Tag: Education

  • More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    More Colleges Promise Grads Employment, Grad School Placement

    For some students, enrolling in college can feel like a gamble due to the high cost and lack of a clear career at the end of the program. But a growing number of colleges and universities are guaranteeing students will land a job or graduate program slot within months of graduation.

    Bethel University in St. Paul is the latest to make such a promise; Bethel’s Career Commitment provides students in the College of Arts & Sciences with additional assistance if they are still unemployed or not enrolled in graduate school six months after graduation—including by offering a tuition-free spot in a graduate-level Bethel course or a staff job at the university. 

    The trend indicates a growing awareness among institutions of their responsibility to provide students with career-development opportunities, as well as their recognition that a lack of institutional support can impact the college’s perceived value.

    State of play: Nationally, institutions of higher education are struggling to demonstrate value to the public, including prospective students, parents and lawmakers. Much of the trepidation comes from a lack of transparency regarding colleges’ high cost of attendance and the mountain of student loan debt Americans hold, as well as high unemployment and underemployment rates among graduates.

    A recent survey by Tyton Partners found that among students who believe college is worth the cost, 95 percent think higher education is preparing them well for jobs and careers.

    In general, students give fair ratings to the work campuses are currently doing to prepare them for their professional lives. A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that the plurality of students rate their institution’s efforts in career development as “average” (34 percent), 44.6 percent combined consider their college “good” or “excellent,” and 18 percent said poor or below average.

    Today’s college students are also eyeing a competitive job market during an economic downturn, as well as pressures from evolving technologies, such as generative artificial intelligence, that threaten entry-level roles.

    Embedding career development throughout the curriculum or as a graduation requirement is becoming more common, encouraging students to think about life after college earlier and in more meaningful ways so they aren’t caught unprepared when senior spring rolls around.

    Previous research shows that students engaged in career development are more likely to secure a job; a 2022 survey by the National Association of Colleges and Employers found that students who engaged with their career center received more job offers than their peers who didn’t. But some structural barriers can hinder students’ ability to participate in career activities, including off-campus work, caregiving responsibilities or lack of awareness of services. Internships are also increasingly competitive, leaving some students behind.

    How it works: A key piece of the Bethel Career Commitment is that students must undertake significant measures to advance their own career before the university will open additional doors of support.

    Students must complete four “phases” of career preparation prior to graduation to be eligible for a spot in Bethel’s career commitment plan. The elements include creating a Handshake profile, meeting with a career-development coach and participating in an internship. And after they earn their degree, students must meet with a career coach monthly and apply for at least 20 jobs per month to complete the final phase.

    In addition, students must have a minimum 3.0 GPA, be in good financial standing with the university and be willing to relocate.

    For students who don’t meet all the eligibility requirements, the university provides postgraduation career support in the form of coaching, Bethel University president Ross Allen told Inside Higher Ed.

    “Today, 99 percent of Bethel graduates are employed or in graduate school within a year, so we expect a small number of graduates will need the additional postgraduation support,” Allen said.

    He anticipates that graduate-level credits will often be “the most helpful next step vocationally,” but the university may offer short-term employment opportunities to students based on staffing needs, Allen said.

    A national picture: Other institutions, including Thomas College in Maine, Davenport University in Michigan, Curry College in Massachusetts and the University of Tulsa, guarantee their graduates employment, also on the condition that students participate in career development while enrolled.

    At Davenport, for example, students in select majors who earn a 3.0 GPA, complete an internship or experiential learning opportunity, and participate in extracurricular activities are supported by the DU Employment Guarantee. The plan allows students to enroll in 48 additional credits tuition-free in a graduate, undergraduate or professional program at the university, as well as participate in career coaching and recruitment efforts.

    At Curry College, students who opt into the Curry Commitment receive assistance with federal student loans for up to 12 months. They are also given a paid internship or a tuition waiver for six credits of graduate studies at the institution. To be eligible, a student must participate in career advising, workshops and résumé development; earn at least a 2.8 GPA; and graduate within four years.

    None of these institutions differentiates among the types of job a student may secure—making no distinction between a part-time role or one that doesn’t require a bachelor’s degree—leaving some questions about the underemployment of college graduates.

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

    Source link

  • Roll up roll up for the great higher education fire sale

    Roll up roll up for the great higher education fire sale

    Since the announcement, most eyes interested in “radical transformation” have been on the creation of a new “super-university” – Greenwich and Kent becoming the London and South East University Group.

    But The Times is reporting a very different kind of tie-up – which if it comes to pass could have much more interesting implications.

    It says that the University of Buckingham, the UK’s only “independent” university, is considering a £150 million sale to Global University Systems (GUS).

    It suggests that the potential sale could compromise the university’s Royal Charter, non-profit status, and academic integrity – risking its identity as a “free speech and research-focused institution”.

    Precedented

    If that sounds and feels “unprecedented”, you may not have noticed the extent to which everything from research parks to student accommodation are already (part or fully-)owned by private companies.

    You may also not have noticed any number of mergers, takeovers and fire sales among small private HE providers – many of which specialise in the kinds of franchised provision that have been generating considerable regulatory interest in recent months.

    There’s also Richmond, the American University in London. When founder Sir Cyril Taylor died in 2018, he bequeathed his for-profit company (American Institute for Foreign Study) to his own charitable foundation (Cyril Taylor Charitable Foundation).

    It created what former vice chancellor Lawrence Abeln called a charity “operating like a shell for a commercial company it wholly owns” – allowing commercial interests to control educational decisions through charitable structures while maintaining the appearance of independence.

    Abeln argued that the foundation used funding as leverage to demand governance changes, including his forced resignation, threatening the university’s survival unless commercial interests were satisfied.

    It mirrors concerns about the potential Buckingham sale – that once charitable educational institutions become dependent on private sector funding or ownership, academic independence becomes vulnerable to commercial priorities.

    Even when the charitable structure remains intact, the substance of independent governance can be hollowed out, creating what critics might term a “stealth privatisation” where commercial control operates behind charitable facades.

    Any number of things could be going on behind the scenes that already resemble that in universities that have breached, or are close to breaching, their banking covenants.

    But the wholescale takeover of a university with a Royal Charter? Really?

    We work at supplying HE

    Back in 2020, five men registered a UK company called “GGE UK Newco” in a WeWork near London Fields. Within four months, it had acquired university title, degree awarding powers, and registration with the Office for Students – a process that typically takes years for new higher education providers.

    The company pulled this off by purchasing the assets of the former Regent’s University London charity, including its degree awarding powers (awarded in 2012) and university title (granted in 2013). On September 29th, GGE UK Newco changed its name to “Regent’s University London Limited,” becoming the wholly-owned product of a partnership between the original Regent’s University and Galileo Global Education, a large international education provider with over 110,000 students worldwide.

    The transaction appeared to have bypassed normal regulatory processes entirely. While new providers typically wait around 180 days and must pass a Quality and Standards Review, no such review appeared to have been conducted for Regent’s University London Limited. OfS was largely silent on the specifics, raising real questions about transparency and whether standard due diligence procedures were followed.

    As DK noted at the time, the case was interesting insofar as it suggested that university titles and degree awarding powers can effectively be bought and sold as assets. With some independent providers still waiting on registration decisions, the apparent fast-tracking raised concerns about fairness and regulatory consistency, potentially setting a precedent for more financially-motivated restructuring in the sector.

    And there’s more

    Scroll forward to March 2023, when IU Group acquired the education and training activities of the London Institute of Banking and Finance through a structural split.

