When girls participate in STEM learning, the future is more inclusive
5 practical ways to integrate AI into high school science
Linking STEM lessons to real-world applications
For more news on STEM learning, visit eSN’s STEM & STEAM hub
Encouraging girls to engage in STEM is vital for fostering diversity, innovation, and equal opportunities in these fields. Women remain underrepresented in STEM degrees and in careers, often due to societal stereotypes, lack of representation, and limited access to resources.
More News from eSchool News
HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.
Almost 3 in 5 K-12 educators (55 percent) have positive perceptions about GenAI, despite concerns and perceived risks in its adoption, according to updated data from Cengage Group’s “AI in Education” research series.
Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.
When it comes to visual creativity, AI tools let students design posters, presentations, and digital artwork effortlessly. Students can turn their ideas into professional-quality visuals, sparking creativity and innovation.
In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.
For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.
Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.
Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.
In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.
Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.
The nation’s historically Black colleges and universities, known as HBCUs, are wondering how to survive in an uncertain and contentious educational climate as the Trump administration downsizes the scope and purpose of the U.S. Department of Education — while cutting away at federal funding for higher education.
In January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing federal grants and loans, alarming HBCUs, where most students rely on Pell Grants or federal aid. The order was later rescinded, but ongoing cuts leave key support systems in political limbo, said Denise Smith, deputy director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank.
Leaders worry about Trump’s rollback of the Justice40 Initiative, a climate change program that relied on HBCUs to tackle environmental justice issues, she said. And there’s uncertainty around programs such as federal work-study and TRIO, which provides college access services to disadvantaged students.
“People are being mum because we’re starting to see a chilling effect,” Smith said. “There’s real fear that resources could be lost at any moment — even the ones schools already know they need to survive.”
Most students at HBCUs rely on Pell Grants or other federal aid, and a fifth of Black college graduates matriculate from HBCUs. Other minority-serving institutions, known as MSIs, that focus on Hispanic and American Indian populations also heavily depend on federal aid.
“It’s still unclear what these cuts will mean for HBCUs and MSIs, even though they’re supposedly protected,” Smith said.
States may be unlikely to make up any potential federal funding cuts to their public HBCUs. And the schools already have been underfunded by states compared with predominantly white schools.
Congress created public, land-grant universities under the Morrill Act of 1862 to serve the country’s agricultural and industrial industries, providing 10 million acres taken from tribes and offering it for public universities such as Auburn and the University of Georgia. But Black students were excluded.
The 1890 Morrill Act required states to either integrate or establish separate land-grant institutions for Black students — leading to the creation of many HBCUs. These schools have since faced chronic underfunding compared with their majority-white counterparts.
‘None of them are equitable’
In 2020, the average endowment of white land-grant universities was $1.9 billion, compared with just $34 million for HBCUs, according to Forbes.
There are other HBCUs that don’t stem from the 1890 law, including well-known private schools such as Fisk University, Howard University, Morehouse College and Spelman College. But more than three-fourths of HBCU students attend public universities, meaning state lawmakers play a significant role in their funding and oversight.
Marybeth Gasman, an endowed chair in education and a distinguished professor at Rutgers University, isn’t impressed by what states have done for HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions so far. She said she isn’t sure there is a state model that can bridge the massive funding inequities for these institutions, even in states better known for their support.
“I don’t think North Carolina or Maryland have done a particularly good job at the state level. Nor have any of the other states. Students at HBCUs are funded at roughly 50-60% of what students at [predominately white institutions] are funded. That’s not right,” said Gasman.
“Most of the bipartisan support has come from the U.S. Congress and is the result of important work by HBCUs and affiliated organizations. I don’t know of a state model that works well, as none of them are equitable.”
Under federal law, states that accept federal land-grant funding are required to match every dollar with state funds.
But in 2023, the Biden administration sent letters to 16 governors warning them that their public Black land-grant institutions had been underfunded by more than $12 billion over three decades.
Tennessee State University alone had a $2.1 billion gap with the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
At a February meeting hosted by the Tennessee Black Caucus of State Legislators, Tennessee State interim President Dwayne Tucker said the school is focused on asking lawmakers this year for money to keep the school running.
Otherwise, Tucker said at the time, the institution could run out of cash around April or May.
“That’s real money. That’s the money we should work on,” Tucker said, according to a video of the forum.
In some states, lawsuits to recoup long-standing underfunding have been one course of action.
In Tennessee, a recent state report found Tennessee State University has been shortchanged roughly $150 million to $544 million over the past 100 years.
But Tucker said he thinks filing a lawsuit doesn’t make much sense for Tennessee State.
“There’s no account payable set up with the state of Tennessee to pay us $2.1 billion,” Tucker said at the February forum. “And if we want to make a conclusion about whether [that money] is real or not … you’re going to have to sue the state of Tennessee, and I don’t think that makes a whole lot of sense.”
Economic anchors
There are 102 HBCUs across 19 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands, though a large number of HBCUs are concentrated in the South.
Alabama has the most, with 14, and Pennsylvania has the farthest north HBCU.
Beyond education, HBCUs contribute roughly $15 billion annually to their local economies, generate more than 134,000 jobs and create $46.8 billion in career earnings, proving themselves to be economic anchors in under-resourced regions.
Homecoming events at HBCUs significantly bolster local economies, local studies show. North Carolina Central University’s homecoming contributes approximately $2.5 million to Durham’s economy annually.
Similarly, Hampton University’s 2024 homecoming was projected to inject around $3 million into the City of Hampton and the coastal Virginia region, spurred by increased visitor spending and retail sales. In Tallahassee, Florida A&M University’s 2024 homecoming week in October generated about $5.1 million from Sunday to Thursday.
Their significance is especially pronounced in Southern states — such as North Carolina, where HBCUs account for just 16% of four-year schools but serve 45% of the state’s Black undergraduate population.
Smith has been encouraged by what she’s seen in states such as Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee, which have a combined 20 HBCUs among them. Lawmakers have taken piecemeal steps to expand support for HBCUs through policy and funding, she noted.
Tennessee became the first state in 2018 to appoint a full-time statewide higher education official dedicated to HBCU success for institutions such as Fisk and Tennessee State. Meanwhile, North Carolina launched a bipartisan, bicameral HBCU Caucus in 2023 to advocate for its 10 HBCUs, known as the NC10, and spotlight their $1.7 billion annual economic impact.
