Tag: Education

Why education leaders are converging at Integrate 2025 – Campus Review
Are you ready to transform your institution’s learning landscape?

In an era where technology constantly reshapes the classroom, keeping pace with the latest innovations isn’t just an advantage – it’s a necessity

From vice-chancellors to technical support staff, leaders across higher education are grappling with the challenge of creating dynamic, intuitive and effective learning environments that truly empower students and educators.

The rapid evolution of AV technology is at the heart of this transformation. Interactive displays, immersive virtual reality labs, sophisticated lecture capture systems, and intelligent campus-wide AV networks are no longer futuristic concepts; they are the bedrock of modern education.

Yet, staying informed about these advancements, understanding their practical applications, and integrating them seamlessly into existing infrastructure can feel like a monumental task.

How can your institution harness these tools to foster collaboration, enhance engagement, and prepare students for a technologically driven future?

This is precisely why this year’s Integrate, Australia’s leading audiovisual and integration tradeshow, is once again set to be an indispensable event for anyone involved in higher education.

More than just an exhibition, Integrate is a curated experience designed to demystify complex AV solutions and demonstrate their tangible impact across various sectors, with a significant focus on education.

Integrate is where innovation comes to life

Australia’s premier annual AV and integration trade show, Integrate serves as the central hub for local and global brands to showcase their latest solutions and products. This year it runs from August 27-29 at the ICC Sydney, and exhibition registration is free.

Walking the Integrate exhibition floor is like stepping into the future of technology. You’ll encounter hundreds of leading companies – from established giants like Crestron and HP Poly to emerging innovators – all demonstrating cutting-edge advancements that will transform your learning environment.

Collaboration technology
Discover unified communication platforms, advanced video conferencing tools, and interactive displays that foster seamless communication and teamwork, whether in a hybrid classroom or across a global research network.

Audio technology and equipment
Explore the latest in sound reinforcement, acoustic design, and intelligent audio systems that ensure every lecture, presentation, or performance is heard with crystal clarity.

Digital signage
See how dynamic digital displays are transforming campus communication, wayfinding, and interactive learning experiences.

Networks and AV-over-IP
Understand the foundational shift towards AV over IP and how robust high-speed networks are enabling flexible and scalable AV solutions across your entire campus.

Smart buildings
Learn about the integration of AV into smart building automation, creating intuitive and energy-efficient spaces that respond to user needs.

Technology built for education

Beyond the vast exhibition, Integrate and the Audiovisual and Educational Technology Management (AETM) Association proudly presents the AETM K-12 Conference on the first day of Integrate.

This dedicated stream is specifically tailored for the education sector. While its title specifies K-12, the insights, case studies, and technological showcases are profoundly relevant and applicable across all levels of education, including the nuanced demands of universities and higher learning institutions.

It’s an opportunity to delve into specific challenges and solutions pertinent to creating agile, future-proof learning environments.

Imagine a space where you can:
- Discover groundbreaking AV technologies: See firsthand the latest interactive whiteboards, advanced projection systems, robust campus AV management platforms, and collaborative tools that are redefining learning spaces.
- Gain actionable insights: Hear directly from industry experts, leading educators, and technical specialists who have successfully implemented cutting-edge AV solutions in real-world educational settings. Learn from their successes and challenges.
- Network with peers: Connect with hundreds of like-minded professionals – all focused on enhancing educational delivery through technology. Share experiences, discuss challenges, and forge valuable partnerships.
- Experience practical demonstrations: Move beyond brochures and see how these technologies operate in live environments, understanding their potential applications within your own institution’s lecture halls, labs, and collaborative spaces.
View the agenda and purchase tickets for the AETM K-12 Conference here.

Security and safety

This year Integrate is co-located with the Security Exhibition & Conference, further enhancing its value by showcasing the convergence of AV and security technologies – a crucial aspect of integrated campus solutions.

This strategic partnership offers a holistic view of how intelligent AV systems work hand-in-hand with AI-powered security solutions to create truly integrated, safe, and efficient environments.

Don’t let your institution fall behind in the race for educational excellence. Equip yourself with the knowledge and tools to create truly seamless learning environments that foster innovation and prepare the next generation.

Ready to shape the future of learning?

Visit the official Integrate website here to explore the full program, purchase education tickets, view the list of hundreds of exhibitors, and secure your registration for this essential event. Don’t miss your opportunity to connect with the forefront of educational AV technology and unlock limitless potential for your institution.

Integrate runs from August 27-29, 2025, at the ICC Sydney. Exhibition registration is free.

Do you have an idea for a story?
Email [email protected]
Source link
July 20, 2025
Weekend reading: The Launch of the APPG on Students: Commission on Students in Higher Education

This blog was kindly authored by Alex Stanley, NUS Vice President of Higher Education, Saranya Thambirajah, NUS Vice President Equality & Liberation and Alex Sobel Member of Parliament for Leeds Central and Headingly.

Today, we’re proud to launch the Commission on Students in Higher Education, a project between the APPG on Students, supported by NUS UK and a group of expert Commissioners, and based on evidence, event attendance and input from over 50 students’ unions and sector organisations.