    The original Royal Charter charity was renamed “The London Foundation for Banking & Finance (LFBF)” and continues as a charitable foundation, while the commercial education business now operates as “LIBF Limited” (a wholly owned UK subsidiary of IU Group) trading under the original name “The London Institute of Banking & Finance.”

    That preserved the charitable Royal Charter structure while transferring the degree-awarding educational operations to private ownership.

    Then in 2014, struggling Ashridge Business School was acquired by Hult International Business School in what was described as both a merger and acquisition driven by Ashridge’s need for “financial salvation.” Hult provided a £50 million investment, and the schools completed an operational merger in 2015.

    Ashridge now operates as “Hult Ashridge Executive Education” – the executive education arm of Hult International Business School, with the historic Ashridge House estate serving as Hult’s flagship executive education campus. Unlike LIBF, this was a complete absorption rather than a structural split, with Ashridge’s independent existence ending as it became part of Hult’s global network of campuses across Boston, London, Dubai, Shanghai, San Francisco, and New York.

    And then there’s the College of Law.

    It can trace its origins to 1876 with the formation of Gibson & Weldon, a leading tutorial firm. In 1962, The Law Society created The College of Law by merging its own Law Society School of Law (founded in 1903) with Gibson & Weldon, establishing it as a specialist institution for training solicitors.

    It was formally incorporated by Royal Charter on 5 December 1975 and registered as a charity in May 1976, with the stated aim “to promote the advancement of legal education and the study of law in all its branches.” This gave it constitutional status as a chartered institution dedicated to legal education. And in 2006, it was granted degree-awarding powers by the Privy Council.

    So when it was sold to Montagu Private Equity for around £200 million in 2012, the transaction revealed just how valuable degree-awarding powers had become as tradeable assets.

    The deal involved splitting the institution – the original College of Law retained its Royal Charter and charitable status under a new Legal Education Foundation, while the commercial education business, crucially including those 2006 degree-awarding powers, moved to a newly created for-profit company called “The University of Law Limited” (originally incorporated as “Col Subco No.1 Limited”).

    DAPs, it seemed, could now be packaged and sold as part of a commercial education business – degree-awarding powers as an asset class.

    At the time, constitutional lawyers questioned how powers granted to a Royal Charter body could legitimately transfer to what was essentially a separate company. But the then responsible Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) maintained that the powers remained valid because the “whole education and training business” had moved to the new entity. The precedent was set – and so in 2015, when the University of Law was acquired by GUS, its valuable degree-awarding powers travelled with it as part of the commercial package.

    Or take Arden. Originally founded as Resource Development International (RDI) in 1990 by entrepreneur John Holden, the distance learning provider was sold to US-based Capella Education in 2011 as part of Capella’s international expansion strategy. The timing proved crucial – RDI was granted Taught Degree Awarding Powers in April 2014, gained full university status in August 2015, and was immediately put back on the market when Capella’s international strategy faltered.

    By August 2016, GUS acquired Arden for £15 million – demonstrating how rapidly degree-awarding powers could travel through corporate hands. The transaction showed DAPs functioning specifically as tradeable assets – Capella had effectively acquired a company that later gained valuable regulatory permissions, then sold those permissions onwards as part of a portfolio optimisation. For GUS, acquiring Arden provided another set of degree-awarding powers to add to its growing collection, which already included the University of Law.

    Royal charters

    But the potential Buckingham sale arguably represents a qualitatively different proposition from previous transactions. While ULaw, LIBF, Ashridge, and Richmond were specialist institutions operating in commercial-adjacent sectors – professional training, banking education, executive development, or niche international provision – Buckingham is the UK’s flagship independent university, purpose-built to demonstrate that alternatives to state higher education could thrive.

    Established in 1976 and granted its Royal Charter in 1983, Buckingham has operated successfully for over four decades as Thatcher’s “proof of concept” for educational independence. Unlike the struggling institutions that sought private sector rescue or the professional training providers that already operated in quasi-commercial spaces, in theory the sale of Buckingham would represent the commodification of the university ideal itself.

    It would also signal that even the most symbolically important Charter institutions – those created explicitly to preserve educational independence – could be subject to market forces when financial incentives align.

    Whether structured as a direct sale or following a version of a model of splitting charitable and commercial operations, a Buckingham transaction would force regulators to confront fundamental questions they’ve previously avoided. The Office for Students, the Privy Council and potentially the Charity Commission would need to justify why the commercialisation of Britain’s flagship independent university serves the public interest.

    If it happens, regardless of the technicalities of its legal structure, it would also establish that Royal Charter status provides no meaningful protection against commercialization, making virtually any institution a potential acquisition target – completing the evolution of degree-awarding powers from constitutional privileges into tradeable corporate assets.

    Back to the future

    As Mary Synge demonstrates in her analysis of university charity law regulation, universities are charities whose trustees have a fundamental legal duty to act “in the best interests of the charity” – not commercial interests, and not even student interests – at least as variously defined by politicians.

    When charitable assets and degree-awarding powers become tradeable commodities, this feels like a fundamental breach of charity law principles that have governed universities for centuries. The strategic goals of “maximising growth in income” that might benefit institutional finances are legally distinct from – and potentially in conflict with – acting in the charity’s best interests for public benefit.

    But the regulatory conditions that make the Buckingham sale possible have been deliberately created. Synge’s research shows how OfS has systematically weakened charity law oversight compared to its predecessor HEFCE, removing transparency requirements, diluting governance standards, and abandoning serious incident reporting.

    Where HEFCE demanded universities demonstrate compliance with charity law principles, OfS has reduced this to a mailing list subscription. The regulatory hollowing-out creates the conditions where transactions that should trigger intensive charity law scrutiny can proceed with minimal oversight.

    When the regulator tasked with promoting charity law compliance barely acknowledges charity law exists, constitutional protections become meaningless.

    Back to the future

    As ever, we’ve been here before – or at least the FE sector has. Back in 2016, FE Week got hold of a leaked government document that revealed the Department for Education (DfE) was actively planning for private sector acquisition of failing FE colleges.

    A draft “Framework for due diligence in the FE sector following area reviews” (a process which itself had nudged/inspired/funded a series of mergers and groups) specifically addressed the “acquisition of an FE college by a private sector organisation,” noting that private providers “may have different benchmarks and parameters as to what is acceptable in terms of both curriculum and financial performance.”

    BIS guidance published that March had already unveiled government plans to introduce an insolvency regime for colleges, explicitly stating that following area reviews, government would “no longer bail out colleges in financial trouble, but would instead allow them to go bust.” Sound familiar?

    Critics warned of potential “fire sales” where private equity firms could asset-strip college buildings and facilities, cherry-picking profitable courses while abandoning community obligations. And the University and College Union (UCU) pointed to American examples of private equity involvement leading to “derisory rates of graduation, crushing levels of debt and of course dubious value.”

    The Technical and Further Education Bill (2016) created a “Special Administration Regime” for FE – essentially corporate insolvency procedures for FE colleges with an “education objective” twist. One battle during debate on the Bill came when Labour’s Gordon Marsden attempted to protect publicly-funded college assets from private acquisition.

    Marsden argued that FE colleges represented decades of public investment – from 1950s local authority funding through the multi-billion pound Building Colleges for the Future programme – and warned that defeat would enable private equity “asset stripping” of educational institutions built with taxpayer money.

