Tag: conference

  • Podcast: Student protest, TNE, Tory conference

    Podcast: Student protest, TNE, Tory conference

    This week on the podcast as pro-Palestinian student protests mark the anniversary of October 7, an intervention from Keir Starmer sparks a national debate on campus safety, antisemitism, and free speech.

    Plus the Prime Minister is leading a trade delegation to India alongside sector leaders, we explore the growing opportunities in transnational education and ask whether UK universities are ready for a TNE surge – and at Conservative Party Conference, Kemi Badenoch announces plans to slash student numbers and redirect funding.

    With Jess Lister, Director (Education) at Public First, Liz Hutchinson, Chief Executive at London Higher, James Coe, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and hosted by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    OfS rebalances the free speech/harassment see-saw on antisemitism

    Conservatives have a poor quality higher education policy

    A TNE policy primer for anyone seeking new funding streams

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link

  • Madchester? A sketch from the Conservative Party Conference

    Madchester? A sketch from the Conservative Party Conference

    I used to get nostalgic attending Conservative Conferences in Manchester. Being shouted at by far-left protestors reminded me of my time as a right-of-centre student union hack in the early 1990s.

    Just like the early 2020s, the early 1990s was a period when an unpopular Conservative administration was limping towards the end of its time in office. Trying to persuade other Manchester-based students to veer right rather than left was a challenge that guaranteed abuse. In one instance, someone kicked away one of my crutches (after I broke my ankle trying to high jump…). That still seems an odd way to convince me of the superiority of their views. There were lighter moments too, as when a fresher muddled up the Conservation Society with the Conservative Association. There are only so many times ‘Do you go out in the field?’ can be answered with ‘We help out at local by-elections.’

    This year, however, any abuse of passers-by was reserved for Labour’s Liverpool shindig, where a motley and shouty selection of anti-ID card, anti-abortion and anti-Israel protestors were in need of a Strepsil or two. Depressingly, I heard one protestor shout at a conference delegate who supported ID cards, ‘I bet you went to university.’ Even Steve Bray gave the Tories a miss this year, though his portable speakers were blasting away in Liverpool. (A friend suggested we should ask him where his extremely loud portable sound system came from … ‘Steve Bray as sponsored by Richer Sounds’?)

    If there was nostalgia to be had at the Conservative Conference, it was for the 1970s. There were multiple screenings of Margaret v Ted – An inconceivable victory, in which Michael Portillo narrated the story of Thatcher’s victory in the Conservative leadership election of 1975. There were various fringe meetings on ‘why nothing works’ that also recalled the 70s, especially when held in the shadow of the old Free Trade Hall, where 49 years ago the Sex Pistols played their most famous gig (though Anarchy in the U.K. had yet to join the setlist). The problem for the Tories is that change takes time, so the state of public services in 2025 has more to do with past Conservative Governments than the Labour one elected in 2024 – and everyone knows it.

    HEPI is non-partisan, always keen to publish views from across the political spectrum. That’s why we attended both the Conservative and Labour Conferences and why we are weighing up whether to go to Reform’s Conference next year. But I started this blog with shouty abuse because it links to the theme of HEPI’s fringe event held in conjunction with the University of Sussex, the University of Manchester and Goldsmiths, University of London: ‘How can universities best win back public support’. 

    Our speakers had different answers to this important question.

    • Neil O’Brien MP, the Shadow Minister for Policy Renewal and Development, ascribed the lukewarm approach towards universities to the (arguably) high number of low-quality degrees as well as to the lack of incentives on universities to prioritise economic growth.
    • Professor Sasha Roseneil from the University of Sussex (Kemi Badenoch’s alma mater) pointed the finger at endless negative media coverage, which she said was out of kilter with what the public really think about universities.
    • Professor Annabel Kiernan from Goldsmiths shifted the tone by reminding us about the many positives – not all financial – of a broad education, which Professor Duncan Ivison from the University of Manchester echoed before warning of the need to stop universities falling into the hole that already contains all those other areas of life that the electorate have deemed to be failing.
    • Finally, Alex Stanley of the NUS put students centre stage along with all the challenges they are currently facing. Anyone who thinks the NUS is still obsessed with the issues outside the mainstream of students’ concerns should listen to Alex’s wise words, which are always persuasively put.

    There weren’t half as many events on higher education in Manchester as there were the previous week in Liverpool. But one other organisation that made the effort was the King’s College Policy Institute, which hosted a panel on ‘What is the Conservative approach to higher education and skills integration?’ in which I took part.

    It wasn’t entirely clear if the title was referring to the Conservatives’ past, present or future policies but, for my take, I pointed out their early years in office after 2010 included a well-defined set of policies built around:

    1. increasing the unit of resource for teaching (via higher tuition fees and loans) and protecting research spending even in the depth of austerity;
    2. giving more power to students and institutions through the removal of student number caps; and
    3. placing a renewed focus on teaching quality and student outcomes.

