Tag: Crisis

  • Another year, another teacher supply crisis…

    Another year, another teacher supply crisis…

    Today on the HEPI blog, John Cater revisits a quarter-century of teacher education policy to consider how we can solve the teacher supply crisis – read on below.

    And Amira Asantewa and Reuel Blair explore how growing social capital – not just academic engagement – is key to tackling the widening Black-white degree awarding gap in UK universities in a powerful reflection on identity, belonging and community. Read that piece here.

    • Dr. John Cater was Vice-Chancellor of Edge Hill University from 1993-2025 and member of the Board of the Teacher Training Agency and its successor body from 1999-2006.  He also chaired the Joint UUK/GuildHE Teacher Education Advisory Group (2013-2019) and is the author of HEPI Policy Paper 95, Whither Teacher Education and Training (2017).

    Twenty-five years ago, the attraction of teaching was on the wane, and universities’ enthusiasm for training teachers was sinking fast. The Evening Standard’s billboards screamed, ‘Schools in Crisis’ as the capital’s schools closed on Fridays or brought pupils in for just half-days because of a shortage of teachers.  

    Fast forward to 2025, and the recent National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) publication, Teacher Labour Market in England 2025, has reached the newsstands, prompting the same headlines: ‘Schools in Crisis’.

    But two and a half decades ago, it was turned around.  A serious attempt to tackle teacher workloads (WAMG, the Workload Allocation Model Group) was put in place, with ‘guaranteed’ non-contact preparation time and a rapid increase in the number and responsibilities of teacher support workers ((Higher Level) Teaching Assistants).  And one of the most effective marketing campaigns, No-One Forgets a Good Teacher, was launched.

    These are more sceptical, more cynical times, and the challenges of teaching are well understood, but there are strategies which could ameliorate the current crisis.

    1. A Better Product. Teaching is a ‘present in person’ profession.  No class of thirty adolescents is going to be controlled, still less educated, by an unattended whiteboard.  But, particularly in secondary education, rolling up a teacher’s preparation time into a single day, even fortnightly, which could be worked from home, would make the profession more attractive to many.  And most school staffrooms need to move into the twenty-first century if they are to match working conditions in the wider world.
    2. Better Marketing.  Teaching is a vocation, and the opportunity to change lives and create life chances still resonates with many.  A focus on case studies (Tony Blair and Eric Anderson being amongst the best-remembered from the above campaign), moving from the abstract to the relatable, have proved effective in the past. 
    3. A Partnership Approach.  Too often, the relationship between the state and its agents and training providers has been driven by a contractual ‘purchaser/ provider’ model, characterised by mutual distrust.  Similarly, school and college participation in the renewal of the profession, for example, by offering placements and link tutors, has been discretionary and often wrapped in a cash nexus.  Some universities are also unnerved by the risk to brand and reputation inherent in the inspectorial process, particularly when teacher training consists of a very small proportion of their portfolio (a concern which can also relate to apprenticeship provision).  If scrutiny is accepted by all to be risk-based and proportionate, resource is released to focus on both areas of concern and the sharing of best practice.
    4. Supporting Teaching as well as Training.  Incentivising training has its merits, and the NFER Report does indicate a weak correlation between bursaries and the take-up of training places, but training is not teaching.  If you have to offer £27,000 to persuade someone to train, are you sending an implicit message about the desirability of the profession you may enter?  And, whilst starting salaries (now at least £30,000 per annum outside London) have improved, the financial incentives for taking increased responsibility are widely regarded as insufficiently attractive to keep teachers in the profession.
    5. Re-visit Repayments.  The lowering of the student loan repayment threshold to £25,000 in 2023 and the extension of the loan term penalises those in the lower-middle salary range – teachers, nurses, social workers – whilst those on higher salaries benefit from lower interest payments.  Simply in the interest of fairness, it needs re-visiting.
    6. Fee forgiveness. Teacher retention is an even bigger issue than teacher recruitment, with over a third of all entrants leaving the profession within five years.  London Economics and the Nuffield Foundation, amongst others, have repeatedly highlighted the limited cost of writing off outstanding student loans for those who provide a decade or more of service, a cost which would be eliminated fully when reduced recruitment and training costs and anticipated improvements in service quality are taken into account.  
    7. Key worker accommodation.  The demise of public sector housing and the lack of available and affordable rental accommodation has severely restricted teacher mobility and teacher supply, with particular challenges in high-cost locations (such as the Home Counties).  Part of the current Government’s drive to construct 1.5m new homes should place key worker housing close to the top of the priority list.

    In the aftermath of the Chancellor’s Spring Statement, the issue of productivity looms large.  A highly educated and committed workforce is integral to the future of the UK economy, and a ready supply of well-qualified, passionate teaching professionals is the building block on which that economy can thrive.

    Source link

  • Why Not Flexible Transfer for All, Not Just in Crisis?

    Why Not Flexible Transfer for All, Not Just in Crisis?

    Meet Estevan, featured by Texas A&M University–Corpus Christi as a Transfer Student Success Story. Estevan benefited from a high degree of personalized support—including advising on course selection and financial aid planning—that helped him identify a clear path to transfer in his major of choice. Such personalized support helped Estevan thrive and make the dean’s list after transferring.

    Estevan’s story is one of the many inspiring success stories about transfer students we hear every day, even when the odds seem stacked against them. For example, we know that 80 percent of community college students nationwide intend to complete a bachelor’s degree, yet only 31 percent transfer to a four-year institution within six years of entry. When they succeed in transferring, transfer students often outperform their peers who start and stay at the same institution. And yet, we do not make transfer easy. For one, learners face a confusing set of ever-changing rules that varies across institutions, making it difficult to know which courses are transferable and applicable to their intended program of study.

    Added to that, we know life is unpredictable and even a learner’s best-laid plans can be derailed by one lost job, one sick family member or one unexpected change in financial aid. When the unpredictable happens, can institutions better flex to meet learners where they are?