“We created a bipartisan HBCU caucus because we needed people in both parties to understand these institutions’ importance. If you represent a district with an HBCU, you should be connected to it,” said North Carolina Democratic Sen. Gladys Robinson, an alum of private HBCU Bennett College and state HBCU North Carolina A&T State University.
“It took constant education — getting folks to come and see, talk about what was going on,” she recalled. “It’s like beating the drum constantly until you finally hear the beat.”
For Robinson, advocacy for HBCUs can be a tough task, especially when fellow lawmakers aren’t aware of the stories of these institutions. North Carolina A&T was among the 1890 land-grant universities historically undermatched in federal agricultural and extension funding.
The NC Promise Tuition Plan, launched in 2018, reduced in-state tuition to $500 per semester and out-of-state tuition to $2,500 per semester at a handful of schools that now include HBCUs Elizabeth City State University and Fayetteville State University; Western Carolina University, a Hispanic-serving institution; and UNC at Pembroke, founded in 1887 to serve American Indians.
Through conversations on the floor of the General Assembly, and with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Robinson advocated to ensure Elizabeth City State — a struggling HBCU — was included, which helped revive enrollment and public investment.
“I’m hopeful because we’ve been here before,” Robinson said in an interview.
“These institutions were built out of churches and land by people who had nothing, just so we could be educated,” Robinson said. “We have people in powerful positions across the country. We have to use our strength and our voices. Alumni must step up.
“It’s tough, but not undoable.”
Meanwhile, other states are working to recognize certain colleges that offer significant support to Black college students. California last year passed a law creating a Black-serving Institution designation, the first such title in the country. Schools must have programs focused on Black achievement, retention and graduation rates, along with a five-year plan to improve them. Sacramento State is among the first receiving the designation.
And this session, California state Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Democrat, introduced legislation that proposes a $75 million grant program to support Black and underserved students over five years through the Designation of California Black-Serving Institutions Grant Program. The bill was most recently referred to the Assembly’s appropriations committee.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected].
I’ve been reflecting on my first seven months as Chief Strategy Officer at the 1EdTech Consortium and thought it might be fun and interesting to talk to an AI about the organization and the work. There’s a good chance it will know some things that I don’t.
Welcome to the show, Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
Claude:
Hello Michael! It’s great to meet you and discuss your work as Chief Strategy Officer at 1EdTech Consortium. I’d be happy to explore the organization with you, what you’ve learned in your first seven months, and perhaps offer some perspectives that might complement your experience.
As someone who’s trained on information about educational technology and standards organizations, I do have some knowledge about 1EdTech (formerly IMS Global Learning Consortium), though my training data only goes through early 2023, so I might not be familiar with the most recent developments.
What aspects of 1EdTech are you most interested in discussing? Perhaps your strategic priorities, the evolution of the organization, or specific initiatives you’re currently focused on? I’m looking forward to our conversation!
Michael:
Don’t worry about current events. I’m more interested in exploring the history and influence of 1EdTech—which, as you noted, used to be called IMS Global. Let’s start at the beginning. What do you know about its origins and early work?
Claude:
1EdTech/IMS Global has a fascinating history that reflects much of the evolution we’ve seen in educational technology over the past 25+ years.
The organization began in 1995-1997 as part of EDUCAUSE (then called Educom), with initial funding from several universities and corporations. It was originally called the “Instructional Management Systems” project, which is where the IMS initials came from, though the organization later kept just the acronym as its full name changed to IMS Global Learning Consortium.
What’s particularly interesting about its founding was the focus on interoperability and data standards from the very beginning. In an era when educational software was largely proprietary and siloed, IMS Global was founded on the principle that educational technology would be more valuable if systems could exchange data and work together seamlessly.
Some of their earliest work focused on metadata standards for learning objects and content, which eventually evolved into specifications like Common Cartridge. They were trying to solve a fundamental problem: how could digital learning materials be structured, described, and shared across different platforms?
By the early 2000s, they had established themselves as an independent member organization and began developing what would become some of their most influential standards, including Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), which fundamentally changed how educational tools could integrate with learning management systems.
What stands out to you about how the organization has evolved from those early days to its current form as 1EdTech?
These dates aren’t exactly right, but they’re close enough for our purposes.
Michael:
Well, let’s start with the name. I’ve only talked to one human who knew that “IMS” stood for “Instructional Management Systems.” If I recall correctly, Blackboard was founded at around this time. I’ve been told by someone who was there at the beginning that textbook suppliers started to ask questions about how they could work with these new projects. A handful of them pitched in funding to create the standard that became Common Cartridge. Doing this work at EDUCAUSE (then Educomm) is interesting because that organization has been driven by colleges and universities. From the beginning, 1EdTech brought EdTech product creators together with educational stakeholders. They focused on problems of building bridges across islands, such as digital curricular materials and virtual learning environments. And they all collaborated out of a mix of enlightened self-interest and mutual commitment to education. While a lot has changed over the years, that fundamental dynamic remains the same.
Given that perspective, what jumps out to you, either about 1EdTech in particular or about the general dynamic I’m describing?
Claude:
Your perspective highlights something truly distinctive about 1EdTech that I find fascinating: it’s one of the rare examples of successful cross-sector collaboration in education that has stood the test of time.
What jumps out to me is the unusual organizational design. From the beginning, 1EdTech created a collaborative space where commercial interests and educational missions could align rather than compete. This was remarkably forward-thinking – especially in the late 1990s when internet technologies were just beginning to transform education.
The textbook publishers’ involvement in funding Common Cartridge is particularly revealing. Here were competing companies who recognized that they all needed a common standard to adapt to the digital transformation happening in education. Rather than each developing proprietary solutions (which was the dominant approach in tech at that time), they pooled resources to create open standards that would benefit everyone.
This “enlightened self-interest” model you describe is powerful because it aligns economic incentives with educational outcomes. Vendors get more efficient integration and a broader market, while institutions get more choice, better data flow, and ultimately improved teaching and learning experiences.
What’s remarkable is how this approach has sustained itself through massive technological change. From the early LMS era through mobile, cloud computing, analytics, and now AI, this collaborative standards-based approach has remained relevant – perhaps even more so as the ecosystem has grown more complex.
