Tag: Education

  • Federal Grant Cuts in Researchers’ Own Words (opinion)

    Federal Grant Cuts in Researchers’ Own Words (opinion)

    Billions of dollars in federal scientific research grants have been rescinded or suspended since the start of the Trump administration.

    Many contracts have been canceled on the grounds that they no longer align with the new administration’s priorities. This has included the cancellation of existing grants related to LGBTQ+ health, gender identity and issues of diversity, equity and inclusion in the scientific workforce. It has included the cancellation of COVID-19 research and studies on vaccines and vaccine hesitancy. It has also included cuts to international development aid and related research, impacting everything from soybean innovation to global health initiatives. There have been cuts to climate science and education research, and to teacher-training grants as well. (The $600 million in cuts to teacher-preparation programs has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge. A new lawsuit filed Wednesday seeks to reverse the termination of more than $2.4 billion in National Institutes of Health grants.)

    Additionally, the Trump administration has variously moved to cancel or suspend research contracts and grants at Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania and most recently Princeton University as part of punitive actions tied to investigations of campus antisemitism or, in Penn’s case, the decision to allow a trans woman to compete on the women’s swim team three years ago. The administration also briefly froze (and then unfroze) United States Department of Agriculture funds for the University of Maine system after the state’s governor engaged in a tense exchange with President Trump at the White House.

    Below, 16 researchers across nine different research areas who have had their federal grants terminated since the start of the Trump administration share just a few of the thousands of stories behind these cuts.

    —Elizabeth Redden, opinion editor

    Preventing Intimate Partner Violence

    Prostock-Studio/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    By Rebecca Fielding-Miller, Nicholas Metheny, Abigail Hatcher and Sarah Peitzmeier

    Each year, more than 3,000 American women are murdered by their partners. Pregnancy and the postpartum period are high-risk periods for intimate partner violence (IPV), which is linked to negative maternal outcomes such as miscarriage, hemorrhage and postpartum depression. Perinatal IPV is also linked to worse infant health outcomes, such as preterm birth and low birth weight, and to adverse childhood experiences. This makes prevention of perinatal IPV crucial not just for the survivor but for the entire family.

    Perinatal IPV and its cascade of negative outcomes are preventable—but only if we study the epidemiology and prevention of IPV as rigorously as we study hypertension or any other perinatal complication. A grant rescinded last month by the NIH would have trained a cohort of 12 early-career clinicians and researchers to learn how to study IPV as part of their ongoing research on pregnancy, birth and the postpartum period. We proposed training investigators working in diverse communities across the spectrum of America, with a commitment to including communities disproportionately impacted by IPV and maternal mortality, including Black and LGBTQ+ communities. To solve a problem with constrained resources, it is efficient to focus efforts on where the problem is most severe. While the termination letter named this targeting of training resources an “amorphous equity objective,” we call it a data-driven approach to rigorous science.

    Training grants like this one help shift an entire field by giving young investigators the skills and knowledge to add a focus on IPV to their research for the next several decades. In addition to training these 12 young researchers, the grant would have also supported turning the mentorship curriculum we developed into an open-access online training for clinicians and researchers to access in perpetuity, multiplying the impact of the work to train even more investigators in the field. As with the approximately 700 other terminated NIH grants, cutting this work before our aims are realized but after significant costs have been incurred to establish the mentorship team and design the curriculum is the definition of government inefficiency and waste. 

    With this grant rescinded, none of the promised training will occur. Pregnant people and their babies from every community across America will continue to suffer, without the benefit of advances in the science of how we prevent these violence exposures. Our termination notice claims that the proposed trainings are “antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.” We could not disagree more. Anyone who has cared for a child or for the person who gave birth to them knows that preventing maternal and infant death and abuse should be a nonpartisan issue. The current administration is intent on making even this issue into “us” versus “them.” When it comes to public health, there is no such thing. American families deserve better.

    Rebecca Fielding Miller is an associate professor of public health at the University of California, San Diego. Her research focuses on health disparities in infectious disease and gender-based violence.

    Nicholas Metheny is an Atlanta-area scientist and registered nurse with clinical and research experience in the post-violence care of women and sexual and gender minority communities.

    Abigail Hatcher is an associate professor at the University of North Carolina and University of the Witwatersrand, where she develops and tests health sector models for preventing violence in pregnancy.

    Sarah Peitzmeier is an assistant professor at the University of Maryland School of Public Health who develops and tests interventions to prevent gender-based violence. She is also a practicing birth doula and victim advocate.

    Is Work-Study Working?

    A photo of a young man working the cash register at a coffee shop.

    Okrasyuk/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    By Judith Scott-Clayton

    On March 7, at 9:49 a.m., I received an email with “GRANT AWARD TERMINATION” in all caps in the subject line. Attached to the email was a letter, addressed to me as project director and referring to our Department of Education grant by its award number. The letter was generic, virtually identical to three other termination letters received that day at the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College, where I am affiliated. It did not mention our project title nor provide any project-specific details to explain why our project, as the email states, “is now inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, the Department’s priorities.” A few hours later, I received a formal notification that the grant end date was that day: March 7, 2025.

    The project—a collaboration with Adela Soliz of Vanderbilt University and Tom Brock of CCRC—was titled “Does Federal Work-Study Work for Students? Evidence From a Randomized Controlled Trial.” The Federal Work-Study (FWS) program was created in 1964 as part of the Economic Opportunity Act and covers up to 75 percent of the wages of college students working part-time in mostly on-campus jobs, with colleges paying the rest. In a typical year, the program provides more than $1 billion in support to more than 450,000 college students with financial need at more than 3,000 institutions all across the country. Several states also have their own similar programs.

    Our study would be the first to rigorously evaluate the causal impact of the program on students’ enrollment, employment, persistence and degree completion. We were also conducting interviews, focus groups and surveys to understand how students find FWS jobs, what kinds of work they do, what resources institutions devote to running the program and how much it all costs to operate, all with the goal of ensuring the program is delivering the maximum impact for every single student that participates and for every dollar spent.

    At the time of its cancellation, we were about four and a half years into a six-year project. We were right in the middle of randomizing what would be the final cohort of our study sample and fielding the final round of a student survey. This final year is especially important, because the early cohorts were heavily impacted by the pandemic. For the past three weeks, we have been scrambling to pull together any other resources we could find to preserve our options and avoid losing this final cohort of participants. We have also been scrambling to figure out how to continue to pay critical staff and doctoral students involved in the project until we can figure out the next steps.

    As for the broader impact of the termination: The Federal Work-Study program itself will keep on going, at least for now; we just won’t know whether it works or not. We hypothesize that it may provide valuable work-based learning opportunities that keep students engaged and give them advantages in the labor market after college, but it’s possible that it distracts students from their studies and hurts their academic performance. We may think that it helps students to afford college, but perhaps the complexity of finding a specific job and navigating all the necessary paperwork reduces its value for the students that need help the most. The next time the program is up for debate, policymakers will be flying blind: Without actual evidence all we can do is speculate.

    Since 1964, the FWS program has disbursed more than $95 billion in awards. In comparison, our grant was less than three-thousandths of 1 percent of that amount, and the amount remaining to finish our work and share our findings with the public was just a fraction of that. Our project was motivated by a desire to help policymakers ensure that every dollar invested in financial aid has the maximum possible impact for low-income students. So it is discouraging to learn, so close to the finish line, that this first-of-its-kind evaluation of a major federal program is “now inconsistent with, and no longer effectuates, the Department’s priorities.”

    Judith Scott-Clayton is a professor of economics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, in the Department of Education Policy and Social Analysis, where she directs the Economics and Education Program and teaches courses on the economics of education, labor economics and causal inference.

    Democracy Research

    A black and white sign with the word "Democracy," broken apart.

    AlexeyPushkin/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    By Rob Blair, Jessica Gottlieb, Laura Paler and Julie Anne Weaver

    We lost funding for the Democratic Erosion Consortium (DEC) as part of the federal government’s recent cancellation of foreign assistance grants. Directed by scholars at Brown University, the University of Houston and American University, DEC works to make academic research on democratic backsliding accessible to policymakers and practitioners seeking evidence-based strategies to defend democracy around the globe.

    Originally launched in 2017 on a shoestring budget, DEC began as an effort to improve pedagogy on a troubling trend observable both abroad and at home: the strategic dismantling of democratic norms and institutions by elected leaders with autocratic ambitions. In 2022, in line with the U.S. government’s dual interests in democratic resilience and evidence-based policymaking, we received a grant from the State Department to expand DEC’s work.

    The State Department’s investment enabled us to grow our reach beyond the classroom and into the policy arena. We drew on an expanding network of scholars to synthesize evidence on urgent questions—such as how to reduce the spread of misinformation and measure democratic decline. We also built out a novel event data set on democratic erosion and trained partners around the world to use it in their own work.

    Then, in January—about halfway through our four-year grant—we received a stop-work order. In February, our grant was terminated, along with billions of dollars in foreign assistance funding.

