latest round of disinformation in Spain?

2. Why might disinformation campaigns have limited power when it comes to changing the minds of political supporters?

3. Do you generally trust the politicians representing you in government? What affects how you feel about them?

Source link

January 5, 2026
What K-20 leaders should know about building resilient campuses

Key Points:

When a school building fails, everything it supports comes to a halt. Learning stops. Families scramble. Community stability is shaken. And while fire drills and lockdown procedures prepare students and staff for specific emergencies, the buildings themselves often fall short in facing the unexpected.

Between extreme weather events, aging infrastructure, and rising operational demands, facility leaders face mounting pressure to think beyond routine upkeep. Resilience should guide every decision to help schools stay safe, meet compliance demands, and remain prepared for whatever lies ahead.

According to a recent infrastructure report card from the American Society of Civil Engineers, the nation’s 98,000 PK-12 schools received a D+ for physical condition–a clear signal that more proactive design and maintenance strategies are urgently needed.

Designing for resilience means planning for continuity. It’s about integrating smarter materials, better systems, and proactive partnerships so that learning environments can bounce back quickly–or never go down at all.

Start with smarter material choices

The durability of a school begins at ground level. Building materials that resist moisture, mold, impact, and corrosion play a critical role in long-term school resilience and functionality. For example, in flood-prone regions, concrete blocks and fiber-reinforced panels outperform drywall in both durability and recovery time. Surfaces that are easy to clean, dry quickly, and don’t retain contaminants can make the difference between reopening in days versus weeks.

Limit downtime by planning ahead

Downtime is costly, but it’s not always unavoidable. What is avoidable is the scramble that follows when there’s no plan in place. Developing a disaster-response protocol that includes vendors, contact trees, and restoration procedures can significantly reduce response time. Schools that partner with recovery experts before an event occurs often find themselves first in line when restoration resources are stretched thin.

FEMA’s National Resilience Guidance stresses the need to integrate preparedness and long-term recovery planning at the facility level, particularly for schools that often serve as vital community hubs during emergencies.

Maintenance as the first line of defense

Preventative maintenance might not generate headlines, but it can prevent them. Regular inspections of roofing, HVAC, plumbing, and electrical systems help uncover vulnerabilities before they lead to shutdowns. Smart maintenance schedules can extend the lifespan of critical systems and reduce the risk of emergency failures, which are almost always more expensive.

Build flexibility into the design

Truly resilient spaces are defined by their ability to adapt, not just their physical strength. Multi-use rooms that can shift from classroom to shelter, or gymnasiums that double as community command centers, offer critical flexibility during emergencies. Facilities should also consider redundancies in HVAC and power systems to ensure critical areas like server rooms or nurse stations remain functional during outages.

Include restoration experts early

Design and construction teams are essential, but so are the people who will step in after a disaster. Involving restoration professionals during the planning or renovation phase helps ensure the layout and materials selected won’t hinder recovery later. Features like water-resistant flooring, interior drainage, and strategically placed shut-off valves can dramatically cut cleanup and repair times.

Think beyond the building

Resilient schools need more than solid walls. They need protected data, reliable communication systems, and clear procedures for remote learning if the physical space becomes temporarily inaccessible. Facility decisions should consider how technology, security, and backup systems intersect with the physical environment to maintain educational continuity.

Schools are more than schools during a crisis

In many communities, schools become the default support hub during a crisis. They house evacuees, store supplies, and provide a place for neighbors to connect. Resilient infrastructure supports student safety while also reinforcing a school’s role as a vital part of the community. Designs should support this extended role, with access-controlled entries, backup power, and health and sanitation considerations built in from the start.

A resilient mindset starts with leadership

Resilience begins with leadership and is reflected in the decisions that shape a school’s physical and operational readiness. Facility managers, superintendents, and administrative teams must advocate for resilient investments early in the planning process. This includes aligning capital improvement budgets, bond proposals, and RFP language with long-term resilience goals.

There’s no such thing as a truly disaster-proof building. But there are schools that recover faster, withstand more, and serve their communities more effectively during crises. The difference is often found in early choices: what’s designed, built, and maintained before disaster strikes.

When resilience guides every decision, school facilities are better prepared to safeguard students and maintain continuity through disruption.

John Scott Mooring, Mooring USA

John Scott Mooring is the Chief Executive Officer at Mooring USA, bringing nearly four decades of experience in disaster recovery and restoration services. With deep roots in a family-run business that helped pioneer the industry, he leads Mooring in delivering turnkey solutions for emergency response, remediation, and commercial construction across the U.S.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

January 5, 2026
The Educated Underclass Without Borders

Gary Roth’s The Educated Underclass describes a growing population of college-educated people who, despite credentials and effort, are increasingly locked out of stable, dignified work. While Roth’s analysis focuses primarily on the United States, the framework extends naturally—and urgently—to international students educated in the U.S. and to the global labor markets they enter after graduation. When immigration regimes, artificial intelligence, and comparative higher education systems are considered together, the educated underclass emerges not as a national failure, but as a transnational condition produced by modern higher education itself.