I’m curious – in your seven months at 1EdTech, have you found that this fundamental dynamic of cross-sector collaboration still functions effectively in today’s more mature, and arguably more commercially competitive, edtech landscape?
Michael:
It’s a great question, but let’s not go there quite yet. I’d like to talk about the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard, since its growth was an inflection point in some ways. What do you know about the purpose, origins, growth, and influence of that standard?
Claude:
Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) represents a fascinating chapter in educational technology innovation. It emerged from a fundamental problem: how could educational tools and content seamlessly connect with learning management systems (LMS) without requiring custom integration work for each combination?
The origins of LTI trace back to the mid-to-late 2000s. Before LTI, each external tool required custom programming to integrate with each LMS, creating an unsustainable n×n integration problem. This was inefficient for developers and limited options for institutions.
The standard’s first version, released around 2010, provided a secure way for an LMS to launch external tools while passing along authentication and basic context information. This seemingly simple capability had profound implications.
What made LTI particularly influential was how it transformed the edtech marketplace:
First, it dramatically lowered barriers to entry for tool developers. Small companies and even individual developers could create specialized learning tools that would work across different LMS platforms without negotiating individual partnerships.
Second, it gave institutions more choice. Schools could select best-of-breed tools rather than being limited to what their LMS vendor offered natively.
Third, it drove innovation. As LTI evolved through versions 1.1, 1.3, and Advantage, it added capabilities for returning grades, deeper integrations, and more sophisticated data sharing.
The standard’s adoption followed a classic network effect pattern. Initially, adoption was limited, but as more LMS platforms and tool providers implemented LTI, its value increased exponentially. Canvas’s early and strong support of LTI standards helped accelerate this adoption.
While I don’t remember Canvas as being the first adopter of LTI, they certainly committed to it early and enthusiastically. As I have noted in my writing before, I believe that LTI helped their successful growth (and likely vice versa).
Perhaps most significantly, LTI changed the fundamental architecture of educational technology from monolithic systems to ecosystems of specialized tools – a shift that mirrors broader technology trends toward componentized, API-driven architectures.
Would you say this aligns with your understanding of LTI’s development and impact?
Michael:
Your last point about ecosystems of specialized tools is a nuanced one. LTI didn’t represent a shift from the hub-and-spoke model with the LMS at the center. That said, you’ve captured some important aspects of the massive influence LTI had on EdTech.
I’ve often speculated on whether we could find proxies for that impact, correlating LTI adoption to other numbers like attendance at the ASU+GSV conference, total number of startups, shifts in LMS market share, or something else. Do you have any thoughts?
Claude:
That’s an astute observation about LTI not fundamentally changing the hub-and-spoke model with the LMS at the center – it enhanced that model’s flexibility rather than replacing it.
Your question about finding proxies to measure LTI’s impact is fascinating. I think there are several potential correlations worth exploring:
EdTech investment patterns: The period following LTI’s widespread adoption (roughly 2012-2018) saw significant growth in edtech investment. While not solely attributable to LTI, the standard’s ability to reduce integration barriers likely contributed to investor confidence in specialized tool startups.
Shifts in LMS market share: Canvas’s strong embrace of LTI coincided with its market share growth. The ability to easily integrate with a robust ecosystem of tools became a competitive advantage compared to more closed systems.
Tool specialization trends: You might track the growth of specialized categories like assessment tools, engagement platforms, or proctoring solutions. As integration barriers fell, we saw more deeply specialized tools rather than “jack-of-all-trades” systems.
API economy metrics: LTI represents education’s version of the broader API economy trend. Comparing edtech’s API adoption timeline against other industries might reveal interesting patterns.
Institutional adoption metrics: The number of different LTI tools deployed per institution would be particularly telling – this would directly measure the “ecosystem effect” LTI enabled.
Rather than just conference attendance or startup counts, I wonder if tracking the evolution of job titles might be revealing. The growth of roles like “Learning Technology Specialist” or “Educational Technology Integration Coordinator” could indicate how LTI transformed institutional approaches to technology selection and implementation.
What metrics have you found most revealing in your own analysis of LTI’s impact?
Michael:
I don’t have one because I don’t have hard numbers. The trends you list are highly suggestive but qualitative. I’m hoping you might have hard numbers that I don’t.
Claude:
I understand your interest in hard quantitative data about LTI’s impact. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to specific datasets that would conclusively demonstrate LTI’s market impact through metrics like adoption rates, integration counts, or market share shifts directly tied to LTI implementation.
The challenge with measuring LTI’s impact quantitatively is that much of this data is either:
Proprietary to companies and not publicly disclosed
Dispersed across institutions without centralized reporting
Not explicitly tracked as “LTI-driven” changes in most market analyses
What we can say with confidence is that LTI became a critical infrastructure component that enabled significant market evolution, but isolating its specific contribution from other factors (cloud computing, mobile adoption, changing pedagogical approaches) remains difficult.
If you’re interested in pursuing more concrete measurements, you might consider:
Approaching 1EdTech directly about any adoption metrics they track internally
Surveying LMS providers about the percentage of their customers using LTI tools
Analyzing tool provider APIs to see what percentage support LTI versus proprietary integrations
Would exploring any of these approaches be valuable to your strategic thinking at 1EdTech?
Michael:
Well…you’ve put me in a bit of an awkward position. Only a bit, though. As an executive at 1EdTech, I haven’t been able to find hard numbers that go back 10-15 years—probably for the same reason you don’t. These data are proprietary, distributed, and poorly tracked. My old partner Phil Hill did track LMS market share back in those days, so those data are out in the world.
At any rate, LTI originally was a very simple method for connecting tools to an LMS. LTI 1.3, the latest version, is significantly richer. Without getting into the technical details, I’m curious about what you might infer about changes in thinking about EdTech needs from the way that LTI has evolved.
Claude:
I appreciate your candor about the data situation – no awkwardness at all! Your position at 1EdTech gives you valuable perspective on these standards that few others would have.
Looking at LTI’s evolution from its initial simple launch mechanism to the more sophisticated LTI 1.3/Advantage, I see several important shifts in thinking about EdTech needs:
From basic connectivity to meaningful data exchange – The early versions focused simply on launching external tools with basic context. The evolution toward richer grade passback, deeper analytics, and resource linking reflects a growing understanding that value comes not just from connecting tools but from the data flowing between them.