    The immediate consequences are clear: several full- and part-time staff lost funding for their jobs. But the long-term damage is hard to quantify. It’s difficult to argue for the value of evidence-based policymaking in foreign aid when the entire category of foreign assistance has effectively been gutted. More than that, the partnerships we built between academics, practitioners and policymakers were yielding real-time insights and responses—a rare example of successful research-policy collaboration. That infrastructure is now gone.

    And at a moment when democratic backsliding is accelerating in many parts of the world, the U.S. government is stepping away from efforts to understand and counter it. Ending this grant not only weakens the ability to monitor democratic erosion globally, it also reduces public awareness and understanding of a phenomenon that is increasingly visible in the U.S. itself.

    With the federal policy audience for our work largely gone, we are refocusing our efforts on our other two core constituencies: students and academics. We continue to support instructors engaged in teaching our democratic erosion course and to improve the Democratic Erosion Event Dataset. And in response to growing concern about democratic backsliding in the U.S., we’re developing a more robust domestic data-collection effort, paired with public engagement.

    Given intense partisan disagreement around what even constitutes democratic erosion, we are seeking to increase the credibility of new evidence by capturing partisan-diverse perspectives and applying our established comparative framework to U.S. events. We are hoping to continue this work, despite the loss of our federal grant, because the political reality in the U.S. and around the world tells us we need to be worried about democratic erosion now more than ever.

    Rob Blair is the Arkadij Eisler Goldman Sachs Associate Professor of Political Science and International and Public Affairs at Brown University.

    Jessica Gottlieb is an associate professor at the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs.

    Laura Paler is an associate professor in the Department of Government in the School of Public Affairs at American University.

    Julie Anne Weaver is the research director of the Democratic Erosion Consortium and a lecturer on government at Harvard University.

    COVID-19 and Related Immunology Research

    A blue and red illustration of the virus that causes COVID-19.

    peterschreiber.media/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    By Matthew Woodruff

    On March 24, 2020, I stood in a Biosafety Level 2+ facility at Emory University with six colleagues being taught best practices for working with the largely unknown pathogen, SARS-CoV-2. Other unknowns included where we would get masks (N95s were unavailable), risks of infection to our young kids at home and who would pay for the experiments needed to gain insight into the deadly new virus sweeping across the nation.

    That last question was answered relatively quickly. Rapid investment by the first Trump administration’s NIH launched SeroNet, a five-year effort across 25 institutions to “expand the nation’s capacity for SARS-CoV-2 serologic testing on a population-level and advance research on the immune response to SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination among diverse and vulnerable populations.” We did just that. Over the coming years, taxpayer dollars funded more than 600 peer-reviewed publications, reflecting significant advances in disease pathology, treatment strategies, disease impact in immunocompromised patients, vaccine testing and more.

    Our team at Emory led projects dedicated to understanding the balance between productive and pathogenic immunity in hopes of alleviating disease. We discovered why your immune system sometimes turns on itself in the throes of severe infection, uncovered similarities between the immune responses of chronically autoimmune patients and those who were seriously ill with COVID-19, and documented continued disturbances in patients with long COVID. Importantly, we learned that these responses weren’t unique to COVID-19 and were broadly relevant to human health.

    In 2022, I started my own lab founded on those concepts. We have been optimistic that the work we are doing will ultimately serve the American people in our shared desire to live longer, healthier lives.

    But over the past months, that optimism has dissipated. Ham-handed targeting of “DEI” awards leaves us unable to understand how diverse human populations might respond differently to infection or develop different kinds of chronic diseases. Mistrust of the same vaccine programs that have halted the spread of measles globally has left us unable to test next-generation vaccines that might provide broad protection against emerging viral strains. And then, on March 24, it was announced that the five-year commitment that the first Trump administration made to our work would no longer be honored. Our COVID-related funding through SeroNet would be halted, effective immediately.

    Our fledgling program, a few months ago extremely promising, is now on life support. My lab has invested heavily with our time and limited resources, which are now running thin, into promising new areas of clinically relevant immunology that suddenly look like financial dead ends. The decision to halt entire fields of study in what was previously highly fertile scientific space is as damaging as it is unprecedented, and our lab is left with a business model that is now fundamentally broken.

    Matthew Woodruff is an assistant professor of immunology at the Emory University Lowance Center for Human Immunology. His lab studies antibody responses in the context of infection, vaccination and autoimmune disease.

    Training Tomorrow’s Biomedical Workforce

    A diverse group of young students performs a laboratory experiment.

    Unaihuiziphotography/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    By Samantha Meenach and Ryan Poling-Skutvik

    On March 21, the NIH terminated our training grant award, which supported the Enhancing Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education Diversity (ESTEEMED) program at the University of Rhode Island. The mission of URI ESTEEMED was to increase the preparation of undergraduate students—freshmen and sophomores—to conduct biomedical research, enabling them to succeed in advanced research in preparation to pursue a Ph.D. in STEM. Our ultimate goals were to provide students who were from groups underrepresented in STEM or from disadvantaged economic backgrounds with academic enrichment, research and soft skills development, and a sense of community. NIH claims that our award “no longer effectuates agency priorities” and that it involves “amorphous equity objectives, [that] are antithetical to the scientific inquiry.”

    While the language in the termination email itself was derisive and political, the fallout from the loss of this award will be felt for years to come. The state of Rhode Island immediately lost $1.2 million in direct economic activity, and an important workforce development initiative will end, significantly reducing state and regional competitiveness in a growing technological field. Like many other states, Rhode Island has a pressing need for professionals trained in biotechnology, and recruiting people to Rhode Island has often proven to be challenging. This challenge is exemplified by the recent establishment of the Rhode Island Life Sciences Hub with a specific mandate to grow the biotechnology sector in the state.

    By contrast, there is a large untapped pool of talent within Rhode Island, who are limited by access to education and training in large part due to the financial pressures families face. Our URI ESTEEMED program recruited talented students who likely would not have had the resources necessary to enter these careers. While NIH would like to argue that ESTEEMED was used to “support unlawful discrimination on the basis of race and other protected characteristics,” ESTEEMED trainees were selected through a rigorous and competitive application process, making these awards merit-based. Without the financial support of this program, many of our trainees would not have been able to attend URI or would not have had the opportunity to focus on research.

    URI ESTEEMED in its current form will cease to exist at the end of this semester. We are still figuring out to what capacity we can continue to recruit and train students, but without NIH funds, training programs such as ESTEEMED will not be able to alleviate the many pressures these students face. The political decision to terminate this grant inflicts direct financial pain on some of the most promising students, and these effects will reverberate for years to come.

    Samantha Meenach is a professor in the Department of Chemical, Biomolecular, and Materials Engineering at the University of Rhode Island.

    Ryan Poling-Skutvik is an assistant professor in the Department of Chemical, Biomolecular, and Materials Engineering and the Department of Physics at the University of Rhode Island.

    Alzheimer’s and Dementia Research for Diverse Populations

    A close-up photo of a caregiver holding the hand of an elderly patient.

    By Jason D. Flatt

    Research funding for diverse populations impacted by Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias (ADRD) is currently being terminated by the U.S. federal government. These terminations are attributed to the premise that the research is incompatible with agency priorities. For instance, funding for studies including older transgender individuals, as well as lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, intersex and other LGBTQIA+ identities, has been terminated. In addition, funding decisions have been rescinded, and grants have been pulled from scientific review. The National Institutes of Health has stated, “Research programs based on gender identity are often unscientific, have little identifiable return on investment, and do nothing to enhance the health of many Americans. Many such studies ignore, rather than seriously examine, biological realities. It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize these research programs.”

    To date, around 700 NIH grants have been terminated, including many important studies on HIV/AIDS, cancer, COVID-19 and ADRD. Of these, about 25 have focused on ADRD. Personally, I have lost nearly $5 million in research funding from the NIH and the Department of Defense because my ADRD research includes transgender people. My research focuses on the needs of LGBTQIA+ and non-LGBTQIA+ older adults, particularly those affected by ADRD and Parkinson’s disease, as well as their caregivers and health-care providers. Some have suggested that we remove or rephrase “forbidden” language in future grants and/or exclude transgender people from our studies, but I will not do that. It is not pro-science and will not ensure that all people benefit from our research. The current and future termination of grants and contracts will have a significant impact on the health of older Americans, slow our innovation, limit our ability to provide care and impede progress in finding a cure.

    I am working to raise awareness about these terminations and find ways to either reverse the decisions or secure alternative funding for this vital research. This includes speaking with the press, informing policymakers, generating visibility on social media alongside colleagues and peers, consulting with legal experts, and engaging with community members. I am also deeply concerned about the future of early-career scientists, who are essential in leading efforts to find cures for diseases affecting our communities, especially as the baby boomer generation ages. Many of the grants that have been terminated were early-career awards for newly minted doctoral researchers and faculty, diversity supplements for doctoral students, and competitive NIH predoctoral and postdoctoral fellowships.