U.S. colleges and universities aggressively recruit international students, presenting the American degree as a global passport to opportunity. These students pay higher tuition, subsidize institutional budgets, and enhance global prestige. What is far less visible is that access to the U.S. labor market after graduation is narrow, temporary, and increasingly unstable. Programs such as Optional Practical Training and the H-1B visa tie legal status to continuous employment, transforming graduates into a compliant workforce with little leverage. Job loss does not merely mean unemployment; it can mean removal from the country.

Indian students in STEM fields illustrate this dynamic clearly. Drawn by promises of innovation and demand, they enter graduate programs in computer science, engineering, and data analytics, only to find themselves funneled into a lottery-based visa system dominated by outsourcing firms and consulting intermediaries. Visa dependency suppresses wages, discourages job mobility, and creates a workforce that is educated but structurally insecure. Roth’s educated underclass is visible here, but intensified by deportability.

Artificial intelligence compounds this precarity. Entry-level technical and analytical roles—software testing, junior programming, data cleaning, research assistance—are increasingly automated or augmented. These were precisely the jobs that once absorbed international graduates. AI-driven labor contraction now collides with rigid visa timelines, turning technological displacement into enforced exit. Immigration policy quietly performs the work of labor market triage.

Chinese students in business, economics, and the social sciences encounter a different version of the same trap. U.S. employers are often reluctant to sponsor visas outside STEM, while Chinese labor markets are saturated with domestically educated elites. Meanwhile, geopolitical tensions—intensified during the Trump administration—have normalized suspicion toward Chinese students and scholars, particularly in research-adjacent fields. The American degree, once a clear marker of distinction, increasingly yields managerial precarity, contract work, or prolonged dependence on family support.

China’s own higher education system complicates this picture. Massive state investment has expanded elite universities and research capacity, producing millions of highly credentialed graduates each year. Yet employment growth has not kept pace. Underemployment among Chinese graduates has become routine, and returnees from U.S. programs often find that their foreign credentials no longer guarantee elite status. In both systems, education expands faster than secure work, producing surplus aspiration and managed disappointment.

Canada is often presented as a counterexample to U.S. hostility toward international students, but its outcomes reveal similar structural dynamics. Canadian universities rely heavily on international tuition, while immigration pathways—though more predictable—still channel graduates into precarious labor markets. Many international students end up in low-wage service or contract work unrelated to their degrees while awaiting permanent residency. At the same time, domestic Canadian graduates face rising competition for limited professional roles, particularly in urban centers. The result is not inclusion, but stratified precarity distributed across citizenship lines.

These global dynamics have domestic consequences that are rarely acknowledged honestly. International students and foreign graduates are increasingly perceived as occupying educational and professional positions that might otherwise go to people whose families have lived in the United States for generations. In elite universities, graduate programs, and competitive labor pipelines, institutions often prefer international applicants who pay full tuition, arrive pre-trained by global inequality, and are more willing to accept insecure work.

For historically rooted communities—Black Americans, Indigenous peoples, and long-established working-class families—the resentment is especially acute. After centuries of exclusion from education and professional employment, they are told that opportunity is scarce and must now be globally competitive. The contradiction is profound: a nation that never fully delivered educational justice at home markets opportunity abroad while declaring it unattainable domestically.

Trump-era immigration policies exploited this tension by framing foreign students and workers as threats rather than as participants in a system designed by elites. Travel bans, visa restrictions, attacks on OPT, and open hostility toward immigrants transformed structural failure into cultural conflict. Yet the animosity did not originate with Trump. It reflects decades of policy choices that expanded higher education without expanding secure employment, substituted global labor arbitrage for domestic investment, and left working- and middle-class Americans to absorb the losses.

Universities play a central role in sustaining this arrangement. They function as global sorting machines, extracting tuition from abroad, conferring credentials with declining labor-market value, and disclaiming responsibility for outcomes shaped by immigration law and AI-driven contraction. Career services rarely confront these realities directly. Transparency would threaten enrollment pipelines, so silence prevails.

In Roth’s terms, this enlarges the educated underclass while fracturing it internally. Domestic and foreign graduates are pitted against one another for shrinking footholds, even as both experience debt, insecurity, and diminishing returns on education. The conflict is horizontal, while power remains vertical.

The educated underclass is no longer emerging. It is already global, credentialed, indebted, and increasingly unnecessary to the systems that trained it. Until institutions, employers, and governments in the U.S., Canada, China, and beyond are held accountable for the scarcity they engineer, higher education will continue to function not as a ladder to mobility, but as a mechanism for managing inequality across borders.

Sources

Gary Roth, The Educated Underclass

Harriet A. Washington, Medical Apartheid

Elisabeth Rosenthal, An American Sickness

OECD, Education at a Glance

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, OPT and H-1B program materials

National Foundation for American Policy, reports on H-1B labor markets

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce, credential inflation studies

International Labour Organization, global youth and graduate employment reports

China Ministry of Education, graduate employment statistics

Statistics Canada, international students and labor market outcomes

David Graeber, Bullshit Jobs

Richard Wolff, writings on global labor surplus and credentialism

Source link

January 5, 2026
New Year’s Resolutions for Higher Ed

As we enter the new year, I want to share some thoughts about what higher education needs to accomplish as a sector in 2026. I view these as resolutions: tough challenges we need to tackle with courage and determination. Are you ready?