    (As readers may know, I worked on these areas before joining HEPI in 2014, so declare an interest in them.)

    I went on to note the biggest problems facing our system of post-compulsory learning are not actually in higher education. The OECD’s recent Education at a Glance, which HEPI helped to launch, showed we have a high participation rate, a low drop-out rate and excellent graduate outcomes (on average), whether we are talking about employment, wages or health. But it also showed terrible (average / relative) outcomes for those who leave school with only GCSEs or equivalent.

    I ended my remarks by pleading with the Conservative Party to strive towards a ‘three Bs strategy’. By this, I meant focusing on the half of the population doing much worse educationally: Boys. For every 54 young women that make it to higher education, only 40 young men do so. Yet Minister after Minister and Government after Government have failed to adopt a dedicated focus on the scandal of male underachievement.

    I also suggested a future Conservative Government should focus on Bilingualism or at least inculcating a Bare familiarity with a language other than English. Language learning has declined catastrophically since a second language stopped being compulsory at Key Stage 4 (GCSE-level) around 20 years ago. The idea then was that primary school language learning would be bolstered and lots of secondary school pupils would voluntarily enrol for a language GCSE or two. But it has not worked out like that: there are now more A-Levels taken in PE than in French, German and Classical Languages combined. It seems ironic that a factor nudging people towards Brexit was one of Tony Blair’s education policies.

    My third B is ‘BTECs’ and similar, which the last Conservative Government and the current Labour one have been trying to kill slowly. Yet T-Levels and A-Levels are not right for everyone and much of the recent progress in widening participation in higher education has been among BTEC students.

    So most people who have considered the question, including Professor Becky Francis (who is overseeing the Curriculum and Assessment Review), agrees there should be a third way. Last week’s Labour Conference has left people expecting a brand new vocational qualification alongside As and Ts, producing a policy already confusingly labelled V-A-T (as if VAT were popular …). But the floor is littered with politicians’ attempts to design new vocational qualifications (GNVQs, diplomas etc). This approach is far from guaranteed to succeed: indeed, unless the errors of the past are meticulously avoided, the new approach will be more likely to fail than to succeed.

    That surely gives His Majesty’s Official Opposition a duty to scrutinise the current Government’s approach and provides a possible opportunity for them to rebuild a reputation for being knowledgable, moderate and competent. Yet as I file this piece, news is coming in that the Leader of the Opposition will instead opt to focus her main Conference speech on Wednesday on kicking universities and promising to slash the number of university places. This will be accompanied by a promise of more apprenticeships … but they said that in government yet presided over a reduction.

    It is almost as if someone believes saying, ‘Vote Conservative and we will stop your child(ren) from going to university’ could be a vote winner.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Labour Conference 2025 | Wonkhe

    Podcast: Labour Conference 2025 | Wonkhe

    This week on the podcast, as the dust settles on Labour conference in Liverpool, we unpack what Keir Starmer’s new higher education participation target really means – and whether universities have the capacity and funding to meet the moment.

    We also get into the surprise return of targeted maintenance grants – funded controversially by the levy on international student fees, and we reflect on the wider political atmosphere at the conference – from policy signals to sector perceptions, and what all this might tell us about Labour’s emerging offer and forthcoming White Paper.

    With Gary Hughes, Chief Executive at Durham Students’ Union, Eve Alcock, Director of Public Affairs at QAA, Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe and hosted by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    The PM’s announcement on higher level participation is a win for the HE sector

    The fifty per cent participation target is no more. Again.

    Grants return, the levy stays

    Maybe the levy just moves money to where it’s needed most

    The Augar review is back, baby. Just don’t about talk yourself

    Students are being othered again – and everyone loses out

    Have universities got the capacity and cash to respond to the government’s agenda?

    How much should the new maintenance grant be?

    Universities should be central to rebuilding communities

    Students are working harder than ever – because they have to

    I have a lot of questions about the LLE

    Who’s ready for a debate at 930am on a Sunday?

    The education policy trap: will the Augar review avoid the mistakes of the past?

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link

  • As the Labour Party Conference draws to a close, HEPI takes a look at what just happened

    As the Labour Party Conference draws to a close, HEPI takes a look at what just happened

    Nick Hillman, HEPI Director, bottles his thoughts about this year’s Labour Party Conference.

    As multiple fringe events showed, when it comes to higher education the Labour Conference was very busy, with notably more vice-chancellors in attendance than in days of yore.

    My Conference sojourn started on Saturday with a trip to Liverpool’s famous Cavern Club to watch the brilliant in-house Beatles tribute band. At the time, I mused about which fab-four song might best sum up the next few days. ‘Taxman’ perhaps?

    (If you drive a car) I’ll tax the street

    (If you try to sit) I’ll tax your seat

    (If you get too cold) I’ll tax the heat

    (If you take a walk) I’ll tax your feet

    In fact, when it came to higher education, the big news was a giveaway rather than a new tax. I’ll always remember where I was when Margaret Thatcher resigned as Prime Minister (in the Manchester University Students’ Union shop). Perhaps education policy wonks will similarly always remember where they were when they heard maintenance grants were on their way back (albeit for a second time – they were last reintroduced in the mid-2000s before being abolished a decade later).