    But then Minister Robert Halfon rejected the amendment – arguing that student protection must override asset protection, even if it meant transferring publicly-funded infrastructure to private companies. When the division was called, Conservative MPs defeated the amendment 8-5, explicitly authorising education administrators to transfer college assets to private entities if deemed necessary for the “education objective.”

    It established the principle that educational assets, regardless of their public funding history, could be commodified and transferred to private ownership when market logic demanded it.

    Here in 2026, we have a Labour, not Conservative government. It is already “interested” in what’s been going on in the franchised for-profit sector. But it doesn’t seem to have been especially keen to question what’s been going on from a profit/principle point of view. And it’s not clear that what is planned in regulatory terms will be nimble enough to tackle the real questions that surround outcomes or quality.

    As is increasingly clear, the “line” between private and public interest has already been blurred by loans, accommodation, research parks and all sorts of other aspects of HE. What the government does or doesn’t do over a potential sale of Buckingham will tell us whether it’s interested in, or willing to, draw a line before the examples in blogs like this become much less obscure.

    Source link

  • ED Reallocates MSI Funding to HBCUs, Tribal Colleges

    ED Reallocates MSI Funding to HBCUs, Tribal Colleges

    When the U.S. Department of Education abruptly ended grants for most minority-serving institutions last week, it raised questions about what the department would do with the hundreds of millions of dollars already slated for these programs. The department offered an answer Monday, announcing plans to repurpose funds from programs “not in the best interest of students and families” to historically Black colleges and universities, tribal colleges, charter schools, and civics education.

    “The department has carefully scrutinized our federal grants, ensuring that taxpayers are not funding racially discriminatory programs but those programs which promote merit and excellence in education,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement. “The Trump Administration will use every available tool to meaningfully advance educational outcomes and ensure every American has the opportunity to succeed in life.”

    The department promised to direct an extra $495 million to HBCUs and tribal colleges, on top of the funds already anticipated for fiscal year 2025—increases of 48.4 percent and 109.3 percent, respectively. In total, HBCUs are slated to receive over $1.34 billion and tribal colleges expect to receive $108 million this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The department is also giving an additional $60 million to charter schools and putting $137 million toward civics education grants. The department didn’t share more specifics on how it would allocate the funds to institutions.

    The move has been met with mixed reactions. Some HBCU advocates are celebrating the one-time influx as a game-changer for cash-starved institutions. Others’ joy is tempered by concern that the Trump administration is uplifting some MSIs at the expense of others, sowing tensions between them.

    The new funds come less than a week after the Education Department quashed grant programs for Hispanic-serving institutions and other MSIs, deeming them “unconstitutional” because they require colleges to serve a certain percentage of students from a particular racial or ethnic background to qualify. (HBCUs and tribal colleges don’t have enrollment thresholds.) This blow to MSI grants, as well as cuts to teacher prep and gifted and talented programs, is paying for the department’s recent largess, The New York Times reported, citing several anonymous sources familiar with the department’s plans.

    Lodriguez Murray, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the United Negro College Fund, which represents private HBCUs, said the funds are “nothing short of a godsend” for institutions operating on lean budgets.

    “Now, all of a sudden, [HBCUs] have much more wherewithal to do the things, not just that take you from year to year, but can make an impact on your campus,” he said. He foresees HBCUs using the funds to buy property, improve their campus infrastructure and invest in student and faculty supports in new ways.

    Murray said he doesn’t have qualms about the money coming from the slashed MSI programs.

    He claimed many of these institutions are predominantly white, tend to have higher endowments than HBCUs and serve lower shares of Pell-eligible students. (Most enrollment-based MSIs are required to serve at least 50 percent low-income students. HBCUs have no such requirement but tend to enroll at least 70 percent Pell-eligible students.)

    As far as he’s concerned, the Trump administration is channeling “resources toward the institutions that seem to need it the most—and the institutions that have a better track record at taking students from underserved backgrounds and … changing the economic outlook of their lives,” Murray said. “That is the reason why we have no pause about receiving the funds this morning.”

    Harry Williams, president and CEO of the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, which represents public HBCUs, said he wants to see other types of MSIs thrive, and at the same time, he’s excited about how the new support could help HBCU students.

    He didn’t know the Trump administration planned to drop millions on the institutions, he said. And while TMCF regularly lobbies for HBCU funding, “candidly, we have never made any recommendations about where the money should come from to the administration, because that’s their decision in terms of how they operate.”

    He said he’s “sensitive” to the challenges facing MSIs, noting that TMCF has three predominantly Black institutions among its members. TMCF put out a statement last week in support of them when the department said it was ending MSI grant programs, including PBIs.

    “We do support MSIs and PBIs and all the groups in that category and recognize the importance of them having resources, too,” he said, “but our primary focus has always been working with HBCUs.”

    Pitting MSIs Against Each Other

    Marybeth Gasman, executive director of the Rutgers Center for Minority Serving Institutions, said HBCUs and tribal colleges deserve the money.

    These institutions have “always been underfunded” and “the federal government should always be thinking about ways to enhance them, especially based on our country’s history of racism and inequities,” she said.

    But Gasman believes other types of MSIs are also deserving of these resources. She pointed out that many Hispanic-serving institutions are community colleges, and they serve about a third of the country’s students over all, not just Latino students.

    The Education Department is “trying to pit different types of minority-serving institutions against each other,” even though MSI leaders and advocacy groups have worked together for years toward similar policy goals, she said. “And that is really, really troubling … I hope people don’t fall for that.”

    Gasman noted that department officials made a “purposeful” decision to share that new funds for HBCUs and tribal colleges came from defunded programs. She called the framing of the announcement “spiteful” and said she worries for the future of the MSI community.

    “There is enough pie for all of these institutions,” she said. “It’s not like you need to take from one to feed the others.”

    Dominique Baker, associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, said the funding for HBCUs and tribal colleges, while necessary, doesn’t lead her to believe the Trump administration has their best interests at heart.

    The funds are “a nice way” for the administration to claim “they hold no racial animus, because look at all the money that they’ve given to HBCUs,” Baker said, at the same time as they crack down on diversity, equity and inclusion at predominantly white institutions.

    “It can both be true that you are providing funding to institutions that deserve funding—and you are working to ensure that the institutions that you hold in high prestige resegregate,” she added.

    Executive Branch Overreach?

    The legality of the department’s move—cutting funding for some programs to be showered on others—is also a little murky. Department officials say they are relying on “existing flexibilities in discretionary grant programs” to move the money around.

    Amanda Fuchs Miller, former deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs under the Biden administration and now president of the higher ed consultancy Seventh Street Strategies, said under statute, the department legally has the right to “reprogram” funds within an account.

    But even if department officials are following the law, she said the “intent” of reprogramming was never to end programs authorized and continually funded by Congress, like the MSI programs. And the executive branch claiming it has the authority to declare anything unconstitutional is “the real problem.” So, as far as she’s concerned, the department went out of bounds by eliminating the MSI programs and regifting their money to other institutions.

    “It’s great that the HBCUs and TCUs will get more money—they need it,” Miller said. “Those students will benefit from it. But to take away funds from one group of students to help another group of students, that’s not beneficial to anybody. We should be pushing back to help all students succeed and have these resources.”