Fix Accreditation

I have participated in accreditation as a college president, a law school faculty member and as a board member of the NWCCU, the Northwest’s regional accreditor, and so I say this from experience: Our accreditation system is horrible. It wastes massive amounts of time and accomplishes almost nothing to guarantee students a good education. We need to scrap it and start over. Instead of multiyear cycles, we should review schools every five years, in a process that takes no more than six months. It should focus on just three things: student outcomes, responsible financial management and academic freedom. Schools that do not meet strong, clear, objective standards in these areas should be placed on probation and, ultimately, decertified if they fail to improve. We have to stop rubber-stamping failure.

Discuss Creating a True National Higher Ed System

If I use the phrase “American higher education system” with colleagues from Europe and Asia, they laugh. “System? You don’t have a system! You have a giant collection of unregulated institutions that perform very inconsistently, many of them for-profit scams.”

There is so much truth in this reaction. The venerable Higher Education Act of 1965 no long meets our national needs. We need to start a rational discussion about reform of the higher education regulatory landscape. We need a smaller number of higher-performing universities, we need to eliminate institutions with poor outcomes that provide limited or no real return on investment, we need to provide truly affordable undergraduate programs in every state, we need to cut regulations and legal rules that drive up the cost of compliance, and we need to limit student debt. This is not the year for reform—Congress is a divided mess. But we need to start discussing the future.

Focus on Community Colleges

The foundation of American higher education is the part of the sector we talk about least: our community colleges. Community college is the best place to provide four vital services our students and our country desperately need: remedial education to make up for poor K–12 schools, valuable job training in skills and trades to help students prepare for the workplace, ESL classes to help nonnative English speakers thrive, and low-cost general education to help students determine whether they want to proceed to a four year degree.

Community college quality is inconsistent across the United States: excellent in some states, poor in others. As a result, there is no one-size-fits-all set of reforms we need to enact. Every state government needs to have a serious, honest conversation led by the governor on how to strengthen and improve this vital sector.

Start Low-Cost, High-Quality Undergraduate Experiments

College costs too much. Instead of pretending this is not true, we need to develop new low-cost, high-quality models. We cannot rely on new institutions to do this: The entry costs and accreditation barriers are too high.

Here’s a place to start.

The eight (relatively wealthy) Ivy League universities should jointly create Ivy College, a low-cost undergraduate lab school in a place they currently don’t serve, like Los Angeles. They should cut everything ancillary to great undergraduate education that drives up costs. That means no research, no sports and recreation, no subsidized activities, no alumni association, no communications department, no health and counseling, no permanent campus (just rented office space). They should reduce the number of majors and the number of electives. Simplify admission, with a lottery for every student scoring 1100 or above on the SAT. Get federal regulatory waivers for compliance cost drivers.

If we tried this for four years, we would learn so much! Then, the Big Ten schools should follow suit.

Advertise on Television

A recent Pew poll found that 70 percent of Americans think higher education is headed in the wrong direction. How do we improve public trust in higher education? Reform will help, yes, but we also need a more effective approach to public relations. When other industries run into trouble, they don’t rely on heartfelt op-eds and books published by university presses to make their case. They launch proactive television and a social media ad campaigns.

ACE should enlist the top 100 universities to bankroll ads that explain the ROI of higher education and the value of university research to national security, health and the economy. Trusted figures should explain why college matters. Celebrities should explain why they benefited from college. And we should remind people that American research universities helped win the Second World War.

John Kroger served as president of Reed College, attorney general of Oregon, chief learning officer of the U.S. Navy and a visiting faculty member at Harvard and Yale Universities and Lewis and Clark College.

Source link

January 5, 2026
College Food Pantry Helps Students Combat Food Insecurity

With rising food costs and uncertain federal food-assistance benefits wreaking havoc on families nationwide, Alicia Wright has found relief in an unlikely place: her community college’s food pantry.

Wright, a student at Roxbury Community College, said her campus food pantry has been lifesaving, especially as she juggles classes while raising her 6-year-old daughter, Olivia.

“I was like, ‘Oh snap—I don’t have to trek around Boston to find food from other local pantries,’” said Wright, a theater major who is scheduled to graduate in 2027. “Having it right there really changed the game for me.”

Wright is one of more than 1,500 students who have relied on the pantry, better known as the Rox Box, since its launch in October 2023, according to Nancy Santos, RCC’s Project Access director.

Roxbury Community College students shop for food and personal care essentials at the Rox Box.

Roxbury Community College

Designed to mirror a neighborhood grocery store, the pantry carries items such as food, diapers and personal care essentials and is funded entirely by the community.