    In my case, I was with dozens of others in a fascinating HEPI fringe event on students’ cost of living, chaired by my colleague Rose Stephenson and featuring Alex Stanley (NUS), Gavan Conlon (London Economics) and Nic Beech (University of Salford). This came hot on the heels of two other HEPI fringe events – one on public opinion and higher education featuring a bevy of vice-chancellors and another with Cambridge University Press and Assessment on ‘Quality Matters’.

    It was no surprise the news about maintenance grants won a spontaneous round of applause. It reminded me of the cheer I got during a speech to the University of Derby in 2016, when I read out the breaking news that UKIP’s Leader had just stood down (‘Nigel Farage resigns’, the Guardian reported, ‘after “achieving political ambition”’).

    In both instances, the initial reaction was premature. Brexit was not the end of Faragism and it quickly became clear in Liverpool that the return of maintenance grants is not quite what it first seemed either.

    Bridget Phillipson’s tweet announcing the change said:

    Access to our colleges and universities shouldn’t just be for a wealthy few.

    That’s why I’m bringing back maintenance grants for those who need them most.

    Labour is ambitious for all our young people, no matter their background. I’m putting our values into action.

    Most people who have calculated the cost of reintroducing grants have assumed it would cost something in the region of £2 billion a year. However, Ministers plan to fund the new grants via the proposed levy on international students’ fees, which is expected to raise around £600 million. So entitlement to the new means-tested grants will, it turns out, be limited by students’ course choice. You will be quids in only if you are studying what the politicians want you to study. 

    As I noted at the King’s College London Policy Institute fringe meeting on Wednesday afternoon, funding the new grants from the new levy may seem like clever politics, at least inside Number 10 and the Treasury and also perhaps by anyone seeking election as the Labour Party’s Deputy Leader.

    Students and vice-chancellors have been desperate for grants to return and rightly so – for the reasons why, see our recent report on a Minimum Income Standard for Students with TechnologyOne and Loughborough University. But the levy / tariff / tax on international students is hated by those same students and vice-chancellors, putting them in something of a bind when it comes to responding to the Government’s announcement.

    Not only do international students typically come from countries that are poorer than the UK, but they are already subsidising UK research and the teaching of domestic students. Now they are expected to contribute towards the day-to-day living costs of poorer home students too (just so long as those UK students are studying courses deemed to be of most economic value). Just how broad do Ministers think international students’ shoulders are?

    Many of them come from wealthy backgrounds but some do not have very deep pockets and none is obliged to study in the UK rather than elsewhere. So our higher education institutions are unlikely to be able to pass on the full 6% without seeing a drop in demand.

    It was great to witness so many backbench Labour MPs, like Alex Sobel, Daniel Zeichner, Abtisam Mohamed and Dr Lauren Sullivan, advocating for UK universities across the conference fringe programme. But more generally, there were parts of the Conference that felt flat as well as parts that were presumably in line with what the organisers wanted – including the Leader’s big set-piece speech. Starmer’s big reveal was the rejection of the ancient 50% target for young people’s participation in higher education in preference for a new target ‘That two-thirds of our children should go either to university… Or take a gold standard apprenticeship.’

    The Prime Minister would be unlikely to welcome the comparison but this reminded me of nothing so much as David Cameron’s pledges as Prime Minister. In 2013, for example, Cameron said: ‘I want us to have as a new norm the idea that in school, everybody, everyone who can, either takes that path on to university, or takes that path on to an apprenticeship. You should be doing one or the other.’

    The challenge is not coming up with such commitments; it is delivering them. Fewer adults are doing apprenticeships now than when David Cameron spoke, despite the introduction of an Apprenticeship Levy. Perhaps Starmer can succeed where Cameron and his successors failed…

    At the end of the Conference, I was left feeling the biggest omission compared to past Labour Conferences was a clear and broad narrative about His Majesty’s Official Opposition: the Conservative Party. If the choice facing the country really is between ‘division’ and ‘decency’, as Keir Starmer says, then might not the best way to defeat division be, as with Le Pen in France or the AfD in Germany, for centre-right and centre-left parties to act together?

    If Tony Blair and William Hague can work together, surely this is not impossible? But – and this is a personal opinion only – I left Liverpool wondering if the main problem for today’s Labour leadership is that they have spent the last 15 years making such strong criticisms of their bedfellows in the mainstream centre of British politics that they are unable to admit they may now need to work with the centre-right to stave off their worst fears.

    Then again, perhaps today’s Tory Party also cannot see that the opposite of division is not so much ‘decency’ (however much we might want that) as collaboration. We’ll find out for certain next week as the policy caravan moves across the north-west to Manchester for the Conservative Party Conference. Do come to HEPI’s event there if you can – it is outside the secure zone so no expensive pass is needed.

