Tag: Education

  • Texas A&M Faculty Finds Dismissed Prof’s Academic Freedom Violated

    Texas A&M Faculty Finds Dismissed Prof’s Academic Freedom Violated

    A Texas A&M University faculty council determined in late September that Melissa McCoul, an instructor fired for teaching about gender identity in a children’s literature class, had her academic freedom violated and that former president Mark Welsh flouted proper termination processes when he fired her, The Texas Tribune reported Monday.

    McCoul was dismissed in September after a video went viral, showing a student confronting her in class and claiming the professor’s gender identity lesson was illegal. McCoul is actively appealing her termination. The documented justification for her dismissal was that McCoul’s course content and material did not match the description in the course catalog, but the faculty council said this was false. 

    “The content of the course was the reason for the dismissal and not the stated reason: failure of academic responsibility,” the council wrote in its report. “Given the timeline of dismissal, the political pressure brought to bear, and statements by Regents that the course content was illegal, President Welsh’s assertion that the firing was for failure of academic responsibility appears pretextual.”

    In an Oct. 2 memo obtained by the Tribune, Vice Provost for Faculty Affairs Blanca Lupiani rejected the council’s conclusions and said the council acted outside its charge to review matters that were “largely unrelated to academic freedom.” The complaint about McCoul was never assigned to the council, Lupiani said in the memo. 

    University rules require the department head to write charges for dismissal, seek approval from the dean and give the faculty member a notice of intent to dismiss with five business days to respond, but Welsh requested McCoul’s dismissal on Sept. 9 “effective immediately,” the Tribune reported. 

    Source link

  • Portland State Ordered to Reinstate Some Laid-Off Faculty

    Portland State Ordered to Reinstate Some Laid-Off Faculty

    An independent arbitrator ordered Portland State University to reinstate 10 faculty members after determining the university violated its collective bargaining agreement with the Portland State University American Association of University Professors, Oregon Public Broadcasting reported.  

    The faculty senate in April voted no confidence in the administration’s “Bridge to the Future” plan to address an $18 million budget deficit, and the vote “underscores the fact that the university made its layoff decisions before it had sufficient evidence to support them. That is a violation of the collective bargaining agreement,” the arbitrator wrote in her decision. 

    PSU-AAUP filed a labor grievance after the university laid off 17 non-tenure-track professors at the end of the 2024–25 academic year as part of its plan to close the deficit before the end of the spring term. The remaining seven employees declined to grieve their layoffs. 

    “[The decision] forces the university to respect the concept of shared governance,” union president Bill Knight told OPB. “It’s a reminder to the university that they can’t simply make arbitrary administrative decisions without involving the faculty.”

    The union contract requires university officials to follow a specific, lengthy process to lay off faculty members for economic reasons—as opposed to eliminating courses or programs—which the arbitrator determined they did not do. Portland State is considering an appeal.

    The budget cuts were successful in closing the deficit, OPB reported. Recent financial documents show the university saved more than $12.3 million—about 88 full-time faculty positions—in its academic affairs division. But more personnel cuts are likely. In September, the Portland State University Board of Trustees approved a plan to address a $35 million shortfall over two years.

    Source link

  • 3 State Policy Ideas to Accelerate Success in Transfer

    3 State Policy Ideas to Accelerate Success in Transfer

    The Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board is thinking creatively about financial and reputational incentives to improve transfer and learning mobility. In this article, two of the PAB’s members—Sharon Morrissey and Ron Anderson—who are both seasoned, system-level leaders, share their reflections on what is needed next to accelerate success in transfer and learning mobility.

    In April 2025, the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board and Inside Higher Ed collaborated on a webcast entitled “Short-Term Reward, Long-Term Harm: How Current Transfer Practices Hurt Learners and Institutions.” This event drew nearly 400 live attendees across 46 states, including a mix of administrative, faculty and student service leaders from institutions of all kinds.

    During the webcast, participants were polled on the following question: “To what extent do you agree that new financial incentives or budgeting models could help institutions to prioritize improving transfer student outcomes?” The audience’s response was positive, with 85 percent agreeing at least somewhat. However, we see some divisions within the data, with 32 percent saying they “strongly agree” and 53 percent saying they “somewhat agree.”

    While that data might feel a bit hard to make sense of, it rings true to us. Between us we bring over seven decades of experience as faculty, institutional administrators and system office leaders across three states, Minnesota, North Carolina and Virginia. That experience has taught us that improving credit transfer and expanding learning mobility are some of the most complex challenges facing higher education.

    Why is this? For one, improving recognition of learning and credit transfer requires higher education institutions to contend with a wide range of prior learning experiences, including traditional college coursework, high school dual-enrollment courses, career and technical education, work-based learning, military service, industry certification, and more. This implies the participation of numerous learning providers, such as institutions of higher education, high schools, employers and the military. And it involves multiple decision-makers, such as students who choose transfer pathways, faculty who determine what learning to recognize and how to apply that learning to program requirements, enrollment managers who wish to recruit transfer students, registrars who process transcripts, deans and provosts who oversee academic standards, and presidents who are held accountable by policymakers for serving transfer students. In short, there is complexity at every step of the process.

    That complexity points to the fact that—as the mixed results of that poll show—if we are going to make true progress on transfer and learning mobility, we must find solutions that appeal to the priorities of multiple decision-makers. As we think about incentives, for example, the incentives that would influence the behavior of a faculty member are not the same as the incentives that would influence the behavior of an administrator. Those responsible for revenue may be more swayed by a policy that would augment an institution’s state appropriation for increased enrollment and graduation of transfer students, while those responsible for curriculum may be more inclined to accept and apply transfer credit to a degree program based on their assessment of how the prior learning aligns to the learning outcomes of their own local courses.