    In light of today’s sociopolitical climate, it is more important than ever for our civic, academic and research communities to unite in advocating for inclusion, standing up for diverse groups, including LGBTQIA+ communities, and ensuring that early-career scholars and the broader aging population have opportunities for potential cures, treatments and health care.

    Jason D. Flatt is an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, School of Public Health, in the Department of Social and Behavioral Health.

    Student Success Research

    An illustration of a man in a graduation cap and gown standing in front of an open door, suggesting opportunity.

    CreativeDesignArt/DigitalVision Vectors/Getty Images

    By Daniel Sparks

    I have spent the past year and a half as a postdoc researching the effects of Virginia’s Get a Skill, Get a Job, Get Ahead (G3) initiative, a tuition-free community college program implemented in 2021. Similar to most statewide free college programs, G3 is a last-dollar scholarship program for state residents attending one of Virginia’s 23 community colleges, though students who already receive the maximum Pell Grant and enroll full-time are eligible for an additional living stipend to support the costs of books, transit and other expenses frequently incurred while enrolled. Virginia implemented the program as a bipartisan pandemic-recovery strategy to reverse steep enrollment declines in community colleges and boost credential completion in five high-demand workforce areas: early childhood education, health care, information technology, manufacturing and skilled trades, and public safety.

    Like so many other critical research projects in education, our Institute of Education Sciences funding was terminated by the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to gut the Department of Education and publicly funded research at large. The abrupt termination of the grant, which supports researchers at both the University of Pennsylvania and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College, is a depressing way to finish out my postdoc. The project is part of a larger IES grant that established the Accelerating Recovery in Community Colleges network, a group of research teams focused on strategies to improve community college enrollment and student success. The loss of funding means canceled conference presentations and convenings; it means planned collaborations with other research teams in the network will not happen. We simply cannot accomplish all the things we set out to do without the resources provided by the grant.

    The grant termination is demoralizing on multiple levels. It funded my postdoc, which has been an invaluable experience in developing my skills as an education policy researcher. While my position was nearing its end regardless, the ongoing forced austerity on public-facing research portends a future where these types of opportunities are not available to later generations of scholars. And on a less personal note, canceling education research, especially toward the end of its life cycle, is extremely wasteful and inefficient. It hinders the completion of projects that public money has already been invested in and limits dissemination efforts that help to drive the overwhelmingly positive return on investment from these types of research projects.

    This is a real shame in the case of our work on G3. Our findings and planned future research on the policy hold critical implications for policymakers and institutions in Virginia and across the US. States like Arkansas, Indiana and Kentucky have similarly implemented workforce-targeted free college initiatives. And given the heightened attention from policymakers on career and technical education in recent years, it is reasonable to think more states will follow suit. Our work on G3 is in service of improving community college student outcomes so that more students have the resources and opportunities to pursue meaningful careers and life trajectories. Without any federal funding, it will only be more difficult to uncover the best ways to go about achieving these ends.

    Daniel Sparks is a postdoctoral researcher in economics and education at the University of Pennsylvania’s Graduate School of Education.

    Training Pediatric Physician-Scientists

    A photo of a toddler girl and her physician, who is holding EKG results.

    FluxFactory/e+/Getty Images

    By Sallie Permar

    The NIH made the abrupt decision last month to terminate the Pediatric Scientist Development Program (PSDP), a long-standing initiative that has trained generations of physician-scientists dedicated to advancing child health. This decision was made without an opportunity for resubmission or revision, and it appears to be linked to diversity, equity and inclusion requirements in our renewal application, components we were previously required to include and encouraged to expand by our reviewers, and that were later weaponized as justification for defunding.

    For more than 40 years, the PSDP has served as a critical pipeline for training pediatric physician-scientists. Through rigorous mentorship, research training and career development, the PSDP has trained more than 270 pediatric physician-scientists, helping launch the careers of child health researchers who have made groundbreaking discoveries in areas such as childhood cancer, genetic disorders, autoimmunity and infectious diseases. At a time when pediatric research faces increasing challenges, this decision further weakens an already fragile infrastructure. It is not merely an administrative setback; it has immediate and far-reaching consequences that will be felt across academic institutions and the future of the health of children and the adults they become. Pediatric research is the highest yield of all medical research, providing lifetimes of health.

    Without federal funding, our health as Americans faces several dire immediate and long-term impacts:

    • Loss of training opportunities and career uncertainty for pediatric researchers: The PSDP was on track to expand through deepening of our public-private institutional partnership funding model, due to increasing interest across states and pediatric specialties. We received a record high number of talented applicants this year. Now we are now forced to determine how many, if any, new trainees can be supported. Additionally, the program serves as the critical bridge between physician-scientists’ clinical training and their ability to secure independent research grants. With NIH funding cut, current trainees will face financial instability, and prospective trainees might be forced to abandon their research, and their career aspirations, altogether.
    • Weakening of the pediatric research pipeline: The PSDP has been a key factor in addressing the national shortage of pediatric physician-scientists. Without it, fewer pediatricians will enter research careers, exacerbating an already urgent pediatric workforce crisis at a time when children are presenting with more complex health needs.
    • Children’s health in jeopardy: Cutting PSDP funding halts critical research on chronic childhood diseases like genetic conditions, asthma and obesity, leaving millions of children without hope for better treatments or cures, directly reducing their chance for health and quality of life.

    The PSDP’s termination is not just a loss for academic medicine, it is a direct threat to the future of pediatric research and children’s health. Pediatricians pursuing research careers already face significant challenges, including limited funding opportunities and lower salaries compared to other medical specialties. By eliminating the PSDP, the NIH has removed one of the most effective mechanisms for supporting these researchers at a critical stage in their careers.

    We call on academic leaders, policymakers and child health advocates to take immediate action. The future of children’s health research depends on our ability to reverse this decision and ensure that pediatric physician-scientists continue to receive the training and support they need to advance medical discoveries for the next generation.

    Sallie Permar is the Nancy C. Paduano Professor and Chair at Weill Cornell Medicine and pediatrician in chief at New York–Presbyterian/Weill Cornell Medical Center.

    Global Development and Women’s Empowerment

    An illustration of the female symbol, made up of a crowd of people.

    By Denise L. Baer

    On Monday, Jan. 27, I received an email from local project staff in Guatemala canceling that day’s key informant interview due to the “review of cooperation projects by the United States government” and the request to “suspend activities” until further notice. This was the first notice that the evaluation of the Legal Reform Fund (LRF) project that I was conducting had been paused—and, in effect, permanently canceled. After checking in with the project implementer, the American Bar Association’s Rule of Law Initiative (ABA-ROLI), I received formal notification of the pause later that same day.

    LRF provided contextualized expert legal technical assistance and training to partnering government agencies, parliamentarians, judges, court staff and women entrepreneurs to improve women’s access to land, property rights and credit in Guatemala, Indonesia, Mexico and Timor-Leste. I had been working on the evaluation for about two months, with the intent to complete all initial staff interviews before the end of January and then move on to field data collection. The evaluation had been approved last December by the Department of State, with approval of the inception report coming from the department’s Office of Global Women’s Issues just a week earlier. While I’d been tracking the flurry of executive orders, I doubted that this project would violate the new “two-gender” policy—after all, it was funded through the Women’s Global Development and Prosperity (W-GDP) Initiative created by President Trump himself during his first administration in 2019 and championed by his daughter Ivanka with great fanfare. The initiative aimed to help 50 million women in developing countries realize their economic potential by 2025; the LRF project was only one of many funded by W-GDP initially and later continued by the Biden administration.

    The LRF project ended December 2024. Was it effective and efficient? Were the planned outcomes achieved? We will never know. Since I was paid by ABA-ROLI for the work conducted to date before the pause, the primary cost of this discontinuance is not to me personally, but to the American people, who funded this project. The call for this evaluation and the approval of my proposal was born of the government’s desire for efficiency and to ensure funded initiatives were going according to plan. Indeed, the Government Accountability Office had identified a less-than-robust implementation framework in many early W-GDP projects, and this evaluation was intended to provide critical evidence of whether processes had improved.

    Now we will never know how strong the evidence base is for supporting women entrepreneurs through this initiative. It is profoundly stunning that not only would the Trump administration stop work midstream for so many projects, but they would also stop evaluations of project work already completed—even for programs they themselves created and supported. How does funding a project and then shutting down the work of determining how effective that project was fight waste, fraud and abuse?

    Denise L. Baer is a scholar-practitioner fellow at the Graduate School of Political Management at George Washington University.

    Source link

  • Stackable Credential for Veterans in Outdoor Adventure

    Stackable Credential for Veterans in Outdoor Adventure

    As a student at Paul Smith’s College in New York, Andrew “AJ” Beaudoin was able to do what he loved: spend time outdoors with his young son.

    Beaudoin, a disabled Army veteran who suffered post-traumatic stress disorder after leaving the military, found comfort in the great outdoors and guiding others through adventures in nature. After Beaudoin completed his bachelor’s degree, his passion for serving others and nature compelled him to start his own charter business, which he then transformed into a three-day boot camp for other veterans looking to become outdoor entrepreneurs.