“If I find myself going to class thinking about how I didn’t go grocery shopping this weekend, I know I can pick up something from the Rox Box,” Wright said, adding that students receive 30 points each month to redeem for items they need.

“That lets me be more present in class … [and] really does allow peace of mind,” Wright said.

Like Wright, nearly 60 percent of college students nationwide have experienced at least one form of basic needs insecurity in the past year, according to a recent Hope Center survey.

According to Swipe Out Hunger, a nonprofit dedicated to ending college student hunger, student visits to campus food pantries have increased by 30 to 50 percent over the past year across its more than 900 campus partners nationwide.

Origin story: The Rox Box started as an extension of Project Access, an initiative designed to address the nonacademic issues that can prevent degree completion at the Boston-area college.

Santos said the Rox Box has met a strong need, serving more than 300 students each month.

“It’s really taken off,” Santos said. “We see the athletes and everyone walking around with their little bags that say ‘Rox Box,’ and they’re proud that they’re going.”

Roxbury Community College Project Access director Nancy Santos (right) sitting with a student worker at the Rox Box.

Roxbury Community College

She noted that demand continues to rise, with more than 1,700 visits from over 1,500 students between September and December 2025.

“We know the need is out there, because 1,700 visits on our campus is a large number when we only have 2,400 students enrolled,” Santos said, noting that RCC’s student body is predominantly Black, Latino and Pell Grant eligible.

Santos said she regularly surveys students who rely on the Rox Box and has found that nearly 40 percent worry their food won’t stretch until the next time they can afford to buy more, while nearly 30 percent have changed their eating habits to make the provisions last longer.

She underscored how the federal government shutdown last fall contributed to growing “uneasiness” and “insecurity” around RCC students’ food needs.

This comes as nearly 40 percent of public college students in Massachusetts experienced food insecurity last year.

“The numbers are alarming to us,” Santos said. “Our faculty have even shared that they can sometimes see students are distracted or they don’t come to school if they’re hungry … [and] it really does affect their grades.”

To ensure the Rox Box runs smoothly, Santos said, they hired a coordinator who is an RCC alum and had previously relied on the pantry.

“She started as a work-study, so she worked in the pantry with us, and when she graduated we hired her back,” Santos said. “In doing so, the students identify with her and they see there’s a path. They see where they are isn’t where they’ll always be.”

Santos said the pantry helps students feel supported and actively works to reduce the shame around needing help.

“I often say that the shame is not that you are food insecure, the shame is that [food insecurity] exists,” Santos said. “Don’t pretend it isn’t happening. Address it and embrace it and let’s figure out a way to wipe it out.”

What’s next: Santos said starting a campus food pantry is a “big undertaking” but worthwhile for other institutions looking to create their own.

“We are a small college, but we care for our students,” Santos said. “When students are fed and when they’re able to concentrate and really study, it helps them go across the finish line.”

Wright agreed, adding that actively listening to students’ needs and implementing those changes really fosters a sense of trust and community.

“We tell them our views and what we need and everything, and then we see things being done about it,” Wright said. “It really allows us to feel seen, heard and supported.”

Ultimately, Wright said, RCC really gets it right about seeing students “holistically.”

“We’re not just students—we’re entrepreneurs, we’re parents, we’re our parents’ caregivers,” Wright said. “A lot of us are already full-grown people who have lived life and know how to survive, [but] we just need a bit more support that shows [the college is] here for your success.”

Want to help students battling food insecurity? You can support The Rox Box here.

Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

Source link

January 5, 2026
SAT Requirements Should Be Aligned With Mission (opinion)

The autonomy of states in setting their own higher education policies creates a series of natural experiments across the United States, offering insights into what approaches work best in particular contexts. Given the importance of local considerations, there are few universal policy prescriptions that can be recommended with confidence. Sadly, this complexity was overlooked in Saul Geiser’s recent Inside Higher Ed essay entitled “Why the SAT Is a Poor Fit for Public Universities.”

My position is not that all, or even any, public universities should require standardized test scores. In fact, I share Geiser’s view that a university’s “mission shapes admission policy.” However, it is because of this principle that I contend that the SAT cannot be dismissed as a poor fit for public universities without considering how institutions operationalize their missions and define their institutional priorities.

Vertical Stratification Within a Public University System

In my view, Geiser’s argument is fundamentally flawed in his comparison of elite private institutions to public university systems, which often include an elite flagship campus alongside a broader range of institutions. Geiser’s comparison is particularly surprising given his long-standing association with the University of California system.

The California Master Plan for Higher Education has long been studied and celebrated for establishing a public postsecondary education system consisting of institutions with differentiated missions and admission processes. Under its original design, the community colleges provided open access to all high school graduates and adult learners, offering a stepping-stone to the four-year institutions. The California State University institutions admitted the top third of high school graduates, focusing on undergraduate education and teacher preparation. The University of California institutions were reserved for the top eighth of high school graduates and emphasized research and doctoral education.