    Another key theme of the webcast—and, let’s be honest, nearly every discussion held these days about transfer—was that we must zero in on the credential applicability of prior learning. Past reform efforts have advanced incredible work such as understanding the student experience, increasing transfer student belonging, strengthening advising and creating infrastructure for efforts such as credit for prior learning. All that work is critical and must continue. But we must also double down on how to advance credential applicability of courses and other forms of prior learning. We are not helping transfer students meet their educational goals if we fail to apply their prior learning to program requirements.

    Finally, a third theme elevated in the webcast was about shifting culture and mindsets. Achieving increased credential applicability will require a shift away from the current culture that interrogates every aspect of a course or other prior learning experience to find a course-to-course equivalency. Does anyone really believe that a student cannot be successful in a subsequent course, or in the workforce, if they happen to read a different textbook? As the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions recently elevated, the practice of interrogating the minutiae of courses and other learning experiences should, instead, focus at a higher level, on questions such as:

    • Does the sum of a student’s learning provide an appropriate foundation to set them up for continued academic success?
    • Can a student be successful in subsequent learning experiences, with appropriate just-in-time support? How can the institution provide that support?
    • What data do we have that a student will not be successful in a subsequent course?

    Based on our experience working with institutions and systems, we share here three state policy ideas that attend to these themes by 1) appealing to the priorities of multiple decision-makers, in this case both faculty and administrators; 2) zeroing in on credential applicability of prior learning; and 3) nudging broader cultural and mindset shifts.

    The first idea is for policymakers to explicitly include credit transfer and applicability within the design of state funding models by pinning rewards to credential applicability of groups of many courses. Right now, some—but not all—states have funding formulas that focus attention on transfer students’ outcomes. Those that do often include metrics such as the rate of students who transfer and bachelor’s degree completion for those who enter as a transfer student.

    On their own, these goalposts are too broad and have not yet produced the level of change needed. How can states improve this approach? We think one approach might be for states to collaborate with institutions to build various program-aligned credit thresholds and then reward institutions for applying that credit to degree requirements, such as:

    • Awarding and applying 15 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of what many refer to as a meta-major, designed to introduce students to a broad program area (e.g., allied health).
    • Awarding and applying 30 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of roughly the first year of college, often represented by a general education transfer core that is customized to include program-aligned courses.
    • Awarding and applying 60 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of a typical associate degree—but again, this must be a program-aligned associate degree.

    The goal here is for receiving institutions to not pull these credit blocks apart and pick and choose which credits apply. If students have met a threshold and their preparation is program-aligned, they should be advanced toward program completion for all of those credits. The groups of courses students have completed add to more than the sum of their parts. Students are journeying through a learning experience, with a variety of learning outcomes, that when looked at holistically are offering strong preparation for not just subsequent courses, but life and work. The mindset shift here is: Students do not need to have met every single learning outcome addressed in the receiving institution courses to be successful. They need to be prepared enough to be successful in subsequent courses, learning experiences and the workforce.

    Second, we encourage state policymakers to couple this policy change with demonstration projects that engage faculty in pedagogy, curriculum design and research. As receiving institutions accept and apply these groups of courses, what just-in-time supports should receiving institutions offer to students to ensure their success after transfer? How are students performing on a number of measures: in subsequent courses, for graduation and in the workforce? Which curricular design assumptions no longer hold? Where might classroom approaches be strengthened and evolved to reflect shifting needs of learners?

    Finally, all the findings of this work should be elevated through state recognition awards (ideally coupled with some funding) that promote the visibility and reputation of colleges and universities that are embracing all high-quality learning and moving learners toward credential completion.

    Through the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, we’ll continue to push against the status quo to imagine new possibilities for institutions and learners. Connect with us on Instagram (@beyondtransfer) to stay informed on the board’s latest policy insights and ideas, and visit our website to access prior research reports related to transfer, institutional finance and financial aid, including:

    • Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board. (2023). Affordability Disconnects: Understanding Student Affordability in the Transfer and Credit Mobility Era. See paper with visuals and blog.
    • Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board. (2023). Unpacking Financial Disincentives: Why and How they Stymie Degree-Applicable Credit Mobility and Equitable Transfer Outcomes. See paper with visuals and blog.



    Source link

  • A Microcourse for Sophomore Student Success

    A Microcourse for Sophomore Student Success

    Starting college can be a daunting transition for many students, with some moving cities or states and integrating into a new world of learning. That’s why most colleges invest significant time and energy to ensure first-year students have a successful start, connecting them to peers, support resources and faculty invested in their personal and academic growth.

    But the support often lags during the transition to sophomore year. Retention is a key factor in timely degree completion; students who leave college after the first year are much less likely to ever finish their program.

    That’s why DePaul University in Chicago piloted a new intervention this summer to bridge the transition from first-year to sophomore status. Through short online modules, students improved their time management, money management and career skills, preparing them to tackle the new academic year.

    What’s the need: As a university, DePaul has focused on improving second-year retention, said Jaclyn Jensen, professor of management and associate dean for undergraduate programs in the Driehaus College of Business at DePaul.

    Jensen was approached by a DePaul alumna, Pam Schilling, co-founder of the ed-tech company Archer Career, who was looking to apply for the Illinois Innovation Voucher program. The program provides funding for small or medium-size businesses that partner with higher education institutions in the state.