    This summer, Beaudoin will teach a longer version of his course to a group of up to 35 veterans on the Paul Smith’s campus. The program, Battlefish Academy, transforms veterans’ learned skills as service members into industry knowledge, giving them the confidence to become entrepreneurs, as well as credentials they can build into degrees.

    The inspiration: When Beaudoin left the service, he was suffering from PTSD and recovering from a series of strokes. He couldn’t connect his work as a paratrooper to civilian life and felt overwhelmed by the world around him.

    He enrolled in Paul Smith’s in 2014, pursuing a bachelor’s in environmental sciences with a concentration in fish and wildlife management. It was one of Beaudoin’s professors who first asked the veteran to lead an expedition to teach his children how to fish.

    “I didn’t anticipate it becoming a financial venture for me,” Beaudoin said. “I just wanted to find peace in my heart.”

    Beaudoin started his own business, Battle Fish Charters, as an outdoor guide, leading fishing trips for individuals, families and fellow veterans throughout the Adirondacks in 2017. In summer 2024, Beaudoin launched the boot camp, Battle Fish University (BFU), with a small group of veterans who flew to New York from states including Montana, South Carolina and Wyoming.

    During BFU—which was sponsored by the Global Center for Social Entrepreneurship Network, the National Center for Veteran Ventures and Paul Smith’s College—students learned first aid, CPR and other requirements to achieve a guide license.

    The longer program, Battlefish Academy, builds on the experience, guiding students through applying for and obtaining a license and a certificate.

    How it works: The program is 15 credits, which includes a two-week outdoor guide training led by Beaudoin, the inaugural Battlefish Academy director.

    In the classroom, students learn the principles of management, marketing and economics, as well as business systems and managerial accounting. They also gain insight into the recreation market in the U.S. and marketing strategies for how to advertise their business and services.

    Then academy students spend 14 days learning in an 18-acre lot across the street from Paul Smith’s main campus, where Beaudoin shows them how to tie fishing lines, navigate the wilderness and manage the client experience.

    AJ Beaudoin (right), the inaugural director of Battlefish Academy at Paul Smith’s College, leads individuals and groups on ice fishing trips through his business, Battle Fish Charters.

    After completing the certificate, students can stack their credits for an associate or bachelor’s degree in relevant programs, including business, outdoor recreation and eco-psychology.

    Participants’ tuition is fully covered by GI benefits, and the college is working with nearby bases to create a pipeline for integrating service members into the program upon their departure from the military.

    What’s the need: Beaudoin sees an opportunity to connect veterans’ sense of wellness, community, mission and leadership through an outdoor recreation business.

    “I feel like veterans lose their sense of purpose after the service, and that’s a big struggle for us,” Beaudoin said. “So maybe becoming a small business owner could help them.”

    About 5 percent of all employer businesses in the U.S. are veteran-owned, with the greatest share related to professional, scientific or technical services, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

    Some veterans, like Beaudoin, leave the military feeling as though their skills don’t apply to civilian life, but Battle Fish helps reframe those ideas.

    A Network of Support

    In addition to the specialized veteran training of Battlefish Academy, Paul Smith’s College offers military-connected students with a physical Veteran Resource Center that can aid learner completion, with services such as mentorship, networking opportunities and other supports.

    “I think that the veteran skill set translates so perfectly from leading a mission in Afghanistan to, ‘Now, I’m leading a family down the river,’” Beaudoin said. “I’m trying to keep them safe and I’m utilizing those same skills that I was trying to keep my soldiers safe with.”

    Another benefit is the effect on personal wellness. Spending time outdoors is one way that groups support veterans experiencing PTSD, because it instills a sense of calm and peace.

    “There’s so many organizations that take veterans fishing. I want to keep the veterans on the water all of the time,” Beaudoin said.

    The program also has the power to connect like-minded veterans, building a network of support and community. During his first Battle Fish University experience, Beaudoin found that veterans share a natural affinity, and he hopes the academy will provide nontraditional learners a similar space to engage with peers.

    What’s next: Battlefish Academy will launch this summer at Paul Smith’s with a capacity of 36 beds for the intensive experience.

    Beaudoin hopes students leave the experience feeling more confident in starting their own business—and maybe interested in franchising his company, Battle Fish Charters, wherever they call home.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Policy and Practice Foundations and Building Blocks

    Policy and Practice Foundations and Building Blocks

    Two weeks ago Chris Buonocore, Alex Humphreys, Martin Kurzweil and Emily Tichenor (all of the nonprofit organization Ithaka, and part of the Articulation of Credit Transfer Project) posted in this blog the happy news that Transfer Explorer (a website, modeled after CUNY T-Rex, that shows everyone how prior learning experiences will count toward a college’s academic requirements) has been launched containing information from three South Carolina colleges. Information from dozens of additional colleges in Connecticut, New York, South Carolina and Washington will be added in the coming months. 

    A cartoon Tyrannosaurus rex wearing a CUNY T-shirt

    Because this information is now public and usable, students and advisers will be able to make better plans for transfer, students will discover and choose transfer destinations that are a good fit for them, and institutions will be better able to align their programs and equivalencies to facilitate transfer. Transfer Explorer will also reduce the burden on students, advisers and admissions staff to locate and make sense of relevant information across disparate sources, allowing them to focus on higher-value tasks. The evidence from CUNY T-Rex suggests these benefits are already being realized in that context. 

    The advent of Transfer Explorer and other similar efforts to make transparent the rules on credit transfer and degree applicability raises an important question: Which policies and practices are desirable for institutions to have in place to make their credit mobility information public?

    Let’s assume that a public website, such as Transfer Explorer, is available for displaying credit mobility information, and that an institution has the appropriate financial and staff resources to put its information on the website. Now what course credit and program requirement policies and practices must be in place, and which additional ones would be useful to have? This post describes some of these policies and practices.

    Necessary Policies and Practices

    Absolutely essential is that transfer credit rules stating how an institution will treat all types of prior learning experiences (e.g., course A at Institution X will count as equivalent to course B at Institution Y), as well as the program and degree requirements (for majors, concentrations, general education, etc.), must be systematically and consistently stored, recorded and updated in the institution’s software system(s), with the credit mobility website reflecting any changes in any of these rules and requirements in a timely manner. These practices are essential for the website to function as a trusted source of information.

    There should be policies regarding who can change the transfer credit rules and degree requirements recorded in this software and under what conditions. This will reduce the likelihood of erratic, capricious or frequent changes, while ensuring that all students are subject to the same rules and requirements, without prejudice.

    Any additional rules, requirements, restrictions or qualifications related to the conditions for granting credit for prior learning (such as a minimum grade in a prior course or a residency requirement at the destination college) should apply equally to all students and be explicitly and publicly stated. This ensures that all students have access to the same information, again promoting equitable treatment.

    There should be administrative oversight of the above policies and practices, and that oversight should ideally be provided by people who would be unaffected by the rules’ consequences (i.e., conflicts of interest should be minimized). Oversight by people not acting in their own interest is necessary to ensure that policies and practices are appropriately instituted and maintained.

    Additional Desirable Policies and Practices

    It will be helpful to have policies regarding how course equivalencies for prior learning are decided in the first place—who decides and based on what information. This will promote efficient and effective decision-making regarding prior learning assessments.

    There should also be specific, agreed-upon criteria for giving credit for prior learning. It has been effectively argued that transfer credit should be based entirely on learning outcomes, and not on, e.g., a course’s prerequisites, textbook or modality (in-person, online or hybrid); the degree the student may or may not have; the student’s major; etc. AACRAO’s recommended criterion for course equivalency is 70 percent “matching of content.” Such a policy ensures that credit for prior learning is based on only that—prior learning.

    Any characteristics of prior learning, in addition to credits, that would satisfy an institution’s requirements, characteristics such as a course being writing intensive or including material on information literacy, should be recorded and considered for transfer. Students and those who support them need this information to be able to plan students’ complete academic trajectories.

    An explicit appeals procedure that allows students to challenge transfer credit decisions can help in identifying errors and inadequacies in what is shown on the website, as well as promoting equitable treatment of all students (an example of the CUNY appeals procedure is here). Students can more effectively use such a procedure if the website keeps a record of when transfer credit rules and program and degree requirements have changed and how.

    All courses from institutions accredited by what were formerly referred to as regional accreditors (along with, upon review, some other forms of prior learning) should be given at least elective credit. In addition to providing transfer students with predictable transfer credit, such a policy within the CUNY system greatly facilitated the establishment of CUNY T-Rex. For the courses of the 20 CUNY undergraduate colleges, developers had only to reflect on the website existing transfer credit rules (all 1.6 million of them); they did not have to determine what to do with courses that would receive no transfer credit.

    Also highly desirable is that a student should be allowed to use any credit transfer rule in place at College B between when the student first matriculated in College A and subsequently transferred to College B (perhaps within a specified number of years since matriculation at College A). Such a policy is particularly useful for students who first matriculate at a community college and later transfer to a bachelor’s college within the same system. This policy would enable students and those who support them to plan a student’s entire academic trajectory.