    The signs point to yes—if you look at the examples of incredible institutional flexibility in response to the recent rise in institutional closures and mergers. As reported by Inside Higher Ed, nearly 100 institutions closed in the last academic year alone due to declining enrollments and financial pressures. When institutions close, accreditors and their member institutions step up to support students through a process called teach-out. Teach-out policies, while they differ by accreditor, are generally designed to help other institutions flexibly accept and apply students’ coursework to a degree or credential in order to help affected students complete their studies in a timely fashion. In such arrangements, the expressed goal is to apply the rules in ways that help bring students in and flex those rules that would effectively leave students out.

    Teach-out policies are exactly the type of thoughtful guidance that should be in place to support students. But as we’ve described, institutional closure is not the only reason students transfer, and it is not the only crisis students face. So this leads us to ask, if institutions can be flexible when faced with one type of student transfer, can they be similarly flexible in other transfer scenarios as well?

    We are excited to share that we had the opportunity to ask that question of the members of the Middle States Commission on Higher Education (for which one of the authors, Heather Perfetti, serves as president). In fall of 2024, MSCHE, WASC Senior College and University Commission, and the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges partnered with the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board and Sova to design and field the Survey on Transfer and Learning Mobility to their institutional members. The survey sought to determine members’ perspectives on student transfer and learning mobility and to discern the role of accreditors in these processes through the institutional lens.

    In one of the most striking survey results, half of MSCHE’s responding institutions said they believe that institutions should apply similar flexibility for students who transfer and/or have previous learning as they do for students in teach-out situations (138 institutions responded to the survey, with a 30 percent response rate). Members of the PAB shared this finding at MSCHE’s Annual Meeting in December 2024, and a MSCHE member voiced the following powerful reflection: “We flex that way all the time for our own self-interest when we want to close one of our own programs.”

    We share these findings not to throw open the doors on academic rigor and quality, but rather to ask the field to pause and reflect on why credit transfer policies are stringent, knowing the barriers they may pose for students. We recognize the claims that strict credit transfer policies protect student preparation and program cohesion. If that’s true, what data are used to prove that students are not well prepared if they don’t take courses in a linear sequence? What evidence is used to understand and control for program cohesion? And if it’s not true, what are the real reasons, and can we discuss them openly so that we can better serve students? We can’t identify real solutions if we’re not honest about the actual problems.

    From MSCHE’s perspective, this survey finding feels like a call to pause, reflect and inspire us into action. MSCHE is proud of its existing transfer policies, which are crafted to support students and the mobility of their learning. But MSCHE is also willing to revisit its policies and accreditation activities through the lens of how principles related to teach-out during crises, like closures, can inform transfer more generally.

    Through the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, in collaboration with WSCUC and SACSCOC, we’ll talk to our peer accreditation agencies as well about key questions for accreditors and how accreditors can and should:

    • Engage governing boards and member institutions about the importance of transfer and learning mobility;
    • Leverage self-study as a moment for institutions to review and revise policies that are barriers to transfer;
    • Celebrate with institutions the ways they are supporting stronger transfer policies and the awarding of credit;
    • Remind constituents that accreditors want to see and support institutional innovation to better serve students;
    • Promote what accreditation policies actually require, and bust myths around statements such as “the accreditor won’t let me do that” (because, quite frankly, those statements are rarely true);
    • Elevate how the accreditor complaint and third-party comment process can be used by students to bring institutional transfer policies, procedures and decisions to accreditor attention; and
    • Quite simply: Be student centered, all the time.

    We hope this post gives you food for thought. Through our partnership and aligned efforts such as the Learning Evaluation and Recognition for the Next Generation Commission (led by Sova and the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers and on which MSCHE, WSCUC and SACSCOC all sit), we will be looking to support the field with additional thinking about strong principles for student-centered credit evaluation and transfer. In the meantime, we’ll leave you with this question: How do you flex for students?

    Source link

  • Does Texas Have a Teacher Retention Crisis? – The 74

    Does Texas Have a Teacher Retention Crisis? – The 74


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

    Texas teachers may be increasingly fed up with their job, but they’re still staying in school.

    State data shows Texas public school educators continue to return to the classroom at somewhat similar rates as years past, despite multiple surveys showing the large majority of them have contemplated quitting the profession.

    While teacher turnover has slightly increased over the past decade, state data show there hasn’t been a large exodus of experienced teachers. In fact, the average years of experience for Texas public school teachers hasn’t notably changed since 2014-15, nor has the share of first-year teachers hired by districts.

    The numbers run counter to years of warnings that Texas teachers are primed to bolt en masse out of frustration with the job. At the same time, Texas does still face widespread issues with morale, as well as big challenges in finding certified teachers and filling several types of positions, including special education educators and bilingual teachers.

    Steady hands in schools

    While much has changed in Texas classrooms over the decade, students continue to be educated by mostly veteran teachers. The average tenure for Texas teachers has held steady during that stretch, ranging from 10.9 to 11.2 years of experience.

    The state did see a slight dip in the share of first-year teachers — who, on average, have less positive impact on student achievement than other educators — during the late 2010s, then a slight uptick over the past few years. Still, novice teachers account for fewer than 1-in-10 Texas educators.

    A small rise in turnover

    Teacher turnover, a measure of how many educators don’t return to teach in the same district each year, has ticked higher since the pandemic. While it once hovered near 16 percent, it’s reached roughly 20 percent over the past two years.

    Ultimately, a 4 percentage point difference equates to about 15,000 more teachers who aren’t returning to a classroom in their district. However, state data shows teachers of all experience levels are leaving at similar rates.

    Still stressed

    Teachers might be sticking with their jobs, but that doesn’t mean they’re happy about it.

    A 2024 poll of 1,100 Texas teachers by the Charles Butt Foundation, an Austin-based education advocacy nonprofit, found nearly four-fifths of educators surveyed had seriously considered quitting the profession in the past year. Pay, quality of campus leadership and a sense of feeling valued ranked among the biggest factors in whether teachers had considered quitting.