    Archer Career offers online, self-paced microlearning courses to support students and early-career professionals in achieving their career goals. Topics range from job search skills, such as networking or how to develop a LinkedIn profile, to personal skills, including identifying goals and career exploration.

    “This opportunity to seek funding was also the catalyst between leveraging our focus on retention in business students and that connected really seamlessly with her platform,” Jensen explained.

    How it works: The Rising Sophomore Success Program is structured as a collection of 10-minute modules, which include video and interactive activities. To select relevant course topics for RSSP participants, DePaul leaders used historical data on why students left the university, as well as demographic information to identify common pain points in the student experience.

    For example, DePaul has a large share of commuter students, so building students’ time management and executive functioning skills was important to enable them to juggle their various responsibilities.

    Students applied to be admitted to the program and completed the course during the summer after their first year.

    “From a student standpoint, we thought, ‘OK, we have this time when you’re not overwhelmed by taking multiple classes and you might actually have some time to carve out in meaningful ways to invest in your own success,’” Jensen said.

    Students were also supported by a peer mentor, an upper-level undergraduate in the business school, who facilitated weekly check-ins, talked through challenges and encouraged them in their learning.

    In addition, each student was paired with a professional mentor, either someone already in their support network or a graduate who could provide career advice.

    For the pilot cohort, DePaul recruited 10 rising sophomores in the Driehaus College of Business, which included three incoming transfer students. The participants were celebrated with a kickoff event in the spring and a graduation ceremony during the fall after completing their Archer Career courses.

    What’s next: Following a successful pilot, DePaul and Archer Career were awarded a voucher from the state to integrate agentic artificial intelligence into the platform. It also provides funding for Archer Career and for DePaul personnel, including the peer mentor, an intern and a faculty researcher.

    The AI will offer personalized nudges and encouragement to students as they navigate the platform, similar to the way a coach might. Previously, a student intern hired to work on user design drafted messages for the peer mentor to send to students. Now, the university will automate the messages using AI.

    The nudges “will still rely on the behavioral data of students who are engaging in the platform, but it won’t be a member of the team manually sending those messages out at a particular time, but leveraging technology to help us do things like that,” Jensen explained.

    The goal is to scale the program to maximize impact and increase the number of students who can participate, Jensen said. DePaul plans to launch a more robust pilot of 50 student participants in summer 2026.

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

    This article has been updated to clarify Jaclyn Jensen’s title.

    Source link

  • Where the Ed Dept. Stands After Longest Government Shutdown

    Where the Ed Dept. Stands After Longest Government Shutdown

    The House of Representatives passed a legislative package late Wednesday evening in a 222-209 vote, putting Congress one step closer to ending the federal government’s longest shutdown in history.

    Now, the legislation, which first passed the Senate late Sunday night, heads to the White House. There, President Donald Trump is expected to sign it into law.

    One policy expert told Inside Higher Ed that he expects to see little operational change for institutions as the government reopens. But he and others will be paying close attention to whether the Trump administration follows through on one of the bill’s key compromises: reversing the most recent round of federal layoffs.

    LEAD IN

    PITHY STATEMENT FROM SPEAKER JOHNSON OR WHITE HOUSE

    Part of the package would fund the Department of Veterans Affairs, military construction, the Department of Agriculture, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Congress through the end of the fiscal year. But it only appropriates funding for the Department of Education and most other agencies until Jan. 30, using what is known as a continuing resolution. For the most part, the CR gives agencies access to the same levels of federal funding as the last fiscal year.

    Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education, said because some of the Education Department’s staff continued working throughout October and into November, not much will change for colleges and universities.

    “Financial aid was being disbursed, student loans were being serviced, all those things. So there probably won’t be an immediate significant shift,” he said. “It will, of course, be important for [grant] programs who have not been able to contact program officers with concerns or questions to have staff now available to them again. But that’s probably the biggest thing.”

    Fansmith also noted that some education benefits for military service members, which in many cases have been disrupted and backlogged due to staffing shortages, will take some time to get back up to speed.

    The 4 Parts of the Stopgap Bill

    “There are veterans who have housing benefits and education benefits and all sorts of assistance that they’re using to fund their educations that have just not been coming through over the last six weeks,” he said. “And even when they turn the government back on … that backlog has only grown in the interim. So it’s not going to be an immediate resolution.”

    Senate Democrats also negotiated with Republicans to reverse Trump’s latest round of layoffs in the stopgap bill. Theoretically, the legislation should reinstate more than 460 Department of Education employees within five days of it being enacted.

    It mandates that any employee who was subject to a reduction in force during the shutdown “shall have that notice rescinded and be returned to employment status.” (The majority of those employees were tasked with overseeing federal grant programs for both K–12 and higher education.)

    But Rachel Gittleman, president of the Education Department’s union, argues the language in the bill doesn’t do enough to protect public servants. She worries that saying staffers must be “returned to employment status” could allow Education Secretary Linda McMahon to place union members on administrative leave and not actually put them back to work.

    “The Trump administration has shown us repeatedly that they want to illegally dismantle our congressionally created federal agency,” she said. As such, “We have no confidence that the U.S. Education Department will follow the terms of the continuing resolution or allow the employees named in October firings to return—or even keep their jobs past January.”

    Fansmith is also skeptical department employees will return to their jobs.