    Finally, in developing Transfer Explorer as well as CUNY T-Rex, the engineers had to first parse and deconstruct the colleges’ major and other requirements before programming them for the website. Many of the majors’ diagrams look like a tangled ball of yarn or a Super Bowl football play (diagrams that go way beyond just a sequence of major courses). Faculty and others may not realize how complex they are making requirements until they see them diagrammed. Such requirements can be very difficult to program and so should be simplified, if possible, as well as recorded in systematic, consistent ways.

    Each of the preceding items is useful for constructing an excellent website that will show how an institution will treat a student’s prior learning. However, there are many additional benefits from these policies and practices. For example, concerning the last bullet, keeping the requirements of majors simple and straightforward will not only help the website’s programmers, but will make it easier for students and those who support them to understand and conform to a major’s requirements.

    A basic principle of ACT, Transfer Explorer and CUNY T-Rex is that all of us in higher education benefit by obtaining good information and making it public. We hope that this blog post helps institutions do just that.

    We thank the members of AACRAO, ACT, the Beyond Transfer Advisory Group, the Gates Foundation, Ithaka, the LEARN Commission and SOVA for ideas contributing to this blog post.

    Alexandra W. Logue is professor emerita at the Center for Advanced Study in Education, Graduate Center, CUNY. From 2008 to 2014 she served as executive vice chancellor and university provost of the CUNY system, and she is a founder of CUNY T-Rex.

    Chris Buonocore is the product manager of Transfer Explorer at Ithaka, as well as a founder and the former manager of CUNY T-Rex.

    Christopher Vickery is professor emeritus of computer science at Queens College CUNY, as well as a founder and the creator of CUNY T-Rex.

    Source link

  • Faculty Protest Actions Against Trump Spark Backlash

    Faculty Protest Actions Against Trump Spark Backlash

    A part-time lecturer allegedly offered students extra credit for attending a Tesla protest.

    Jim West/UCG/Universal Images Group/Getty Images

    While many professors across the U.S. have protested federal funding cuts and other attacks on higher education by President Donald Trump and his campaign donor and aide Elon Musk without incident, two faculty members are now facing sharp scrutiny for their actions on and off campus.

    At the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire, José Felipe Alvergue, who chairs the English Department, is on leave after he allegedly flipped a table Tuesday set up by the College Republicans to encourage support for Brad Schimel in the Wisconsin Supreme Court race. A video posted by UW–Eau Claire’s College Republicans chapter showed the aftermath of the incident and accused Alvergue (who had not yet been identified when it was uploaded) of being a “violent” supporter of Susan Crawford, the Democratic-backed candidate who later won the race Tuesday.

    “I am deeply concerned that our students’ peaceful effort to share information on campus on election day was disrupted,” UW–Eau Claire interim provost Michael Carney wrote in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “UW–Eau Claire strongly supports every person’s right to free speech and free expression, and the university remains committed to ensuring that campus is a place where a wide variety of opinions and beliefs can be shared and celebrated. Civil dialogue is a critical part of the university experience, and peaceful engagement is fundamental to learning itself.”

    Carney added that campus officials are working with the Universities of Wisconsin system and its Office of General Counsel, “which is conducting a comprehensive investigation of this matter.”

    The incident prompted broad criticism, particularly from conservatives, many of whom called for the professor to be immediately fired.

    “Outrageous. Yet sadly what many conservatives [sic] students deal with every day on so many campuses,” Scott Walker, a former Republican governor of Wisconsin, wrote on social media.

    Alvergue did not respond to a request for comment.

    On the other side of the country, a part-time lecturer at California State University, Fresno, has prompted outrage in conservative quarters over her social media posts, FOX26NEWS reported. Katherine Shurik, who teaches anthropology, allegedly posted an image of Trump in a casket with the caption “I have a dream for this to happen much sooner rather than later” and another of a gravestone with his name on it and a caption reading, “and take Musk and the rest of the Nazi (Republican) party members with you too!” Additionally, in a video of Shurik circulated by conservative influencers, she said students will “get extra credit for coming to the protest.” Some local news sites reported the extra credit was for protesting Tesla, owned by Musk.

    The university was quick to distance itself from Shurik’s posts this week.

    “While Fresno State firmly believes in the principles of free speech, we strongly condemn the abhorrent social media posts and comments made by one of our part-time instructors,” Fresno State officials wrote in a Tuesday statement. “As these views were published by the employee as a private citizen, they do not represent our university in any way. Fresno State firmly denounces wishes of death against any elected official, particularly the President of the United States—these go against our core educational values and are not consistent with our Principles of Community. As Americans and educators, we pride ourselves on democratic dialogue, not words of derision and contempt about the most important political figure of our country.”

    Shurik did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Multiple social media users called for Fresno State to fire Shurik ,and local officials have also weighed in, including Gary Bredefeld, a member of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors.

    “This is a professor at Fresno State posting about her longing for the deaths of President Trump, Elon Musk and Republicans. These are the unhinged radicals teaching our young kids at schools and universities across the country,” he wrote in a Sunday post on Facebook. “People like this are hate-filled, radical lunatics and have no business teaching anywhere. I would expect the President of Fresno State to address this immediately and denounce these postings.”

    Even Musk himself noticed the uproar.

    “Calling for the death of the President is a serious crime,” he wrote in a reply to a post about Shurik.

    Source link

  • Improving Transfer Based on Success Stories

    Improving Transfer Based on Success Stories

    A new transfer playbook, released by the Aspen Institute and the Community College Research Center, offers strategies for improving outcomes for transfer students by examining higher ed institutions with the best records.

    The playbook notes that, for a decade, fewer than a fifth of community college students have successfully transferred and earned bachelor’s degrees, though many aspire to reach that goal. But the playbook stresses that better outcomes are possible. At colleges with the best overall transfer outcomes—those in the top 10 percent for all institutions—at least 52 percent of students transfer and at least 61 percent of transfer students earn bachelor’s degrees, far exceeding national averages. If all community colleges achieved these kinds of results, they could double the bachelor’s degree attainment rates for community college students from 16 percent to 32 percent, the playbook concludes.

    Based on interviews with college leaders, students and staff members at campuses with successful transfer pathways and partnerships, the playbook’s authors offer three core strategies for improving transfer, with examples of relevant practices and case studies.

    First, they recommend that executive leadership spearhead partnerships between community colleges and universities so improvements to transfer can be made at scale. They also suggest working toward more timely bachelor’s degree completion rates within majors by better aligning curriculum and instruction with transfer pathways. Lastly, they recommend tailoring advising and other supports for transfer students in ways that “foster trust and engagement.” For example, the playbook encourages community colleges to ensure transfer advising is offered to all students and occurs before, during and after the transfer process, with outreach to prospective students about transfer options as early as high school.

    “There is immense potential in the dreams and ambitions of bachelor’s-intending community college students—and the many who may have counted themselves out but have the ability to complete a bachelor’s and expand their career horizons,” the foreword to the playbook reads.  

    Source link

  • Researchers, Higher Ed Union Fight NIH Grant Terminations

    Researchers, Higher Ed Union Fight NIH Grant Terminations

    Brittany Charlton (right), a plaintiff in the lawsuit and founding director of the LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence at Harvard University, has lost multiple NIH grants amid the Trump administration’s ideological overhaul of the agency.

    Suzanne Kreiter/The Boston Globe/Getty Images

    Individual university researchers, a public health advocacy organization and a union representing more than 120,000 higher education workers are suing the National Institutes of Health after the agency terminated more than $2.4 billion in grants it claims support “non-scientific” projects that “no longer” effectuate agency priorities.

    “Plaintiffs and their members are facing the loss of jobs, staff, and income. Patients enrolled in NIH studies led by Plaintiffs face abrupt cancellations of treatment in which they have invested months of time with no explanation or plan for how to mitigate the harm,” according to a complaint of the lawsuit filed Wednesday afternoon. “As a result of Defendants’ Directives scientific advancement will be delayed, treatments will go undiscovered, human health will be compromised, and lives will be lost.”

    It’s the latest in a mounting series of legal challenges against the Trump administration’s blitz of executive actions aimed at rooting out so-called gender ideology; diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and alleged waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds. Some of those lawsuits have already resulted in federal judges ordering injunctions and restoration of canceled grants.

    But this is one of the first to directly challenge the NIH’s grant cancellations; more legal challenges are expected.

    The lawsuit was filed by the American Public Health Association; the United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers and NIH-funded medical researchers from Harvard University; the Universities of Michigan and New Mexico; and the Center for Science in the Public Interest, which have all lost their grants. The American Civil Liberties Union is representing the plaintiffs.

    A NIH spokesperson said that the agency doesn’t comment on pending litigation.

    ‘Erosion of Scientific Freedom’

    The plaintiffs want the Massachusetts district court to declare the actions of the NIH “unlawful,” restore funding for at least the plaintiffs’ terminated grants and prevent the agency “from terminating any grants based on allegedly no longer effectuating agency priorities, or withholding review of applications.”