The Commission speaks to the themes of the Department for Education’s HE Review and Post-16 Strategy and places the voices of students right at the heart of key questions on inspiring high-quality teaching and learning, access and widening participation.

In the current financial climate for universities and for the Treasury, we would have loved to be able to produce a Commission which speaks to interventions in quality, that highlights the groundbreaking pedagogical practice that students’ unions and educational organisations were excited to share with us, and the amazing widening participation work that we have seen across the country.

However, across all of our work we had to return to the question of funding, for students and for the sector. Right now, we risk a situation where the state of funding for students and for universities creates a double crisis, where neither the student themselves have the money to thrive while studying, nor the university has the money to adequately support them.

We know that students are working longer and longer hours outside of their degrees, in jobs not directly relevant to their future careers. The HEPI and AdvanceHE Student Academic Experience Survey for 2025 shows that this is eating into their independent study time, with the average weekly study time dropping by two hours over the last year.

Our evidence shows a further impact of working hours: what is suffering is not necessarily academic outcomes, but students’ overall experience in higher education. Students’ unions reported to us that the uptake of student activities, clubs, societies, and extracurricular activities is decreasing, and when asked, students stated that they were spending the time they would have liked to spend on activities undertaking paid work instead.

This should raise significant concerns for anyone involved in higher education and student life. When a student enters university, they of course gain experience and qualifications from their academic study, but the skills and experiences gained from their additional activities are just as valuable for many students. In providing these activities, students’ unions are engines of social capital.

Those students who work the longest hours and come from middle and lower income families are seeing the sharpest end of the cost-of-living crisis are also those who stand to benefit from extracurricular activity. There are some widening participation initiatives actively working to rectify this, by providing mentoring and support to participate in additional activities. Evaluation of these programs, further explored in the Commission report, found that those who were enrolled in the programs were also more likely to take up leadership positions in their Students’ Unions, clubs and societies. This shows the need for financial support which supports not only academic, but social participation.

As part of the Commission, we received proposals on how a fairer settlement for student maintenance could be reached within the current financial envelope. The Commission considered proposals on funding maintenance through a system of stepped repayments to redress regressive distributional effects in the current student loan repayment system, to instituting a graduate levy on employers who benefit from recruiting graduates, both of which have been covered in the HEPi report How should undergraduate degrees be funded?

The cross-party consensus is clear: right now, it’s imperative that the government establish a new system of student maintenance that rises with the cost of living and ensures grant funding is available for the poorest students. We also believe that the government should have ambition toward meeting a Student Minimum Income, also fully explored here.

In the Post-16 Review, the Department for Education has the opportunity to publish with a suite of bold, brave reforms to make like better for students. We will not be able to have the conversation about teaching, access and high-quality student experience without a foundational conversation about funding and student maintenance: we urge the Department to include a new settlement for student maintenance in the scope of the Post-16 Strategy.

You can read the full report from the Commission here.

Source link

July 19, 2025
Trump Administration Freezes Education Funds to 23 States, Legal Challenges Follow

In a move that has sparked legal action from nearly half the country, the Trump administration has frozen more than $6 billion in education funds to 23 states and the District of Columbia. The decision, issued by the U.S. Department of Education in late June 2025, follows a broader pattern of halted federal support for state and local programs, many of which were previously protected by court rulings.

The funding pause is linked to the Trump administration’s January 2025 memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Memo M-25-13), which directed federal agencies to withhold disbursements from thousands of grant and aid programs. The stated purpose was to align spending with the administration’s priorities, though the policy has been challenged as lacking legal authority. The memo was later rescinded, but its effects have continued through new administrative directives.

In this latest instance, the Department of Education cited a need to review Title II and Title IV programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including programs for teacher development, after-school enrichment, and English language learners.

The decision disproportionately affected Democratic-led states, with California alone facing the loss of $939 million.

States impacted include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

On June 30, attorneys general from those jurisdictions filed suit in Rhode Island, arguing that the Education Department lacks the authority to unilaterally withhold funds that Congress has already appropriated. They assert that the freeze violates both statutory obligations and constitutional principles, including the separation of powers. The lawsuit follows earlier court rulings from January and February in which judges issued temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to stop the administration from freezing other categories of grants. Those cases were largely brought by Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy organization that has played a leading role in contesting the OMB memo.

Although the administration has defended the funding freeze as a necessary review of federal spending, courts have questioned the legality of such actions. In March, a federal court criticized the lack of statutory basis for the freezes, and Democracy Forward issued a detailed brief outlining the harm to nonprofit programs, environmental projects, and public services. That brief emphasized the breadth of affected programs and the legal overreach involved.

The broader legal battle continues. While some funding has been restored through court action, the Education Department’s freeze represents a new front in ongoing disputes between the Trump administration and state governments. Plaintiffs argue that withholding these funds sets a precedent that undermines established appropriations and legislative intent. More lawsuits are expected.

The Trump administration’s freeze on education funding to 23 states opens several legal and political paths, each with different implications depending on how courts and federal agencies proceed. Below are the most likely possibilities based on current legal precedent, federal authority, and political conditions:

Courts Overturn the Freeze, Funding Restored

The most immediate and probable outcome is that courts will order the Education Department to restore the frozen funds, as they did earlier this year with other parts of the federal grant freeze. Courts have already found that the administration lacked statutory authority to suspend programs that Congress explicitly funded. If this logic holds, the education freeze will likely be ruled unlawful and states will receive the funds—possibly with retroactive reimbursement for missed payments.