By using high school class rank to sort students into the different tiers of the system, the Master Plan established a baseline for admissions to both UC and CSU institutions. This framework enabled the emergence of two elite public flagship campuses in Berkeley and Los Angeles that prioritized academic excellence alongside accessible undergraduate institutions in the CSU system that served as drivers of economic development and social mobility.

Reorienting the analysis to a comparison between elite public and private institutions would have provided a stronger basis for discussing selective admissions, as both of these institutional types receive far more applications than available spaces in their first-year cohorts. In these circumstances, institutions must make choices about how to differentiate among a pool of qualified applicants.

It is common to start with assessing an applicant’s academic achievement. In a competitive pool, this assessment is less about whether the applicant meets minimum academic standards of the university and more about how the applicant has achieved above and beyond other applicants to the same program or institution. In a competitive admission pool, academic excellence is often an important distinction, but it can be defined in different ways.

Assessing Academic Excellence

Many researchers agree that the use of both high school GPA and standardized test scores yields the most accurate assessment of academic potential, rather than relying on either measure alone. Geiser’s own research from 2002 shows that combining both high school GPA and test scores better predicted UC students’ first-year grades than just high school GPA alone. Therefore, I was surprised that he presented the use of GPAs and test scores in admission policies as mutually exclusive alternatives.

Although somewhat dated, a compelling finding from his 2002 analysis was that the combination of SAT Subject Test scores (discontinued in 2021) and high school GPA accounted for a greater proportion of variance in UC students’ first-year GPA than the combination of GPA and SAT scores. This finding suggests that precollege, discipline-specific achievement is important.

This should come as no surprise, as college curricula for artists, anthropologists and aeronautical engineers differ substantially. It is reasonable to expect that the predictors of success in these programs would also differ. As such, academic programs within universities may be well served by setting admission standards calibrated to the specific competencies of their respective disciplines—a portfolio for the artist, an academic paper for the anthropologist and a math exam for the engineer.

Although Geiser maintains that “academic standards haven’t slipped” at the UCs since they went test-free four years ago, a recent Academic Senate report from the University of California, San Diego, revealed that about one in eight first-year students this fall did not meet high school math standards on placement exams despite having strong high school math grades—a nearly 30-fold increase since 2020—and about one in 12 did not even meet middle school standards. This mismatch between GPAs and scores on course placement exams underscores critics’ concerns about inflation of high school GPAs and undermines the reliability of GPAs as a sole marker of academic achievement. The authors of the report called for an investigation of grading standards across California high schools and recommended the UC system re-examine its standardized testing requirements.

It is understandable that faculty in quantitative disciplines, such as engineering and finance, would want to better gauge the readiness of applicants for their programs by considering test scores, if only the results from the SAT or ACT math sections, in light of these findings. However, if one in 12 students are not meeting middle school math standards, then the greater concern is that these students, regardless of major, will require remediation, creating longer, more expensive and more difficult paths to graduation.

Variation in Standardized Testing Requirements Across States

I was surprised Geiser did not acknowledge this report, instead arguing that the reinstatement of standardized test requirements at Ivy League institutions “provided intellectual cover for the SAT’s possible revival” nationwide. This characterization overlooks the fact that some public institutions in at least 11 states—Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia —already require standardized test scores in admission, according to the College Board. Notably, Florida public universities never suspended their test requirements during the COVID pandemic when all of the Ivies did.

In Georgia and Tennessee, public universities waived test requirements during the COVID pandemic but subsequently moved to reinstate the requirements for the University of Tennessee system and for at least seven of the 26 institutions in the University System of Georgia, including the Georgia Institute of Technology and the University of Georgia.

Among public universities in Texas and Ohio, only the states’ flagships, the University of Texas at Austin and the Ohio State University, reinstated standardized test requirements for all students. While the flagship in Indiana remains test optional, the state’s premier land-grant institution requires test scores—Purdue University reinstated the requirement in 2024. And in Alabama, both the land-grant, Auburn University, and the flagship, the University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa, have announced plans to reinstate required test scores for all first-year applicants.

In some states, public institutions, including Southern Arkansas University, Fairmont State University in West Virginia and Alcorn State University, a historically Black institution in Mississippi, waive test requirements for students with higher GPAs. In practice, this approach prioritizes performance in the classroom but offers low-performing high school students a second chance to demonstrate their proficiency and potential.

These examples show how variations in admission practices across institutions enable public systems to pursue their missions and diverse sets of state goals that may not be possible for any single institution within their system. These systems can offer broad access to four-year programs while also upholding academic standards and pursuing academic excellence. Whether that means all, some or none of the institutions in a public system require the SAT or ACT depends on the goals and strategies of each of the states.

While most public institutions adopted test-optional admissions during the pandemic, California implemented a test-blind policy that prohibited the consideration of test scores. Based on my experience as an admission officer, I applaud this decision. Test-optional admission is an easy policy decision, but I have seen how test-optional policies can create two different admission processes, where test scores are essentially required for some groups of students and not for others. Test-optional policies muddy the waters, offering less transparency in an already complicated process. The UC and CSU systems avoided this mistake by establishing equal grounds for evaluating applicants, but this does not mean that other public institutions need to do the same.