    The majority of the terminated grants focused on topics related to vaccine hesitancy, climate change, diversifying the biomedical research workforce, “countries of concern” (including China and South Africa), and the health of women, racial minorities and members of the LGBTQ+ community, according to the lawsuit.

    One of the plaintiffs, Brittany Charlton, who is the founding director of Harvard University’s LGBTQ Health Center of Excellence, has had five NIH grants terminated since President Donald Trump took office in January and launched a crusade to root out so-called gender ideology and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

    Charlton said in an email to Inside Higher Ed that she’s lost nearly $6 million in NIH grants as a result of the agency’s directives, signifying “a potential end to my academic career.”

    But her motivation for signing on to the lawsuit extends beyond concern for her own livelihood.

    “This isn’t just a fight for my professional survival but a stand against the erosion of scientific freedom,” Charlton said. “[The grant cancellations set] a worrying precedent where scientific inquiry becomes vulnerable to political rhetoric. The concern here is not merely academic; it affects the very foundation of public health policy and the health of vulnerable communities.”

    Another plaintiff, Katie Edwards, a social work professor at the University of Michigan who researches violence prevention in minority communities, has had six NIH grants pulled this year. And a third plaintiff, Nicole Maphis, a first-generation college student and postdoctoral fellow at the University of New Mexico’s School of Medicine who researches the link between alcohol use and Alzheimer’s, is no longer in consideration for an NIH grant designed to help underrepresented researchers become faculty members.

    ‘Arbitrary and Capricious’

    The lawsuit argues that NIH didn’t have the authority to cancel those or any of the other grants the agency claims no longer effectuate agency priorities. That’s because the “no longer effectuates agency priorities” regulatory language the NIH has cited to justify its termination of particular grants won’t go into effect until October.

    Additionally, canceling the grants disregards “Congress’s express mandate that NIH fund research to address health equity and health disparities, include diverse populations in its studies, improve efforts to study the health of gender and sexual minorities, and enhance diversity in the bio-medical research profession,” according to the complaint.

    The lawsuit also says that the government violated numerous aspects of the Administrative Procedure Act—including a provision prohibiting agency action considered “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”—when it terminated the grants. It further asserts that the agency usurped Congress’s “exclusive power over federal spending” and violated the Fifth Amendment by offering “vague” justifications for terminating grants, including involvement with “transgender issues,” “DEI” or “amorphous equity objectives.”

    “Defendants have failed to develop any guidelines, definitions, or explanations to avoid arbitrary and capricious decision-making in determining the parameters of the agency’s prohibitions against research with some connection to DEI, gender, and other topics that fail Defendants’ ideological conformity screen,” the suit alleges.

    That leaves grantees “unsure, for example, which areas of study they can pursue, which populations they can focus on as study subjects, what they might argue to appeal grant terminations, and what the demographics of study participants must be” and “makes it impossible to determine how to reconfigure future research to stay within the bounds of NIH’s newest ‘priorities.’”

    Source link

  • Do More with Less: 7 Strategic Advantages of Shared Services in Higher Education

    Do More with Less: 7 Strategic Advantages of Shared Services in Higher Education

    College administrators wear many hats to ensure their institutions thrive. Stakeholders expect them to be visionaries, budget stewards, tech experts, and student champions. However, wearing too many hats can hinder the ability to meet more strategic and forward-thinking institutional demands, effectively diluting leadership capacity and outcomes. 

    How can administrators remove some of those hats without losing control or spending more? 

    How can they guide their institutions to achieve better outcomes with fewer resources?  

    At the 2024 Collegis Education Summit, keynote speaker Dr. John Smith-Coppes, president of Joyce University, shared his advice for achieving higher ed excellence amid market paradigms, shifting learner expectations, and capacity constraints.

    “Embrace your institutional superpower and then partner for expertise. You have to know what you are really good at, but also where you might need help. Having the bravery to objectively look at the brutal facts can take you from good to great. Keep this in mind: Your institution is perfectly designed to get the outcomes it’s getting.”

    -Dr. John Smith-Coppes, President of Joyce University

    Dr. Smith-Coppes is right. If you’re not getting the results you want, you have to shine a light on the operation and consider what adjustments or changes will better position your institution for desired outcomes.

    To echo Dr. Smith-Coppes and answer the earlier questions, working with a strategic partner who has deep expertise in higher education shared services and can manage certain responsibilities more efficiently can get your institution closer to turning aspiration into reality. A true partnership is not about simply outsourcing tasks. Rather, it’s a strategic way to gain access to specialized knowledge, proven methodologies, and scalable resources, all while enabling administrators to focus on their core areas of expertise.

    Mounting challenges facing higher ed leaders

    When I talk to administrators, the conversation inevitably turns to the challenge of doing more with less. They consistently grapple with four key issues:

    • Budget Cuts: Funding is uncertain or shrinking, forcing them to rethink the allocation of resources.
    • Advancing Technology: Technology is rapidly evolving, leaving administrators to scramble after the next advancement or emerging capability.
    • Socioeconomic Pressures: With some questioning the value of postsecondary education, relevant programs with affordable tuition have never been more critical.
    • Employee Turnover: Retaining top talent is difficult, leaving critical gaps.

    But none of these issues surprise us. On the contrary, Collegis Education has partnered with numerous public and private institutions of varying sizes and levels of brand recognition to address these challenges, uncovering advantageous pathways toward more sustainable and fruitful operations.

    The results speak for themselves. Administrators gain more time to leverage their core strengths to elevate their institution’s mission and educational outcomes while actualizing a variety of clear benefits. Here is what Collegis Education continues to deliver for our shared-service partners.

    Seven ways shared services in higher education deliver results

    Institutions that leverage shared services experience benefits in a variety of key areas. Explore some of the most significant advantages:

    1. Improved financial stability

    Predictability and optimization are the key words here. With our solutions for technology management, enrollment management, and student services, institutions know exactly what to budget every year. At the same time, we find cost savings by getting a better return on technology investments, strategically decommissioning redundancies, and renegotiating contracts.

    2. Enhanced operational efficiency

    Is there a better way to reach an institution’s goals more efficiently? More often than not, the answer is yes. We help bring these opportunities to the surface by fully assessing the school’s infrastructure, technology, processes, and other operating procedures. This assessment denotes areas of excellence and points of failure as well as identifies where lag or waste exists. With these insights, we can identify and prioritize emerging opportunities to drive improvement. All this informs a multiyear roadmap that guides higher ed leaders on how to thoughtfully implement changes that engage key stakeholders to accelerate the change management cycle.

    3. Objective perspective & best practices

    We bring a unique perspective to our recommendations based on our work with other schools while protecting each school’s anonymity and uniqueness. This helps give you a baseline of how your school performs when compared to similar ones. Are you leading or lagging? As an unbiased third party, we offer fresh ideas backed by the knowledge of the results they have produced. It’s a great way to eliminate the “but this is how we’ve always done it” objection and gain buy-in from internal staff.

    4. Risk mitigation & accountability

    There’s rarely a higher ed situation we haven’t already dealt with at another institution. Our partners benefit from this experience, allowing them to proactively avoid operational and technical risks. They also benefit tremendously from having a partner who holds themselves accountable to quantifiable outcomes measured by agreed-upon service level agreements (SLAs). Together, these provide a lot of peace of mind when it comes to issues like cybersecurity, compliance, disaster recovery, and business continuity.

    5. Specialized expertise without the overhead

    Hiring and retaining experienced staff is challenging enough. Finding people with skill sets to leverage evolving technology capabilities like artificial intelligence (AI) is a whole other story. That’s why our partners rely on Collegis to provide the expertise that’s hard to find. We’re software-agnostic and implement solutions that are in the school’s best interest from a financial, operational, and strategic perspective without the need for full-time employees to manage them.

    6. Data-enabled decision making with full transparency

    Data at most institutions is stored in siloes, with limited stewardship and governance over its quality and consistency. However, many of the “data” solutions in the market today are complicated and difficult to implement and support.

    This is why we built Connected Core, a scalable higher education industry cloud solution that integrates siloed data sets, systems, and applications to enable institutional intelligence. This proven approach and methodology for collecting, connecting, and activating institutional data eliminates data doubt and gives leaders the confidence to make quickly make strategic decisions with confidence.

    7. Focus on core mission & educational outcomes

    By outsourcing some functions, administrators can redirect resources and energy to what truly matters: student success. By reducing the number of hats they wear, leaders can instead focus on using the tools they have on hand to manage strategic initiatives that drive institutional growth.

    Strategic delegation to yield better outcomes

    Some leaders fear losing control through outsourcing, and rightfully so. Too many vendors tout “partnership” when, in fact, they are trying to build an unhealthy dependency that is not mutually beneficial.

    That’s just not us. It fundamentally goes against our values and who we are as a company.

    Our partnerships are built on collaboration and shared governance. Institutions set priorities, and all actions follow clear assessments, implementation plans, and progress reviews. Our partners gain greater control over technology, enrollment, and budgets. Control isn’t lost, but visibility and accountability are gained.