Partial Restoration, Continued Legal Conflict

The administration may attempt to restore only some of the funding—especially those programs that have garnered the most public or bipartisan support—while continuing to block others. In this scenario, the courts could issue narrow rulings or temporary injunctions that apply to specific funding streams. This would prolong litigation and administrative uncertainty, potentially pushing the issue into 2026 or the next presidential term.

Supreme Court Intervention

If the lower courts issue conflicting rulings or the Trump administration loses significant cases, the Justice Department may seek Supreme Court review. The Court could use this as an opportunity to clarify executive authority over grant disbursement. Depending on the composition of the Court and its interpretation of separation of powers, this could either curtail future executive control over federal spending—or affirm broader authority to “review” or condition funding.

Legislative Response

Congress, particularly if Democrats control at least one chamber in 2025-2026, could pass legislation to prohibit similar funding freezes in the future or require automatic disbursement of appropriated funds. However, any such legislation would likely face veto threats or require a veto-proof majority, making this a longer-term fix rather than a short-term remedy.

Further Administrative Retaliation or Expansion

If courts delay action or issue narrow rulings, the Trump administration could expand the use of funding freezes to other agencies or sectors, testing the limits of executive control. The precedent set by OMB Memo M-25-13 could be repurposed in other contexts—such as public health, housing, or infrastructure—creating broader instability in federal-state relations.

Political Mobilization and Fallout

States may respond by increasing pressure on Congress and federal courts while using the issue as a rallying point in the 2026 midterm elections. Public schools, educators, and parents may amplify the issue if it leads to job losses, school closures, or reduced services. The freeze could become a political liability for the Trump administration, especially in battleground states that rely heavily on federal education support.

In sum, the most likely near-term result is court-mandated restoration of the withheld funds. But depending on how aggressively the administration continues to test the boundaries of federal authority, the dispute could escalate into a broader constitutional and political conflict over the power to allocate and control federal funds.

Sources

Democracy Forward, “Initial Policy Memo on Federal Grant Freezes,” March 12, 2025.

CBS News, “Democratic states sue Trump administration over halted education funds,” July 1, 2025.

Reuters, “Trump asks US court to end judicial overreach, allow funding freezes,” February 11, 2025.

Wikipedia, “2025 United States federal government grant pause.”

The Daily Beast, “GOP Lawmakers Blast Trump Chief Russell Vought for Freezing Education Money,” July 2025.

The Guardian, “Nothing like this in American history: the crisis of Trump’s assault on the rule of law,” March 9, 2025.

Source link

July 18, 2025
William Inbonden | Diverse: Issues In Higher Education

Dr. William InbodenWilliam Inboden, an expert on national security and foreign policy scholar, has been appointed executive vice president and provost at The University of Texas at Austin, effective Aug. 1. He will also hold the William Powers Jr. Chair and a joint faculty appointment with the Department of History and the School of Civic Leadership.

Inboden has held several academic leadership roles at UT Austin and the UT System from 2010 to 2023. These include serving as founder and executive director of the Clements Center for National Security, founding editor-in-chief of the Texas National Security Review, and co-director of The University of Texas System National Security Network.

In addition, Inboden served as a faculty member in the LBJ School of Public Affairs and was a Distinguished Scholar at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law.

Currently the director of the Alexander Hamilton School for Classical and Civic Education at the University of Florida, Inboden is also a Peterson Senior Fellow with the Kissinger Center for Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. He received Ph.D., M.Phil and M.A. degrees in history from Yale University and an A.B. in history from Stanford University.

Source link

July 18, 2025
Senator Murray Blocks Trump Education Nominee as Funding Crisis Deepens
U.S. Senator Patty Murray U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) has blocked the fast-track consideration of Mary Christina Riley, President Trump’s nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary for Legislation and Congressional Affairs at the Department of Education, as the administration continues to withhold nearly $7 billion in funding for K-12 schools and adult education programs nationwide.

The move by Murray, Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, forces Riley’s nomination to undergo full committee review rather than skipping directly to Senate floor consideration. The action comes just weeks before the new school year begins, with school districts across the country scrambling to address massive budget shortfalls created by the Trump administration’s funding freeze.

“As schools nationwide scramble to figure out how many teachers they need to lay off and afterschool programs warn parents to make back up plans—all because President Trump is blocking over $6 billion in education funding he himself signed into law—there is no reason for any Department of Education nominee to skip committee consideration and get fast-tracked for confirmation,” Murray said in a statement.

The senator’s parliamentary maneuver reflects growing Democratic frustration with the Trump administration’s decision to withhold funding that was previously approved by Congress. The administration notified states on July 1—the traditional deadline for fund distribution—that it was placing the money under review “given the change in Administrations.”

The funding freeze affects six critical federal education programs that support teacher professional development, English language learning, after-school programs, and services for migrant children. The largest portion consists of $2.2 billion for Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants, which fund professional development and activities to improve teacher effectiveness.

