Tag: case

  • The case for playful leadership

    The case for playful leadership

    Of course: UK higher education is in a perilous state, with ever-tightening institutional budgets, thousands of staff at risk of redundancy, institutions on the verge of closure, and the threat of AI causing a rush back to closed-book exams.

    In this context, a call to play might seem mis-timed and perhaps a little tone-deaf.

    Please bear with us. Play is about more than games and goofiness and is far from frivolous. It endorses a philosophy that supports openness, creativity, and bravery: qualities that the sector really needs from its leaders right now.

    Risk aversion

    In times of difficulty there is a temptation for institutions to revert to traditional values and avoid risks. This might manifest in removing small, specialist, or contentious courses in favour of large popular subjects, in stifling academic freedom and discussion, or in a reluctance to explore new ideas or research. As pressures grow from government and popular media, leaders may become increasingly leery of making decisions that make their institution stand out.

    This culture of inertia, pressure, and performativity sucks the joy and creativity from academia, hampers change and makes it difficult for institutions to make the efficiencies necessary to be financially sustainable without shedding staff and closing courses on an endless repeat cycle.

    And this environment is exhausting and unsustainable. In a world where change is the only constant, we need to embrace new possibilities and prepare staff and students to manage and embrace uncertainty. We must all be resilient, creative, and engaged, and play can facilitate this at all levels.

    Playful learning

    The use of playful learning approaches across the sector has increased in the last decade. Play pedagogies are finally being taken seriously: membership of the Playful Learning Association has grown to over 600 over the last fifteen years and the annual conference regularly sells out.

    In research too, play is often the key that unlocks the greatest discoveries (Nobel prize physicists attest to it): having space to experiment, be creative and mess around with ideas, data or materials is essential for ground-breaking contributions to knowledge. The ESRC has recently funded a significant three-year multi-institution research project led by Northumbria university that will evidence what forms of playful learning work and why.

    But it is past time for play to be taken seriously by leadership. Higher education leaders could benefit from a philosophy of play: being willing to change and try new ideas, embracing open leadership, and being brave enough to endorse new approaches that set them apart for the sector. The ability to fail well is crucial and having the vulnerability to publicly accept that leaders do not always know the answers allows institutions to learn from mistakes openly and collegiately.

    Vulnerability and humanity

    There are examples of sector leaders who demonstrate these values. It has been refreshing to see vice chancellors show their humanity and honest vulnerability on social media and platforms like Wonkhe. For example, recently vice chancellors at Middlesex University, Buckinghamshire New University, and Plymouth Marjon University have offered honest reflections on what it means to be the leader of a modern university, giving very different, more personal and playful lenses on senior leadership than the usual corporate statements and press releases.

    At Northumbria University, leadership has driven a strategic push for experiential learning across all programmes, embracing active and authentic learning to provide students with the real-life skills and experiences they will need to thrive beyond university. This has been achieved through open discussion with staff communities of practice and led from the bottom up as well as the top down; staff are encouraged to be creative and experiment. It is not a cheap or easy option, but it differentiates the university and comes from a belief that this approach is best for our students.

    At Anglia Ruskin University, open and empathetic leadership has been key to navigating the institution through challenging times, with senior leaders holding honest community events and talking openly about vulnerability. When trying to understand institutional belonging, leaders facilitated playful thinking through Lego workshops to develop shared principles. Play also influenced a strategic development for student experience, using techniques from video games to create an engaging introduction to the university for all incoming students.

    Open to possibilities

    There are already examples of successful playful leadership in the sector, and we believe that it is those leaders who are not afraid to be open – both to new ideas and to making mistakes – that will have the best chance for success in our increasingly hostile and uncertain climate. Institutions face difficult choices on how to differentiate and survive; higher education cannot continue as it is.

    The next few years will be challenging, and leaders will need to be more open to possibilities, creative in their approaches, and willing to embrace and learn from their mistakes as the sector reshapes into something sustainable – built with and for our current and future staff and students. Now more than ever, play really matters.