    “[The administration hasn’t] shown much willingness to follow what the law requires. So I would absolutely assume we should expect to see efforts to further reduce staffing,” he said. “They’re not hiding the fact they’re trying to do it, and they don’t have a lot of compunction about the methods they use to do so.”

    A department spokesperson, however, told Inside Higher Ed that all employees—both those who were furloughed and those laid off during the shutdown—will return to work, as they remain employees of the department.

    The department also pointed to a ruling from the federal district court in Northern California that blocked the reduction in force in late October, saying that under that order, all employees who received a RIF notice during the shutdown remain employees of the federal government.

    Inside Higher Ed reached out to multiple Republican and Democratic lawmakers in both the House and the Senate to ask about the concerns Gittleman and Fansmith raised. None responded prior to publication.

    Source link

  • ACT and Texas Instruments Collaborate to Enhance Student Success in Mathematics

    ACT and Texas Instruments Collaborate to Enhance Student Success in Mathematics

    Iowa City, Iowa and Dallas, Texas (November 12, 2025) – ACT, a leader in college and career readiness assessment, and Texas Instruments Education Technology (TI), a division of the global semiconductor company, today announced a comprehensive partnership aimed at empowering students to achieve their best performance on the ACT mathematics test.

    This initiative brings together two education leaders to provide innovative resources and tools that maximize student potential. The partnership will start by providing:

    • A new dedicated online resource center featuring co-branded instructional videos demonstrating optimal use of TI calculators during the ACT mathematics test.
    • Additional study materials featuring TI calculators to help students build upon and apply their mathematical knowledge while maximizing their time on the ACT test.
    • Professional development programs for teachers focused on effective calculator-based testing strategies.

    “This partnership represents our commitment to providing students with the tools and resources they need to demonstrate their mathematical knowledge effectively,” said Andrew Taylor, Senior Vice President of Educational Solutions and International, ACT, “By working with Texas Instruments, we’re ensuring students have access to familiar, powerful technology tools during this important assessment.”

    “Texas Instruments is proud to partner with ACT to support student success,” said Laura Chambers, President at Texas Instruments Education Technology. “Our calculator technology, combined with targeted instructional resources, will help students showcase their true mathematical abilities during the ACT test.” 

    The new resources are available now to students and educators on the ACT website www.act.org under ACT Math Calculator Tips.

    About ACT

    ACT is transforming college and career readiness pathways so that everyone can discover and fulfill their potential. Grounded in more than 65 years of research, ACT’s learning resources, assessments, research, and work-ready credentials are trusted by students, job seekers, educators, schools, government agencies, and employers in the U.S. and around the world to help people achieve their education and career goals at every stage of life. Visit us at https://www.act.org/.  

    About Texas Instruments

    Texas Instruments Education Technology (TI) — the gold standard for excellence in math — provides exam-approved graphing calculators and interactive STEM technology. TI calculators and accessories drive student understanding and engagement without adding to online distractions. We are committed to empowering teachers, inspiring students and supporting real learning in classrooms everywhere. For more information, visit education.ti.com.

    Texas Instruments Incorporated (Nasdaq: TXN) is a global semiconductor company that designs, manufactures and sells analog and embedded processing chips for markets such as industrial, automotive, personal electronics, enterprise systems and communications equipment. At our core, we have a passion to create a better world by making electronics more affordable through semiconductors. This passion is alive today as each generation of innovation builds upon the last to make our technology more reliable, more affordable and lower power, making it possible for semiconductors to go into electronics everywhere. Learn more at TI.com.

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

    Source link

  • How CTE inspires long and fulfilling careers

    How CTE inspires long and fulfilling careers

    This post originally published on iCEV’s blog, and is republished here with permission.

    A career-centered education built on real experience

    One of the most transformative aspects of Career and Technical Education is how it connects learning to real life. When students understand that what they’re learning is preparing them for long and fulfilling careers, they engage more deeply. They build confidence, competence, and the practical skills employers seek in today’s competitive economy.

    I’ve seen that transformation firsthand, both as a teacher and someone who spent two decades outside the classroom as a financial analyst working with entrepreneurs. I began teaching Agricultural Science in 1987, but stepped away for 20 years to gain real-world experience in banking and finance. When I returned to teaching, I brought those experiences with me, and they changed the way I taught.

    Financial literacy in my Ag classes was not just another chapter in the curriculum–it became a bridge between the classroom and the real world. Students were not just completing assignments; they were developing skills that would serve them for life. And they were thriving. At Rio Rico High School in Arizona, we embed financial education directly into our Ag III and Ag IV courses. Students not only gain technical knowledge but also earn the Arizona Department of Education’s Personal Finance Diploma seal. I set a clear goal: students must complete their certifications by March of their senior year. Last year, 22 students achieved a 100% pass rate.

    Those aren’t just numbers. They’re students walking into the world with credentials, confidence, and direction. That’s the kind of outcome only CTE can deliver at scale.

    This is where curriculum systems designed around authentic, career-focused content make all the difference. With the right structure and tools, educators can consistently deliver high-impact instruction that leads to meaningful, measurable outcomes.

    CTE tools that work

    Like many teachers, I had to adapt quickly when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. I transitioned to remote instruction with document cameras, media screens, and Google Classroom. That’s when I found iCEV. I started with a 30-day free trial, and thanks to the support of their team, I was up and running fast. 

    iCEV became the adjustable wrench in my toolbox: versatile, reliable, and used every single day. It gave me structure without sacrificing flexibility. Students could access content independently, track their progress, and clearly see how their learning connected to real-world careers.