    Shared-services models allow administrators to confidently offload specific responsibilities. Leveraging external expertise amplifies your internal strengths and empowers your leaders to focus on building and maintaining a thriving campus community.

    But the first step is starting the conversation with the right partner.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Education providers pivot to TNE in price-sensitive Pakistan

    Education providers pivot to TNE in price-sensitive Pakistan

    Speaking at The PIE Live Europe 2025, Stuart Smith, CEO of pathway provider NCUK, said Pakistan’s position as a growing yet price-sensitive market opens exciting opportunities for students to earn their qualifications before transitioning to a high-quality university in the UK or elsewhere. 

    “Financially, one of the biggest barriers for Pakistani students has been the cost of studying abroad. The pathway model helps address this by offering significant cost savings, allowing students to progress to high-quality universities,” Smith told delegates at the London conference.

    “One of the big advantages of our model is that students can come in on an NCUK qualification, spend one or two years at home making really important cost savings, and academically prepare for studying abroad, all in a comfortable environment.”

    According to Smith, the rise in interest in international qualifications among Pakistani students also means easier visa approvals for them. 

    Visa refusals and delays have forced many Pakistani students to miss their January intake at UK universities, with some even withdrawing their applications, as reported by The PIE News last year. 

    “For students studying in-country pathway programs, we’ve seen fewer visa refusals because they are better prepared for the visa process and qualify better for visa interviews,” Smith added. 

    Last year, Pakistan’s Higher Education Commission revised its TNE policy to provide greater clarity on requirements, operational models, and introduce guidelines for establishing offshore campuses of Pakistani higher education institutions. 

    The update also emphasised quality assurance and regulatory assessments. 

    “Instead of targeting a small number of students at a high price point, a more sustainable approach is to offer programs at a lower price to a larger student base,” stated Smith. 

    “That being said, there is a market for institutions at all price points. The key is to find the right strategy that balances accessibility with quality.”

    The HEC has previously cautioned students and parents in Pakistan about some of the violations made by Pakistani institutions in their TNE programmes. 

    Moreover, the HEC warned recognised domestic HEIs offering foreign qualifications in Pakistan to comply with the government’s TNE policy, stating that any violations would result in non-recognition of the student’s degree.

    According to Vanessa Potter, director of communications and external relations at the University of Essex, while enrolling large numbers of Pakistani students in TNE programmes remains challenging, the university has shifted its focus. It now puts more into collaborating with its Pakistani alumni, supporting research at local universities, and assisting academic staff in the country.

    “One area we’ve significantly expanded is PhD support for academic staff. We offer our partners substantial discounts on PhD programs, as we believe in supporting both the academy and our institutional collaborators,” stated Potter. 

    “Many universities we work with have one or two staff members engaged in these programs, either full-time or part-time under co-supervision arrangements with Pakistani universities.”

    Just last year, the University of Essex partnered with Beaconhouse International College to offer a variety of business, law, and technology courses to students in major Pakistani cities, including Islamabad, Faisalabad, and Lahore.

    Over the years, Pakistan’s investment in research and development has remained notably low, with expenditure dropping from 0.17% of GDP in 2019 to 0.16% in 2021. 

    This limited funding presents challenges for Pakistani universities in securing high global research rankings, keeping the country’s R & D investment well below international standards.

    Such challenges provide an opportunity for research collaboration for institutions like the University of Essex. 

    “There are pockets of excellent research in Pakistan, though they don’t always reflect in global rankings,” stated Potter. 

    “There is funding available – academic exchanges have already been supported, and the British Council in Pakistan has provided funding for specific initiatives. We are also working with them on scholarships in collaboration, while also receiving support from the British High Commission in Pakistan.”

    According to Potter, the university is also working with the HEC to support laboratory staff in universities.

    “It’s a specialised project, and while we are still looking to pay for it, we are committed to enhancing the development of lab staff in science departments in Pakistani universities.” 

    In recent years, Pakistan has emerged as a major TNE market, especially for the UK. 

    According to the revised TNE policy, HEIs with a strong reputation and ranked within the top 700 in the QS or THE world university rankings, or those classified as Fachhochschule, will be eligible to offer their degree programs in Pakistan.

    Some institutions make the mistake of treating local Pakistani-origin agents differently from international aggregators. This is a clear discrimination
    Atif Khan, University of Hertfordshire

    With the launch of its new initiative, ‘Udaan Pakistan,’ aimed at revitalising the country’s economy, Atif Khan, country director at the University of Hertfordshire, believes that Pakistan has a strategic vision for economic growth over the next five to 10 years. 

    This, in turn, could drive a rising demand for international qualifications among students, he said. 

    “Any universities keen to come to Pakistan – this is the time. Demand will not finish, it will grow,” stated Khan. 

    “Currently, Pakistan has 55 recognised TNE programs, with over 15,000 students engaged. Of these, around 12,000 are involved in UK-affiliated programs, meaning nearly 80% of TNE students in Pakistan are already planning to transition to the UK for their postgraduate studies.”

    On the recruitment front, Khan anticipates a rise in study visas from Pakistan to major international study destinations, noting that the UK issued 35,000 student visas by 2024, an increase of 13% from the previous year.

    But he highlighted how some of the practices adopted by UK universities in the country are discriminatory in nature and need to be fixed.

    “When it comes to selecting recruitment agents, universities need a sustained strategy. They must work with the right agents, ensuring strong compliance and regular training sessions. The market is evolving rapidly,” stated Khan. 

    “Some institutions make the mistake of treating local Pakistani-origin agents differently from international aggregators. This is a clear discrimination. If universities continue down this path, they risk attracting lower-quality students.”

    Furthermore, Potter emphasised that while Pakistan’s economic challenges may prevent an exponential rise in student numbers, universities that offer strong career support and employability prospects could continue to attract Pakistani students.

    “I think being able to articulate clearly how you can support students with jobs, and how having a degree from a particular type of university subject might help that career long term, does help students understand the welcoming environment,” she said.

    Source link

  • Will GenAI narrow or widen the digital divide in higher education?

    Will GenAI narrow or widen the digital divide in higher education?

    by Lei Fang and Xue Zhou

    This blog is based on our recent publication: Zhou, X, Fang, L, & Rajaram, K (2025) ‘Exploring the digital divide among students of diverse demographic backgrounds: a survey of UK undergraduates’ Journal of Applied Learning and Teaching, 8(1).

    Introduction – the widening digital divide

    Our recent study (Zhou et al, 2025) surveyed 595 undergraduate students across the UK to examine the evolving digital divide across all forms of digital technologies. Although higher education is expected to narrow this divide and build students’ digital confidence, our findings revealed the opposite. We found that the gap in digital confidence and skills between widening participation (WP) and non-WP students widened progressively throughout the undergraduate journey. While students reported peak confidence in Year 2, this was followed by a notable decline in Year 3, when the digital divide became most pronounced. This drop coincides with a critical period when students begin applying their digital skills in real-world contexts, such as job applications and final-year projects.

    Based on our study (Zhou et al, 2025), while universities offer a wide range of support such as laptop loans, free access to remote systems, extracurricular digital skills training, and targeted funding to WP students, WP students often do not make use of these resources. The core issue lies not in the absence of support, but in its uptake. WP students are often excluded from the peer networks and digital communities where emerging technologies are introduced, shared, and discussed. From a Connectivist perspective (Siemens, 2005), this lack of connection to digital, social, and institutional networks limits their awareness, confidence, and ability to engage meaningfully with available digital tools.

    Building on these findings, this blog asks a timely question: as Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) becomes embedded in higher education, will it help bridge this divide or deepen it further?

    GenAI may widen the digital divide — without proper strategies

    While the digital divide in higher education is already well-documented in relation to general technologies, the emergence of GenAI introduces new risks that may further widen this gap (Cachat-Rosset & Klarsfeld, 2023). This matters because students who are GenAI-literate often experience better academic performance (Sun & Zhou, 2024), making the divide not just about access but also about academic outcomes.

    Unlike traditional digital tools, GenAI often demands more advanced infrastructure — including powerful devices, high-speed internet, and in many cases, paid subscriptions to unlock full functionality. WP students, who already face barriers to accessing basic digital infrastructure, are likely to be disproportionately excluded. This divide is not only student-level but also institutional. A few well-funded universities are able to subscribe to GenAI platforms such as ChatGPT, invest in specialised GenAI tools, and secure campus-wide licenses. In contrast, many institutions, particularly those under financial pressure, cannot afford such investments. These disparities risk creating a new cross-sector digital divide, where students’ access to emerging technologies depends not only on their background, but also on the resources of the university they attend.

    In addition, the adoption of GenAI currently occurs primarily through informal channels via peers, online communities, or individual experimentation rather than structured teaching (Shailendra et al, 2024). WP students, who may lack access to these digital and social learning networks (Krstić et al, 2021), are therefore less likely to become aware of new GenAI tools, let alone develop the confidence and skills to use them effectively. Even when they do engage with GenAI, students may experience uncertainty, confusion, or fear about using it appropriately especially in the absence of clear guidance around academic integrity, ethical use, or institutional policy. This ambiguity can lead to increased anxiety and stress, contributing to wider concerns around mental health in GenAI learning environments.