    Carole Cox, HEPI’s Events and Communications Administrator (and HEPI’s biggest Beatles’s fan) explains why Liverpool is the perfect place for day-trippers and long-stayers.

    The City of Liverpool has the biggest single collection of Grade One listed buildings than any other English city outside London and it was named the European Capital of Culture in 2008. A football mecca, it also boasts a plethora of museums, including the World Museum, the International Slavery Museum, the Museum of Liverpool, Tate Liverpool and the Merseyside Maritime Museum.

    It is also an interestingly quirky place, which harbours some amazing public toilets (you read that right). For example, if you ever happen to drop into the Philharmonic Dining Rooms in the Georgian Quarter, feel free to admire the famous Grade I-listed urinals in their pink marble splendour.

    And then, there is the deservedly famous Mersey Beat. Liverpool and The Beatles, these are words that go together well.* The Liverpudlian group are considered the best-selling band in music history, hailed as pioneers who revolutionised the music industry and popular culture.

    In summary, Liverpool is a ‘blast’ in more ways than one: a city which does not shy away from its heritage, a city with so much to offer culturally, but also a windy city open to the strong maritime winds gusting from the docks. Which may be why the French translation of the 1964 Beatles film A Hard Day’s Night is Les Quatre Garçons Dans Le Vent, a French colloquial idiom for their growing popularity – which, when translated word-for-word, awkwardly reads as ‘the four boys in the wind’.

    * ‘these are words that go together well’ are lyrics from the 1965 Beatles song Michelle (Lennon/McCartney).

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Money’s Too Tight (to Mention) – Universities and students are on a knife edge as the party conference season and the new academic year kick off in earnest, by Nick Hillman (HEPI Director)

    WEEKEND READING: Money’s Too Tight (to Mention) – Universities and students are on a knife edge as the party conference season and the new academic year kick off in earnest, by Nick Hillman (HEPI Director)

    • As policymakers look ahead to the bigger party conferences and students and staff ready themselves for the new academic year*, HEPI Director Nick Hillman takes a look ahead. [* Except in Scotland, where it has already begun.]
    • Information on HEPI’s own party conference events is available here.

    Money’s Too Tight (to Mention)

    When the Coalition Government for which I worked tripled tuition fees for undergraduate study to £9,000 back in 2012, it was a big and unpopular change. But it represented a real increase in support for higher education that led to real increases in the quality of the student experience, with improvements to staffing, facilities and student support services.

    Because the fee rise shifted costs from taxpayers to graduates via progressive student loans, it enabled another fundamental change: the removal of student number caps in England. No longer would universities be forced to turn away ambitious applicants that they wanted to recruit. It was the final realisation of the principle that underlined the Robbins report of 1963: ‘courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.’ A higher proportion of students enrolled on their first-choice place. (It never ceases to amaze me how many people wish to return to a world in which your children and mine have unwarranted obstacles reimposed between them and attaining the degree they want.)

    But back in 2012, no one in their wildest dreams thought the new fee level would be frozen for most of the next decade and more. After all, the fee rise was implemented using the Higher Education Act (2004), which had enabled Tony Blair to introduce the current model of tuition fees, and the Blair / Brown Governments to raise fees each year without any fuss.

    Yet the political ructions caused by introducing £9,000 fees in 2012 made policymakers timid. Towards the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, Ministers bizarrely sought to make a virtue of their pusillanimity. Even as inflation was biting, the Minister for Higher Education (Rob Halfon) said raising fees was ‘not going to happen, not in a million years’.

    The result has been a crisis in funding for higher education institutions that has changed their priorities. Top-end universities have looked to increase their income via more and higher (uncapped) fees from international students – hardly surprising, when an international student taking a three-year degree is worth £69,000 a year more than a home student! They have also sought to tempt UK students away from slightly less prestigious institutions.

    Meanwhile, newer universities have been even more entrepreneurial. Limited in their ability to recruit lots of international students, they have instead shifted towards franchising, whereby other organisations pay them for the privilege of teaching their degrees.

    Universities in the middle have had a particularly tough time. Most notably, many universities originally founded in the expansionary post-Robbins environment are struggling today. (It has been suggested that the tie-up between Kent and Greenwich is partly borne of necessity.) Plus with no fees for home students, Scottish universities have been hurting even more than those elsewhere.

    Even though recruiting more people from overseas and large-scale franchising have helped some institutions to keep the wolf from the door, Ministers have condemned both. The UK Home Office want fewer international students and England’s Department for Education have promised new legislation to tackle the growth in franchising. (Six months ago, Bridget Phillipson wrote in the Sunday Times, ‘I will also bring forward new legislation at the first available opportunity to ensure the Office for Students has tough new powers to intervene quickly and robustly to protect public money’.)

    No British university has ever gone bust but, as financial advisers know, the past can be a sorry guide to the future. When asked, Ministers say they would accept the closure of a university or two. But a university is usually a big local employer, a big supporter of local civic life and a source of local pride – and money. Most have been built up from public funds.