    But the most powerful lesson I have learned in CTE has nothing to do with tech or platforms. It is about trust. My advice to any educator getting started with CTE? Don’t start small. Set the bar high. Trust your students. They will rise. And when they do, you’ll see how capable they truly are.

    From classroom to career: The CTE trajectory

    CTE offers something few other educational pathways can match: a direct, skills-based progression from classroom learning to career readiness. The bridge is built through internships, industry partnerships, and work-based learning: components that do more than check a box. They shape students into adaptable, resilient professionals.

    In my program, students leave with more than knowledge. They leave with confidence, credentials, and a clear vision for their future. That’s what makes CTE different. We’re not preparing students for the next test. We’re preparing them for the next chapter of their lives.

    These opportunities give students a competitive edge. They introduce them to workplace dynamics, reinforce classroom instruction, and open doors to mentorship and advancement. They make learning feel relevant and empowering.

    As explored in the broader discussion on why the world needs CTE, the long-term impact of CTE extends far beyond individual outcomes. It supports economic mobility, fills critical workforce gaps, and ensures that learners are equipped not only for their first job, but for the evolution of work across their lifetimes.

    CTE educators as champions of opportunity

    Behind every successful student story is an educator or counselor who believed in their potential and provided the right support at the right time. As CTE educators, we’re not just instructors; we are workforce architects, building pipelines from education to employment with skill and heart.

    We guide students through certifications, licenses, career clusters, and postsecondary options. We introduce students to nontraditional career opportunities that might otherwise go unnoticed, and we ensure each learner is on a path that fits their strengths and aspirations.

    To sustain this level of mentorship and innovation, educators need access to tools that align with both classroom needs and evolving industry trends. High-quality guides provide frameworks for instruction, career planning, and student engagement, allowing us to focus on what matters most: helping every student achieve their full potential.

    Local roots, national impact

    When we talk about long and fulfilling careers, we’re also talking about the bigger picture:  stronger local economies, thriving communities, and a workforce that’s built to last.

    CTE plays a vital role at every level. It prepares students for in-demand careers that support their families, power small businesses, and fill national workforce gaps. States that invest in high-quality CTE programs consistently see the return: lower dropout rates, higher postsecondary enrollment, and greater job placement success.

    But the impact goes beyond metrics. When one student earns a certification, that success ripples outward—it lifts families, grows businesses, and builds stronger communities.

    CTE isn’t just about preparing students for jobs. It’s about giving them purpose. And when we invest in that purpose, we invest in long-term progress.

    Empowering the next generation with the right tools

    Access matters. The best ideas and strategies won’t create impact unless they are available, affordable, and actionable for the educators who need them. That’s why it’s essential for schools to explore resources that can strengthen their existing programs and help them grow.

    A free trial offers schools a way to explore these solutions without risk—experiencing firsthand how career-centered education can fit into their unique context. For those seeking deeper insights, a live demo can walk teams through the full potential of a platform built to support student success from day one.

    When programs are equipped with the right tools, they can exceed minimum standards. They can transform the educational experience into a launchpad for lifelong achievement.

    CTE is more than a pathway. It is a movement driven by student passion, educator commitment, and a collective belief in the value of hard work and practical knowledge. Every certification earned, every skill mastered, and every student empowered brings us closer to a future built on long and fulfilling careers for everyone.

    For more news on career readiness, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Former Professor on How New College of Florida Lost Its Way

    Former Professor on How New College of Florida Lost Its Way

    Amy Reid spent more than 30 years at New College of Florida, where she served as a professor of French and the founder and director of the gender studies program. Her relatively secure employment as a tenured professor emboldened her to become one of the most outspoken critics of the conservative effort to transform NCF into a “Hillsdale College of the South,” led by then-interim president Richard Corcoran, who was hired by a swath of conservative trustees installed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in 2023.

    That same year, Reid was elected to serve as faculty representative on the Board of Trustees; she voted against Corcoran’s appointment to be the college’s permanent president and pushed back against numerous policies, including an effort by the administration to use the faculty to help enforce gendered bathroom laws.

    Last month, Corcoran denied a recommendation from the New College provost that Reid be granted emerita status at the college, citing Reid’s advocacy for faculty and academic freedom, which he described as “hyperbolic alarmism and needless obstruction.” In response, the New College Alumni Association Board of Directors made Reid an honorary alum.

    Since taking unpaid leave in August 2024 and then retiring a year later, Reid has brought her talents and penchant for advocacy to PEN America, a nonprofit focused on fighting education censorship and protecting press freedom.

    Inside Higher Ed spoke with Reid over Zoom about her experience as the faculty representative on the New College Board of Trustees, the transformation of the public liberal arts college and expanding efforts by Florida conservatives to censor faculty speech.

    The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: Before you became faculty representative on the Board of Trustees at New College, the previous representative quit in protest. What motivated you to pursue the role and what were you hoping to do with it?

    A: Things had been contentious on campus. Frankly, that’s an understatement. When the new board members were appointed that January [2023], they described their arrival on campus as a “siege”—using military language. So I began organizing with other faculty members and providing support to students so that they could respond to the rapid changes on campus, changes that included the immediate firing of our president [Patricia Okker], and then, over the coming weeks, a number of key leaders; the censoring of student speech and chalking on campus; the denial of tenure to a number of very qualified faculty.

    I started holding weekly teas for students, providing them a place to ask questions and to be heard and also to have cookies. So working with my colleagues and providing support for students were the two things that I really wanted to do.