    Source link

  • The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Generate Case Studies for the Classroom – Faculty Focus

    The Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Generate Case Studies for the Classroom – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Supreme Court Must Not Undermine Public Education in Religious Charter Case – The 74

    Supreme Court Must Not Undermine Public Education in Religious Charter Case – The 74


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

    Last week, the Supreme Court held oral arguments in a case that could undermine public education across America. The question the court is looking to answer is whether a religious institution may run a publicly funded charter school — a move that would threaten not only the separation of church and state, but the right of every student to access free, high-quality learning.

    In 2023, Oklahoma’s Statewide Virtual Charter School Board approved St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, an action that would make it the nation’s first-ever religious charter school. It would be governed by Catholic religious doctrine in its syllabus, operations and employment practices. It would use taxpayer dollars to pay for religious instruction. And it could turn away students and staff if their faith or identity conflict with Catholic beliefs. 

    Here’s the issue: Charter schools were created to be public schools. They are open to all students, from every background, tradition and faith community. They are publicly funded and tuition-free. And they are secular. 

    That’s not an arbitrary distinction – it’s a constitutional one, grounded in the law and embedded in charter schools’ very design. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause bars the government from promoting or endorsing any religion through public spaces or institutions. This foundational rule has ensured that students of all backgrounds can access public schools. It does not stifle religious expression — the Constitution fully protects this freedom, and religious education is available in other venues. Personally, I was, in fact, educated at Jesuit Catholic schools for my entire academic career. 

    Parochial education has long been an accepted and important part of the education ecosystem, serving a variety of students and often filling an important need. Religiously affiliated schools have a long history of educating and caring for children who are new to this country and underserved, and supporting families who are overlooked. But promoting the exclusive teachings of a specific religion with public funds in a public school violates a clear constitutional principle. 

    The issue isn’t only a legal matter; it’s about the character of public education itself. Muddying the boundary between public and religious institutions would undercut a fundamental commitment made by the nation’s public charter schools: that they are accessible to every student. It would undermine legal protections that keep public services available to the public. 

    Rather than creating more opportunities for America’s students, it would constrict opportunities for a high-quality education, especially in states that are hostile toward charters or alternative public school models. Legislative bodies could seek to eliminate funding for all unique school types if the court decision forced them to fund religious schools operating with public dollars. This would curtail or dismantle strong independent schools, 30-year-old public charter schools and schools with unique programs designed for special populations.

    As executive director of the DC Charter School Alliance, and a long-time public charter school advocate, I’ve seen the importance of public charter schools firsthand. Here in the District of Columbia, charter schools serve nearly half of the public school students in the city. Outstanding educators from all walks of life teach a wide range of subjects with enthusiasm and expertise to prepare young people for success. Our students bring to the classroom an incredible range of experiences, including faith traditions. And every student, family and faculty member is welcome. D.C.’s charter schools reflect a core American value: the promise of a high-quality public education for all. 

    The justices of the Supreme Court face a clear and critical choice: They can bolster that promise, or they can tear it down. If the court allows a religious school to operate with public funds, there is no doubt that it will open the floodgates to other proposals across the country. Taxpayers could be forced to foot the bill for countless new and converted schools, draining resources from an already financially strapped education system. True public charter schools — the ones committed to high standards, positive results and opportunity for all — could bear the cost. And the students who rely on them could suffer. 

    Public education is one of America’s most vital institutions. It offers all children, no matter their background or beliefs, access to free, high-quality learning. Charter schools play an essential role in making that promise real. But allowing a religious school to operate with public funds turns public education into something much more restrictive, dismantling its very foundation.

    The court must reaffirm this indisputable truth: Public schools should remain public — and open to all. 


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

    Source link

  • Landmark New Mexico Education Equity Case Heads Back to Court Next Week – The 74

    Landmark New Mexico Education Equity Case Heads Back to Court Next Week – The 74


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

    The parties in the long-running Yazzie-Martinez lawsuit over educational equity in New Mexico will meet in court next week to discuss a motion alleging the state has not complied with previous court orders, along with the plaintiffs’ request for a “remedial plan.”