Aligning Admissions With Mission

Public universities are facing numerous enrollment pressures. Shifting state and regional demographics continue to force admission leaders to adjust their recruitment strategies and admission policies. The growing prominence of artificial intelligence appears apt to redefine the academic experience and admission processes, but exactly when and how are unknown. Meanwhile, the expected increase in states’ financial obligations in relation to Medicaid is likely to increase reliance on tuition revenue, which will ultimately shape the budgets and enrollments of higher education institutions.

A uniform, one-size-fits-all approach to admissions policy, such as test-blind admissions for all public universities, does not respect the autonomy of states and institutions and does not serve the diversity of institutional contexts. Public universities should continue to tailor admissions policies to their specific needs, which may include variation across campuses within a public system or even among programs within the same institution. What matters most is that admission policies remain transparent, are applied consistently to all applicants within a program and closely align with the institution’s mission and public purpose.

Ryan Creps is an assistant professor in the Graduate School of Education at the State University of New York at Buffalo and was previously an admission officer at Brown University. His research focuses on college admission practices and postsecondary enrollment trends.

Source link

January 5, 2026
College Costs, Accreditation Likely Top Focus for Congress

Lowering college costs, boosting accountability and reforming accreditation will likely be at the top of congressional Republicans’ to-do list for 2026. But as public approval ratings for President Trump continue to decline and midterm elections loom, higher education policy experts across the political spectrum say congressional conservatives could be running out of time.

The push for more affordable higher education has been gaining momentum for years, and while it was a common refrain at the committee level in 2025, complex and sweeping debates over tax dollars soaked up much of lawmakers’ attention.

First, the Republicans passed their signature piece of legislation, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which cut taxes for wealthy individuals, increased them for elite universities and overhauled the student loan system. Then, they turned their attention to disagreements on the federal budget—an impasse that led to the record 43-day government shutdown.

But in the few cases where members of the GOP did get to home in on college cost issues, whether via legislation or hearings, an underlying theme emerged—holding colleges accountable for their students’ return on investment.

Higher education experts have no doubt that concern will continue in 2026, but Congress won’t have the time or the oxygen needed to nail down real changes unless they figure out how to fund the government, which runs out of money again Jan. 31.

“The Republican majority is very conscious that it may be on the clock, and this would argue for trying to move rapidly and get things done,” said Rick Hess, a senior fellow and director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. “But with the narrow and fractious House majority, the way the budget is going to chew up time going into January and the pressure on the Senate to get judges confirmed, it’s just going to be a challenge for them to find much time to move further higher ed–related legislation.”

Legislative Actions

Republicans spent much of 2025 using their control of Congress and the White House to pass what many industry leaders have described as the largest overhaul to higher education policy in more than a decade—the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. And while policy experts were initially skeptical that this multi-issue package could pass given the complex, restrictive nature of a legislative process called reconciliation, the GOP found a way.

The final bill, signed into law July 4, served as a major win for the GOP, expanding federal aid for low-income students to include nontraditional short-term training programs, limiting loans for graduate students, consolidating the number of repayment plans and increasing taxes on wealthy colleges, among other provisions.

Conservative policy experts like Hess praised the overhaul as “a much-needed and positive set of changes.”

“There’s certainly more that can be done, but I think it moved us in a substantially better direction than we’ve been,” he added.

But aside from OBBBA, little legislation concerning colleges and universities advanced. Only one bill tracked by Inside Higher Ed, the Laken Riley Act, reached the president’s desk. That law gave state attorneys general increased power over visas that could affect some international students and scholars. Others, including the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, a bill that forbids trans women from participating in women’s sports, and the DETERRENT Act, a bill designed to restrict foreign academic partnerships, made it out of the House in a matter of weeks but then got stuck in the Senate.

The story of 2025 in higher ed is a big, dramatic one, but it’s almost entirely one of executive branch activity.”

—Rick Hess, AEI

So when asked what congressional accomplishments stood out from 2025, progressive policy experts told Inside Higher Ed they didn’t see much. The things that did happen, they added, hurt students and institutions more than they helped.

“‘Accomplishments’ is not really the word I would use considering the challenges that higher education faced this year,” said Jared Bass, senior vice president of education at the Center for American Progress. “I don’t think that Congress actually met the moment for affordability or defending and preserving higher education.”

Instead, he said, legislators placed the burden of cost on the backs of students.

“The Republican argument is by cutting access to these loans they’ll actually drive down costs. But we’ll have to wait and see if that happens,” he explained. “But I would say it didn’t actually make college more affordable. It just made resources less available.”

Hearings Highlight Priorities

Congress did, however, hold a number of higher ed–related hearings to dive into their priorities, which included improving the transparency of financial aid offers, establishing stronger records of the skills students gain and elevating ideological concerns like allegedly illegal use of diversity, equity and inclusion practices and liberal biases in the Truman Scholarship program.