    As a senior member of the faculty and as the leader of the gender studies program, I felt like I had a particular responsibility to speak up on campus. I knew that colleagues of mine who were not tenured couldn’t necessarily do that, so I tried to speak up for my community. And after Matt Lipinski resigned from the Board of Trustees and from his faculty position [after the board denied tenure to five professors], he actually reached out and asked me to stand for election as chair of the faculty, because I’d been both working in collaboration with others through the union and also because of my outspokenness as director of the gender studies program. So after talking with other colleagues, I agreed to stand for election in collaboration with two other colleagues.

    Q: What was the initial reception from the board when you joined?

    A: What I really remember, actually, was the real support that I had from colleagues and students and alums. So yes, there was a certain amount of tension with certain members of the Board of Trustees. There were people on the board who did reach out in friendly and professional ways—greeting me at meetings, things like that—but really I had strong support from faculty, alums and students, and that’s what mattered.

    Q: Do you think you were successful in the faculty representative role?

    A: That’s really a challenging question, and it depends on what metrics you want to use. I think I did a good job of raising serious questions and concerns in the trustee meetings, even if my votes were not often on the winning side. I always brought my integrity with me, and as an educator, that was really important to me. I think I was able to help rally faculty around various policy proposals that we put forth, because my job wasn’t just in the Board of Trustees, it was also in the management of the faculty, which meant multiple meetings every week about budgets and other administrative issues.

    There was a lot of work there behind the scenes to support faculty, to support the curriculum and also to advocate for students in a number of ways. I know that students and faculty and alums felt that they could reach out to me about their concerns, that they knew I would listen and respond. When people spoke at Board of Trustees meetings, I paid attention and took notes on all of the people who came to speak. In that way, I think I was effective, but frankly, the votes on the board were stacked.

    Q: When you resigned, you said that the “New College where you once taught no longer existed.” Was there a specific moment that tanked your faith in New College leadership?

    A: It’s really not about a loss of faith in the new leadership. Richard Corcoran came in with a set of ideas about how he wanted to change the campus, to change what one trustee called the “hormonal and political balance on campus.” And Corcoran followed through on that. I can point first to the firing of valuable and dedicated campus leaders, including President Patricia Okker, the dean of diversity, the campus research librarian. [I can also point to] the denial of tenure to six very qualified and effective faculty, the chasing away of over 30 percent of the faculty and about 100 students—and that’s a real record for the first eight months of this administration.

    Then you have the painting over of student art on campus, the replacement of grass with Astroturf and the plowing down of hundreds of trees along the bay front. You have the wasting of millions of dollars of state funds on bloated administrative salaries and portable dorms that were uninhabitable within three months due to mold. You have the abolishing of the gender studies program in the summer of 2023, the erasure of our budget, our eviction from our campus office in December of 2023. The imposition of a rigid and limited core curriculum in spring of 2024. The withholding of diplomas from a cohort of students in May 2024, the wholesale destruction of the student-led gender and diversity center in August 2024. That was a student-led space with a collection of books that had been curated by students for over 30 years, all thrown in the dumpster.

    So not one moment, but a lot. But what I still have faith in, even today, is the determination of students and alums to pursue an education that embodies academic freedom, which I understand is the right of students to pursue an education free from government censorship. And also, I have great faith in those faculty who are remaining, who support the New College academic mission and who are doing their best day in and day out to support our students.

    Q: Were you surprised when Corcoran denied the dean’s recommendation to grant you emerita status?

    A: Not really. I’d say it’s par for the course, but I was surprised that he was so up front about his reasons. In his statement, he noted that despite my record of achievement as a teacher and a researcher, it was my advocacy for the college—my opposition to him—that was the problem. So now he’s on the record explicitly as punishing speech, and that is stunning.

    What happened to me is just one small thing, but it reflects a pattern of censorship on the campus that needs to be called out. But more importantly at this moment, I really want to thank my colleagues who nominated me for emeritus status and the New College alums who adopted me as one of their own. That’s meaningful, and I am very grateful.

    Q: As a reporter, I spend a lot of time reading and writing bad news, but I’m seeing the same types of attacks on faculty speech and academic freedom that happened at New College occur at other institutions, in Florida and elsewhere. Would you say these current attacks on faculty speech are unprecedented?

    A: A lot of people have talked about this as unprecedented, but what I see is the culmination of a pattern of censorship we’ve seen playing out at state levels across the country. In Florida, in 2022, they passed House Bill 233, which allows or encourages students to surreptitiously record faculty if they intend to file a complaint against them.

    Since then, really, the state has been tightening a gag around faculty speech in myriad ways. Just in the past couple of months, we’ve seen a number of faculty sanctioned—even one emeritus professor at [University of Florida] lost his status based on complaints about his social media posts. So what’s happening now could be cast as unprecedented, but yet, it’s part of this pattern we see playing out now, not just in Florida, but across the country, where some 50 faculty members have been sanctioned or fired because of their speech or social media posts since the start of September.

    Since 2021, PEN America has been actively tracking efforts to censor speech in college and university classrooms across the country, and we’ve seen a real rise in the number of bills introduced to censor speech … and in the numbers that are being passed; 2025 was really a banner year for censorship in higher education in this country. There were a record number of gag orders passed across the country—10 of them, 10 bills that explicitly limit what can be said in college and university classrooms.