    The case, originally filed in 2014, led to a finding in 2018 by the late First Judicial District Court Judge Sarah Singleton, who found that the state was not providing equitable educational opportunities to Native students, English language learners, low-income students and students with disabilities. She ordered the state to take steps to address the needs of these at-risk students and ensure schools have the resources to provide them with the education they deserve.

    Attorneys representing Louise Martinez and Wilhelmina Yazzie filed a joint motion of non-compliance in September 2024, arguing that the state has not made significant progress in addressing the needs of at-risk students. Specifically, in their motion, plaintiffs point to ongoing poor student performance; high turnover within the New Mexico Public Education Department; high teacher vacancy rates; and a lack of targeted funding for at-risk students.

    Since Singleton’s decision, the state has increased funding for public education, but students are still being overlooked, Melissa Candelaria, education director for the NM Center on Law and Poverty, which represents the plaintiffs, told Source NM.

    The motion hearing is scheduled for 9 a.m. Tuesday, April 29.

    “We believe the court’s ruling should have been a wakeup call,” Candelaria said. “Our students can’t afford more bureaucratic churn and empty promises from PED. And we believe, the plaintiffs believe, the court must step in to enforce a real community-driven plan that reflects the urgency and the gravity to improve the overall state education system.”

    Candelaria noted that the joint motion was not opposed by New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez, who represents the state in the case. Court documents state that Torrez “agrees” that there has been “insufficient compliance.” However, private counsel for the PED did oppose the motion, particularly the plaintiff’s proposed remedial plan.

    PED had not responded to a request from Source NM for comment prior to publication.

    That plan, as detailed in court documents, includes nine components or goals, including: establishing a multicultural and multilingual educational framework; building an education workforce; increasing access to technology; developing methods of accountability; and strengthening the capacity of the PED.

    “There’s no longer a debate that a statewide education plan is necessary. Now, the decision is who leads that development,” Candelaria said.

    Candelaria also told Source the plaintiffs propose the Legislative Education Study Committee take the lead in developing the remedial plan because the department’s staff have knowledge and expertise in the area of education and have access to data. The department also has a director and permanent staff, as opposed to the PED, which has had multiple cabinet secretaries lead the department in the nearly seven years since Singleton’s decision, she noted.

    “Without a plan, the efforts by the Legislature will still be piecemeal and scattershot and it’s not going to result in what we want to see in a transformed education system that’s equitable and that builds on the strengths and provides for the needs of the four student groups in the case,” Candelaria said.

    The PED opposes the motion on this point, according to court documents, and argues the education department should take the lead in developing the plan. The department also says more time is needed to create and then implement the plan. Plaintiffs suggest that the five-year plan should be developed within six months of this month’s hearing.

    Wilhelmina Yazzie, one of the original plaintiffs, told Source she feels “very optimistic” ahead of the motion hearing and that she hopes the judge agrees a plan is necessary. She added that the inequities in public education were emphasized during the COVID-19 pandemic.

    “Especially our tribal communities who are really deeply impacted by that, and they still continue to suffer to the present time right now and just by the state not taking the action that we need them to take,” Yazzie said.

    Yazzie’s son, Xavier Nez, 22, was in third grade when the lawsuit started. He is now in his third year studying at the University of New Mexico. Candelaria pointed out that since the 2018 court decision, multiple classes of students have made their way through the state’s educational system and failed to receive a comprehensive education. Yazzie’s youngest child, Kimimila Black Moon, is currently in third grade but attends private school.

    “She’s not in the public school because I still haven’t seen changes,” she said.

    Yazzie told Source that another goal of hers is to get out into communities throughout the state and speak with families because many parents are still unaware of the lawsuit and “they’re the ones that firsthand know what their children need, what they’re lacking, how they’re doing in school.”