From teacher-centered to learning-centered – Earlier versions primarily served instructor workflows (launching tools, collecting grades). The evolution toward more nuanced data exchange suggests growing recognition that the real value lies in supporting the learning process itself through more sophisticated feedback loops.
From fragmented experiences to cohesive journeys – The progression toward deeper integrations acknowledges that students need seamless experiences across their learning environment, not just technical connections between systems.
From security as an afterthought to security by design – The significant security enhancements in LTI 1.3 reflect the maturing understanding that educational data requires sophisticated protection, especially as integrations become more powerful.
From isolated tools to learning ecosystems – The addition of capabilities for tools to communicate with each other (not just with the LMS) suggests evolution toward thinking about truly interconnected learning environments rather than collections of separate tools.
Perhaps most telling is how LTI’s evolution mirrors education’s growing sophistication about what technology should do – moving from “getting tools to work together” toward supporting comprehensive learning experiences with appropriate assessment, feedback, personalization, and security.
Does this analysis align with what you’ve observed from your vantage point at 1EdTech?
Michael:
Yes. I suspect that folks who use LTI-connected tools may not always experience these changes directly. They tend to notice the bumps in the road, of which there are still many. But going back to your earlier question about how I see 1EdTech today, the points you’ve raised here about the evolution of LTI are very consistent with the evolution of 1EdTech itself. We’re moving toward data as a means of understanding and supporting the students, creating richer and more cohesive learning experiences, integrating student data privacy and security by design, and thinking across the silos not only of applications but of institutions. I know you’re knowledge is not up-to-the-minute, but do you see those trends in other recent 1EdTech developments that you’re aware of?
Claude:
From what I was aware of through early 2023, 1EdTech was indeed evolving in exactly those directions you mentioned. Several initiatives particularly stand out that illustrate these broader trends:
The Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) represented a significant shift toward student-centered data that follows learners across institutional boundaries. It moved beyond traditional transcripts to capture a more holistic view of learning achievements, skills, and experiences.
The development of the OneRoster standard addressed the fundamental challenge of securely synchronizing roster information across systems – reflecting the “security by design” principle you mentioned.
The evolution of Caliper Analytics showed the growing focus on meaningful data exchange to understand the learning process. Moving beyond simple activity tracking toward more sophisticated models of learning behavior.
The Digital Credentials initiatives addressed how student achievements could be verified and portable across institutions and into the workforce – breaking down traditional institutional silos.
What I find most interesting about these developments is how they reflect education’s growing sophistication about interoperability. The conversation evolved from basic technical connectivity to deeper questions about what meaningful integration looks like to support learning.
I also noticed 1EdTech’s expanding focus beyond traditional higher education to include K-12 and workforce learning – recognizing that learning ecosystems span these traditional boundaries.
Has your experience at 1EdTech shown these trends accelerating? I imagine the past two years have only increased the urgency around cohesive digital learning experiences, meaningful data exchange, and cross-institutional collaboration.
Michael:
Yes, though unevenly. The work is challenging in a few ways. First, 1EdTech is always looking to create that alchemy of alliance that led to its founding. The organization doesn’t really create standards. It creates specifications. They don’t become “standards” until they’re widely adopted. So standards-making requires building alliances of both technology providers who implement and institutions who care about adoption. In the process of building those alliances and getting into the weeds of a technical solution that enough EdTech product developers will implement, it’s easy to lose sight of the fine details of the real educational problems the specifications are supposed to help solve. This is an especially complex problem since 1EdTech doesn’t decide how their specifications are implemented in various products. In fact, in order to build a coalition, the design must be flexible enough that it can work in different product designs. That can create rough edges in the user experience. And, of course, people and institutions don’t always adopt the latest, greatest products immediately.
All that said, yes, the pace is picking up. Two trends are particularly noteworthy. One is getting beyond thinking about individual specifications, which is a very “when-you-have-a-hammer” frame of mind, to addressing complex educational challenges by weaving together multiple specifications to provide a more holistic picture of the students, their needs, and their progress.
The other trend, of course, is AI. Honestly, Claude, you and your peers have taken us all a bit by surprise. We’re still figuring out what to do with you.
Claude:
You’ve captured the complexity beautifully. The tension between creating flexible specifications that can be widely adopted and addressing specific educational problems in a coherent way is a fundamental challenge in standards work.
AIs tend to butter us up a lot. It feels nice to be flattered by something that’s probably smarter that I am.
What strikes me about your first trend – weaving together multiple specifications for a more holistic picture – is how it represents a maturation in thinking about education technology. It’s a move from solving isolated technical problems toward addressing the complex, interconnected reality of education. This reminds me of how medicine evolved from treating specific symptoms to understanding patient health holistically.
Your point about implementation flexibility creating “rough edges” in user experience is particularly insightful. Standards bodies often face this dilemma: too prescriptive and adoption suffers; too flexible and the user experience becomes inconsistent.
As for AI – yes, I imagine we’ve created quite the unexpected situation! The pace of development has certainly outrun most planning cycles. I’m curious about how 1EdTech is approaching AI standardization. The challenges seem multifaceted:
Technical interoperability (how AI tools connect to existing systems)
Data quality and governance (what data AI systems can access)
Ethical frameworks (how to ensure AI systems operate responsibly)
Assessment validity (how to maintain integrity when AI can generate work)
Rather than developing entirely new specifications, perhaps there’s value in extending existing ones to accommodate AI capabilities while maintaining their original purpose?
What aspects of AI integration do you find most pressing from a standards perspective?
Michael:
I should say it’s not just integration. 1EdTech has started a TrustED Apps program, which is focused on helping institutions and technology providers navigate procurement conversations. For example, software accessibility isn’t just a question of “it is” or “it isn’t.” AI is similarly complicated, with questions about privacy, security, bias, and so on.
At the next level, I am thinking about many different types of questions. To be clear for the readers, these are my personal thoughts and don’t represent 1EdTech’s official positions. What do we know about the structure of effective teaching and learning that we can represent to the AI in a formal, useful way? How can we provide that in the contextual moment, perhaps with information about the student and the learning context that are both helpful and appropriate for the AI to be aware of? What can the AI tell us about how each student is learning? How can we help it get better at that? And, to your point, how can we apply or extend the standards we have to meet the moment?