Twenty-four states and the District of Columbia have already filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the frozen funds, with California Attorney General Rob Bonta calling the move one with “no rhyme or reason” that came “abruptly” just weeks before the school year begins.

The consequences are being felt immediately across the education landscape. The Afterschool Alliance warned that without the funds, “we will quickly see more children and youth unsupervised and at risk, more academic failures, more hungry kids, more chronic absenteeism, higher dropout rates, more parents forced out of their jobs, and a less STEM-ready and successful workforce.”

The Trump administration’s Office of Management and Budget, led by Russell Vought, has suggested the funding freeze is part of an investigation into whether money has been used for what it calls a “radical leftwing agenda,” including scholarships for undocumented students or teachings on LGBTQ topics.

Murray rejected these justifications, arguing that the administration has provided no clear explanation for the delay and no timeline for when funding might be released. Even some Republican senators have criticized the move, with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) telling Education Week she “strongly oppose[s] the administration’s decision to pause the delivery of education formula grant funding.”

The funding freeze represents part of a broader Trump administration effort to reshape federal education policy. The administration’s proposed fiscal year 2026 budget would eliminate all six of the grant programs currently under review, as part of a 23 percent cut to domestic spending.

Murray, a former teacher and longtime education advocate, has been a vocal critic of the administration’s education policies. She has previously blasted Trump’s plans to dismantle the Department of Education, calling the idea “terrible” and arguing that “Trump and Musk don’t know what it’s like to count on their local public school having the resources to get their kids the education they deserve.”

The affected programs serve some of the nation’s most vulnerable student populations, including:
- Supporting Effective Instruction State Grants (Title II-A) for teacher professional development
- 21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV-B) for after-school programs
- Student Support and Academic Enrichment Grants (Title IV-A) for STEM education and school mental health
- English Language Acquisition (Title III-A) for English language learners
- Migrant Education (Title I-C) for children of migrant workers
- Adult Basic and Literacy Education State Grants for adult education programs.
Source link
July 18, 2025
New teachers’ impact on equitable science learning

Key points:

New elementary teachers who promote equity in science are proving highly effective at engaging students, no matter their background, a new University of Michigan study shows.

U-M researchers found that new educators are pioneering paths in science education by offering opportunities for scientific conversations, innovative learning strategies and encouraging children to become active participants in scientific exploration.

“When teachers are equipped to foster a more equitable and just learning environment in science, it not only enhances children’s understanding of scientific concepts but also empowers them to see themselves as scientists and to use science to address real-world issues that matter in their communities,” said Elizabeth Davis, a professor at U-M’s Marsal Family School of Education.

“Beginning teachers use a range of effective strategies to work toward more equitable science teaching. They vary in their emphasis on opportunity and access, representation and identification, expanding what counts as science and engaging children as change-makers using science to support a better world. This variation highlights the multiplicity of entry points into this challenging work and shows these teachers’ many strengths.”

The study, published in the General Proceedings of the 5th Annual Meeting of the International Society for the Learning Sciences 2025, also identified areas for growth: These teachers were less consistently likely to work to broaden what counts as science and to link science to social justice.

Davis and co-authors Jessica Bautista and Victoria Pérez Nifoussi said the study helps understand how different approaches to equity in science education can work together, potentially influencing future teacher training for improved K-12 science learning.

They emphasized the clear need for teacher educators and curriculum developers to provide more concrete examples and resources to help future teachers navigate complex, justice-oriented approaches to science.

“All children deserve to experience the joy and wonder of the natural world, yet science is taught far less often than language arts or math in elementary schools,” Davis said. “Furthermore, many students are marginalized in science, including girls, students of color, children with learning differences and queer or gender nonconforming children.”

Funding challenges impact long-term research

The study is part of the U-M ASSETS research, a four-year longitudinal project that began in September 2023. Although it was intended to run for four years, the project, funded by the National Science Foundation, was terminated in its 20th month, just shy of two years from its start.

“The termination of these NSF projects–focused on STEM education, and in particular equity in STEM education–is going to adversely affect science education and science for generations to come,” Davis said.

“We are seeking additional funds for this work. Regardless, we will continue to support the teachers who participate in this project and we’ll continue to collect and analyze data to the extent we’re able to do so.”

The team is now working on characterizing the participants’ first year of teaching to assess how their approaches to equitable and just elementary science teaching align with and differ from their approaches during teacher education.

This news release originally appeared on U-M’s news site.

Fernanda Pires, University of Michigan

Fernanda Pires, a Brazilian native, is a Lead Public Relations Representative at Michigan News, who covers the School of Education, student learning, coordinates media training and works with international communication. She holds a Master degree in Journalism/Broadcasting from Michigan State University and has more than 20 years of experience in communications.
In Brazil, she worked for about 10 years as a broadcast reporter at Brazil’s national TV Globo and as a writer for the daily newspaper Correio Popular, in one of the largest cities in São Paulo State. She also worked as a public relations/corporate communications specialist for Brahma Brewing and Tilibra, the country’s leading manufacturer of school, office and time management stationery products.ᐧ

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

July 18, 2025
Why I Teach in Prison (opinion)

When people hear that I teach sociology in a maximum-security prison, they often ask if I’m afraid. Then they assume I enter the prison, share knowledge and transform incarcerated students. That’s not the story I’m telling. The real transformation isn’t theirs. It’s mine.