    Source New Mexico is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Source New Mexico maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Julia Goldberg for questions: info@sourcenm.com.


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

    Source link

  • Lawyers in New Jersey School Segregation Case Want Appellate Court to Weigh in – The 74

    Lawyers in New Jersey School Segregation Case Want Appellate Court to Weigh in – The 74


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

    Attorneys representing a group of New Jersey parents and activist groups are asking a state appellate court to weigh in on a case that could reshape the state’s public education system.

    At the center of the fight is whether New Jersey schools are unconstitutionally segregated by race and socioeconomic status. A lower court judge in October 2023 acknowledged the state’s public schools are segregated by race and that the state must act, but also found that the plaintiffs had failed to prove the entire system is segregated across all its districts.

    The parents’ attorneys filed a motion last week with the state’s appellate division asking it to hear the case.

    “It is imperative that no more students be deprived of these rights by the trial court’s avoidance of the straightforward conclusion compelled by the facts and the law in this case — that the state defendants, who are legally obligated to take action to desegregate public schools regardless of the reasons for that segregation, have acted unconstitutionally by failing to do so,” the attorneys wrote in the filing.

    Gov. Phil Murphy and the state Department of Education have until April 28 to respond to the plaintiffs’ new filing. A spokesman for the Murphy administration declined to comment.

    News of the new filing was first reported by Chalkbeat Newark.

    The case dates to 2018, when the Latino Action Network, the NAACP New Jersey State Conference, and several other families and groups sued the state alleging New Jersey failed to address de facto segregation in public schools. The plaintiffs cited data showing that nearly half of all Black and Latino students in New Jersey attend schools that are more than 90% non-white, in districts that are often just blocks from predominantly white districts.

    In New Jersey, students typically attend schools in the municipality where they live. Plaintiffs argued that long-standing housing policies that led to segregated residential neighborhoods led to segregated schools also. New Jersey is the seventh-most segregated state for Black and Latino students, the plaintiffs say.

    In October 2023, after Superior Court Judge Robert Lougy issued his ruling that acknowledged racial segregation in New Jersey schools but said it was not widespread, both sides entered mediation talks in hopes it would resolve more quickly than continued litigation.

    Attorneys for the parties said in February that it’s unlikely continuing the talks would “be constructive.”

    The plaintiffs’ attorneys say the lower court’s October ruling should be reversed. They want a judge to review what they say are six errors in the 2023 order, like the fact that Lougy did not identify a disputed fact.

    “Rather than reach the only logical conclusion that followed — that the state defendants violated plaintiffs’ constitutional rights — the trial court left the question of liability for another day,” the filing reads.

    If the appellate court denies the motion, the case would return to the trial court, or could be appealed to the state Supreme Court.

    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: info@newjerseymonitor.com.


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

    Source link

  • “Inside Higher Ed” Co-Founders Win Prestigious CASE Award

    “Inside Higher Ed” Co-Founders Win Prestigious CASE Award

    The Council for Advancement and Support of Education has awarded Inside Higher Ed co-founders Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman the 2025 James L. Fisher Award for distinguished service to education.

    The award “highlights individuals whose influence on education extends beyond a single institution.”

    Jaschik and Lederman left The Chronicle of Higher Education to launch Inside Higher Ed in 2004, turning it into “a vital resource for higher education leaders, offering insightful analysis and coverage of critical issues affecting the sector,” the award announcement said.

    “Doug and Scott’s work has increased public understanding of higher education and influenced institutional strategy and policy,” it read. “Their thoughtful reporting has made Inside Higher Ed a trusted source for higher education professionals worldwide.”

    Previous winners of the award include former CBS president Fred Friendly and Vartan Gregorian, who led both the New York Public Library and the Carnegie Corporation.

    “Scott Jaschik and Doug Lederman have provided colleges and universities with an accessible form of quality journalism, expected transparency and truth from leaders, and allowed the celebration of the impact education has on the lives of our students,” Teresa Valerio Parrot, principal of TVP Communications (and a frequent contributor to Inside Higher Ed), said in the CASE statement.