Although the House Committee on Education and Workforce hosted a greater number of higher ed hearings, some of the more notable panels came from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

“They actually wanted to put the ‘E’ back in HELP and focus on education issues,” said Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education, a leading higher ed lobbying group. “That wasn’t really the case under prior leadership. So that was good.”

Chairman Bill Cassidy, a Republican from Louisiana, right, and ranking member Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, lead the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Tom Williams/CQ–Roll Call Inc./Getty Images

Much of the shift in interest, Guillory added, was likely tied to new leadership. This was the first year that Sen. Bill Cassidy, a Louisiana Republican, held the gavel. In the last Congress, Cassidy had served as ranking member.

The House Committee on Education and Workforce also had new leadership, as Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina handed the baton to Rep. Tim Walberg from Michigan. But it was the Senate’s tactics that led to more meaningful legislative progress in ACE’s view.

“Mr. Walberg may have pushed a slightly more aggressive agenda. The House definitely had more hearings in the higher ed space and tackled more hard-punching issues, but in the Senate they took a different approach,” Guillory said. “When it came to those difficult issues and conversations, the Senate chose to discuss those a bit more quietly and really work on solutions with stakeholder groups and ask, ‘How can we be influential with actual legislation?’”

Chairman Tim Walberg took over the House Education and Workforce Committee in 2025.

Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

When asked for their reflections on the year, Cassidy and Walberg pointed to OBBBA, which they touted as a historic reform to drive down college costs and limit students from taking on insurmountable debt. But while Walberg then looked back to the ongoing antisemitism discussions and concerns about “hostile learning environments,” Cassidy touted his legislation aimed at helping students better understand the cost of college.

“College is one of the largest financial investments many Americans make, but there is little information to ensure students make the right decision,” he said. “That is why I introduced the College Transparency Act to empower families with better information so they can decide which schools and programs of study are best suited to fit their unique needs and desired outcomes.”

Democrats Fight Back

Meanwhile, Democrats in both chambers said they were forced to spend much of their time and attention maintaining the Department of Education, an agency they say is needed to do much of the work to fulfill Republicans’ priorities, be it addressing antisemitism and other civil rights issues or driving down college costs.

From his early days on the campaign trail in 2024, Trump has promised to dismantle the department, and starting in March of 2025, he began doing so—all without congressional approval.

First, the president laid off nearly half of the agency’s staff. Then, just a week later, he signed an executive order directing Education Secretary Linda McMahon to close down the department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.”

Later, he tried to slash federal spending, redistribute grant dollars and use the government shutdown to lay off even more employees. Most recently, Trump approved a series of six interagency agreements that reallocate many of ED’s responsibilities to other agencies.

Through it all, the Democrats repeatedly decried his “attack” on higher ed. They used statements, town halls and demonstrations outside the department to draw attention to decisions they said would be “detrimental” to “students, teachers and educators.”

Lawmakers tried to access the Education Department in February but were denied entry.

Katherine Knott/Inside Higher Ed

Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia Democrat and ranking member of the House education committee, said he has spent much of his year in defense mode, pushing back against each of these actions.

“The administration has been dismantling the Department of Education, making access to education much less available,” he said. “And we’ve been trying to keep it together.”

But both Scott and Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and former educator, acknowledged that as members of the minority, they can only do so much. A few Republicans have joined them in voicing concern about specific issues, but not enough, they say.

“We’ve had some successes—forcing some funding to be restored and rejecting, for example, President Trump’s push to slash Pell Grants by half in our draft funding bill for the coming year—but ultimately, we need a whole lot more bipartisan outrage and pushback from Republicans to truly start to undo the sweeping damage Trump has already caused,” Murray said.

And it wasn’t just Democrats who raised concerns.

“Congress has done very little to ask important questions, to ask the executive branch to justify some of the actions it is taking,” said Hess from AEI. “Hill Republicans are very much marching in lockstep to what the White House asks. The story of 2025 in higher ed is a big, dramatic one, but it’s almost entirely one of executive branch activity.”

What’s Ahead in 2026?

Now that congressional Republicans have completed a number of the tasks they set for themselves back in January 2025, most experts say two remaining items—college cost and accreditation reform—will be top priorities in 2026.

Most sources Inside Higher Ed spoke with anticipated that college cost reduction and transparency would be addressed first, largely because related bills made it out of a House committee in December and senators held a hearing on the topic. The bills, which would standardize financial aid offers and create a universal net price calculator, have already gained some significant bipartisan support.

Meanwhile, many remain skeptical of Republicans’ proposals for accreditation. Although no exact legislative language has been released, GOP lawmakers and Trump officials at the Department of Education have called for a major overhaul to not only ensure better student outcomes but also to deconstruct a what they see as a systemic liberal bias.

“I would hope to see a focus on accreditors taking an active role and not just sort of a check-the-box approach to quality assurance,” said Carolyn Fast, director of higher education policy at the Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank. “What I’m concerned about is some of the efforts to reform accreditation don’t seem necessarily as concerned about making sure that the system is working in terms of their role as gatekeepers of federal funds … but more about political and cultural war issues.”