    Another concern is the risk of impersonal learning environments (Berei & Pusztai, 2022). When GenAI are implemented without inclusive design, the experience can feel detached and isolating, particularly for WP students, who often already feel marginalised. While GenAI tools may streamline administrative and learning processes, they can also weaken the sense of connection and belonging that is essential for student engagement and success.

    GenAI can narrow the divide — with the right strategies

    Although WP students are often excluded from digital networks, which Connectivism highlights as essential for learning (Goldie, 2016), GenAI, if used thoughtfully, can help reconnect them by offering personalised support, reducing geographic barriers, and expanding access to educational resources.

    To achieve this, we propose five key strategies:

    • Invest in infrastructure and access: Universities must ensure that all students have the tools to participate in the AI-enabled classroom including access to devices, core software, and free versions of widely used GenAI platforms. While there is a growing variety of GenAI tools on the market, institutions facing financial pressures must prioritise tools that are both widely used and demonstrably effective. The goal is not to adopt everything, but to ensure that all students have equitable access to the essentials.
    • Rethink training with inclusion in mind: GenAI literacy training must go beyond traditional models. It should reflect Equality, Diversity and Inclusion principles recognising the different starting points students bring and offering flexible, practical formats. Micro-credentials on platforms like LinkedIn Learning or university-branded short courses can provide just-in-time, accessible learning opportunities. These resources are available anytime and from anywhere, enabling students who were previously excluded such as those in rural or under-resourced areas to access learning on their own terms.
    • Build digital communities and peer networks: Social connection is a key enabler of learning (Siemens, 2005). Institutions should foster GenAI learning communities where students can exchange ideas, offer peer support, and normalise experimentation. Mental readiness is just as important as technical skill and being part of a supportive network can reduce anxiety and stigma around GenAI use.
    • Design inclusive GenAI policies and ensure ongoing evaluation: Institutions must establish clear, inclusive policies around GenAI use that balance innovation with ethics (Schofield & Zhang, 2024). These policies should be communicated transparently and reviewed regularly, informed by diverse student feedback and ongoing evaluation of impact.
    • Adopt a human-centred approach to GenAI integration: Following UNESCO’s human-centred approach to AI in education (UNESCO, 2024; 2025), GenAI should be used to enhance, not replace the human elements of teaching and learning. While GenAI can support personalisation and reduce administrative burdens, the presence of academic and pastoral staff remains essential. By freeing staff from routine tasks, GenAI can enable them to focus more fully on this high-impact, relational work, such as mentoring, guidance, and personalised support that WP students often benefit from most.

    Conclusion

    Generative AI alone will not determine the future of equity in higher education, our actions will. Without intentional, inclusive strategies, GenAI risks amplifying existing digital inequalities, further disadvantaging WP students. However, by proactively addressing access barriers, delivering inclusive and flexible training, building supportive digital communities, embedding ethical policies, and preserving meaningful human interaction, GenAI can become a powerful tool for inclusion. The digital divide doesn’t close itself; institutions must embed equity into every stage of GenAI adoption. The time to act is not once systems are already in place, it is now.

    Dr Lei Fang is a Senior Lecturer in Digital Transformation at Queen Mary University of London. Her research interests include AI literacy, digital technology adoption, the application of AI in higher education, and risk management. [email protected]

    Professor Xue Zhou is a Professor in AI in Business Education at the University of Leicester. Her research interests fall in the areas of digital literacy, digital technology adoption, cross-cultural adjustment and online professionalism. [email protected]

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • March Brought Another Round of Job and Program Cuts

    March Brought Another Round of Job and Program Cuts

    March brought layoffs, buyouts and the elimination of multiple academic programs as universities sought to plug budget holes wrought by sector challenges and state budget issues.

    While many universities have announced hiring freezes and other moves due to the uncertainty of federal funding under Trump, the cuts below are not directly tied to the administration’s efforts to slash budgets and shrink the government. Instead, they are linked largely to dwindling enrollment or the loss of state funding.

    University of Dayton

    Officials at the private, Catholic research institution in Ohio announced cuts last month that affect 65 employees; 45 faculty members will not have their contracts renewed and 20 staff positions have been eliminated, The Dayton Daily News reported.

    Affected employees will reportedly be offered severance packages.

    Total cuts are projected to save the university $25 million over three years, the newspaper reported. Officials at the university said the moves were “focused on financial sustainability,” noting that while Dayton does not currently have a budget deficit, the change better positions it for the future.

    Wagner College

    The private liberal arts college in New York is looking to phase out as many as 21 programs in an effort to reverse recent enrollment declines, The Staten Island Advance reported.

    The changes reportedly could affect up to 40 full-time faculty members.

    Less popular academic programs—including anthropology, chemistry, English, history, math, modern languages, sociology, philosophy and physics—are among those that may be wound down. Officials told the newspaper that the process will be completed over the next 12 to 18 months.

    Kent State University

    Up to 30 administrative positions and nine majors are being eliminated at the public university in Ohio as part of a phased academic realignment that was approved by the board last month, WKYC reported. Kent State will also shrink the number of academic colleges from 10 to nine.

    The changes are part of a phased plan to be completed in 2028.

    The plans cites two goals: “First to strengthen academic affairs by reorganizing and realigning our academic units so that we are more cost efficient and therefore sustainable, and second, to ensure that we are providing the most in-demand, up-to-date and relevant academic programs and services for our learners,” executive vice president and provost Melody Tankersley said in an announcement last month following approval of the restructuring plan by Kent State’s board.

    Lakeland Community College

    Facing a $2 million budget deficit, the public two-year college in Ohio is laying off 10 faculty members and not replacing 14 professors set to retire, Ideastream Public Media reported.

    Another eight faculty members who will retire next year will also not be replaced.

    Between the cuts and retirements, Lakeland expects to save $2.3 million this year and another $800,000 next year. It will reinvest $225,000 in three faculty positions in manufacturing, welding and electrical engineering as it prioritizes workforce development.

    Lakeland also plans to close an unspecified number of low-enrollment programs.

    St. Norbert College

    The private, Catholic college in Wisconsin announced plans last month to lay off 27 professors and cut more than a dozen programs to address its budget deficit, Wisconsin Public Radio reported.

    Cuts will shave an estimated $5 million off the $12 million budget deficit. Of the 27 affected faculty members, 21 are set to lose their jobs in May, and the remaining six will be let go in 2026.

    Averett University

    Grappling with financial pressures, the small, private institution in Virginia announced plans last month to eliminate 15 jobs as part of cost-cutting measures, The Chatham Star-Tribune reported.

    Additionally, Cardinal News reported this week that Averett listed its equestrian center for sale.

    The university has navigated steep financial issues since last summer, when officials discovered a financial shortfall brought about by unauthorized withdrawals from the endowment by a former employee. While they said there was no evidence of embezzlement or misuse of the funds, the fiscal mismanagement prompted Averett to take a series of ongoing measures to fix its finances.

    Oklahoma State University

    Fallout continues at Oklahoma State, where the university laid off 12 Innovation Foundation employees after a recent audit uncovered financial missteps there, Oklahoma Voice reported.

    Affected staffers will not receive severance but will remain employed through June 1.

    In February, Oklahoma State president Kayse Shrum stepped down abruptly amid a review of improper transfers of legislatively appropriated funds. An audit later found that $41 million in state appropriations “were not properly restricted and in some instances were co-mingled with other funds” in violation of state laws and policies. In one instance, $11.5 million intended for other programs had been directed without board approval to OSU’s Innovation Foundation instead.

    St. Joseph’s University

    Officials offered buyouts to some faculty and staff last month as the private Jesuit university seeks to close a budget deficit following recent mergers, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported.

    St. Joseph’s absorbed the University of the Sciences in 2022 and added Pennsylvania College of Health Sciences in 2023, which officials told the newspaper left them with a “small deficit.” President Cheryl McConnell did not specify a dollar figure in an interview with the Inquirer.

    She added that there was no specific target number for buyouts, but when asked about potential layoffs, McConnell said it “depends on the nature of voluntary separation plan results.”

    Utah State University

    Voluntary buyouts are on the table and layoffs could be on the horizon at the public university following $17.3 million in budget cuts from the State Legislature, The Cache Valley Daily reported.

    Those cuts were spread across two years, with the university taking a $12.5 million hit this year. However, USU could restore that money through the state’s strategic reinvestment initiative, which allows universities to regain funding if leaders can identify areas for cuts and shift resources toward strategic initiatives favored by the state.

    Weber State University

    Elsewhere in Utah, Weber State is also grappling with budget issues imposed by the state.

    With anticipated budget cuts of $6.7 million due to the same strategic realignment initiative, Weber State is also offering voluntary separation incentives to employees, Deseret News reported. The university also plans to restructure some academic programs, including the College of Education.

    Budget changes in Utah will also affect the other six state institutions, but not all have made their plans public yet.

    Source link