    Jaschik retired from Inside Higher Ed in 2023 and Lederman in 2024.

    The award will be presented at the CASE Summit for Leaders in Advancement in New York City in July.

    Source link

  • The Higher Ed CMO’s Commercial Case for Creativity

    The Higher Ed CMO’s Commercial Case for Creativity

    Legendary ad person Bill Bernbach once said, “If your advertising goes unnoticed, everything else is academic.” It’s not an understatement to say that managing higher ed brands has become increasingly complex. Marketers are forced to compete in a category that’s in flux—within a culture that questions its value—and improve effectiveness across marketing channels that have not only changed the way we consume content but also caused exponential growth in choice.

    Creativity continues to drive commercial value, however, investing in the intangible up front—with both time and resourcing—can prove to be difficult when budgets remain static. And yet, we know that:

    • We are exposed to upwards of 4,000 marketing messages a day.
    • Our audience reports that our marketing efforts look the same and that most entertainment and consumer brands produce content that lacks imagination.

    Without an investment in creativity—the vehicle for our big brand ideas—we risk our message getting lost, splintered and, worst case, ignored.

    For those managing higher education brands in our current media environment, the words of Paul Feldwick have never been more true: “If there is a choice to be made between efficiency and thinking big, you cannot afford to be efficient if you want to be famous.” And there’s quite a case building across a decade or so of data that shows just how an investment in creativity is an investment in the bottom line. Here are four that are applicable to higher education.

    Outside of brand size, creativity is the most important lever in profitability.

    Just as in the case of network theory, the rich get big. That also tends to play out among brands. However, creative quality can be an equalizer of sorts. According to Data2Decisions, the creative execution of your messages is the second most impactful driver of profitability after market/brand size. And while brand size has the greatest overall impact, creative quality remains the most powerful lever marketers can actively control.

    Ads that are perceived to be different are more likely to drive business outcomes.

    ​Research from Kantar’s Link database, as well as research from academia, indicates that ads that are perceived as different or unique are more likely to drive positive business outcomes. Per the database, the top one-third of ads that “make the brand seem really different” achieved a 90 percent lift in likelihood to drive short-term sales versus the bottom third.

    Emotion unlocks the key output that drives business outcomes.

    Starting with the IPA’s “The Link Between Creativity and Effectiveness” and subsequent industry research, there’s not only a through line between creative award-winning campaigns driving market share growth (11x) and top-box profit but intermediate metrics, such as word-of-mouth/social shares, and outputs, such as ad recall.

    The largest contributor to lift from advertising is the creative.

    Nielsen’s exploration of more than 500 Fast-Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) brands showed that the most important component of a campaign (targeting, reach, brand, context, frequency and creative) was strong or quality creative. Similar patterns were found in the work done by the World Advertising Research Center and Kantar.

    If brand is the most valuable business tool and if we argue that brand exists in the minds of the consumer, or our favorite saying in higher education, “a brand is what your audience says when you aren’t in the room,” then it’s time to treat it as a commercial asset and invest accordingly. Whether it’s through internal resourcing or giving partners the time and space to commit to breakthrough ideas, a commitment to creativity isn’t just brave anymore—it’s related to the bottom line.

    Christopher Huebner is a director of strategy at SimpsonScarborough.

    Source link

  • CUPA-HR Joins Amicus Brief in Case Regarding NCAA Eligibility Rules

    CUPA-HR Joins Amicus Brief in Case Regarding NCAA Eligibility Rules

    by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025

    On March 28, CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations in filing an amicus brief in Pavia v. NCAA, which challenges the association’s eligibility rules with respect to the five-year time limits for student-athletes. The brief was filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit.