For more than a decade, I have facilitated prison programs and worked with individuals who have been impacted by the justice system. For the past three years, I have made the hour-long drive, passed barbed-wire fences, walked through metal detectors and taken the escorted journey to the education wing of a Connecticut state prison to teach college-level sociology.

My desire to work with people in prison honors those who protected me, allowing me to survive, thrive and give something back. I grew up in Harlem during the height of the crack cocaine epidemic. Public housing was my home. The stench of urine in the elevators, the hunger-inducing aroma of fried food wafting through the hallways, the ever-present sound of sirens and the fear of dying young all shaped my early years. Yet, amid these challenges, I also experienced love and protection.

Many of the older guys on my block were deeply involved in street life. However, they saw something in me. They never attempted to pull me into their activities. Instead, they ensured I stayed away. They often said, “Nah, you’re smart. You’re gonna do something with your life.” That kind of protection and love doesn’t appear in statistics or stories about the hood, but it saved me.

I didn’t make it out because I was exceptional. I made it because people believed in me. They helped me imagine a different life. I carry their love with me when I step into that prison classroom. I teach because I owe a debt—not in a way that burdens me, but in a way that allows me to walk in my purpose and see people through the same lens of possibility that allowed me to live my dreams.

Entering the prison each week requires mental preparation. Before the lesson begins, I go through multiple security checks. Doors buzz open and lock behind me. I never get comfortable with the experience, even though I know I will leave at the end of class. I often describe teaching in prison as a beautiful-sad experience. It’s beautiful because of the energy and connection in the classroom. It’s sad because many of my students may never see life beyond the gates.

These men, some of whom have already served decades, come ready to engage. We break down theories of race, class, power, socialization, patriarchy and other related concepts. We analyze films, question systems and interrogate assumptions. But what stays with me most are the unscripted moments, like when someone connects a sociological theory to their own story and says, “This sounds like what happened to me.”

One of the most unforgettable moments came during a group debate assignment. I divided the class into small groups and asked them to analyze a text using different sociological theories. I stepped back and simply observed. I saw a group of 15 men serving long sentences, passionately debating whether structural strain theory, social learning theory or a Marxist conflict perspective was the best lens for analysis. These weren’t surface-level conversations. They were sharp, layered and theoretically rigorous. At that moment, I told them, “This is what the world doesn’t get to see.”

People carry assumptions about incarcerated individuals and what they are capable of. But they don’t see these men breaking down theories, challenging one another and demonstrating intellectual brilliance. We cannot record inside the prison, so moments like this remain confined to the room. But they are real. And they matter.

Another day, I asked students to reflect on the last time they cried or heard someone say, “I love you.” One student responded, “I don’t cry. Crying doesn’t change anything.” A week later, after completing an assignment to write a letter to his younger self, that same student began reading aloud to his 8-year-old self and broke down in tears. No one laughed. No one turned away. The other men gave him their attention, encouragement and support. In that room, we created a space where his vulnerability was met with care, even inside the walls of a prison.

These experiences forced me to confront my purpose. I stopped seeing myself solely as a professor or administrator. I reflected on what it means to serve and show up for people who’ve been pushed to the edges of society. I began to question the boundaries we draw between campus and community. Universities, especially those with the most resources, need to be more than institutions of learning for those lucky enough to be admitted. We are called to be and do more.

Throughout my career, I’ve worked to ensure my spheres of influence extend beyond the edge of campus. I’ve leveraged my position to build bridges by connecting faculty and students to re-entry programs, supporting formerly incarcerated scholars and creating opportunities for others to teach inside. Teaching in prison has made me more grounded. As a sociologist, I am keenly aware of how little separates my students’ lives from mine and how my path could have easily been theirs.

The United States leads the world in incarceration, holding more than 20 percent of the world’s prisoners despite representing less than 5 percent of the world’s population. According to the Prison Policy Initiative and the American Civil Liberties Union, many incarcerated people come from overpoliced, underresourced communities like the one I grew up in.

Yet even with this reality, some argue that people in prison don’t deserve education—that offering college courses to incarcerated individuals is a misuse of resources. I’ve heard those arguments, and I reject them. Education in prison isn’t special treatment. It’s human dignity. It’s recognizing that people can and do change when given the tools to reflect, grow and imagine a life beyond a perpetual existence in survival mode.

If higher education is serious about equity and access, we cannot limit our classrooms to students with perfect transcripts and traditional résumés. The men I teach do not need saving. They need space to grow, question and contribute. And our institutions need them, because any university that claims to care about justice, resilience or humanity cannot ignore the people our country has locked away.

Every day, I am reminded that none of my accomplishments happened in isolation. I think about what it means to repay a debt on which you cannot put a dollar amount. I think about honoring those who believed in me before I believed in myself. I’ve stood on the shoulders of people who never had the opportunities I did. I carry their investment into every space I enter, especially those where others have been forgotten.

One of the lessons I’ve held onto is this: The gifts we have are not for us to keep. They’re meant to be shared. Teaching in prison is my way of honoring that truth.

Don C. Sawyer III is an associate professor of sociology and vice president of diversity, inclusion and belonging at Fairfield University.