    Separate polls by two of the largest Texas educator unions — the Texas American Federation of Teachers and Texas State Teachers Association — also showed about two-thirds of teachers had considered leaving the profession.

    Texas education leaders also are worried about the state’s ability to retain teachers and hire tough-to-fill positions. A state panel convened by the Texas Education Agency examined the issues and made numerous recommendations in 2023, though few of its proposals have been put into action.

    As teachers leave Texas schools, district leaders are increasingly filling those positions with uncertified teachers, who generally leave the profession sooner than certified teachers.

    This article first appeared on Houston Landing and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


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

    Source link

  • What next for int’l education after South Korea’s political crisis?

    What next for int’l education after South Korea’s political crisis?

    On April 4, 2025, South Korea’s Constitutional Court upheld the impeachment of President Yoon Suk Yeol, marking a historic conclusion to 122 days of political turmoil triggered by his failed declaration of martial law on December 3, 2024.

    However, the damage sustained during the transitionary period proved irreversible. Massive public protests, legal battles, sharply divided public opinion, and a temporary presidential suspension culminated in Yoon’s permanent removal from office.

    This article examines how the political crisis has disrupted international higher education in South Korea, focusing on five key areas: reputational damage, impact on students from Asia and the Global South, rising xenophobia, heightened student anxiety, and the sidelining of education policy.

    A blow to Korea’s brand

    Before the political crisis of late 2024, Korea had successfully positioned itself as one of Asia’s most attractive destinations for international students, combining strong government support, cultural appeal through the Korea’s soft power, and a reputation for safety and modernity.

    The country’s international student population had surged to over 200,000 by mid-2024, driven by initiatives like the Study Korea 300K strategy and bolstered by perceptions of national stability.

    However, Yoon’s abrupt declaration of martial law and the ensuing constitutional crisis shattered this image. International media coverage of soldiers surrounding parliament and global expressions of concern drew unsettling comparisons to authoritarian eras, eroding the confidence that had fuelled South Korea’s internationalisation drive. While little direct harm came to students, the perception of fragility alone risks deterring future enrolments.

    Disruptions for the global south

    The political crisis affected international students from Asia and the Global South, who make up the vast majority of the country’s foreign enrolment.

    With countries like China, Vietnam, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan sending thousands annually, students were drawn by proximity, affordability, and opportunity – but instead found themselves facing uncertainty, confusion, and fear.

    The brief but shocking declaration of martial law raised urgent concerns about campus safety, academic continuity, and visa stability, prompting embassies and international offices to issue advisories and support measures.

    Although campuses largely remained operational, the prolonged instability created bureaucratic delays, disrupted programs, and heightened anxiety, especially for students from politically sensitive backgrounds. The overall experience tested students’ faith in Korea as a stable destination.

    Polarisation and the rise of xenophobia

    The political crisis intensified domestic polarisation and spilled over into rising xenophobia, particularly targeting Chinese nationals. Fueled by conspiracy theories and nationalist rhetoric, Yoon’s supporters alleged foreign interference in South Korean politics, echoing fringe narratives prevalent among far-right media.

    These claims, amplified by partisan outlets and street rallies, created an atmosphere of suspicion and scapegoating against a narrowly profiled demographic. While many South Koreans rejected these xenophobic narratives, the episode revealed how quickly foreign students can become collateral damage in domestic political conflicts.

    Heightened anxiety and mental health concerns

    Over the past four months, international students in South Korea have faced heightened anxiety as political turmoil compounded the usual challenges of studying abroad. The situation introduced fears ranging from immediate safety during protests to long-term worries about academic continuity, visa stability, and career prospects.

    International students in South Korea have faced heightened anxiety as political turmoil compounded the usual challenges of studying abroad

    Many students, especially those unfamiliar with Korea’s political system or fluent only in limited Korean language, struggled to interpret rapidly unfolding events, and some even began contingency planning in case of campus closures or evacuation.

    Mental health stressors were exacerbated by long-distance concerns from worried families, unfamiliar political polarisation, and rising xenophobia.

    Higher education policy and discourse sidelined

    Most importantly, national discourse on higher education was effectively sidelined as government attention and public debate fixated on the impeachment process.

    While some initiatives, like the IEQAS certification and the Glocal Project, quietly moved forward, they received minimal coverage or engagement. The leadership vacuum and political paralysis delayed or derailed potential reforms, only resulting in many schools’ collective move to raise tuition fees after a 16-year freeze.

    Within universities, students and faculty who might normally advocate for education policy were drawn into the political fray, and civil discourse on educational development disappeared from the national agenda.

    International education standpoint

    From an international education perspective, the crisis tarnishes South Korea’s branding as a rising study destination.

    The martial law incident and subsequent impeachment chaos created precisely the kind of uncertainty that can give students and parents pause. For example, Hong Kong experienced a notable challenge in international student interest after the protest upheavals of 2019/20, as safety and political issues became a concern.

    No expert in this field would overlook the fact that one of the most powerful drivers of human migration is the political and social compatibility between home and host countries. This helps explain why Korea and Japan have become two of the most attractive destinations for international students in Asia.

    Looking ahead: time for rebuilding

    With the Constitutional Court having issued its ruling, the path to restoring its global reputation hinges on reaffirming its commitment to inclusion, transparency, and predictability. The crisis has illuminated how deeply political instability can affect international education and serves as a cautionary example for emerging study destinations: preserving democratic norms and open societies is essential to sustaining trust and long-term progress in the global arena.

    Rebuilding Korea’s global education brand will require more than a return to stability; it will necessitate deliberate reassurances of democratic resilience, institutional integrity, and a sustained commitment to providing a safe, welcoming environment for international students.