    Background

    Pavia filed the lawsuit against the NCAA in November 2024, claiming that the NCAA’s ability to limit eligibility for previous junior college transfers by counting their competition years in junior college towards the number of years they are eligible to compete in NCAA sports restrains labor market forces and thus violates antitrust laws. A federal district court judge agreed on the merits of Pavia’s arguments and issued a preliminary injunction blocking the NCAA from enforcing its eligibility rules and allowing Pavia only to play an additional season. The judge argued that the ability for student-athletes to earn money through name, image and likeness (NIL) deals thus makes the NCAA’s eligibility rules “commercial,” meaning the rules themselves would not survive antitrust scrutiny. The NCAA appealed this ruling to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, where the case awaits further litigation.

    Amicus Brief

    The brief, filed by ACE, CUPA-HR, and five other higher education associations, argues that all eligibility rules set by the NCAA, including the five-year time limitations challenged in this case, aim to ensure “the primacy of the educational context for the student-athlete experience.” The brief argues that the preliminary injunction placed by the district court threatens to “shift the formulation and enforcement of the NCAA’s eligibility rules from educators and athletics administrators to federal courts” as any student-athlete disqualified by an eligibility rule could request a court to file an injunction and argue that the eligibility rule restricts their ability to pursue NIL deals. This would ultimately result in a patchwork of waivers granted by judges nationwide, undermining the national system of enforcement already in place through athletic associations like the NCAA and cementing federal judges as the unofficial court of appeals for the NCAA.

    CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to this court case.



    Source link

  • Title IX Case Against Maine Schools Headed to U.S. Department of Justice – The 74

    Title IX Case Against Maine Schools Headed to U.S. Department of Justice – The 74


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

    The conflict between the state of Maine and the Trump administration over transgender student athletes reached a new pivot point on Monday. As the first of several deadlines set by the federal government has now expired, whether Maine can continue to allow trans athletes to participate in school sports appears likely to be decided by the courts.

    Two separate federal agencies determined that Maine is in violation of Title IX based on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the anti-sex discrimination protection.

    The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a final warning Monday to the Maine Department of Education regarding its noncompliance with a federal directive for allowing trans girls to participate in girls’ sports.

    If the state does not propose an agreement that’s acceptable to the office by April 11, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice, the letter said.

    Meanwhile, a separate investigation by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office that found Maine in violation of Title IX for “continuing to unlawfully allow” trans girls to compete in girl’s sports has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice, according to a Monday social media post from the agency.

    In a letter dated March 17, HHS had given Maine a deadline of 10 days to comply with federal guidance. Monday marked ten business days from that warning.

    Both agencies determined that Maine had violated federal law after dayslong investigations that included no interviews, while typical investigations take months and are eventually settled with resolution agreements. The probes were launched after Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump had a heated exchange over the state’s trans athlete policy. Millions of dollars in federal funding might be at risk, depending on how the cases proceed.

    “We just need an answer at this point as to, ‘Does the Trump administration have the authority to do what it’s doing when it comes to fast tracking the removal of federal funds?’” said Jackie Wernz, a former OCR lawyer for the Education Department who now represents school districts nationwide in these types of cases.

    “This is just unprecedented, and we’re not following the process that we’re used to. So I think it’s going to be really helpful for courts to start weighing in on whether or not they have the authority to do this.”

    Meanwhile, Republican state lawmakers said in a news conference on Tuesday that they want the state to repeal trans students’ rights to athletics, locker rooms and bathrooms, and to roll back inclusion of gender as a protected class in the Maine Human Rights Act.

    “The problem is that the term gender identity and the Human Rights Act is being interpreted way too broadly by the left,” said Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook). “And what it’s saying is there’s no boundary between men’s and women’s spaces.”

    Rep. Michael Soboleski (R- Phillips) said he is introducing a bill to remove consideration of gender identity from the act, and asked Democrats and Mills to support the legislation in order to avoid the risk of losing federal funding.

    Earlier this year, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove civil rights from a state law when its Legislature voted to remove gender identity from its civil rights act.