    Closing a university would not just risk local upset. It would reduce confidence, including among those who lend to universities, and could even risk a domino effect, as people lose faith in the system as a whole, thereby putting the reputation of UK education at risk. So there are good reasons why, for example, Dundee University is currently being bailed out, even if it comes with a distinct whiff of moral hazard.

    Bills, Bills, Bills

    Students are hurting just as much as institutions. Contrary to the expectations of years gone by, the proportion of school leavers proceeding to higher education is barely rising. There is likely more than one cause, including negative rhetoric about universities from across the political spectrum and a false sense that degree apprenticeships for school leavers are plentiful.

    Perhaps most significantly, maintenance support for students is nothing like enough. There are three big problems.

    1. The standard maximum maintenance support in England is now worth a little over £10,000, which is just half the amount students need.
    2. Parents are expected to support their student offspring but they are not officially told how much they should contribute.
    3. England’s household income threshold at which state-based maintenance support begins to be reduced has not increased for over 15 years. At £25,000, it is lower than the income of a single-earner household on the minimum wage.

    As a result, according to the HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey, over two-thirds of students now undertake paid employment during term time, often at a number of hours that negatively affects their studies. These students are limited in their ability to take part in extra-curricular activities, for they are time poor as well as strapped for cash.

    An increase in maintenance support is long overdue, just as an increase in tuition fees for home students is long overdue. But we could also perhaps help students help themselves by providing better information in advance about student life. In particular, given the epidemic of loneliness among young people, we should remind them that you are more likely to be lonely if your room is plush but you do not have enough money left over for a social life than if your living arrangements are basic but your social life is lively.

    The Masterplan

    The Government came to office claiming to have a plan for tackling the country’s challenges. But more than a year on, the fog has not cleared on their plans for higher education. Patience is now wearing gossamer thin. As Chris Parr of Research Professional put it on Friday, ‘Still we wait.’ As far as we can discern from what we know, it seems universities will be expected to do more for less – on civic engagement, access and economic growth.

    Higher education institutions have made it clear, including through Universities UK’s Blueprint, that they are keen to play their part in national renewal. But it is not only the financial squeeze that limits their room for manoeuvre. Political chaos as well as the geography of Whitehall threaten the institutional autonomy that has been the key ingredient of UK universities’ success.

    Unlike in the past, there are different regulators, Ministers and Departments for the teaching and learning functions of universities on the one hand and their research functions on the other, meaning coordinated oversight is missing. The latest machinery of government changes risk another dog’s dinner, as ‘skills’ continue to bounce around Whitehall, newly residing for now (but who knows for how long) in the Department for Work and Pensions. Meanwhile, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is thought to have less regard for university-based research than for research conducted elsewhere, at least in contrast to the past.

    Moreover, each of the two Ministers with oversight of higher education institutions (Baroness Smith and Lord Vallance) are newly split across two Whitehall departments, with one foot in each. This sort of approach tends to be a recipe for chaos. (As I saw close up during my own time in Whitehall, split Ministers usually reside primarily in just one of their two departments, the one where their main Private Office is situated.) 

    The choice now is clear. If Ministers want to direct universities more than their predecessors, then they need to fund them accordingly. But if Ministers want universities to play to their own self-defined strategies in these fast-changing times, then they should reduce the barriers limiting their capacity to behave more entrepreneurially.

    Source link

  • ASALH Brings Annual Conference to Atlanta Amid Attacks on Black History Education

    ASALH Brings Annual Conference to Atlanta Amid Attacks on Black History Education

    The Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH) will convene its annual conference in Atlanta from September 24-28, 2025, bringing together Black leaders, academics, educators, and community members during what organizers describe as a “critical hour” for Black history and education.

    TDr. Stephanie Y. Evanshe conference, themed “African Americans and Labor,” comes as educational institutions nationwide face mounting pressure over diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and as several states have enacted legislation restricting how race and racism can be discussed in classrooms.

    The conference will feature several prominent voices in African American studies and social justice, including Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Dr. Edda Fields-Black and scholar-activist Dr. Ibram X. Kendi. Labor organizer Chris Smalls, who led the successful effort to form the first independent union at an Amazon warehouse in the United States through the Amazon Labor Union, will headline the Friday John Blassingame Luncheon.

    Other featured speakers include historians Drs. Peniel Joseph, Maurice Hobson, Stephanie Evans, and Joe Trotter Jr., along with civil rights leaders Ambassador Andrew and Andrea Young and Rev. Jamal Bryant.

    A key component of the conference programming will address current challenges facing educators and institutions seeking to teach Black history. Specialized sessions will provide guidance to librarians, teachers, and community organizers on establishing Freedom Schools and teaching Black history “in the current challenged national environment.”

    Dr. Peniel JosephDr. Peniel JosephThe Wednesday plenary session, “The Fire Now!,” will specifically examine how budgets and policies are “Undermining Preservation of the African American Experience,” featuring experts from the National Parks Conservation Association, Trust for Public Land, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.