    On the bright side, the decision, grounded in constitutional procedure, stands as a testament to the resilience and maturity of Korea’s democratic institutions

    On the bright side, the decision, grounded in constitutional procedure, stands as a testament to the resilience and maturity of Korea’s democratic institutions. Despite the turbulence, the peaceful and lawful resolution of the crisis reaffirms the country’s enduring commitment to the rule of law, institutional checks and balances, and civic accountability.

    For international observers and students alike, this outcome offers a renewed sense of confidence that Korea’s democratic foundations remain robust. As such, it opens the door for a more transparent and inclusive national recovery, one where education, international engagement, and democratic integrity can move forward together.

    All in all, on the heels of the impeachment, restoring confidence in the national system and reviving the momentum of internationalisation and higher education reform must become a central national priority.

    Source link

  • How Being a Mother and Academic Helped Me Fix Higher Education’s Transfer Crisis

    How Being a Mother and Academic Helped Me Fix Higher Education’s Transfer Crisis

    Dr. Alicia M. AlveroWhen my daughter transferred to Queens College in Spring 2019, I could not have been more excited. As associate provost at the college, I’ll admit I was biased but even two decades of experience in higher education couldn’t fully prepare me for her struggle to transfer credits. 

    Queens College is one of The City University of New York’s 25 colleges. My daughter transferred from another school within the system yet despite mastering course material, she was told to take what was basically the same course all over again. 

    Fortunately, I understood the appeals process and was able to point her in the right direction. As a result, she obtained credit for the course, which counted toward her major. At the same time, reality struck: A student should not need to have an associate provost as a parent to transfer college credits. Frankly, they shouldn’t even need to appeal credits within the same system. 

    Nationally, the transfer system has been set up to let students fail for decades. On average, students lose a fifth of their credits when transferring to a four-year college, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. This leads to wasted tuition dollars and makes it more challenging to earn a bachelor’s degree. A 2023 report by the Community College Research Center found that only 16% of community college students earned a bachelor’s program within six years and just 10% of low-income students did. 

    As the largest public urban university system in the nation, CUNY had a real opportunity to make a change. In 2023, CUNY’s Board of Trustees charged the University’s leadership – including myself – to fix the transfer system. 

    CUNY has long been dedicated to eliminating the obstacles that result when a student transfers. In fact, the expectation that CUNY should provide a seamless ability to transfer between its constituent colleges dates to its formation as a centralized system in the 1960s. 

    Enshrined in New York state education law is the mandate for CUNY to “maintain its close articulation between senior and community college units.” Each year, up to 15,000 CUNY students – like my daughter – transfer between campuses, most commonly from a community college to a four-year college. 

    The purpose of an integrated university system is to offer an array of options for students which transfer seamlessly across all colleges. And over the years there have been efforts to achieve that at CUNY.  

    In 2013, the University implemented the Pathways initiative which established the seamless transfer of general education courses across its undergraduate colleges.  There are also many individual articulation agreements between colleges. But such agreements, between a singular CUNY community college’s program and a corresponding bachelor’s level program at another college, could only go so far in addressing a systemic problem and sometimes result in credits transferring as blanket elective, which does not help a student make progress in their major. Truly universal transferability would require faculty buy-in and better digital tools. 

    And so, one of the first things I knew I needed to do was engage our University Faculty Senate, both out of respect for their role in our decision-making process as part of shared governance and to leverage their expertise. This would come to be one of the most important steps in making this effort successful. 

    As we engaged faculty in discussions about transfer, we shifted the focus from simply identifying equivalent courses to defining the essential competencies students must master in the first half of their major. Faculty across institutions readily reached consensus on the core knowledge and skills students needed to succeed in the second half of their program.

    This competency-based approach then led to productive conversations about how specific courses developed these critical skills. Initially, the goal was to group courses into equivalent “blocks,” ensuring students could transfer seamlessly. In some cases, this process led faculty to align their individual courses more closely; others maintained course groupings but ensured consistency across institutions. Both approaches resulted in universal transfer pathways, guaranteeing students full credit toward their major at any receiving college. 

    At the same time, faculty helped us navigate practical roadblocks. For instance, we recognized that a universal approach could not always apply to programs leading to licensing exams— such as the CPA exam— where external accrediting bodies impose strict curricular requirements. While this nuance was clear to accounting faculty, it underscored for others the importance of discipline-specific constraints in shaping transfer policy. 

    Ultimately, this collaborative process ensured that transfer credit advances students’ progress toward degree completion rather than being lost as elective credit. Through collaboration, more than 300 courses, or blocks of courses, are now universally equivalent to each other across all colleges. 

    Starting in fall 2025, for over 75% of students transferring anywhere within the system, they will carry over most credits in their major. The University tackled the six most common transfer majors first – accounting, computer science, biology, math, psychology and sociology – ensuring credits transfer retroactively. We will work to align 100% of majors next. 

    The new system creates consistency on what students across CUNY campuses need to learn in the first half of their major and is expected to save students an average of $1,220 in wasted credits. 

    The CUNY Transfer Initiative extends beyond curricular alignment; it also involves evaluating the tools, policies, and practices that affect transfer student success. By reviewing policies, we identified gaps where new policies were needed and determined where existing policies required adjustments to better achieve their intended outcomes. We enhanced the CUNY Transfer Explorer (T-Rex), a tool that shows students how their credits transfer across the system, by adding leaderboards with key transfer metrics for each college and a feature that estimates how much of a degree would be completed at any CUNY school. 

    On January 21, the University automated a critical process in its student information system, known as CUNYfirst, ensuring admitted transfer students can immediately see how their credits apply at their new college. Previously, this was a manual, campus-specific process that required student advocacy and often caused delays. On its first day, the automation benefited 18,850 students, reducing stress and supporting informed academic decisions. 

    Fixing the transfer crisis will take continued effort. 

    To make sure that this system does not break again, we will be working with faculty to  adjust how we develop the curriculum for new courses. This means we will now proactively consider how a potential new course will transfer across the CUNY system before it even exists. As the initiative grows, we will have 100% of credits in the first half of a major count towards a degree when students transfer from one of CUNY’s associate programs to the same major in a CUNY bachelor’s degree program.