    “This is not sustainable,” Stewart said. “We’re a poor state. We are heavily reliant on federal money. The governor needs to move on this.”

    On March 19, the Department of Education’s civil rights office notified Maine of its noncompliance and proposed a resolution agreement that would require the state to rescind its support of trans athletes, which is currently required by the Maine Human Rights Act. A Cumberland-area school district and the Maine Principals Association, which runs student athletics, that were also found in violation have already refused to sign the agreement.

    This development is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to enforce Title IX provisions concerning gender and athletics. Earlier this year, the administration launched investigations in several other states for similar policies allowing trans athletes to compete in alignment with their gender identity.

    Title IX, the federal law banning sex-based discrimination, does not reference trans people directly, but the Trump administration has interpreted Maine’s policy as discrimination against cisgender girls.

    Rachel Perera, a fellow in the governance studies program for the Brown Center on Education Policy at national think tank The Brookings Institution, said the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX leaves room for questioning. If the policy goes to trial, she said federal courts may come up with a clearer interpretation.

    “It’s going to be really important to see how Maine proceeds, because they’re sort of setting the tone in terms of these other states and other localities who are going to be trying to navigate these very same dynamics,” she said.

    Maine Morning Star is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.


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

    Source link

  • Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Today on the HEPI blog, Professor David Phoenix OBE and Dr. Katerina Kolyva explore how England’s post-16 education system can move beyond competition to create a more integrated, collaborative approach that benefits learners, local economies, and national prosperity. You can read the blog here.

    Below, colleagues at the University of Surrey explore the evolving landscape of global student mobility, highlighting innovative programmes and making the case for a new approach to student placements.

    • Professor Amelia Hadfield is Associate Vice-President for External Engagement and Founding Director of the Centre for Britain in Europe, and Liz Lynch is International Mobility Manager, both at the University of Surrey.

    In recent years, the UK’s governments have developed new initiatives such as the Turing Scheme, the Taith Scheme in Wales, and the Scottish Government’s Scottish Education Exchange Programme (SEEP). These mobility programmes aim to support students’ global experiences. While they have undoubtedly provided valuable opportunities for students – particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds – what is truly needed is a longer-term commitment from government to sustain and expand these life-changing opportunities.

    At the end of February, the annual Global Mobility conference hosted by Universities UK International (UUKi) brought together higher education professionals and thought leaders to explore the latest developments in global student mobility and what the future looks like. The conference showcased how universities are leveraging these funding opportunities to create meaningful and impactful programmes. However, it also highlighted the significant challenges faced by UK institutions, particularly in the aftermath of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ and the ongoing financial pressures on both universities and students. These factors have created a complex landscape, making investment in international mobility more crucial than ever.

    The Impact of Mobility on Student Outcomes: Insights from UUKi Research

    During the conference, UUKi presented early-stage findings from their latest research, Gone International: A New Generation, conducted in collaboration with Jisc and the Northern Consortium. While the data revealed a significant decline in the number of students going abroad, perhaps reflecting the impact of recent global challenges, there remains strong evidence of the benefits to students. Reaffirming 2019 findings, the data continues to show students participating in mobility programmes not only attain higher degrees but are also more likely to earn higher salaries, secure professional-level jobs and experience lower unemployment rates. The research underscores the important role of global mobility in fostering social mobility.

    Nevertheless, while those of us working in the sector already understand the intrinsic value of international experiences, having concrete data to back up these claims strengthens the case for continued support and expansion of such opportunities. The University of Manchester, for example, has been evaluating the impact of its international mobility programmes on student outcomes, and the findings have helped raise the profile and importance of these opportunities across their institution. This kind of evidence-based approach is essential for ensuring that the sector – and governments – remain committed to facilitating global mobility for students.