Source link

July 18, 2025
Colleges Need to Tell Their Stories, Then Live Up to Them

According to Gallup, after reaching an all-time low in the past two years, American confidence in higher education has risen to where those expressing “quite a lot” or “a great deal” of confidence is now 42 percent (up from 36 percent), while those with little or no confidence has decreased from 32 percent to 23 percent.

A poll out of New America shows that Democrats and Republicans align with about 42 percent of respondents from both parties saying that higher education is “fine as it is.”

Higher education appears to be experiencing the “thermostatic model” of public opinion, where opinion moves in opposition to government action. The Trump administration attacks on higher ed have triggered some measure of backlash among public opinion, creating a certain rallying effect around the sector. Republicans saying that higher ed is “fine as it is” is essentially a declaration that they’d like to see institutions left alone.

Considering the scope and severity of the attacks, this is not particularly good news, but it is interesting news, and it is news that higher ed institutions should note and make use of moving forward. One of the realities I think everyone in higher ed must embrace is that the future is going to be different from the past and attempts to return to the past are unlikely to be successful, particularly since the return will be predicated on a rose-colored-glasses view of that past, rather than recognizing the real tensions prior to the present assault.

I am a believer in the thinking of Brendan Cantwell, a Michigan State professor who works on issues of institutional structure and operations and who believes in an “impoverished” future. As Cantwell says, “I do not believe Trump will be able to destroy American higher education, but his administration will try, and the sector will suffer.”

The aftermath of the suffering and how public opinion may ameliorate that suffering is what we’re talking about here.

During my post–grad school career as a market research consultant, I learned about something called SWOT analysis, where you draw a plus sign to make four quadrants, headlining the individual boxes with “strengths,” “weaknesses,” “opportunities” and “threats” and then listing the things you can think of that fit under the different categories in the individual boxes.

I will admit, I rolled my eyes the first time I witnessed this exercise, and continued to roll my eyes many times after that, because it often felt like a SWOT analysis was just something to do because you have to do something, rather than a truly useful tool.

For example, when “no one likes our product because it doesn’t work like we claim” is in the weakness category, whatever you might find in the opportunity box isn’t relevant.

That said, when there is something solid and meaningful at the core, threats often do come bundled with opportunities. My messaging around teaching writing and large language models has been to acknowledge the threat, but also to suggest that the existence of these text extruders can be viewed as an opportunity to move toward work that is meaningful to humans.

If we are in the midst of a rise in positive feeling toward higher education, the opportunity to shape public opinion around the attacks and to bolster the defenses must be seized.

Deeper in the data from New America, we see specific alignment around what institutions should be doing. As reported by Kathryn Palmer here at IHE, interpreting the results, “the vast majority of Americans, including both Republicans and Democrats, believe higher education should function as more than a transaction. They say it should not only equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed in their chosen fields (97 percent of Democrats; 98 percent of Republicans), but also help students become informed citizens (97 percent of Democrats; 89 percent of Republicans) and critical thinkers (97 percent of Democrats; 92 percent of Republicans).”

People also want colleges and universities to do what colleges and universities do. They believe in education and opportunity and research and helping people reach their potential. Those of us who work within or are close observers of higher education understand that while these institutions are significantly flawed and could do better at this work, they also, often and for millions of people … work.

It’s important to recognize that this increased confidence has nothing to do with actions universities have taken thus far. If thermostatic politics are at work—and I think the evidence is significant—it is the outside attacks that have fueled it. It seems as though figures like Chris Rufo are overplaying their hand, as he did again recently in a statement published at the Manhattan Institute in which he declares, “Now, the truth is undeniable. Beginning with the George Floyd riots and culminating in the celebration of the Hamas terror campaign, the institutions of higher education finally ripped off the mask and revealed their animating spirit: racialism, ideology, chaos.”

The recent public opinion polling cited above suggests that a core plurality or majority of the public does not believe this. This is an opportunity.

The unfortunate wrinkle in seizing this opportunity is that what bipartisan supermajorities want from higher ed institutions (skills and knowledge to succeed, informed citizens, critical thinkers) is open to many different interpretations when it comes to actual institutional operations.

Indiana University has recently pivoted to becoming a place where the humanities are almost absent. Those currently in power at the University of Virginia are apparently trying to revivify the past, when it was primarily a finishing school for landed gentry. Florida has put their money down on being “anti-woke.”

Some schools will insist that the future is AI. Others will go the opposite way. As vague as those public desires are, and as unhelpful as they are in determining the specific path an institution must take, they are an excellent guide for how to frame the work of your institution, whatever it might be doing.

It is also a way to push back against things like the gutting of the student loan program, an initiative that will make it hard to impossible to do these things everyone wants colleges to do.

The assault on universities, first prosecuted by people like Rufo and partially fueled—whether intentional or not—by groups like Heterodox Academy before being put to work by Trump, was a narrative not really based in reality but sufficiently plausible to enough people to make things happen.

Resistance starts with a counternarrative. We have enough data to get going.