    Source link

  • Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis Part II – Edu Alliance Journal

    Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis Part II – Edu Alliance Journal

    By Dr. Barry Ryan, September 15, 2025 – In my August 11th article titled ‘Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis,” we established that higher education leadership today cannot be solitary work and that effective crisis response requires both internal and external counsel. Now that you’ve assembled (at least thought through) your cast of trusted advisors and recognized the unique leadership demands of your situation, the next critical step is understanding what you’re actually facing—and how to navigate it successfully. Once you recognize that your organization may be entering such a time, there are three key initial questions to ask:

    1. How long can a crisis be expected to last?
    2. What are the effects of crisis on my institution, on my team, on my loved ones, and on me?
    3. What are some healthy and effective ways I can lead during crisis?

    First, how long should I expect a “typical” crisis to last?

    At first blush, it might seem a little silly to ask how long a crisis lasts. After all, isn’t that inherently unpredictable?

    The answer is “yes” and “no.” It may seem a little flippant to say, but the reality is that the length of a crisis depends to a certain degree on how you and those in leadership alongside you respond to it. Your approach and actions may make it longer or shorter than it would have been. Here’s what I mean.

    Ignoring a crisis and hoping that it blows over is actually a potential strategy—although not one that I would recommend in most circumstances. But there are some built-in roadblocks in a university’s life cycle, which is divided largely into annual, semester, or quarter segments. These can act, on their own, as speed bumps or detours that might diminish or change the course of a crisis.  

    For example, a crisis that is being instigated or aggravated by certain individuals might be relieved to some degree on its own by their departure through retirement, transfer, and so on.  Or a financial crisis might be alleviated by the structural limits on certain types of debt that will be paid off, or the inception of certain grants or gifts that are within sight. But these are, unfortunately, uncommon scenarios, and the timing may be unpredictable.

    On a global scale, one might think of Winston Churchill trying to imagine how long World War II might last. As futile as such a task might have been, he did, indeed, play out various scenarios and their likely duration. Although it makes for a great quote and probably captures an important aspect of Churchill’s thinking, he likely did not say, “When you’re going through hell, keep going.” But that’s a good reminder for anyone in crisis.

    To grossly generalize, I have found that most institutional crises last between six months and two years. Why is that? The more acute ones require quicker action, and the result is either a solution that addresses the issues promptly and efficiently, in, say, six months, and you can move on to other things. Or, failing to find a speedy solution may end with you moving on. (And I don’t mean this lightly, but the reality is that moving on is not the end of the world.)

    Why the two-year time frame, on the other end? Because I’ve found that to be about the maximum time frame that a board, or an accreditor, or a creditor, or even a faculty can endure before a solution is reached. Again, the conclusion of the crisis will either leave you in a happier and stronger position in your institution or leave you seeking happiness and a better position somewhere else. But somewhere between six months and two years is what I have found to be the rough lifespan of an intense crisis. (This is barring, of course, a truly existential crisis as a result of which the institution ceases to exist in its current form. But even that drastic of an outcome can easily take two years or more to unfold.)

    Second, what are some of the common effects, and how do you survive them?

    For the sake of argument, let’s say you become aware that you are entering a crisis period, whether or not it eventually proves to be an existential one. How do you survive in the intervening six months to two years?

    Let’s begin with the effects of a continuing crisis on a leader. The crisis can easily become an enormous distraction for someone who already has too much on their plate. The stress that comes with leadership increases in crisis times, with mental, emotional, and even physical effects. Exhaustion can become a daily (and nightly) companion.  Self-doubt creeps in and steals even more of the leader’s resources.

    It sounds trite, but when this happens, don’t forget to take a few deep breaths – physically and metaphorically. 

    Draw up a “non-crisis” item list, i.e., things that still need to be done, but aren’t necessarily at the crisis point. Now start divvying them up between and among your fellow leaders, and to their direct reports when possible. This could be an opportune time to help them grow and develop, as well as ease your load.

    Along with that, begin to excuse yourself from meetings at which your presence is not absolutely necessary. Only you really know which are and which aren’t. You may still need to attend to some that aren’t technically necessary, but that may prove helpful in crisis-related activities. Again, having trusted substitutes sit in for you for a while can be a growth opportunity for them, and also demonstrate that you trust and empower those with whom you work. When it comes to meetings, which can serve to drain you even more, perhaps adopt a practice of only making limited strategic appearances. Make your participation relevant enough and just long enough to establish your presence and help you – and your colleagues – feel like you’re staying in touch.

    Don’t forget to take some days off, or even vacations. Sad but true, don’t make them too long or too far away or somewhere too difficult for you to be reached. You’re probably not really going to relax completely anyway, but you should at least experience some benefit from a change in perspective and place. Frankly, you would do well to consider the health and happiness of your loved ones who’ve been going through this with you, and that they need a break, perhaps even more than you do. After all, you are able to face the crisis more directly, as well as possible enemies, while your loved ones have to suffer vicariously and without the same ability to engage.

    Third, how to lead during a crisis?

    There is no question that crises have deleterious effects on you, your friends and family, but also your colleagues. You undoubtedly have support and supporters (even though they may seem distant), so don’t neglect them. Their fidelity to the institution and its mission – and you – deserves appreciation and acknowledgement, even if only expressed privately. They’re worried about the institution, but also their livelihood and their colleagues as well. 

    When they see you, try not to be the deer in the headlights (a situation that doesn’t usually end well in the wild). Appearing indecisive is uninspiring. But so is being overbearing or angry.

    Try to be yourself as you were before the crisis. Remember to smile, relax the muscles of your face and neck, and ask them about their loved ones, their teaching, or their research. Be human. The thoughtful ones have an idea about what you’re feeling and going through, so it’s okay for them to see you as a human. You don’t have to adopt a fake effervescence, but you should avoid moping.

    Seek impartial counsel. That may, or may not, include colleagues. A small group of confidants is necessary. External friends who have the courage to be honest with you, and also keep complete confidence, can be your best resource to help you gain and keep perspective. They may have higher ed experience, but not necessarily. I have always found that the best counsel comes from folks who have had real challenges, real losses, survived real attacks, and still kept their heads about them. Ones that are “too perfect” are probably not what you need at this point.

    While there is a need for you to seek and obtain trustworthy counsel, you should at the same time try to avoid seeking too much counsel. Bottom line is that you’re a leader and you’re going to have to make difficult decisions. So you should accept counsel, but too much can be confusing and even overwhelming. 

    Look, you’re in a tough position and no matter what you do, some people (possibly including some people you respect and care about) are not going to be thrilled. Sad but true. And some of those feelings may change over time, as they come to a fuller perspective as well.

    My advice to leaders in crisis situations always includes two elements:

    Can you make a decision that allows you to look at yourself in the mirror? 

    Then do what you believe is right and let the chips fall where they may. Period.

    While you are a leader in a profession you may (or may not any longer) dearly love, there IS an “after.”  That may mean continuing in your post-crisis position in the same post-crisis institution, or it may mean more significant changes for you.  If so, take what you’ve learned along to whatever comes next.  Partings are rarely enjoyable, but I recall a very thoughtful young person we had to let go.  His response was remarkable.  “I want to learn from this experience and become better as a result.” When I saw him at another institution a year later, he came up to me and said that’s exactly what had transpired and that he was grateful.

    Your life, and your legacy, are much more than just this current time of crisis within this current institution. Be grateful to those who have earned that gratitude, and remember who you are.

    Dr. Barry Ryan is a seasoned higher education executive, legal scholar, and former president of five universities. He is a senior consultant for the Edu Alliance Group and a legal scholar. With more than 25 years of leadership experience, Dr. Ryan has served in numerous roles, including faculty member, department chair, dean, vice president, provost, and chief of staff at state, non-profit, and for-profit universities and law schools. His extensive accreditation experience includes two terms on the WASC Senior College and University Commission (WSCUC), serving a maximum of six years. He is widely recognized for his expertise in governance, accreditation, crisis management, and institutional renewal.