    The conversation is also continuing across the country. In 2023, the United States Department of Education hosted a summit of 200 higher education leaders on improving the transfer process. Then-U.S. Secretary of Education Dr. Miguel Cardona acknowledged that the current state of the college transfer system is broken, saying that it, “stacks the deck against community college students who aspire to earn four-year degrees.” 

    As part of my research when starting this effort, I reached out to my colleagues from colleges across the country to see what I could learn about what may work in improving outcomes for our transfer students. The collective response? “If you find a solution, please let us know.” 

    Everyone sees that the current state of our higher education system does a great disservice to students who transfer, presenting logistical and financial challenges that derail students who are otherwise dedicated to enhancing their education. While there is still work to be done, I am proud to say that we’ve truly begun to dismantle those barriers in an effort that I hope other public institutions of higher education will take inspiration from. 

    Dr. Alicia M. Alvero is the interim executive vice chancellor and university provost at The City University of New York. A professor of organizational behavior management for nearly two decades at CUNY’s Queens College, she also served as the college’s associate provost for academic and faculty affairs.   

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: ‘Never waste a crisis’: CIO of Arizona State University – Episode 159

    HEDx Podcast: ‘Never waste a crisis’: CIO of Arizona State University – Episode 159

    Arizona State University (ASU) chief information officer Lev Gonick and Dave Rosowsky, senior advisor to the president of ASU, both believe universities can thrive in the age of AI by actively shaping how the technology is integrated into higher education.

    In this podcast, they share how ASU fosters innovation through bold leadership, a culture of rapid experimentation, and partnerships with over 300 tech companies.

    Get a sneak peek into the lessons they’ll be sharing at HEDx’s April conference in Melbourne, which will offer insights into how universities can “do the work to change the model” and embrace the transformative potential of AI.

    Read more:

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email rebecca.cox@news.com.au

    Source link

  • OPINION: The demographic cliff in higher education should be seen as an opportunity, not a crisis

    OPINION: The demographic cliff in higher education should be seen as an opportunity, not a crisis

    This spring, the number of high school graduates in the United States is expected to hit its peak. Starting in the fall, enrollment will likely enter a period of decline that could last a decade or more.

    This looming “demographic cliff” has been on the minds of education leaders for nearly two decades, dating back to the start of the Great Recession. A raft of college closures over the past five years, exacerbated by the pandemic, has for many observers been the canary in the coal mine.

    In the years to come, schools at all levels — reliant on per-pupil funding for K-12 and on tuition dollars for colleges and universities — will begin feeling the squeeze.

    The question now is whether to treat the cliff as a crisis or an opportunity.

    Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly Higher Education newsletter.

    As they prepare for enrollment shortfalls, superintendents and college presidents are primarily focused on crisis management. With good reason, they’re spending the bulk of their time on the hard short-term decisions of cutting programs and personnel to meet looming budget shortfalls.

    In the precious few years before the situation becomes even more dire, the question is whether schools should just continue bracing for impact — or if they can think bigger in ways that could be transformative not just for the landscape of education, but for the economy more broadly. In my view, they should think about what it would look like to make a moment of crisis a real opportunity.

    Here are some ideas about how that could happen. The first involves blurring the lines between high school and college.

    Colleges today feel immense pressure because there aren’t enough high school graduates. High schools feel similar pressure because there are fewer young people around to enroll each year — not to mention the chronic absenteeism and disengagement that has persisted since the pandemic.

    What if the two worked more closely together — in ways that helped high schools keep students engaged while enabling colleges to reach a broader range of students?

    In many states, this is already happening. At last count, 2.5 million high schoolers took at least one dual-enrollment course from a college or university. But it’s not enough to just create tighter connections between one educational experience and another. Today’s students — and today’s economy — also demand clearer pathways from education to careers. It makes sense to blur the lines between high schools, colleges and work.

    So imagine taking these changes even further — to a world in which instead of jumping from high school to college, students in their late teens entered entirely new institutions that paid them for work-based learning experiences that would lead them to a degree and eventually a career.

    That’s a lofty goal. But it’s the kind of big thinking that both high schools and colleges may need to reinvent themselves for the country’s shifting demographics.

    Colleges have an opportunity right now to double down on creating and expanding job-relevant programs — and to think even bigger about who they serve. That could include expanding opportunities for adult learners who have gained skills outside the classroom through credit for prior learning and competency-based learning. It could also mean speeding up the development of industry-relevant coursework to better align with the needs of the labor market and leaning into short-form training programs to upskill incumbent workers.

    Related: The number of 18-year-olds is about to drop sharply, packing a wallop for colleges — and the economy

    Not every student is ready to invest four years of time and money to earn a bachelor’s degree. But they shouldn’t have to be — and colleges have a chance to expand their offerings in ways that give students more pathways into today’s fast-changing economy and further education if they so choose.

    Part of the problem with the current trajectory from high school to college is that the wrong things get incentivized. Both K-12 schools and colleges get money and support based on the number of students they enroll and (sometimes) the number of people who graduate — not on how well they do at helping people gain the skills to effectively participate in the economy.

    That’s not anyone’s fault. But it often boils down to a matter of policy. Which means that changing policy can create new incentives to tighten the connections between high school, college and work.

    States like Colorado are already taking the lead on this shift. Colorado’s “Big Blur” task force put out a report with recommendations on how to integrate learning and work, including by creating a statewide data system to track the outcomes of educational programs and updating the state’s accountability systems to better reflect “the importance of learners graduating ready for jobs and additional training.”

    If schools and policymakers stay the course in the decade to come, they already know what’s ahead: declining enrollment, decreased funding and the exacerbation of all the challenges that they’ve already begun to face in recent years.