    And then there are other restrictions designed to chill faculty speech—restrictions on tenure or curricular control bills, and let’s also remember the bills that were introduced or passed to limit student protests on campus. All of those things are designed to make people afraid to speak up and to question things on campus. That’s not healthy for our education system, and it’s not healthy for our democracy. Currently, about 40 percent of the U.S. population lives in a state that has at least one state-level law restricting classroom speech at the college and university level. Is that something we’re OK with as a country? Do we really think that our First Amendment rights are that fungible?

    Source link

  • Ken Bain Changed College Teaching Forever

    Ken Bain Changed College Teaching Forever

    Is it possible for someone you’ve never met to be a mentor?

    I don’t know how else to describe Ken Bain, author of What the Best College Teachers Do, a book that transformed not just my teaching, but my entire life.

    Ken Bain passed away on Oct. 10. I first learned this news on LinkedIn from Jim Lang, who did know and was directly mentored by Ken Bain and, like the several dozen folks who offered comments on his passing—and also me—whose life and work were profoundly affected by Ken Bain’s work.

    (I also recommend checking out this episode of Bonni Stachowiak’s Teaching in Higher Ed podcast, which remembers Ken Bain and provides links to his multiple appearances on the show.)

    I read an advance copy of What The Best College Teachers Do sometime in early 2004 in a period where I was starting to question the folklore of teaching I had absorbed as a student and graduate assistant, and it immediately changed how I thought about my own work, kicking off a process of consideration and experimentation around teaching writing that continues to this day.

    What the Best College Teachers Do reflects more than a decade of study and is entirely based in observations of teaching, teaching materials, student responses and reflections, interviews and other sources, filtered through various lenses (history, literary analysis, sociology, ethnography, investigative journalism) to draw both big conclusions about not just what teachers do, but how they think, how they relate to students, how they view their work and how they evolve their approaches.

    The method is relentlessly qualitative rather than quantitative, and it can be straightforwardly adapted to one’s own work.

    At least that’s how I used the book. Looking through some of the text for the first time in years, I can see significant strands of What the Best College Teachers Do DNA in my writing about the writer’s practice. The lens of “doing” as the central feature of any work has been part of my personal framework for so long that I almost lost its origin, but there it is.

    One of my very first posts at Inside Higher Ed, back before I even had my own section and was merely guesting at Oronte Churm’s joint, was on What the Best College Teachers Do.

    The book is more than 20 years old, but its framing questions are evergreen and even more relevant in this AI age. The book asks and answers the following questions:

    1. What do the best teachers know and understand?
    2. How do they prepare to teach?
    3. What do they expect of their students?
    4. What do they do when they teach?
    5. How do they treat students?
    6. How do they check their progress and evaluate their efforts?

    The book helpfully encapsulates the study’s findings under these categories, and as bullet points of good teaching practice they are spot-on. But I am also here to testify that they are not a substitute for the full experience of reading What the Best College Teachers Do, because the act of reading the specific illustrations and examples that gave rise to these findings allows for the individual to reflect on their own practices relative to others.

    The first thing I did after reading and absorbing What the Best College Teachers Do was change my attendance policy to no longer punish students based on a maximum number of absences. I’d engaged in this practice because it had been handed down as conventional wisdom: If you don’t police student attendance, they won’t show up. Bain’s best teachers challenged this conventional wisdom.

    The positive effects were immediate. I stepped up my game in terms of making sure class was viewed by students as productive and necessary. My mood improved, as I no longer stewed over students who were pushing their luck in terms of absences, daring me to dock their overall semester grade.

    Attendance went up! I asked students about this, and they said that when a class says you “get four absences” they were treating that as a kind of permission (or even encouragement) to go ahead and miss four classes. Student agency and self-responsibility increased. If they missed a class, they knew what they had to do, and it didn’t involve me.

    The experiments continued, leading ultimately to the writer’s practice and my embrace of alternative assessment, developments that made me a much more effective instructor and now, improbably, someone invited to colleges and universities to share his expertise on these subjects.

    It would not have happened without the work and mentorship of Ken Bain, mentorship I experienced entirely through reading his book.

    I worry that mentorship is going to be further eroded by AI, particularly if entry-level jobs with their apprenticeship tasks are now completed through automation, rather than by working with other, more experienced humans. The enthusiasm for letting large language models compress texts into summaries rather than reading the full work of another unique intelligence is also a threat.

    My conviction that our way forward through the challenge of AI is rooted in deeply examining the experiences of learning and fostering those experiences for students only grows stronger by the day. What the Best College Teachers Do is experiences all the way down, a book of observations conveyed in such a way that allows us to make use of them, literally, in what we do.

    A great man. A great mentor. Ken Bain’s work will live on through the many pedagogues he’s inspired.

    Source link

  • Transitioning to the Agentic University 2026–27

    Transitioning to the Agentic University 2026–27

    The dramatic enhancement in the capability of AI as it moves from bots to agents will bring about efficiencies and have a far greater impact on the day-to-day operations, strategies and effectiveness of our institutions. We will become less expensive, more personalized and more responsive to students and employers. Those are big claims, so for this column, I turned to my personal assistant, Google Gemini 2.5 Pro on Nov. 1, 2025, to help me with identifying the pathway to those outcomes.

    Caveats

    In this article, I can only hit the high points along the way in developing an agentic AI–enhanced university. This is merely a broad-brush, incomplete view that each university should adjust and enhance in order to meet its structures and needs. I also encourage you to read the valuable McKinsey article “Deploying agentic AI with safety and security: A playbook for technology leaders,” published on Oct. 15, 2025, for important security and safety information.