    In addition to his academic career, Dr. Ryan ​ served as the Supreme Court Fellow in the chambers of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and is a​ member of numerous federal and state bars. He has contributed extensively to charitable organizations and is experienced in board leadership and large-scale fundraising. He remains a trusted advisor to universities and boards seeking strategic alignment and transformation.

    He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, his J.D. from the University of​ California, Berkeley, and his Dipl.GB in international business from the University of Oxford.

    Edu Alliance Group, Inc. (EAG), founded in 2014, is an education consulting firm located in Bloomington, Indiana, and Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. We assist higher education institutions worldwide on a variety of mission-critical projects. Our consultants are accomplished leaders who use their experience to diagnose and solve challenges.

    EAG has provided consulting and executive search services for over 40 higher education institutions in Australia, Egypt, Georgia, India, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Nigeria, Uganda, the United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

    Source link

  • Truth as Therapy for Higher Education

    Truth as Therapy for Higher Education

    Anosognosia is the inability to recognize one’s own illness or disability. In higher education, it describes the chronic denial of a system in crisis—one that refuses to admit its own collapse.

    For decades, U.S. higher education has been sold as the great equalizer. The story was simple: borrow, study, graduate, succeed. But the data show the opposite. What we are witnessing is a long college meltdown, masked by denial at the highest levels of government, university administrations, and Wall Street.

    The Debt Trap

    • Outstanding student loan debt now exceeds $1.77 trillion, burdening more than 43 million Americans.

    • Nearly 20 percent of borrowers are in default or serious delinquency.

    • Black borrowers, especially Black women, carry the heaviest burdens and are least likely to see upward mobility from their degrees.

    • Many in income-driven repayment programs will never pay off principal, living in a permanent state of debt peonage.

    Universities and policymakers insist debt is an “investment.” But for millions, it is a generational shackle.

    The Exploited Faculty

    • More than 70 percent of college instructors are contingent.

    • Adjuncts often earn less than $3,500 per course, with no healthcare, no retirement, and no security.

    • Roughly one in four adjuncts relies on public assistance.

    Universities still market themselves as communities of scholars. In reality, they operate on the same exploitative labor practices as Uber or Amazon.

    The Employment Mismatch

    • Four in ten recent grads work in jobs that don’t require a degree.

    • One-third of graduates say their work is unrelated to their major.

    • Median real wages for college graduates have been flat for 25 years.

    Still, higher ed pushes “lifelong learning” credentials, turning underemployment into a new revenue stream.

    Prestige as Denial

    • At Ivy League universities, 40 percent of students come from the top 5 percent of households.

    • Fewer than 5 percent come from the bottom fifth.

    • Endowments soar—Harvard’s sits at $50 billion—but tuition relief and faculty wages barely budge.

    This is not mobility. It is a hereditary elite cloaked in the language of meritocracy.

    Climate Contradictions

    • Universities promote sustainability but invest billions in fossil fuels.

    • Campus expansion and luxury amenities drive up emissions, water use, and labor exploitation.

    Even here, anosognosia reigns: branding over reality.

    The Meltdown Denied

    The college meltdown has been unfolding for more than a decade:

    • Small liberal arts colleges shuttering.

    • Regional publics bleeding enrollments.

    • For-profits morphing into “nonprofits” while still funneling money to investors.

    • State funding eroded, shifting the cost to students and families.

    But instead of confronting the collapse, higher ed leaders rely on rhetoric: “innovation,” “resilience,” “access.” Like anosognosia, denial itself becomes survival.

    The Human Cost

    The denial is not harmless. It is measured in:

    • The indebted graduate delaying family formation and homeownership.

    • The adjunct commuting across counties to string together courses while living below the poverty line.

    • The working-class family betting their savings on a degree that will not deliver mobility.

    The meltdown is here. Higher education’s inability—or refusal—to admit it ensures the damage will deepen.

    Truth and Healing 

    Anosognosia prevents healing because it prevents recognition of the problem. U.S. higher education cannot admit its own disease, so it cannot begin recovery. Until it does, students, families, and workers will bear the costs of a system in denial.

    Sources

    • Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit (2025)

    • National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Digest of Education Statistics (2023)

    • American Association of University Professors (AAUP), Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession (2024)

    • Pew Research Center, The Rising Cost of Not Going to College (2023 update)

    • The Century Foundation, Adjunct Project (2022)

    • Chetty et al., Mobility Report Cards: The Role of Colleges in Intergenerational Mobility (2017, with updates)

    • IPEDS (Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System), U.S. Department of Education

    • Harvard Management Company, Endowment Report (2024)

    • Higher Education Inquirer, College Meltdown archive (2018–2025)

    Source link

  • Strategies for Personalized Learning in AI Age (opinion)

    Strategies for Personalized Learning in AI Age (opinion)

    How do we teach effectively—and humanly—in this age of AI?

    New advances in artificial intelligence break news at such a rapid pace that many of us have difficulties keeping up. Dinuka Gunaratne gave a detailed summary of many different AI tools in his “Carpe Careers” article published in July; yet more tools will likely appear in the next months and years in an exponential explosion. How do we, as educators (new and established Ph.D.s) design curriculum and classes with these new AI tools being released every few weeks? How do we design effective assignments that teach critical analysis and logical thought while knowing that our students, too, have access to these tools?

    Many existing AI tools can be used to assist with course design. However, I will provide some insight on methods of pedagogy that emphasize personalized learning regardless of what new technology becomes available.

    Some questions educators are now thinking about include:

    1. How do I design an assignment so the student cannot just prompt an AI tool to complete it?
    2. How do I design the course so that the student can choose whether or not to use AI tools—and how do I assess these two groups of students?

    Below, I outline some wise teaching practices with an eye toward helping students develop core skills including critical thinking, problem-solving, teamwork, creativity and—the most essential skill of all—curiosity.

    Making the Most Out of Class Time

    An effective course utilizes a combination of teaching strategies. I outline three here.

    1. Make sure that your class is generative so that when you give an assignment, it reaches as far back as day one. A generative learning model is one in which each week is built upon the previous one, and in which a student is assessed on the knowledge they have cumulatively accrued.
    1. Hold interactive in-person activities in each class, building upon the previous assignments and content.
    2. Flip the classroom so that class time is used for discussion and not a monologue presentation from you. If you can assign videos or reading assignments for students to view or read prior to class, then you can use class time to discuss the content or reinforce the learning with group activities.

    Here is an example of combining these tools in the buildup to a presentation from one of my classes.

    • Week 1: Each student writes and brings a one-page summary of their research so that peers can provide feedback. I provide feedback training in class before the peer readings take place.
    • Week 2: Using the peer feedback of the summary, each student creates one slide summarizing their research for a three-minute thesis (3MT) and brings the slide to class to receive peer feedback.
    • Week 3: Students practice presentation skills through an activity called “slide karaoke,” in which a student has one minute to present a simple slide they have never seen before. They are then given feedback by peers and the instructor on general presentation skills. I provide peer feedback training before the presentations.
    • Week 4: Students implement the general feedback from slide karaoke and give practice 3MT presentations to receive specific peer and mentor feedback on the content. These mentors are usually students from the year before who revisit the class.
    • Week 5: Students give the final 3MT in front of judges and peers for evaluation.
    • Week 6: Students write a summary of what was learned from the entire generative experience.