    The Broader Benefits of International Mobility

    The British Council highlights the broader societal benefits of international student mobility, particularly in fostering cross-cultural understanding and long-term relationships between nations. By participating in mobility programmes, students develop cross-cultural competence, language proficiency, and global perspectives – all vital skills for success in today’s interconnected world. Inbound mobility, in particular, contributes significantly to the UK economy, with international students bringing cultural diversity, innovation, and fresh perspectives to campuses. These exchanges also build cross-cultural networks, which can endure long after students return to their home countries, fostering greater trust and understanding between nations and supporting the UK’s soft power overseas.

    All of this is in addition to the economic benefit that stems from the UK’s ability to attract international students, as discussed recently on the HEPI blog.

    Blended Mobility: Enabling flexibility and accessibility

    Blended mobility programmes represent a forward-thinking solution for making global education more accessible and flexible. Cardiff Metropolitan University, for example, has embraced a hybrid model supported by the Taith funding, combining one week of virtual learning with one week of physical mobility. This approach not only maintains the essence of cultural exchange but also offers students the flexibility to engage in international experiences that might otherwise be logistically or financially out of reach. The combination of virtual, blended, and physical mobility opens doors for students who might not be able to commit to a full-term study abroad programme, making global learning more inclusive and scalable.

    Whilst the Turing Scheme in its current form does not include blended mobility, the recent reduction in minimum duration to 14 days is a positive step towards providing greater accessibility for students. Hopefully, in future years, blended mobilities and shorter 7-day mobilities could be incorporated into future Turing projects, taking the impactful examples from both Taith and Erasmus+ as evidence of the value and enabling engagement from the most disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.  This, along with funding for staff mobility (offered by both Taith and Erasmus+), will only serve to enhance Turing overall.

    Surrey’s Approach: Empowering Students through International Mobility

    At the University of Surrey, we are committed to increasing the participation of our students in a range of international opportunities, whilst simultaneously expanding the international dimension of the student experience at our Guildford campus. In this respect, placement training options, study abroad opportunities, enhanced ‘global and cultural intelligence’ and ‘collaborative online international learning’ (COIL) content in degree pathways, as well as our Global Graduate Awards, ‘international’ is necessarily widely defined, and ‘mobility’ can take place intellectually, culturally, and socially, as well as just physically,

    Mobility also brings together traditional approaches to cross-border opportunities with enhanced approaches to supporting new demographics. A key strategic objective at Surrey, therefore, is focusing on access for underrepresented groups. We target Turing funding and additional grant funds to students who meet Surrey’s widening participation criteria to address inequality amongst underrepresented groups who may wish to experience international mobility but are unable to do so without grants. The portfolio of both longer-term and shorter mobility options we have developed facilitates equal access for all. As previous placements have illustrated, longer-term mobility provides deeper cultural experiences and learning opportunities for those able to commit to a full semester/year abroad. Shorter options can widen access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and underrepresented groups.

    Through their international experiences, our students build global academic and professional networks and improve their job prospects. They return to Surrey as confident, resilient, and globally minded individuals, prepared to tackle the challenges of tomorrow’s world. Feedback from students who participated in Surrey’s Turing 2023 project shows the impact mobility has on their personal and professional development. 94% reported an increase in intercultural awareness, and 93% felt the experience enhanced their employability and professional skills.

    Looking Ahead: The Future of Global Mobility

    The global mobility landscape is changing, with rapid technological advancements and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and sustainability. At Surrey, we are embracing technological innovations that will enhance both the student experience and the efficiency of mobility programme management. Process automation, for example, is helping streamline administrative tasks, freeing up resources to better support students. We are also starting to use virtual reality (VR) to promote international opportunities, allowing students to virtually explore campus life abroad. Future opportunities for blended learning, as well as the incorporation of COIL projects within the curriculum, will nurture the skills necessary for students to engage with the world and develop the confidence and curiosity needed to thrive in an interconnected society.

    By incorporating data-driven approaches, we will continue to assess the impact of our mobility programmes, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring that our offerings align with both institutional and student goals. As the sector evolves, collaboration and innovation will be key in ensuring that all students can access transformative international experiences.

    Source link