    “Our goal is to make as many of the activities free and accessible to the public as possible,” organizers announced, with Wednesday sessions, plenaries, film festival screenings, poster sessions, and vendor exhibits offered at no charge.

    Thursday’s plenary, “Towards a Theory of Liberation: The State of Black Radicalism Today,” will feature scholars Drs. Charisse Burden-Stelly, Gerald Horne, Akinyele Umoja, Joy James, and Ashley Howard examining contemporary Black liberation movements.

    Friday’s session will honor the scholarship of historian Dr. Joe William Trotter Jr., a leading expert on African American labor history and urban studies.

    A Saturday luncheon titled “An Unusual Emphasis on Scholarship: Carter G. Woodson, Omega Psi Phi, and the Power of Black History” will explore the legacy of ASALH’s founder and the role of Black Greek letter organizations in preserving African American history.

    Registration for the ASALH Conference is open, with both free and ticketed events available. The annual gathering represents one of the premier venues for African American historical scholarship and community engagement in the United States.

    Source link

  • Federal Actions Loom Large at NACUBO Conference

    Federal Actions Loom Large at NACUBO Conference

    NATIONAL HARBOR, Md.—Just outside of Washington, D.C., across the Potomac River, Capitol Hill cast a shadow over the annual meeting of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, where concerns over federal funding and policy changes were palpable among attendees.

    At panels and in side conversations during the three-day meeting, held at the sprawling Gaylord National Resort and Convention Center, attendees swapped strategies, drilled into pressing issues and commiserated over pressures on the sector wrought by both the political environment and a business model that is strained in many places. Representatives of a diverse mix of institutions from across the nation attended, but common challenges emerged: They worry about the impact of looming federal policy changes, which they expect to add pressure to institutions already grappling with financial challenges related to enrollment declines, high tuition discount rates and other issues.

    Here’s a recap of themes and moments that emerged from the conference.

    ‘Fear, Anxiety and Contempt’

    At a packed panel covering recent activity out of Washington, NACUBO vice president for policy and research Liz Clark noted the strains business officers are feeling amid a “tumultuous year” marked by a flurry of federal actions, including the passage of the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, pushed by President Donald Trump, which included various provisions for higher education.

    The legislation, signed earlier this month, caps some student loans while eliminating the Grad PLUS program, limits repayment options and requires programs to pass an earnings test for attendees to access federal student loans, among other provisions, including changes to the endowment tax. Passed on a partisan line with Republicans under pressure to deliver Trump’s signature legislation, Clark noted it is just one action—albeit a significant one—that has reshaped higher education this year.

    Clark added that 2025 has “brought a lot of fear, anxiety and contempt” as colleges navigate restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion programs; cancellation of federal grants and contracts; and various state laws that have “created a challenging environment” for the sector.

    “I feel like we have, this year, been dealing with everything, everywhere, all at once,” Clark said.

    Clark noted that despite the concerns she highlighted, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which she abbreviated “Bubba,” and other policies that were proposed could have hit higher education much harder. One example she offered was the endowment tax, which in the final bill fell far short of what House Republicans initially proposed.

    But in another panel on tax reform, Clark suggested that the endowment tax could still be revised in ways that resemble earlier proposals and would have affected more universities and at higher rates.

    “Don’t forget that ideas never die in Washington,” Clark warned.

    Legal Perspectives

    A panel of higher education lawyers also weighed in on current challenges for the sector.

    Kate Hudson, deputy vice president and counsel for government relations and public policy at the Association of American Universities, warned at the start that the session would not have “a whole lot of good news.” Given the rapid pace of changes from the federal government, she also offered a caveat: “Anything I say today could be out of date in 72 hours.”

    Hudson noted that campus attorneys are dealing with multiple actions from the federal government, such as federal funding freezes and far-reaching executive orders, as the Trump administration seeks to reshape everything from academic research to college admissions.

    “I don’t think it is too dramatic to say that this is a wholesale renegotiation by force of the government-academia partnership,” Hudson said. “I don’t think that’s an overstatement.”

    Jen Gartner, deputy general counsel at the University of Maryland, argued that the relationship between the federal government and research institutions shifted from “extremely collaborative and collegial” to a suddenly “adversarial approach” that has left universities flummoxed. That strain has particularly been felt around grants, which she said have often been terminated for unclear reasons. She also said the federal government has provided unclear information on such cancellations, sometimes providing contradictory statements in the same termination notice.

    And as higher education attorneys have sought answers, she said, they’ve reviewed few.

    “It’s not just that universities don’t know what to do—agencies don’t know what to do, either, and [staff are] not picking up the phone or responding to emails if they’re even still there,” Gartner said.

    Related to research, Hudson also warned that Trump administration’s scrutiny of international students, which includes now vetting their social media posts for evidence of hostility toward the U.S. government and culture, also has the potential to harm the sector.