    This sequence of assignments is personalized so that the final report can only be about the student’s individual experience. While students might want to use AI tools to edit or organize their ideas, ChatGPT or other AI tools cannot possibly know what happened in the classroom—only the student can write about it.

    For larger classes in which a presentation from each student may not be possible, here is another example.

    • Week 1: A video or reading assigned to students to view/read before class discusses the basics of DNA and inheritance. An in-class assignment involves a group discussion on Mendelian inheritance problem sets.
    • Week 2: Before class, students read an article on how DNA is packaged; the in-class discussion focuses on the molecules involved in chromatin structure.
    • The next classes all have either prereads or videos, which students discuss in class, and the content builds up to a more complex genetic mechanism, such as elucidating the gene for a disease. The final report could be “summarize how one could find a gene responsible for a certain disease using the discussion points we had in class.” In this scenario as well, the student is taking the personalized class experience and incorporating the ideas into the final report, something that cannot be wholly outsourced to any AI tool.

    If you decide to embrace AI tools in the classroom, you can still teach critical thinking and creativity by asking the students to use AI to write a report on a topic discussed in class—and then in part two of the assignment, ask them to assess the AI-generated report, cite the proper references and correct any mistakes, content or grammar-wise.

    I sometimes show an example of this in class to demonstrate to students that AI makes mistakes, rather than giving it as an assignment. But it is something you might want to try making an optional method for an assignment. Students can declare whether they used AI or not on their submission. As an instructor, you will need to design two rubrics for these different groups. Group one will have a rubric based on content, grammar, references, logical thought and organization, and clarity. Group two (those who use AI) will have a rubric consisting of the same components in addition to an evaluation of how well the student found the AI mistakes.

    Applying for Teaching Positions

    If you are applying for a teaching position, you should address AI in your teaching dossier and how you may or may not incorporate it—but at the very least, discuss its effects on higher education. Many articles and books on this topic exist, including Teaching with AI: A Practical Guide to a New Era of Human Learning, by José Antonio Bowen and C. Edward Watson (Johns Hopkins Press, 2024); Robot-Proof: Higher Education in the Age of Artificial Intelligence, by Joseph E. Aoun (MIT Press, 2017); and Generative AI in Higher Education, by Cecilia Ka Yuk Chan and Tom Colloton (Routledge, 2024).

    Yet even as we consider how to integrate AI in our teaching, we must not forget the human experience at work in all that we do. We can emphasize things like 1) encouraging students to meet with us in person or even for a walk as opposed to a virtual meeting and 2) assessing what emotions students bring to the meeting or class and how that may affect the dynamics. We as educators should harness the human side of teaching, including the classroom experience and the in-class group work, so that the “final” assessments build directly out of these personalized learnings.

    For those venturing into a career that involves teaching or mentoring, develop teaching strategies and tools that center the human experience and include them in your teaching dossier. Your application will shine.

    Nana Lee is the director of professional development and mentorship, special adviser to the dean of medicine for graduate education, and associate professor, teaching stream, at the University of Toronto. She is also a member and regional director of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing an international voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Source link

  • A Disenchanted Provost Discusses Why He Ditched the Job

    A Disenchanted Provost Discusses Why He Ditched the Job

    Throughout his 20-year career in higher education, Julian Vasquez Heilig has steadily climbed the career ladder, moving from assistant to associate professor at the University of Texas at Austin; into a full professorship at California State University, Sacramento; and then to a dean position at the University of Kentucky’s College of Education, Human Development and Sport Science. Being dean was rewarding, he said. The wins were visible, the feedback loop was short and he was well supported. Hoping to expand his impact, Heilig stepped onto the next career-ladder rung and became provost at Western Michigan University in Kalamazoo. But as provost, he didn’t feel emboldened to make change, he said; he felt isolated and exposed.

    After two years, he stepped down, and he now serves as a professor of educational leadership, research and technology at Western Michigan. His frustrations with the provost role had less to do with Western Michigan and more to do with how the job is designed, he explained. “Each person sees the provost a little differently. The faculty see the provost as administration, although, honestly, around the table at the cabinet, the provost is probably the only faculty member,” Heilig said. “The trustees—they see the provost as a middle manager below the president, and the president sees [the provost] as a buffer from issues that are arising.”

    Inside Higher Ed sat down with Heilig to talk about the provost job and all he’s learned about the role through years of education leadership research, conversations with colleagues and his own experience.

    The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

    Q: You stepped down from the provost role at Western Michigan in January, two years after taking the position. What tipped you off that the position wasn’t for you?

    A: In general, provosts are judged on student success, retention, faculty hiring and academic quality, and yet the purse strings of those things often truly sit with the president or the chief financial officer. That split means the provost really answers for outcomes without the levers to fund them. The job really asks you, as a leader, to redesign programs and diversify pipelines while working with multiple stakeholders—trustees, donors and faculty. If you push too hard on innovation, you face backlash. If you move too slowly and the role becomes ceremonial, then that might violate your own personal mission and beliefs. I’m not specifically talking about Western Michigan—all institutions have to decide whether they value transformation or whether they want tranquil optics.

    For most provosts, the average tenure is three years, based on the research I’ve seen. But durable change, sustainable change could take five, seven, 10 years. A lot of the things that [provosts] initiate outlive the job—it’s difficult to be around to see your agenda finished.

    Q: You’ve described the provost role as being “structurally exposed.” What does that mean, exactly?

    A: The relationship between presidents and provosts can be—especially at research universities—really fraught. One of the ways that it can be helped is by, from the outset, sitting down with your president to talk about how you’re going to make decisions, what the expectations are for resource commitments and joint accountability for decisions. A lot of times provosts are enforcing decisions and policies they didn’t make, but they’re held accountable to those policies, and having a compact [with the president] would be a better foundation.

    Leaders need to be able to have buffers to take smart risks without constant political whiplash. Those could look like multiyear resource agreements or protocols for handling disputes among vice presidents. That is super important—insulation is not isolation; it’s a structure that enables courage among leaders. Higher education is always the first to call for change and the last to make it because we have to align authority with responsibility. We have to be committed to change. We can’t avoid crises because there are some people that aren’t interested in making change and are completely satisfied with the status quo.

    Q: Did pushback to your equity work factor into your decision to ultimately step down?

    A: When controversy hits, the easiest release valve is the provost … It’s important for institutions to see the provost role not as disposable if they expect the provost to be bold stewards of academic affairs.

    Someone told me on LinkedIn that the provost role is not actually the chief officer of academic affairs; they’re actually the associate dean of academic affairs. Because pressure comes at the provost from the side from other vice presidents, from above you from the president and from below you from the deans, without the opportunity to respond to all those stakeholders in all the ways you would like. If you reallocate resources and challenge the institution’s sacred cows, then you’re going to take immediate fire. A lot of provosts will last many, many years in the job because caretaking is much safer than transforming under the current norms of higher education. So we need to think about how you reward measured disruption in the provost role and protect those who are doing the hard work of solving problems.

    There’s a high burnout cost to this job because you have nonstop negotiation between all these different stakeholder groups and competing demands. Each of these stakeholder groups want something different. Emotional labor mounts for you as a provost because the wins are very diffused … and if something goes wrong with accreditation or something else, the blame is very concentrated. So without structural support from each of those stakeholder groups, even the best leaders get drained.