Source link

July 18, 2025
An Ultrarunner’s View on Higher Ed Leadership (opinion)

Last weekend, I completed my third 12-hour ultramarathon, finally achieving my goal of logging 50 miles (51.3 miles, to be exact!). For the past two years, I’ve finished the same course with exactly 47.5 miles each time. This year’s personal best felt both within reach and incredibly distant during my training. Reaching it required not just physical preparation, but strategic thinking and flexibility.

Leading up to the race, as I fine-tuned my training plan, adjusted my fueling strategy and mapped out rest intervals, I was struck by how much this preparation mirrors the leadership challenges in higher education today. Just as I could not control the weather on race day or predict which mile would test my resolve, today’s college and university leaders cannot anticipate every funding cut, technological disruption or student crisis that will demand our immediate attention and creative response.

The parallels run deep. Both ultrarunning and higher education leadership require what I’ve come to recognize as “adaptive preparation”—the ability to plan meticulously while remaining nimble enough to pivot when circumstances change.

Scenario Planning on the Trail and in the Boardroom

During my ultramarathon training, I spend considerable time visualizing different race-day scenarios. What if temperatures soar beyond those forecasted? What if my nutrition strategy fails at mile 30? What if an injury forces me to completely restructure my pacing? These aren’t pessimistic exercises—they’re strategic preparations that allow me to respond rather than react when challenges arise.

Higher education leaders must engage in similar scenario planning, particularly as we navigate an increasingly volatile landscape. Will federal funding for essential student support programs face cuts? How will evolving AI capabilities reshape our academic programs, student support services and the ways we engage with donors?

Just as I map out multiple fueling stations and gear adjustments, we must develop multiple contingency plans for our institutions. The leader who only prepares for the best-case scenario—whether on a 50-mile trail or in a strategic planning meeting—will find themselves unprepared when reality delivers its inevitable surprises.

The Creativity of Endurance

People often assume ultrarunning is about grinding through pain with sheer determination. While mental toughness matters, the most successful ultrarunners are creative problem-solvers. When your planned nutrition strategy isn’t working at mile 25, you don’t quit—you improvise. When equipment fails, you find workarounds.

This creative problem-solving has become essential for higher education leaders. Traditional approaches to student retention and institutional sustainability aren’t sufficient in our current environment. We need leaders who can think like ultrarunners: methodical in preparation, creative in execution and resilient in the face of setbacks.

Consider how institutions have had to reinvent student support services in response to changing needs. At Holyoke Community College, our foundation exemplifies this adaptive creativity. Rather than limiting support to traditional scholarships, the HCC Foundation distributed more than $5.5 million this past year across an innovative spectrum of student and institutional needs: a six-week faculty training program on trauma-informed practices, a menstrual equity initiative ensuring feminine products are available in high-traffic restrooms, funding for student travel to leadership development conferences and essential equipment for theater, science labs and our radio station. Like that runner who creatively problem-solves when their original strategy isn’t working, our foundation recognized that supporting today’s students requires addressing the full ecosystem of their educational experience, not just the financial barriers.

The Collaborative Nature of Solitary Pursuits

Ultrarunning appears to be the ultimate individual challenge, but successful runners know better. Every long training run depends on a network of support: the running group that motivates you through dark winter mornings, the crew that will meet you at aid stations, the community that shares advice and encouragement. Even in the loneliest miles of a race, you’re drawing on collective wisdom and support.

Higher education leadership, despite its often-isolating responsibilities, must embrace this same collaborative spirit. The challenges facing our institutions—from enrollment pressures to mental health crises to technological disruption—are too complex for any single leader to solve alone. We need cross-functional teams that can respond as dynamically as an ultrarunner adjusting strategy midrace.

The most effective higher education leaders I know have built networks that extend far beyond their campus boundaries. They’re learning from peers at other institutions, collaborating with community partners and drawing insights from sectors beyond academia. Like ultrarunners who study the strategies of athletes in other endurance sports, these leaders understand that innovation often comes from unexpected sources.

Training for the Unknown

As I prepared for my 50-mile goal, I knew that no amount of training can eliminate uncertainty. Weather patterns can shift, my body might respond differently than expected and race-day dynamics will present challenges I hadn’t anticipated. The certainty of uncertainty is precisely why my training needed to be comprehensive and adaptable.

The same principle applies to higher education leadership. We cannot predict every challenge our institutions will face, but we can develop the skills and mindsets necessary to respond effectively. This means building diverse teams, fostering cultures of innovation and maintaining the kind of institutional fitness that allows for quick pivots when circumstances demand them.

The leaders who will guide higher education through its current transformation are those who understand that preparation and flexibility aren’t opposing forces—they’re complementary strengths. Like ultrarunners who train obsessively while remaining ready to throw out their race plan if conditions change, effective leaders combine rigorous planning with adaptive execution.

The question, on race day or in our day-to-day work, isn’t whether we’ll face unexpected obstacles. The question is whether we’ve developed the endurance, creativity and collaborative spirit necessary to navigate them successfully. In both arenas, the longest distances are covered not by those who avoid challenges, but by those who have learned to run through them.

Amanda E. Sbriscia, Ed.D., is vice president for institutional advancement and executive director of the HCC Foundation at Holyoke Community College.