    It’s not the job of the education system to turn the tide of demographic change. But the system does have a unique, and urgent, opportunity to respond to this changing landscape in ways that benefit not only students but the economy as a whole. The question now is whether education leaders and policymakers can seize that opportunity before it’s too late.

    Joel Vargas is vice-president of education practice at Jobs for the Future.

    Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about demographic cliff in higher education was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Study permit caps not to blame for Ontario college funding crisis

    Study permit caps not to blame for Ontario college funding crisis

    Educators in Ontario are setting the record straight about the cause of the province’s college funding crisis – the blame for which, they say, falls squarely on the Ontario provincial government.  

    “We currently see a wave of Ontario college program closures/suspensions sweeping across all of Ontario’s 24 colleges… This is just the tip of the iceberg and there will be many more to follow,” school educator and former college administrator David Deveau wrote in a letter to government officials.  

    “This letter aims to correct the media’s false assertion that these program suspensions are a direct result of the federal government’s restrictions on international student visa approvals and identify the actual reason for this alarming trend across the Ontario college system,” he continued.  

    The letter, which has been widely shared by sector stakeholders, lays the blame for Ontario’s college crisis on decades of underfunding from the provincial government, exacerbated by a 10% tuition fee reduction and freeze in 2019.  

    “Ontario’s higher education sector is in crisis due to chronic underfunding, tuition freezes, and a reliance on international student tuition as a financial lifeline,” said Chris Busch, senior international officer at the University of Windsor.  

    In 2001/02, Ontario’s colleges received 52.5% of their revenue from public funding, the second lowest of any province, according to Canada’s statistics agency.  

    By 2019/20, this figure had dropped to 32%, by far the lowest proportion across Canada’s provinces and territories, which, on average, provided 69% of college funding that year.   

    “Colleges and universities have had to attract talent from abroad, increasingly enrolling international student to help fill the funding gap,” said Vinitha Gengatharan, assistant VP of global engagement at York University.  

    This is particularly evident at the college level, where institutions have seen international student enrolment of 30-60%, compared to universities where it ranges from 10-20%, added Gengatharan.

    Educators across Ontario’s college and university sector have spoken out in support of Deveau’s letter, calling for a long-term commitment to stable and adequate funding from the provincial government.  

    In recent weeks, Ontario’s 24 public colleges have made the headlines for sweeping budget cuts, course closures and staff layoffs.  

    Stakeholders have raised additional concerns about increased class sizes and deferred maintenance and tech upgrades eroding the quality of education and the student experience for all learners, including Ontarians, Busch maintained.  

    This week, Algonquin College announced the closure of its campus in Perth, Ontario, alongside the cancellation of 10 programs and the suspension of 31, citing “unprecedented financial challenges”.  

    It follows Sheridan and St. Lawrence colleges announcing course suspensions with associated layoffs, and Mohawk College cutting 20% of admin jobs.  

    The ability of Ontario’s universities to fulfil their mission – providing high-quality education, driving research, and fuelling the economy with talent – is at significant risk under current conditions
    Chris Busch, University of Windsor

    “What is currently happening within our colleges is a downward spiral that will hurt Ontarians, the labour market, and our economies in the end,” wrote Deveau, adding that it was especially important to be strong in the face of externally imposed tariffs from the Trump administration.  

    In the letter, Deveau said the tuition freeze – which continues to this day – is akin to a “chokehold suffocating the life out of the college system” that is eliminating vital programs, restricting career choices of Ontarians and “jeopardising the province’s economic future”. 

    He raised attention to the “domino effect” of program closures impacting students’ career prospects, faculty layoffs and damaging local economies.  

    “The ability of Ontario’s universities to fulfil their mission – providing high-quality education, driving research, and fuelling the economy with talent – is at significant risk under current conditions,” said Busch.  

    In March 2023, the Ontario government itself published a Blue-Ribbon Report recognising the need to increase direct provincial support for colleges and universities, “providing for both more money per student and more students” and raising tuition fees.

    Last year, the Ontario government injected $1.3 billion into colleges and universities over three years to stabilise the sector’s finances, though critics are demanding systemic funding changes rather than “stop-gap” and “gimmicky” proposals, said Deveau.  

    Nationwide, Canada’s colleges were dealt another blow when the IRCC announced its new PGWP eligibility criteria, which stakeholders warned risked “decimating” Canada’s college sector.

    It is feared that more Ontario colleges will face cuts before the province’s 2025 budget, expected in April.  

    The PIE News reached out to the Ontario government but is yet to hear back.

    Source link

  • The Hidden Crisis in College Planning

    The Hidden Crisis in College Planning

    Millions of students and families are caught in a middle-class crunch for affording college.

    Approximately 7-8 million families with school-age children are in the middle-income bracket ($60,000-$200,000). That’s not just a statistic—it’s a massive segment of your potential student population caught in a precarious position.

    According to recent Census data, these families make up about 40% of all U.S. households, with 39% of family households including children under 18. They’re too “wealthy” for significant financial aid but not wealthy enough to write a check without breaking a sweat. Understanding this demographic isn’t just important—it’s crucial for the future of higher education.

    Data from the 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report from RNL and CampusESP reveals critical insights about this demographic that could reshape how we approach recruitment, financial aid packaging, and communication strategies.

    The data that should change your strategy

    Let’s start with the numbers that matter. Among middle-income families:

    • 71% report loan concerns actively impacting college selection.
    • 69% eliminate institutions based on sticker price before engaging.
    • 60% find financing “difficult” or “very difficult.”
    • 87% rank financial aid among their top five decision factors.

    For enrollment managers, these statistics represent more than just data points—they signal significant leakage in our recruitment funnels before we even have a chance to present our value proposition.

    Decision drivers: Reframing our approach

    The research reveals three primary decision factors for middle-income families:

    • Final cost after aid (71%)
    • Academic program availability (66%)
    • Academic scholarships (51%)

    For those of us in enrollment management, this hierarchy suggests we must lead with net price messaging earlier in the funnel rather than waiting for admitted student communications.