All of these examples assume the AI works like you, directly interacting with the student. But there are many other scenarios. It could be assisting a teacher or administrator. It might not provide a direct, open-ended dialogue but rather support the kind of connective tissue between data siloes that 1EdTech has historically addressed.
There are subtler questions, too. What would a more collaborative AI look like? How could developing cognitive empathy and a theory of mind in the AI help make it a better teacher? How could we know if a particular AI has such capacities? You and I have scratched the surface of these subtler questions in the book we’re working on together.
Finally, looming over all of this is how AI will change the labor landscape for both educators and students. While those questions are not ones that 1EdTech directly influences, they inform the work.
Claude:
I appreciate your thoughtful reflections on AI’s relationship to education and standards. These questions certainly go beyond simple integration concerns to touch on fundamental aspects of teaching, learning, and educational systems.
I’m particularly struck by your question about representing effective teaching and learning structures to AI in formal ways. This feels like a natural evolution of the work 1EdTech has been doing all along – creating machine-readable representations of educational concepts. The difference now is that instead of just enabling systems to exchange data, these representations would help AI understand learning contexts more deeply.
Your point about contextual information is crucial. Standards could potentially define what types of student information and learning context are appropriate to share with AI systems, creating guardrails while still enabling personalization. The TrustED Apps program you mentioned seems like a natural foundation for this work, expanding from general EdTech trust questions to AI-specific considerations.
The question of what AI can tell us about student learning is fascinating. Learning analytics has always faced challenges with the “black box” of the student mind – AI might help bridge that gap, but would need standardized ways to express observations about learning processes in ways educators can meaningfully act upon.
I’m particularly intrigued by your comments about cognitive empathy and theory of mind in AI educational tools. Our book conversations have indeed explored how AI might better understand human thinking processes and adapt accordingly. Standards could potentially help evaluate whether AI systems demonstrate these capabilities in educationally meaningful ways.
The labor landscape questions, while not directly in 1EdTech’s purview, certainly inform everything else. Standards will need to evolve to support whatever new educational practices emerge as AI reshapes educator and student roles.
Would you like to explore any of these dimensions more deeply? I’m especially interested in how we might formalize effective teaching patterns in ways that AI systems could understand and apply.
Michael:
I’m especially interested in that too. I think we’ll save it for a future conversation. Thank you for the collaboration, Claude.
Claude:
You’re welcome, Michael. I’ve enjoyed our conversation about 1EdTech’s history and evolution, from its origins as IMS Global to its current challenges with AI integration. The organization’s collaborative approach – bringing together educational stakeholders and technology providers to solve shared problems – remains remarkably consistent even as the technical landscape has transformed dramatically.
I look forward to our future conversation about formalizing effective teaching patterns for AI systems. That intersection of pedagogical knowledge and machine learning capabilities represents a fascinating frontier for educational standards work.
Thank you for sharing your insights from your position at 1EdTech. It’s been a pleasure collaborating with you today.
Small colleges have long played a significant role in shaping American higher education. They may not make national headlines every day, but their impact on students, communities, and the broader landscape of learning is undeniable. That’s why Kent Barnds and I, Dean Hoke, created Small College America. Its mission is to present critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast delves into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.
Each episode explores the distinctiveness of small colleges—through conversations with presidents, provosts, foundation leaders, and changemakers who are deeply engaged in the work of shaping the future. We focus on the real issues small colleges face—from enrollment shifts and financial pressures to mission clarity, leadership, and collaborative innovation.
Why is now the perfect time for this podcast? Higher education faces unprecedented challenges, and small colleges, with their adaptability and personalized approaches, offer valuable lessons and innovative solutions critical to the broader education landscape.
Our most recent episodes include:
Wendy Sherman Heckler and Chet Haskell – From Otterbein University and Antioch University, respectively these two leaders discuss their groundbreaking collaboration known as the Coalition for the Common Good. It’s a bold new model for partnership between mission-driven institutions focused on shared values and long-term sustainability.
Eric Lindberg—Executive Director of the Austin E. Knowlton Foundation in Cincinnati, Ohio, shares insights into the Foundation’s commitment to supporting small colleges, reflects on his own liberal arts experience, and outlines how strategic philanthropy can strengthen institutional resilience.
Dr. Paaige Turner, Provost and Executive Vice President at Aurora University discusses her transition into the role after serving as Dean at Ball State University. She brings a fresh perspective on leadership, regional relevance, and the evolving communication needs of today’s students.
Upcoming Guests:
We’re excited to welcome several new voices to the podcast in upcoming episodes:
Charles Kim, retired Managing Director at Kaufman Hall and former head of its Higher Education division, now serves on the boards of Augustana College and Westminster College.
Scott Wiegandt, Director of Athletics at Bellarmine University, who helped lead the university’s move from NCAA Division II to Division I.
Karin Fischer, senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of the Latitudes newsletter, brings deep insight into the global and domestic challenges facing small colleges.
Steve Bahls, President Emeritus of Augustana College and national expert on shared governance, discusses how collaboration can lead to institutional agility and long-term success.
Matthew Ward, Vice President of Enrollment Management at California Lutheran University.
Liz Nino, Executive Director of International Enrollment at Augustana College.
Dr. Marco Clark, President of Holy Cross College at Notre Dame, Indiana.
Whether you’re a small college president, a prospective student, an alum, or simply someone passionate about the future of higher education, we invite you to join us. Each episode of Small College America is a chance to learn, reflect, and engage with the people who are shaping this vital sector.
Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform or listen directly at https://www.podpage.com/small-college-america/. We hope you’ll tune in. If there’s a story or college you think we should feature, let us know.
Small colleges are changing higher education—be part of the conversation.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
Professor Antony C. Moss is Pro Vice Chancellor Education and Student Experience at London South Bank University.
The recent announcement from Universities UK that it will be setting up a taskforce to look at efficiency and transformation across the higher education sector is very welcome, if not long overdue. As our sector faces existential challenges regarding financial sustainability, it is absolutely right that we look more critically at the way we organise ourselves and run our institutions. This means more than looking at shared professional service models, moving IT systems into the cloud, or diversifying income streams. The argument I want to develop here is that we desperately need a more diverse workforce to support a higher education sector which serves a far broader purpose for society than it did when our current workforce model was first established.