    “It’s not an overestimation to say that threats … to legal immigration, to your campuses, do present an existential threat to the academic research enterprise itself at a time when [research and development] budgets and graduates from STEM degrees in our competitors, such as China, are off the charts and reaching new heights,” she said. “International students will go elsewhere.”

    Hudson added that the AAU has not historically focused on immigration law, but that has suddenly shifted amid the threats to international students and faculty.

    A Hard Year Ahead?

    Inside Higher Ed also hosted a panel at this year’s conference to discuss the results of the 15th annual Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, released last week. That survey, conducted in partnership with Hanover Research, found college business officers confident in the long-term outlook but worried about their financial situation in the near future.

    Most respondents believe their institutions will be in worse financial shape next year. Only 43 percent expressed the belief that their institution would be in better shape next year. But Rick Mills, president and CEO of United Educators, was skeptical about the sentiment that financial situations will improve by next year given the various challenges discussed at the conference.

    “At one level, I take heart in the optimism,” Mills remarked. “I think it’s what keeps all of us going, and what gets you to work in the morning, and perhaps, in the end, helps us solve the problem. On the other hand, it strikes me as slightly fantastical thinking in the current environment.”

    Source link

  • PBLWorks Announces its 2025 Award Winners

    PBLWorks Announces its 2025 Award Winners

    Novato, CA – The Buck Institute for Education (dba PBLWorks), a national provider of professional development and curriculum for high-quality Project Based Learning (PBL), has announced the recipients of its 2025 PBL Champions and John Larmer “JL” Lifelong Learning Awards.

    The recipients were honored during the organization’s 2025 PBL World conference in Napa Valley, California.

    The 2025 PBL Champions

    The PBL Champions program recognizes an individual, a school, and a school district that have demonstrated a commitment to PBL; have done quality, lasting work; and have shown evidence of impact on students. The 2025 recipients are:

    • District PBL Champion: Lynn Public Schools in Lynn, Massachusetts

    This 16,000-student district is transforming teaching and learning through its implementation of PBL. In a little over a year, the team at Lynn established high-functioning district and school leadership teams and trained a cadre of educators who have designed more than 70 projects for students. The district has implemented PBL at all seven of its secondary schools with a goal of having all students participate in two or more high-quality PBL experiences per year by the end of the 2029-30 school year.

    • School PBL Champion: University Prep Academy (UPA) High School in Detroit, Michigan

    University Prep Schools (UPrep) stands among Detroit’s earliest and longest-running charter school networks. Known for its unwavering commitment to student success, UPrep (UPA) has proudly upheld its signature “90/90 promise”—ensuring that at least 90% of students graduate from high school and 90% of those graduates go on to enroll in college. UPA teachers and leaders have leveraged PBL as a way that empowers students to be a part of the future of their city – from working on keeping their unhoused population warm in the winter through a physics project on heat transfer, to urban gardens that allowed students to provide farm-to-table food to local food pantries and shelters. PBL has opened their eyes to the challenges students face, encouraged them to see and explore those challenges through the lens of solutionists, and has brought UPA closer to the community it serves.

    • Individual PBL Champion: Kim Mishkin, Head of School at the Hudson Lab School (HLS) in Hastings, New York

    Kim Mishkin has been instrumental in embedding Project Based Learning as the foundation of the school’s curriculum. As both an educator and school leader, she has built structures, cultivated partnerships, and championed interdisciplinary, real-world learning experiences that empower students and educators alike. Through her leadership, HLS has become a model for how schools can integrate PBL at every level, ensuring that learning is not just about content, it is about empowering students to be problem-solvers, leaders, and changemakers.

    The John Larmer “JL” Lifelong Learning Award

    The John Larmer “JL” Lifelong Learning Award, named after PBLWorks’ Senior Fellow John “JL” Larmer, recognizes educators who are impacting and expanding the work of Project Based Learning. A significant advocate and thought leader in the field, JL has dedicated decades to advancing high-quality PBL and is the author of several foundational books that have shaped how educators design and facilitate high-quality PBL. This award celebrates those who carry forward that legacy with passion, purpose, and an unwavering commitment to deeper learning. The 2025 recipients are:

    • Rue Graham, Project Based Learning lead advisor and coach at the Pagosa Peak Open School, Archuleta County School District in Pagosa Springs, Colorado
    • Stephanie Tuttle, fourth grade teacher at Fairfield Elementary School, Rockbridge County Public Schools in Rockbridge, Virginia

    “Project Based Learning is an incredibly powerful way to engage students and ignite their passion for learning – and it all starts with having administrators and teachers who are committed to its success,” said PBLWorks CEO Bob Lenz. “Our awards programs recognize the incredible passion and hard work demonstrated by schools, districts, and individuals in implementing PBL. Congratulations to our 2025 award recipients!”

    About PBLWorks

    The Buck Institute for Education/ PBLWorks believes that all students, especially Black and Brown students, should have access to high-quality Project Based Learning to deepen their learning and achieve success in college, career, and life. Its focus is on building the capacity of teachers to design and facilitate high-quality Project Based Learning, and on supporting school and system leaders in creating the conditions for these teachers to succeed with all students.