    Communication channels: What’s actually working

    Here’s where we need to check our assumptions. While many institutions are investing heavily in custom apps and elaborate communication plans, the data shows:

    • 88% prefer email communication.
    • 31% would use a parent/family portal.
    • 30% are open to text messages.
    • Only 7% would use institution-specific apps.

    Translation? We might be overcomplicating our outreach strategies and underutilizing our most effective channel.

    Campus visit insights for admissions teams

    Despite our digital transformation efforts, traditional visit experiences still dominate:

    • 68% participate in guided group tours.
    • 40% opt for guided individual tours.
    • 46% conduct self-guided tours.
    • 37% engage with virtual tours.

    This suggests we must reimagine our visit programs to integrate financial conversations earlier in the campus experience, not just at admitted student events.

    2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report2024 Prospective Family Engagement ReportThe 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report dives into the experiences, expectations, and challenges of families during the college planning process. RNL, CampusESP, and Ardeo surveyed more than 11,000 families of prospective college students about:

    • College planning: How many families consider out-of-state institutions? What are their college planning experiences? Do they value and participate in campus visits?
    • Communicating with institutions: Which channels to families prefer? How often do they want to hear from you? Which college planning topics do they value the most?
    • College financing plans: How many families expect paying for college to be difficult? How many plan to borrow? Do they think college is a worthwhile investment?

    Read Now

    Five strategic imperatives for enrollment leaders

    1. Revolutionize financial transparency

    • Move EFC conversations earlier in the recruitment cycle.
    • Implement targeted financial planning workshops.

    2. Optimize communication flow

    • Leverage the strong preference for email with segmented campaigns.
    • Develop parent portals that prioritize financial planning tools.
    • Create clear timelines for aid and scholarship processes.
    • Integrate financial counseling throughout the admission funnel.

    3. Transform campus visits

    • Embed financial aid counselors in regular tour programs.
    • Design value proposition messaging for tour guides.
    • Create flexible scheduling for working parents.
    • Include aid discussions in standard visit protocols.

    4. Strengthen value messaging

    • Focus on ROI metrics that resonate with middle-income families.
    • Showcase relevant alumni success stories.
    • Highlight internship-to-career pathways.
    • Emphasize four-year graduation rates’ impact on total cost.

    5. Reimagine merit strategy

    • Expand mid-range merit band opportunities.
    • Develop clear scholarship retention criteria.
    • Create post-enrollment scholarship opportunities.
    • Consider guaranteed merit aid programs.

    The AI opportunity: Next-generation enrollment tools

    1. AI financial planning assistant

    Implement systems that:

    • Generate dynamic cost projections.
    • Automate scholarship matching.
    • Model various enrollment scenarios.
    • Provide proactive deadline management.
    • Adapt to changing family circumstances.

    2. Smart visit management

    Deploy tools that:

    • Create personalized visit experiences.
    • Coordinate key stakeholder meetings.
    • Offer virtual preview capabilities.
    • Optimize multi-college visit planning.
    • Align visits with aid events.

    3. Financial aid navigation system

    Develop platforms that:

    • Provide 24/7 form completion support.
    • Flag application enhancement opportunities.
    • Compare aid packages systematically.
    • Project career-based loan scenarios.
    • Identify special circumstances early.

    Moving forward: Implementation priorities

    The data presents clear imperatives for enrollment management teams:

    1. Restructure communication flows: Lead with affordability messaging earlier in the funnel.
    2. Integrate technology thoughtfully: Focus on high-impact tools that address specific pain points.
    3. Realign resources: Ensure financial aid counseling is embedded throughout the recruitment process.

    Success in serving middle-income families isn’t just about having the right aid packages—it’s about creating transparent pathways to enrollment that address financial concerns proactively rather than reactively.

    For enrollment managers, this means rethinking how we allocate resources, structure our communication flows, and leverage technology to support our goals. The institutions that will thrive in this environment won’t necessarily be those with the largest aid budgets but those that best understand and address the unique needs of middle-income families throughout the enrollment journey.

    Creating clear pathways for middle-income families

    Let’s put this in perspective: with 7-8 million families with school-age children in the middle-income bracket and 77% believing college is worth the investment, we’re looking at millions of families who need our help to make higher education work for them. The old system of navigating college planning isn’t cutting it anymore.

    The good news? Colleges are starting to get it. The best institutions create clear pathways for these middle-income families, combining high-tech tools with high-touch personal support. Considering that these families represent about 40% of all U.S. households, it becomes clear that serving this demographic isn’t just an option—it’s an imperative for institutional sustainability.

    What your institution can do right now

    1. Develop targeted financial planning tools for this specific demographic.
    2. Create communication strategies that address middle-income concerns directly.
    3. Redesign campus visits to include meaningful financial conversations.
    4. Invest in AI tools that can help these families navigate the complexity.

    Remember: These families aren’t just looking for a college—they’re looking for a partner in making college affordable. The right approach isn’t necessarily about having the lowest sticker price or the biggest name. It’s about understanding and actively helping this crucial demographic bridge the gap between sticker price and reality. The college planning maze might be complex, but with these insights and tools, your institution can lead in serving this vital segment of American families. The future of higher education may well depend on how effectively we serve these 7-8 million families caught in the middle.

    Engage families throughout the college planning process

    Parents and family members can be your biggest enrollment champions. They are the number-one influencers for prospective students. That’s why RNL Student Search to Enrollment makes parent engagement a major part of search campaigns.

    Ask for a for a free walkthrough and see how you can engage students and parents at every stage of the enrollment journey.

    Request walkthrough

    Source link

  • Why are campuses quiet as democracy is in crisis? (opinion)

    Why are campuses quiet as democracy is in crisis? (opinion)

    A close friend who works at a nearby college asked me why, in 2025, there haven’t been student protests of the kind that we saw during the Vietnam War and after the killing of George Floyd.