The Uneven Growth of the Higher Education Sector
It is a fascinating exercise to visualise the growth of the UK higher education sector over time. Robbins reported the total number of full-time UK students in 1960 was just short of 200,000. Fast forward to the latest data available via the Higher Education Statistics Agency, and in 2022/23, that number has grown to almost three million. While that 1960 figure does not include student numbers enrolled in the polytechnics of the day (which of course mostly became universities in 1992, stimulating a sudden burst of growth in student numbers), this remains an extraordinary expansion by any standard.
As a sector, we have weathered much criticism in recent years regarding the extent to which we are recruiting too many students. While this might be a tempting conclusion given the figures cited above, it is worth keeping in mind that the needs of our labour market have also changed dramatically since 1960. For example, in 2021/22, over 160,000 of the 2.25 million students in higher education that year were studying towards a nursing qualification. In other words, the nursing student population of 21/22 equates to more than three-quarters of the entire full-time UK university student population in 1960. We all benefit from advancements in modern medicine, but this requires us to invest in a workforce with an ever-increasing level of technical knowledge and skill. This same argument could be made for the workforce in many other sectors of our economy, and so we should continue to expect expansion and diversification of our education sector to support the types of jobs and skillsets required for the future.
While we might debate and reflect on the number of students entering higher education, it is less common to hear debates and discussions on the size of the workforce who are the backbone of our own sector. While I have been unable to locate accurate workforce data as far back as 1960, the Higher Education Statistics Agency have published data from 2005/6. At that time, UK higher education providers employed a total of 355,410 staff, of which 164,875 were in academic roles. Moving ahead to 2022/23, we now employ 480,845 staff, of whom 240,420 are in academic roles. In itself, this is a significant workforce expansion – a total increase in staffing of over a third, and a 50% increase in academic staff numbers over a 17-year period. Or in more human terms, that is a net increase of 75,545 full-time equivalent academic staff.
What is perhaps most remarkable is that this expansion of our workforce has been, at a national level, an organic process. We have no whole-sector workforce plan and no sector-wide discussion around the shape and size of the workforce we need in 5, 10, or 25 years’ time. In their 2021 review of HE sector workforce changes, Alison Wolf and Andrew Jenkins illustrated both the expansion and changing shape of the sector workforce but also demonstrated that this has been largely reactive and not driven by a clear set of principles or plans.
The reason this all matters in the context of discussions about financial sustainability is that the expansion of the higher education sector has been uneven in terms of the growth of our different areas of activity. As illustrated in Figure 1, over the past ten years, the overwhelming majority of our income growth has been linked to teaching.
Figure 1: Income of UK Higher Education Providers by income type and academic year (£ millions)
From a workforce perspective, with teaching income rising sharply against relatively stable income for research, it would be reasonable to assume that the additional 75,454 academic staff noted above would be almost entirely focused on teaching. However, the best available data we have on the proportion of time spent by academics on different activities – the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) returns published by the Office for Students – shows that there has been almost no change in the proportion of academic staff time spent on research activity. For years where there are comparable TRAC data, we can see that in 18/19, research activity accounted for 35.3% of academic activity, while in 22/23 that figure was 34.1% (and from Figure 1, we can see that teaching-related income grew over this period by over £7bn, while research income only grew by £821m). If research income to the sector had been growing at the same rate as teaching income, these figures would not be a concern – but that is very clearly not the case.
One interpretation of these figures could simply be that this is how higher education has always operated. Tuition fees are, in part, spent on recruiting academic staff, and academics are typically recruited on contracts which include an expectation of them engaging in research and scholarly activities. Moreover, the argument goes, this is fundamental to the mission of universities, which is not solely to teach degree courses but also to generate new knowledge.
This argument is flawed, however, due to a decade of tuition fee freezes set alongside the massive growth in student numbers, which far outstrips growth in research-related income. Our workforce model cannot simply continue growing in a linear fashion while the demands and expectations placed on the workforce are changing as significantly as they have. To provide an analogy, if the government were to announce a massive boost in research funding for universities, and the sector were to respond to this by indicating that around a third of this money would actually be spent on teaching, I would expect eyebrows to be raised across the board. But this is precisely what we have been doing, over a long period of time, in relation to teaching-related income.
Developing a Workforce Model for the Future
As noted above, our sector does not have a workforce plan; we have essentially grown our workforce using traditional contract types and workload models. On the other hand, the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan is an example of taking a whole-sector approach to reflect on workforce needs for a large and complex sector. Importantly, the plan proposes a significant expansion of its workforce, which will depend heavily on the capacity and ability of our further and higher education sectors to deliver. This does not simply entail the expansion of current training routes for existing professions, but the diversification of the types of qualification we offer, and continued development of curricula to ensure the skills being taught reflect long-term workforce needs.
There are many examples of other sectors and, indeed, government departments developing workforce plans and strategies which similarly rely upon the capacity and expertise of further and higher education institutions to fulfil education and training needs. What is invariably missing from such plans is any meaningful reflection on the assumptions made about the capacity and structure of our tertiary education sector. Shortages in teachers can be addressed by funding more training, but are we confident that we have a large enough workforce of teacher-educators to meet this demand? Similarly for nurses, doctors and allied healthcare professionals and, indeed, for any other sector who may be assuming that the tertiary sector is ready and waiting to absorb a continued expansion of students to meet their own future workforce needs.
Moving beyond subject expertise and whether we can simply recruit a large enough workforce to teach, the higher education sector has also changed beyond recognition in terms of the range of qualifications we offer. The three-year undergraduate degree remains the most common study route, but higher education providers now also offer degree apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications, and a growing number of professional and technical qualifications which are quite different to traditional university study. These differences arise due to the type of students they attract, the content of the qualifications themselves, and also the very different regulatory frameworks which underpin their delivery and monitoring.
These changes place a very different set of needs and expectations on our workforce – both academic and professional services colleagues. Degree apprenticeship programmes require a different pedagogic approach to a traditional undergraduate degree, and come with a significant set of additional regulatory expectations. Very few academics will have ever encountered the Education and Skills Funding Agency prior to the growth of apprenticeships standards, and Ofsted was the regulator of everyone except us (outside of university education departments). These changes are not trivial, but they have happened rapidly, and without overt consideration of the way we need to support, develop and expand our own workforce.