Source link

July 18, 2025
4 Things to Know About In-State Tuition for Noncitizens

Undocumented students who grew up in the U.S. were allowed to pay in-state college tuition in roughly half of states. But now those benefits are under attack, and some states are walking back their policies, leaving thousands of students scrambling.

This summer, the U.S. Department of Justice sued three states—Kentucky, Minnesota and Texas—over laws that permit noncitizens who grew up in these states to pay the same rates as their peers.

In a shocking move, Texas sided with the federal government within hours of the first lawsuit in June, abruptly ending in-state tuition for noncitizens in the state. Now undocumented students in Texas and multiple civil rights groups are seeking to intervene and reopen the case. They argue Republican state lawmakers and the federal government colluded to reach a speedy resolution, and affected students didn’t get to have their day in court.

The defendants in the Kentucky case—Gov. Andy Beshear, Commissioner of Education Robbie Fletcher and the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education—have until mid-August to respond to an amended complaint from the DOJ. The Minnesota lawsuit has been assigned to a federal district judge. Gov. Tim Walz, Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison and the Minnesota Office of Higher Education received a summons in late June.

The rash of lawsuits comes after President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April calling for a crackdown on sanctuary cities and state laws unlawfully “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” citing in-state tuition benefits for noncitizens as an example. The recent DOJ lawsuits allege that these state laws favor undocumented students over American out-of-state students.

As these in-state tuition policies become a political flashpoint across the country, here’s what you need to know about them.

1. These laws are more than two decades old.

Texas became the first state to offer in-state tuition rates to certain undocumented students in 2001 when the Texas Dream Act was signed into law. California soon followed, enacting a similar law later that same year.

Currently, 23 states and the District of Columbia have such policies, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal. Another four states allow in-state tuition rates for noncitizens at some but not all public universities. And five states permit in-state tuition only for participants in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. For about a decade, Florida also allowed in-state tuition for undocumented students who met certain requirements, but the state rolled back the policy earlier this year.

2. They’ve historically been bipartisan.

While in-state tuition for noncitizens has become a politically polarizing issue, these policies historically enjoyed broad support from state lawmakers of both parties. Republican and Democratic advocates argued that helping undocumented students who attended local high schools go to college would set these students on career paths that benefit state economies. Opponents now argue these laws incentivize illegal immigration.

The Texas Dream Act was signed by Republican governor Rick Perry 24 years ago. He stood by the policy during his 2012 run for president, despite pushback.

“If you say that we should not educate children who come into our state for no other reason than that they’ve been brought there through no fault of their own, I don’t think you have a heart,” Perry said during a 2011 Republican primary debate. “We need to be educating these children because they will become a drag on our society.”

Perry opposed the federal DREAM Act, which would have created a pathway to citizenship, but advocated for in-state tuition decisions to be left up to states.

The author of Oklahoma’s in-state tuition law, enacted in 2007, was also a Republican lawmaker, Oklahoma representative Randy Terrill. His bill, which won bipartisan support in the state House and Senate, was signed into law by Democratic governor Brad Henry.

Florida Republican governor Rick Scott signed a similar law in 2014, which was scrapped as part of broader immigration legislation signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis earlier this year.

When asked about the prospect of the law’s repeal in 2023, Scott told The Florida Phoenix he was “proud” to have signed the bill and “would sign [it] again today.”

Other Republicans rescinded their support.

“It’s time to repeal this law,” Jeanette Nuñez, former lieutenant governor of Florida and current president of Florida International University, wrote on X shortly before the law’s demise. “It has served its purpose and run its course.”

3. Undocumented students must meet specific criteria in each state to qualify.

Each state law comes with different requirements, but undocumented students generally need to prove they’ve lived in a state for a significant amount of time and attended local high schools to qualify for in-state tuition benefits.

For example, in Oklahoma, noncitizens must have graduated from an Oklahoma high school and spent two years with a parent or guardian in the state while taking classes. They also must sign an affidavit promising to apply for legal status when able or show proof they’ve already petitioned U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services for legal status.

Undocumented students in Washington State must have spent their senior year at a local high school or earned a G.E.D. in the state, live in the state for at least three consecutive years, as of the date they graduated, and pledge to seek legal permanent residency as soon as legally possible.

4. The laws are designed to also apply to citizens.

These in-state tuition laws are typically crafted to offer in-state tuition rates to students who meet their specific criteria—regardless of immigration status.

That means, in California, for example, any nonresident who spent three years in California high schools is eligible for in-state tuition. So, the policy not only applies to undocumented students but also U.S. citizens who perhaps grew up in the state but may have left and returned for any reason.

Similarly, before the Texas law was dismantled, out-of-state students could gain residency and eligibility for in-state tuition if they graduated from a Texas high school and spent at least three years prior in the state. The policy benefited citizens born and raised in Texas whose parents moved out of the state before they enrolled in college, according to an amicus brief filed by the Intercultural Development Research Association in 2022, when the law faced a legal challenge from the Young Conservatives of Texas.

Advocates for these policies say that’s why they don’t violate the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, which prohibits states from providing higher ed benefits to undocumented immigrants unless citizens are also eligible. Trump cited the federal statute in his executive order.

Over the years, these laws have been challenged multiple times in court, but until the DOJ’s lawsuit against Texas, none succeeded.

Source link

July 18, 2025