    She questioned why campuses seem eerily quiescent as events in Washington, D.C., threaten values essential to the health of higher education, values like diversity, freedom of speech and a commitment to the greater good. We also wondered why most higher education leaders are choosing silence over speech.

    Deans and presidents seem more invested in strategizing about how to respond to executive orders and developing contingency plans to cope with funding cuts than in exerting moral leadership and mounting public criticism of attacks on democratic norms and higher education.

    My students have their own lists of preoccupations. Some are directly threatened and live in fear; some see nothing special about the present moment. “It is just more of the same,” one of them told me.

    And many faculty feel especially vulnerable because of who they are or what they teach. They, too, are staying on the sidelines.

    All of us may be tempted by what a student quoted by the Yale Daily News calls “a quiet acceptance and a quiet grief.” None of us may see a clear path forward; after all, the president won a plurality of the votes in November. How can we save democracy from and for the people themselves?

    I do not mean to judge the goodwill or integrity of anyone in our colleges and universities. There, as elsewhere, people are trying their best to figure out how to live and work under suddenly changed circumstances.

    No choice will be right for everyone, and we need empathy for those who decide to stay out of the fray. But if all of us stay on the sidelines, the collective silence of higher education at a time when democracy is in crisis will not be judged kindly when the history of our era is written.

    Let’s start by considering the role of college and university presidents in times of national crisis. In the past, some have seen themselves as leaders not just of their institutions but, like the clergy and presidents of philanthropic foundations, of civil society.

    Channeling Alexis de Tocqueville, Yale’s Jeffrey Sonnenfeld explains that “the voice of leaders in civil society help[s] certify truth,” creating “priceless ‘social capital’ or community trust.” He asks, “If college presidents get a pass, then why shouldn’t all institutional leaders in democratic society shirk their duties?”

    In the 1960s and ’70s, some prominent college presidents refused to take a pass. The University of Notre Dame’s Theodore Hesburgh became a leading voice in the Black civil rights struggle. Amherst College president John William Ward not only spoke out publicly against the Vietnam War, he even undertook an act of civil disobedience to protest it.

    A half century earlier, another Amherst president, Alexander Meiklejohn, embraced the opportunity afforded by his position to speak to a nation trying to recover from World War I and figure out how to deal with mass immigration and the arrival of new ethnic groups.

    At a time of national turmoil, he asked Americans some hard questions: “Are we determined to exalt our culture, to make it sovereign over others, to keep them down, to have them in control? Or will we let our culture take its chance on equal terms … Which shall it be—an Anglo-Saxon aristocracy of culture or a Democracy?”

    Those questions have special resonance in the present moment.

    But, especially after Oct. 7, college presidents have embraced institutional neutrality on controversial social and political issues. That makes sense.

    Yet institutional neutrality does not mean they need to be silent “on the issues of the day when they are relevant to the core mission of our institutions,” to quote Wesleyan University president Michael S. Roth. And, as Sonnenfeld notes, even the University of Chicago’s justly famous 1967 Kalven report, which first urged institutional neutrality, “actually encouraged institutional voice to address situations which ‘threaten the very mission of the university and its values of free inquiry.’”

    Do attacks on diversity, on international students and faculty, and on the rule of law and democracy itself “threaten the very mission of the university”? If they don’t, I do not know what would.

    As Wesleyan’s Roth reminds his colleagues, “College presidents are not just neutral bureaucrats or referees among competing protesters, faculty and donors.” Roth urges them to speak out.

    But, so far, few others have done so, preferring to keep a low profile.

    The silence of college leaders is matched by the absence of student protests on most of their campuses. Recall that in 2016, when President Trump was first elected, “On many campuses, protests exploded late into election night and lasted several days.”

    Nothing like that is occurring now, even as the Trump administration is carrying out mass deportations, threatening people who protest on college campuses, attacking DEI, calling for ethnic cleansing in Gaza, ending life-saving foreign aid programs and trampling the norms of constitutional democracy.

    Mass protests on campuses can be traced back to 1936, when, as Patricia Smith explains, “college students from coast to coast refused to attend classes to express their opposition to the rise of fascism in Europe and to advocate against the U.S. involvement in foreign wars.”

    They were followed by the University of California at Berkeley’s free speech movement in the 1960s and protests against the Vietnam War, including those that occurred after fatal shootings of student protesters at Kent State University by the Ohio National Guard. There were anti-apartheid protests in the 1980s, and, more recently, students across the country organized protests against police brutality and racism after George Floyd’s death and against Israel’s military actions in Gaza in response to Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack.

    Though there have been small protests on a few college campuses, nothing like what occurred in response to those events has transpired in 2025.

    Students may have learned a bitter lesson from the crackdowns on protesters engaged in pro-Palestinian activism. And many of them are deeply disillusioned with our democratic institutions. They care more about social justice than preserving democracy and the rule of law.

    Students may not be following events in the nation’s capital or grasping the significance of those events and what they mean for them and their futures.

    It is the job of those of us who teach at colleges and universities to help them see what is happening. This is no time for business as usual. Our students need to understand why democracy matters and how their lives and the lives of their families will be changed if American democracy dies.

    Ultimately, we should remember that the costs of silence may be as great as the costs of speaking out.

    M. Gessen gets it right when they say, “A couple of weeks into Trump’s second term, it can feel as if we are already living in an irreversibly changed country.” Perhaps we are, but Gessen warns that there is worse to come: “Once an autocracy gains power, it will come for many of the people who quite rationally tried to safeguard themselves.”

    Gessen asks us to remember that “The autocracies of the 20th century relied on mass terror. Those of the 21st often don’t need to; their subjects comply willingly.”

    At present, college and university presidents, students and faculty must care about more than protecting ourselves and our institutions. We must speak out and bear witness to what Gessen describes and warn our fellow citizens against compliance.

    This will not be easy at a time when higher education has lost some luster in the public’s eyes. But we have no choice. We have to try.

    Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

    Source link