    A lot of people go right from dean to president nowadays; they don’t want to get sidelined by the provost role. They just decide that this type of leadership is not worth it. That means that institutions are losing people who would build in this role, who would innovate in this role, and are rewarding people who just simply want to manage and caretake. Instead of hiring leaders, they’re just going to hire a manager.

    Q: You’ve written that provosts are almost always destined for a falling-out with their president. How do you think those roles are pitted against each other?

    A: If you’re thinking about becoming a provost, you have to take the measure of the person you’re working for. You’ve got to figure out: How is this hard decision going to be made? How are resources going to be committed? How is there going to be joint accountability for decisions that the president wants you to make? Will there be shared goals and shared power, rather than performative communications and performative statements? A real relationship and a real compact is the foundation for success for a partnership like this.

    Deans operate in a bounded area of things with very visible outcomes and very tight feedback loops, but the provost has a very diffuse set of responsibilities and is responsible for not just one but [many] colleges. The clarity that deans have really fuels that work. Vice president of academic affairs is a title that suggests influence, but its insulation and authority are very thin. Visibility is high, but when things go wrong, they go very wrong. We’ve got to pair the prestige of that position with clear powers and clear protections, because, again, each of the stakeholder groups has different interests, and so they see you either as their friend or their enemy.

    Q: Is there anything in particular that you would like to see from presidents in general to better support their provosts?

    A: [Provosts] can’t be seen as expendable by design. So when a controversy hits—and you have controversies day after day after day—the main job of the provost is to fix things, hard problems that weren’t fixed before they got to your desk. And so when things go really wrong, from what I hear from my colleagues, the easiest release valve is the provost.

    As you look across campuses, people are saying provost is the hardest job. And there’s a reason why they say that.

    Q: Inside Higher Ed with Hanover Research is releasing its annual survey of provosts tomorrow, and one of the things we found is that 86 percent of respondents said they enjoyed being provost, but only 29 percent of them felt that they consistently have the resources they need to implement initiatives. Do you feel like your experience aligned with that?

    A: Yeah, I think it’s particularly difficult when you come in as a vice president rather than as an executive vice president. When you’re on the same level with other VPs, it creates a Game of Thrones in terms of resources. The finance people want money for building, and the VP of research wants money for research, and so one of the challenges when you come into the provost role is you need to have more flexibility, especially around equity. When equity moves from emails and speeches to actual budget shifts, you get resistance. Leaders who are expected to redirect resources to close gaps, they become targets.

    Q: Also in our survey, more than half of provosts said their job was more about fixing problems than planning ahead. Would you agree that the role is like playing crisis manager?

    A: Part of the challenge is that provosts are having to deal with decisions that other people made. And so you have to deal with decisions that faculty made that may be problematic. You’ve got to implement decisions that the president made. You have a cabinet wanting to implement their decisions for academic affairs, and some of those things go wrong. So you’ve got to work with your team to fix all the different things, and sometimes you can’t fix it fast enough.

    Source link

  • The push to expand school choice should not diminish civic education

    The push to expand school choice should not diminish civic education

    From Texas to Florida to Arizona, school voucher policies are reshaping the landscape of American education. The Trump administration champions federal support for voucher expansion, and many state-level leaders are advancing school choice programs. Billions of public dollars are now flowing to private schools, church networks and microeducation platforms.  

    The push to expand school choice is not just reallocating public funds to private institutions. It is reorganizing the very purpose of schooling. And in that shift, something essential is being lost — the public mission of education as a foundation of democracy. 

    Civic education is becoming fragmented, underfunded and institutionally weak.  

    In this moment of sweeping change, as public dollars shift from common institutions to private and alternative schools, the shared civic entities that once supported democratic learning are being diminished or lost entirely — traditional structures like public schools, libraries and community colleges are no longer guaranteed common spaces. 

    The result is a disjointed system in which students may gain academic content or career preparation but receive little support in learning how to lead with integrity, think across differences or sustain democratic institutions. The very idea of public life is at risk, especially in places where shared experience has been replaced by polarization. We need civic education more than ever. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.  

    If we want students who can lead a multiracial democracy, we need schools of every type to take civic formation seriously. That includes religious schools, charter schools and homeschooling networks. The responsibility cannot fall on public schools alone. Civic formation is not an ideological project. It is a democratic one, involving the long-term work of building the skills, habits and values that prepare people to work across differences and take responsibility for shared democratic life. 

    What we need now is a civic education strategy that matches the scale of the changes reshaping American schooling. This will mean fostering coordinated investment, institutional partnerships and recognition that the stakes are not just academic, they are also democratic. 

    Americans overwhelmingly support civic instruction. According to a 2020 survey in Texas by the Center of Women in Politics and Public Policy and iCivics, just 49 percent of teachers statewide believed that enough time was being devoted to teaching civics knowledge, and just 23 percent said the same about participatory-democracy skills. This gap is not unique to Texas, but there is little agreement on how civics should be taught, and even less structural support for the schools trying to do it. 

    Without serious investment, civic formation will remain an afterthought — a patchwork effort disconnected from the design of most educational systems. 

    This is not an argument against vouchers in principle. Families should have options. But in the move to decentralize education, we risk hollowing out its civic core. A democratic society cannot survive on academic content alone. It requires citizens — not just in the legal sense, but in the civic one. 

    A democratic society needs people who can deliberate, organize, collaborate and build a shared future with others who do not think or live like they do. 

    And that’s why we are building a framework in Texas that others can adopt and adapt to their own civic mission. 

    The pioneering Democracy Schools model, to which I contribute, supports civic formation across a range of public and private schools, colleges, community organizations and professional networks.  

    Civic infrastructure is the term we use to describe our approach: the design of relationships, institutions and systems that hold democracy together. Just as engineers build physical infrastructure, educators and civic leaders must build civic infrastructure by working with communities, not for or on them. 

    We start from a democratic tradition rooted in the Black freedom struggle. Freedom, in this view, is not just protection from domination. It is the capacity to act, build and see oneself reflected in the world. This view of citizenship demands more than voice. It calls for the ability to shape institutions, policies and public narratives from the ground up. 

    Related: STUDENT VOICE: My generation knows less about civics than my parents’ generation did, yet we need it more than ever 

    The model speaks to a national crisis: the erosion of shared civic space in education. It must be practiced and must be supported by institutions that understand their role in building public life. Historically Black colleges and universities like Huston-Tillotson University offer a powerful example. They are not elite pipelines disconnected from everyday life. They are rooted in community, oriented toward public leadership and shaped by a history of democratic struggle. They show what it looks like to educate for civic capacity — not just for upward mobility. They remind us that education is not only about what students know, but about who they become and what kind of world they are prepared to help shape. 

    Our national future depends on how well we prepare young people to take responsibility for shared institutions and pluralistic public life. This cannot be accomplished through content standards alone. It requires civic ecosystems designed to cultivate public authorship. 

    We have an enormous stake in preparing the next generation for the demands of democratic life. What kind of society are we preparing young people to lead? The answer will not come from any single institution. It will come from partnerships across sectors, aligned in purpose even if diverse in approach. 

    We are eager to collaborate with any organization — public, private or faith-based — committed to building the civic infrastructure that sustains our democracy. Wherever education takes place, civic formation must remain a central concern. 

    Robert Ceresa is the founding director of the Politics Lab of the James L. Farmer House, Huston-Tillotson University. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].  