Bass from CAP said that he will be keeping a close eye on the midterm election campaign trail for a pulse on higher ed policy in general this year, as it gives the public a chance to speak up and direct change.

“I’m curious to see how conversations about affordability play out, not just for higher education or education over all, but just for the country,” he said. “There are going to be over 30 gubernatorial races next year, and the debate gets shaped over key issues like higher education, like college costs, like affordability. So it will be very interesting to see how both parties are going to show up.”

Source link

January 5, 2026
Digital by design: a vision of resilience for the sector of 2030

This blog was kindly authored by Heidi Fraser-Krauss, Chief Executive of Jisc.

UK higher education is in a period of profound change. Artificial intelligence, data-driven research, and new models of learning are redefining what it means to deliver value to students and society. At the same time, institutions must navigate complex risks, from cyber threats to infrastructure demands, while responding to significant financial challenges and ensuring they remain agile, competitive, and a key delivery partner in supporting the government’s growth ambition. The question is not whether technology will transform education, but how we harness it to strengthen the sector for the long term.

Jisc’s 2030 vision was developed with these realities in mind. Designed not as a digital revolution but rather an evolution, it ensures that Jisc is focused on providing the tertiary education, research, and innovation sectors across the UK with the secure infrastructure, digitally empowered leadership, economic sustainability, and agility needed to meet the next decade head-on. Here’s how its four pillars align with the sector’s most pressing needs.

1. Sector leadership and strategic influence

For universities and colleges to thrive in a rapidly evolving digital landscape, the sector needs a strong, informed voice influencing national policy. Decisions on AI governance, cybersecurity standards, and digital research infrastructure will shape the conditions for innovation and competitiveness. By ensuring these policies are informed by evidence-based research and insights into how digital, data, and technology are experienced and managed across education and research, the sector can secure investment, reduce risk, and create an environment where technology drives better outcomes for learners, researchers, and the broader economy.

That voice must also ensure smart use of data – where Jisc’s role as the designated data body, through its merger with the Higher Education Statistics Agency, helps reduce burden and improve insight. Strategic partnerships, such as the recent agreement with the Association of Colleges and collaborations with Colleges Wales, Ufi VocTech Trust, and Universities UK strengthen advocacy and ensure digital priorities reflect the needs of learners and educators across all nations. Over the next five years, Jisc’s deeper engagement with government, funders, and senior leaders will be critical to embedding digital thinking into policy and strategy across the UK.

2. Focus on sector-wide challenges

Digital infrastructure underpins everything from research breakthroughs to everyday learning. As demand for bandwidth and data grows, driven by AI, high-performance computing, and new learning models, the sector needs networks and security systems that can scale.

At the same time, financial pressures compound these challenges. Rising costs, resource constraints, and the need to keep pace with digital technology affects all institutions. Collective negotiations with major vendors can deliver significant savings, while shared services for cloud, cybersecurity, and data management reduce duplication and free up resources for teaching and research.

These efficiencies work only if the underlying infrastructure is strong. The Janet network remains the backbone for UK education and research. Projects such as the Isambard AI supercomputer at the University of Bristol highlight the scale of future requirements: vast data flows and advanced computing power that demands resilient, high-capacity connectivity. Sustaining and strengthening Janet, alongside robust cybersecurity measures, ensures institutions can innovate confidently, protect intellectual property, and remain globally competitive. This is about creating the conditions for progress, not just for today, but for the next decade.

3. Financial sustainability and commercial focus

To continue delivering value and protect essential services, Jisc must operate sustainably. For 12 years, Jisc has operated on flat cash funding, even as demand for digital infrastructure and services has grown exponentially. To continue meeting members’ evolving needs, Jisc is becoming more commercially focused, developing sustainable models and exploring new ways to support members. This approach ensures that collaboration continues to be at the heart of all that we do, and that every institution, regardless of size, can access the tools and infrastructure needed to succeed.

4. Operational excellence and agility

Embedding digital into strategy also means ensuring the organisations that support education are fit for the future. Jisc is investing in its own products, services, and back-office systems to deliver a more streamlined, joined-up experience for members. By removing silos and modernising processes, we aim to save money and provide greater value, while responding quickly to emerging needs. These changes are designed to make it easier for institutions to access the infrastructure, data, and expertise they need, without complexity or duplication, helping the sector focus on what matters most: teaching, research, and innovation.

Looking ahead to 2030

At Jisc, we are fully aware of the scale of the challenges facing the sector, and we take our supportive responsibilities seriously. The next five years will define how UK tertiary education responds to the accelerating pace of digital change. Our commitment is not only to help institutions meet those challenges, but to ensure they can seize the opportunities that digital and data present, helping students, researchers, and all of us across the UK to prosper in the future.

We will work with our members to create the right conditions for innovation: secure infrastructure, smarter use of data, and a culture that sees digital as integral to strategy, not an add-on. By working collectively and planning for scale, we can turn complexity into opportunity and ensure learners and researchers benefit from world-class technology.

The challenge is clear, and so is our ambition: to make digital transformation the foundation for the sector’s future.

Source link

January 5, 2026