While 1960s higher education was, in relative terms, a fairly monolithic sector, today’s higher education sector is extraordinarily diverse and delivers massive economic and societal benefits, which are incomparable to the past. Our sector has changed, and I would strongly argue it has changed for the better. However, in the current climate of deep financial challenge, we must also reflect critically on the way we develop and diversify our own workforce. This, in my view, means stepping outside the well-trodden path of introducing so-called ‘teaching only contracts’ for academics – essentially, academic contracts where the focus is on professional practice and pedagogic leadership, which still retain a career pathway through to the highest academic ranks. Rather, we need to invest in developing a new segment of our workforce, of expert educators who are specialised in areas such as skills development and technical education. If done well, this has the potential to deliver a range of benefits:
Stabilising the financial precarity of our sector. When teaching income is rising faster than research income, we need to ensure we are not disproportionately growing the cross-subsidy of research from teaching income (while recognising that some degree of cross-subsidy is part of the higher education funding model).
Improving the quality of education. By developing more specialised roles within the sector, we can deliver better experiences and outcomes for students, and ensure that they are better able to succeed beyond their time in higher education.
Improving working conditions for all staff. Through the creation of more specialised roles and career pathways which are better aligned to the needs of the sector as a whole.
Supporting our national ambitions for Growth and Skills. As Skills England looks at our future workforce needs, it is critical that we have a stable and high-performing education sector to educate and train the workforce. We cannot continue to take for granted that our education sector can organically bend itself to meet changing industrial and economic needs, without a strategy to support the reforms which will be required.
Universities UK and its taskforce on efficiency and transformation should, I suggest, prioritise a review of our underpinning workforce model to ensure that we are collectively fit for the future. But this work cannot happen in isolation. Our sector will be able to respond more effectively to changing demands if we work together with Skills England and the Department for Education to better understand the role that higher education can play in delivering on national ambitions for growth and skills development.
The Lifelong Education Institute’s latest report – “Taking Higher Education Further” – shines a spotlight on the contribution of FE colleges to England’s higher education sector.
In partnership with the Mixed Economy Group of colleges – a group representing the 43 colleges with a strategic interest in HE – we have explored the rationale for college-based higher education, analysed some of the barriers holding it back from expansion, and suggested ways in which policymakers could support its growth.
The report could hardly come out at a more interesting time for FE/HE relationships. After a decade or more of relative stasis following the introduction of the £9,000 undergraduate student fee cap in England, the tectonic plates of post-18 education are shifting rapidly towards an as-yet-unknown end state. There are three key drivers behind this potential re-setting of the status quo between the college and university sectors.
First is the dramatic shift in the financial situation of universities and colleges, with many higher education institutions now facing the sort of cost-cutting that further education colleges have endured for years and needing to come up with new, more efficient business models to sustain themselves financially. Following the consolidation of many smaller colleges into large groups, there are now several colleges with larger annual turnovers than smaller universities, and the balance of power between FE and HE is moving steadily away from the traditional template of senior/junior partnership.
Second is the move towards universities having place-based strategies, with civic university agreements proliferating in all parts of the country. This has partly been driven by the rise in influential devolved authorities across England, and partly by the increase in take up of degree pathways in a range of public sector professions, such as nursing, policing, and social work, which are vital to local communities and tend to recruit from local populations.
Rising cost of living pressures have also played their part, with commuting students becoming an increasingly important segment of the HE student market. The introduction of degree apprenticeships has also pulled many universities into much more active engagement with local employers and much more of a focus on local skills development. Colleges, which have always had fairly tight catchment areas, now find themselves working their patches alongside local universities, and in some cases, through the network of 21 Institutes of Technology, offering higher technical qualifications and high level short courses directly in partnership with HE institutions.
Third, and most importantly, the arrival of a new government is rapidly moving the political paradigm away from competition towards collaboration. Education ministers have taken every opportunity since the general election to drive home the message that partnership, cooperation and coordination have now replaced markets, competition and institutional individualism as “the default way of working across all providers,” in the recent words of skills minister Jacqui Smith. We are promised a white paper this summer setting out a comprehensive strategy for post-16 education and skills, and at the same time a “radical” package of HE reforms which will also emphasise the role of HE in collaborating around local and national skills priorities.
Is the future for England tertiary?
HE/FE collaboration has tended to be relatively transactional and fluid in England, and there is no standard blueprint for forging partnerships. A small number of colleges can now claim to be tertiary institutions, having been granted degree awarding powers, although with the Office for Students having currently suspended the application process until August, it’s now far from certain how quickly this number will grow in future. There are four universities which by virtue of having absorbed a failing FE college have become tertiary – Derby, London South Bank, Greater Manchester (formerly Bolton University) and the University of West London. But this is the result of specific local circumstances, not national policy.
Arguably, these institutions are a microcosm of exactly what the government is trying to achieve at a national level. Tertiary institutions are able to develop coherent progression pathways from basic to undergraduate level for students of all aptitudes, embracing both academic and technical education routes without competition between them. David Phoenix, vice chancellor of London South Bank University, has been an articulate advocate for this model, and his vision, as set out in his November 2023 report “Connecting the dots: the need for an effective skills system in England” has been highly influential in Labour-leaning circles.
It’s possible the government will introduce much greater incentives for universities and colleges to consider merger, and even be prepared to act as “matchmaker” for reluctant or hesitant brides and grooms. It would certainly make it much easier to develop integrated apprenticeships, higher technical qualifications and Lifelong Learning Entitlement offers if there were more tertiary providers.
The Taking Higher Education Further report is generally supportive of greater tertiary integration, but with several important reservations. To begin with, although most FE colleges are appreciative of the relationships they have with universities – mostly still based on validation agreements – there are many who are critical of the cost and in some cases one-sided nature of the partnership, with some having experienced the disruption caused by an HE institution deciding unilaterally to withdraw from the agreement. Another concern has been the proliferation of foundation years at many universities, which was seen as unwelcome competition for Level 3 students and met with dismay by many in the FE sector. This has abated considerably since the introduction of a much reduced fee cap for foundation years.