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

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Higher education mergers are a marathon not a sprint

    Higher education mergers are a marathon not a sprint

    When the announcement came last Wednesday that the universities of Kent and Greenwich are planning to merge, the two institutions did a fine job of anticipating all the obvious questions.

    In particular, announcing that the totemic decision has already been taken on who should lead the new institution – University of Greenwich vice chancellor Jane Harrington – was a pragmatic move that will save a great deal of gossip and speculation that could otherwise have derailed the discussions that will now commence on how to turn “intention to formally collaborate” to the “first-of-its-kind multi university group.”

    But even with that really tricky bit of business out of the way, there is still a lot to work through. Broadly those questions fall into two baskets: the strategic direction and the practical fine detail. Practicalities are important for giving reassurance that people’s lives aren’t about to radically change overnight; albeit there are inevitably lots of issues that are either formally unknown at this stage or which can only be tackled in light of the evolution of the final agreement and organisational structure.

    With that in mind, it is really worth emphasising that the notion of a “multi university group” is a brand new idea, given a conceptual shape in the very recent publication Radical collaboration: a playbook from KPMG and Mills & Reeve, produced under the auspices of the Universities UK transformation and efficiency taskforce. The idea of a “multi university trust” explored in that report, derived from the school sector, posits the creation of a single legal entity that can nevertheless “house” a range of distinct “trading entities” with unique “brands” each with an agreed level of local autonomy.

    It answers the question of how you take two (or more) institutions, each with their own histories and characteristics and find ways to create the strength and resilience that scale might offer, while retaining the local distinctive characteristics that staff, students, and local communities value and feel a sense of affinity to. It also, as has been noted in the coverage following the announcement, leaves an option open for other institutions to join the new structure, if there’s a case for them to do so.

    “It is very positive to see institutions taking proactive steps to finding new ways to work together,” says Sam Sanders, head of education, skills and productivity for KPMG in the UK. “The group structure proposed is a model we have seen be successful elsewhere, where brand identity is retained but you get economies of scale, meaning institutions can focus on their core activities while sharing the burden of the overheads. If it goes well it could act as a blueprint for other similar ventures.”

    Sam’s reflection is that establishing a new entity might be the most straightforward part of the process: “The complicated part is moving to a new model that simultaneously preserves the right culture in the right places while achieving the savings you might want to see in areas like IT, infrastructure, and estates. These are multi-year agendas so everyone involved needs to be prepared for that.”

    The long and winding road

    With lots to work through, it’s really important to step back, and give space to the institutions to work this out. Because the big picture is about mapping what that critical path looks like from single-institution vulnerabilities to strength in numbers – and that is a path that these institutions and their governing bodies are, to a large extent, carving out as they go, potentially doing the wider sector a service in the process as others may look to follow the same path in the future.

    “The sector response has been overwhelmingly positive,” says Jane Harrington, who is already fielding calls from heads of institution who are curious about the planned new model. Both Jane and University of Kent acting vice chancellor Georgina Randsley de Moura have experience with group structures in schools and further education, knowledge they drew on in thinking through the options for formal collaboration – starting with ten different possible models which were narrowed down to two that were explored in more depth.

    “We started with what we wanted to achieve, and then we looked for models,” says Georgina. “We kept going back to our principles: widening participation, education without boundaries, high quality teaching and research, and what will make sense for our regions. Inevitably there is some focus in the news around finances and that is an important part of the context, but this would not work if our universities didn’t have values and mission alignment.”

    “We also had examples in mind of where we don’t want to end up,” adds Jane. “You see mergers where the brand identity is lost and it takes a decade to get it back. We have, right now, two student-facing brands that are strong in their own right. And in five or ten years time it might be that we have four or five institutions that are part of this structure – we don’t think it would make sense for them to become part of one amorphous brand.”

    It’s frequently observed that bringing together two or more institutions that are facing difficult financial headwinds may simply create a larger institution with correspondingly larger challenges. So having a very clear sense strategically of where the strengths and opportunities lie, as well as the where risks and weaknesses might also be subject to force-multiplier effects, is pretty important at the outset.

    It’s clear that there is an efficiency agenda in play in the sense that merging allows for the adoption of a single set of systems and processes – an area where Jane is especially interested in curating creative thinking. But the wider opportunities afforded by scale are also compelling, especially in being more strategic about the collective skills and innovation offer to the region.

    Kent and Medway local councils and MPs have also responded enthusiastically to the universities’ proposal, the two heads of institution tell me – not least because navigating politics around different HE providers can be a headache for regional actors who want to engage higher education institutions in key regional agendas.

    “There are cold spots in our region where nobody is offering what is needed,” says Jane. “But developing new provision is much harder when you are acting alone. This region has pockets of multiple forms of deprivation: rural, urban and coastal. The capacity and scale afforded by combining means we can think strategically about how to do the regional growth work, and what our combined offer should be, including to support reskilling and upskilling.”

    Georgina makes a similar case for combining research strengths. “Our shared research areas, like health, food sustainability, and creative industries, play to regional strengths,” she says. “When research resources are constrained, by combining we can do more.”

    We can work it out

    The multi university group is not, in theory, a million miles from a federation in structure in that in federations generally there is a degree of autonomy ceded by the constituent elements to a single governing body – but in a federation each entity retains its individual legal status. A critical difference is the extent to which a sharing economy among the entities would have to be painstakingly negotiated for a federation, which could erode the value that is created in collaborating. It could also raise tricky questions around things like VAT.

    But the sheer novelty of the multi university group also raises a bunch of regulatory questions, covered in all the depth you’d expect by DK elsewhere on the site – to give a flavour, can you use the word “university” for your trading entity without that existing as a legal entity with its own degree awarding powers?

    The supportive noises from DfE and OfS at the time of the initial announcement should give Kent and Greenwich some degree of comfort as they work through some of these questions. The sector has been making the argument for some time now that if the government and regulator want to see institutions seizing the initiative on innovative forms of collaboration, there will need to be some legal and regulatory quarter given, up to and including making active provision for forms of collaboration that emerge without a legal playbook.

    Aside from the formal conditions for collaboration, how OfS conducts itself in this period will be watched closely by others considering similar moves. While nobody would suggest that changing structure offers an excuse for dropping the ball on quality or student experience – and both heads of institution are very clear there is no expectation of that happening – OfS now has a choice. It can choose to be highly activist in requesting reams of documentation and evidence in response to events as they unfold, from institutions already grappling with a highly complex landscape. Or it can work out an approach that offers a degree of advance clarity to the institutions what their accountabilities are in this time of transition, and how they can/should keep the regulator informed of any material risks arising to students from the process.

    Despite the generally positive response, there is no shortage of scepticism about whether a plan like the one proposed can work. The answer, of course, depends on what you think success looks like. Certainly, anyone expecting a sudden and material shrinkage in costs is bound to be disappointed. Decisions will be made along the way with which some disagree, perhaps profoundly.

    But I think what is often forgotten in these discussions is that the alternative to the decision to pursue a new structure is not to carry on in broadly the same way as before, but to pursue a different but equally radical and equally contentious course of action. If the status quo was satisfactory then there would be no case for the change. In that sense, being as useful as possible in helping these two institutions make the very best fist that they can of their new venture is the right thing for everyone to do, from government downwards.

    Source link

  • UTS’ new online education course – Campus Review

    UTS’ new online education course – Campus Review

    In this episode of HEDx, Kylie Readman, the University of Technology Sydney’s deputy vice-chancellor of education and students, outlines a new venture in global online education.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link