    Gemini Pro prefaced its recommendations with:

    This is the central strategic challenge for the next 36 months. The institution has successfully navigated the first wave—generative AI, which is about creating content. You are right to be concerned about the second, more powerful wave: agentic AI, which is about taking action.

    Where generative AI is a research assistant, an agentic AI is a 24/7, autonomous project manager. It can understand a high-level goal (e.g., “increase retention for first-generation students”), create a multi-step plan, execute that plan across different software systems and learn from its mistakes without constant human prompting.

    Competitors will use this to create profound operational efficiencies and new, hyper-personalized student services. The institutions that wait will be competing on price and quality against a rival that has automated its back office and given every student a personal AI adviser.

    This will take significant thought and planning across the university. It will be important that we include all members of the university community to make this a coordinated, comprehensive change that will significantly advance the efficiency, effectiveness and relevance of the institution. Timing is important. We must begin immediately if we hope to have major changes in place before the end of 2027. Let’s begin!

    First Half of 2026 Foundation and Vision

    We will need an executive task force with the knowledge, resources and shared vision to accomplish this task. Gemini recommends we be sure to include:

    • Chief information officer: To map the data and systems.
    • Chief financial officer: To identify cost-saving opportunities and fund pilots.
    • Provost: To champion the academic quality and student-facing initiatives.
    • VP of enrollment: To represent the entire student life cycle (recruitment to alumni).
    • VP of operations: To represent the “back office” (HR, grounds, facilities).

    The executive task force will want to set up opportunities for input and support of the initiative. Perhaps the first step will be to seek ideas of whether the first order of priority should be quality improvement (hyperpersonalization of services to the learners) or cost efficiency (operational excellence). Both of these will be needed in the long run in order to survive the agent-enabled competition that will be both of higher quality and less expensive. In seeking input on this choice, universitywide awareness can be fostered. Perhaps a broad university forum could be scheduled on the topic with smaller, targeted follow-ups with faculty, staff, students, administrators and external stakeholder groups scheduled as the initiative proceeds.

    One of the first steps of the executive task force will be to perform a universitywide Agent Readiness Audit. Since agents run on data and processes, we need to identify any data silos and process bottlenecks. These will be among our first priorities to ensure that agents can perform work smoothly and efficiently. Resolving these may also be among the most time-consuming changes. However, removing these data roadblocks can begin to show immediate progress in responsiveness and efficiency.

    Second Half of 2026 Into Spring 2027 Pilot and Infrastructure

    Gemini suggests that a good starting point in the summer of 2026 would be to set up two pilots:

    • Cost-Saving Pilot: The Facilities Agent
    • Goal: Reduce energy and maintenance costs.
    • Action: An AI agent integrates with the campus event schedule, weather forecasts and the building HVAC/lighting systems. It autonomously adjusts climate control and lighting for actual use, not just a fixed timer. It also fields all maintenance requests, triages them and dispatches staff or robotic mowers/vacuums automatically.
    • Quality-Improvement Pilot Example: The Proactive Adviser Agent
    • Goal: Improve retention for at-risk students.
    • Action: An agent monitors student data in real time (LMS engagement, attendance, early grade-book data). It doesn’t replace the human adviser. It acts as their assistant, flagging a student who is at risk before the midterm and autonomously executing a plan: sending a nudge, offering to schedule a tutoring session and summarizing the risk profile for the human adviser to review.

    Our most significant centralized expense will be to set up a secure digital sandbox. The pilots cannot live on a faculty member’s laptop. The CIO must lead the creation of a central, secure platform. This sandbox is a secure environment where AI agents can be developed, tested and given access to the university’s core data APIs (e.g., SIS, LMS and ERP).

    Gemini reminds me that, concurrently, we must set up a new entity. The generative AI rules were about plagiarism. The agentic AI rules must be about liability. The new entity is a kind of Agent Accountability Framework. It deals with policy questions such as:

    • Who is responsible when an agent gives a student incorrect financial aid advice?
    • What is the off-switch when an agent-driven workflow (like course wait lists) creates an inequitable outcome? Who has authority to flip the switch?
    • By whom and how are an agent’s actions audited?

    Implementation Across University Through Fall 2027

    There will be many personnel and staffing topics to address. By the summer of 2027, we should be well on the way to refining roles and position descriptions of employees. The emphasis should be efficient, enhanced redesign of roles rather than staffing cuts. Some cuts will come from normal turnover as staff find more attractive opportunities or retire. In most cases, employees will become much more productive, handing off their redundant, lower-level work to agents. For example, Gemini Pro envisions:

    • The admissions counselor who used to answer 500 identical emails now manages a team of AI agents that handle the routine questions, freeing the counselor to spend one-on-one time with high-priority applicants.
    • The IT help desk technician no longer resets passwords. The technicians now train the AI agent on how to troubleshoot new software and directly handle only the most complex, level-three issues.
    • The human adviser now manages a caseload of 500 students (not 150), because the AI assistant handles 90 percent of the administrative churn, allowing the adviser to focus on high-impact mentoring.

    Gemini Pro suggests that this approach can result in a higher-quality, more efficient university that will be able to compete in the years ahead. The final step is the most critical and is the job of everyone, from the president and board on down. We must champion a culture where AI agents are seen as collaborators, not replacements. This is a human-AI “co-bot” workforce.

    The institutions that win in 2027 will be those that successfully trained their managers to lead mixed teams of human and AI employees. This is the single greatest competitive advantage one can build.

    This framework will position the university not just to survive the agentic AI wave but to lead it, creating an institution that is both more efficient and, critically, more human-centered.

    Source link