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

    Source link

  • Organization of Educational Historians National Conference, September 26-27th Online

    Organization of Educational Historians National Conference, September 26-27th Online

    Save the date – September 26-27! As a non-profit educational organization, we hope you will join us at our annual conference! If you are looking for a conference that includes sharing histories of education to help define present processes and inform the development of future responses, we hope you will join us and attend our annual conference. This year’s conference will include at least one panel on aspects of how artificial intelligence will impact educational history, but there will be many other panels. While the final conference schedule is still in development, this poster features examples of previous topics at the annual conference, so we can’t guarantee sessions on all these topics yet, but they demonstrate our past conference topics and may be indicative of what will be in this year’s conference. Our conference being offered online ensures low cost as we seek to invite many scholars into the organization by keeping travel costs low – and a full year’s membership, complete with the journal and attendance at the conference, remains affordable with a student rate ($60) and a regular rate (non-student) ($120)! With a peer-reviewed journal, an annual conference attendance complete with a noted keynote speaker, and a membership, we are dedicated to ensuring as many people as are interested can attend our conference. As you look to the fall, save the date and register here to attend: http://www.edhistorians.org/annual-meeting.html

    Source link

  • ‘Man versus machine’ up for debate at the International Internship Conference

    ‘Man versus machine’ up for debate at the International Internship Conference

    Welcoming delegates with a lyric from Minnesotan, Bob Dylan, International Internship Network founder and conference organiser, Matt Byrnes, set a reflective tone: “Come in… I’ll give you shelter from the storm.” 

    “We’re in the midst of a storm in post-secondary education,” explained Byrnes, who believes that IIC can offer colleagues a refuge from the onsalught on recent policy decisions that are impacting international education globally.

    “IIC fosters an environment of tranquillity and confidence, where attendees explore study abroad solutions and partnerships that benefit their institutions and students,” he said.

    Attendees from across the globe gathered to engage in sessions that ranged from employer site visits to focused panels and social receptions. Delegates included international internship providers, faculty, government representatives, employers, and students.

    Central to the program was the conference’s annual debate. This year’s square off was entitled ‘Man vs Machine’ and tackled questions surrounding AI’s role in internship design and delivery. Moderated by The PIE‘s Maureen Manning, the session featured Kate Moore, principal and co-founder of the Global Career Center (GCC), Balaji Krishnan, vice provost at the University of Memphis, Greg Holz, assistant director for global engagement at the Univerity of Central Missouri, and Rishab Malhotra, founder and CEO of AIDO.

    The panellists brought diverse perspectives, from AI ethics and corporate supervision to startup innovation and campus life. They debated how technology can support rather than supplant the human experience in relation to international expeiences.

    Krishnan emphasised the importance of ethical frameworks in guiding AI development, warning against unchecked reliance on algorithmic tools without human oversight. Malhotra noted that while artificial intelligence can optimise logistics and placement processes, it cannot replicate human empathy or intercultural sensitivity – qualities central to global internships. Meanwhile, Holz offered a perspective from the corporate side, suggesting that when used thoughtfully, AI can streamline operations and free up supervisors to provide more meaningful mentorships. Moore closed by framing technology as an enabler rather than a replacement; a tool, not a teacher.

    These discussions reflected a core concern echoed throughout the conference: how to maintain the integrity and purpose of internships while leveraging digital tools to scale access and impact.

    Byrnes commented on the relevance of the conference’s direction: “IIC’s focus on the future of internships and technology is on point. At a time when academia is pivoting to prepare students for how AI is transforming the workplace, IIC attendees return to their campuses with much more knowledge about emerging technologies and how they can evolve internship programs to meet the needs of their students.”

    The event also highlighted the important role of government partnerships in advancing work-integrated learning. International Experience Canada (IEC), one of the central partners of the conference, stated: “We congratulate IIC for its role as a leading organisation in advancing dialogue and partnerships on international experiential education, work-integrated learning and internships, and as one of IEC’s newest recognised organisation partners.”

    Tech knowledge alone is not enough. We must support students to think critically, navigate complexity, and adapt with agility
    Maria Angeles Fernandes Lopez, Universidad de Camilo Jose Cela

    Throughout the three-day event, many delegates indicated to the PIE that it is not a question of whether technology will shape the future of internships, but rather how to ensure that these tools enhance, not eclipse, the human dimensions of learning: mentorship, reflection, and cross-cultural understanding.

    “Tech knowledge alone is not enough. We must support students to think critically, navigate complexity, and adapt with agility,” asserted Maria Angeles Fernandes Lopez, vice rector at Universidad de Camilo Jose Cela, the host institution for the IIC in 2026. At the passing of the torch ceremony at the conclusion of the conference, Byrnes and Lopez indicated their hope to build on the momentum and dialogue sparked in Minneapolis on the intersection between technology and humanity.

    Source link