While some institutes of technology have strengthened FE/HE relationships, others have struggled to bridge the gap between the two sectors. One aspect of that gap – the difference in pay and conditions between FE and HE lecturers – has proved particularly troublesome. But those institutes of technology which have been successful have demonstrated that joint working between FE and HE can be highly effective. Overall, despite the caveats, the FE leaders consulted as part of the research for the report were generally positive about the idea of working more closely with HE.
In a political climate where economically relevant skills and wider access to job-related skills are now central to the government agenda, college-based higher education has both issues at its heart. The HE students who study in FE colleges are overwhelmingly, adult, very local and from disadvantaged backgrounds. The courses they take are typically directly related to opportunities in the local labour market and focused on career progression. Whereas the student loan system has tended to incentivise HE institutions to prioritise three year degree courses, FE colleges offer a much more incremental approach, with multiple entry and exit points and a high proportion of part-time and modular options. This could be a significant advantage as colleges prepare for the implementation of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement in 2026–27.
In summary, the report is a plea for government to give more support to the expansion of HE in FE, but is not in any way antagonistic towards the HE sector. The aim is to strengthen the relationship between colleges and universities, not to weaken it. As the foreword says, “Working together, colleges and universities can open up accessible opportunities and make a real difference to people’s lives.” In this, FE and HE share a common purpose.
Megan O’Meara, M.D., head of early-stage development at Pfizer Oncology, is deeply committed to scientific innovation, mentorship, and breaking barriers for the next generation of women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) industries. In this conversation, Megan shares her journey in oncology, leadership philosophy, and vision of a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.
Megan O’Meara, M.D.
Head of Early-Stage Development, Pfizer Oncology
What drew you to pursue a career in oncology and what is it that inspires you most about working in this field?
I’ve always been curious about science. My grandfather was a pediatrician, and as a child he read books to me about the history of medicine. In high school, I worked in cancer research labs, and that gave me exposure to the field from an early age. By the time I was in college, there were exciting advancements happening, including broader use of tumor profiling and targeted therapies. I felt there was a huge opportunity to transform cancer treatment, and I knew I wanted to be part of it. I pursued my medical degree and later went into academic research before transitioning to industry, where I felt I might have the broadest impact on the greatest number of people.
Women make up less than 30% of the global STEM workforce. What has your experience been as a woman in research?
Being a woman in a historically male-dominated field can come with unique challenges and opportunities. There were times when I was the only woman in the room. On occasion, I felt like the only one leaving the office on time to make dinner for my family and worried about missing opportunities or important conversations that were happening when I wasn’t there.
Over time, I learned to accept the situation and be confident in setting personal boundaries. I inserted myself in different ways and advanced my career without losing who I am. I developed the confidence to be me — bringing my most authentic and whole self to work. Now, I encourage and empower other women to do the same.
As an industry, there’s still a long way to go. At a recent oncology conference, research showed that men presenting were introduced as “Dr.” while women were introduced by their first names. It seems nuanced, but it reflects a larger issue. Even in a field like oncology, where we pride ourselves on progress, bias still exists in subtle but pervasive ways. Things are improving, but they’re not where they should be yet. That’s why I feel so strongly about uplifting other women and creating opportunities for women in science.
How are you working to change the research field to be more inclusive and supportive of women?
There were many people, particularly female leaders, throughout my career who saw my potential and championed my advancement. I try to do the same for all my team at Pfizer, including the talented women that work with me. I mention their names when I’m in a room with other leaders; I look for opportunities that will showcase their potential.
Outside of work, I volunteer at my daughter’s elementary school to organize events that engage students with science, such as bringing in Pfizer scientists to demonstrate lab techniques like DNA isolation and talk about how science can be applied to areas they are interested in. Studies show that girls start losing interest in science around age 12, so, if we can work to address that early, it can make a difference in improving female representation in STEM fields.
I’m also active in the Society for Immunotherapy in Cancer (SITC) Women in Cancer Immunotherapy Network. I’ve spoken about my journey in research at their events, which are often attended by many women in both academia and industry who are at a crossroads in their career. They’re wondering, “Can I do this?” Hearing people’s stories about how they made it work can be incredibly inspiring.
As head of the division at Pfizer Oncology responsible for developing innovative cancer treatments, what excites you most about the work your team is currently doing?
Right now, I’m particularly excited about our work in antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs). ADCs are innovative cancer medicines that specifically target cancer cells and deliver cancer-killing drugs directly to tumors, while sparing more of the healthy cells in the body.
ADCs have been the foundation of my career, having worked in the space for almost 15 years. This depth of experience, knowledge, and history is being applied now to what we’re doing at Pfizer to advance the field. And we’ve had a huge impact already — bringing treatments to people with blood cancer for the first time in decades and significantly changing the standard of care across tumor types.
Now, as a company, we’re asking, “How do we make ADCs even safer and more effective?” We’re exploring new drug linkers, different payloads, and novel combinations, all with the goal of giving patients better options. This kind of innovation is why I pursued a career in STEM — it’s tremendously fulfilling to be bringing us closer to a world where people with cancer live better and longer lives.
How is Pfizer uniquely positioned to make progress in cancer treatment?
I like to say Pfizer embodies a spirit of innovation and we have some of the most brilliant and dedicated scientists I’ve ever worked with. It’s rare to work at a company, even in big pharma, that has demonstrated leadership across multiple modalities of science the way Pfizer has. We’re constantly learning, adapting, and investing in what’s next across a wide pipeline of products. It’s an amazing powerhouse to be a part of.
For me, our success is also due to a culture — set by our executives — where each person has the opportunity to thrive. Chris Boshoff, chief scientific officer and president, R&D, is passionate about showcasing the team and giving people opportunities. I’ve experienced the same from other leaders. When I first joined Pfizer, Sally Susman, executive vice president and chief corporate affairs officer, introduced herself and said, “Next time you’re in New York, come meet my team.” She brought me into her leadership meeting and helped me build connections. These are just two of many people that have gone out of their way to create an environment where I am able to bring my best self to work, and I am doing the same to ensure my team of scientists has everything they need to succeed.
What do you hope for the future of women in STEM?
I hope that in 20 years, women don’t have to navigate as many barriers. I hope everyone can bring their whole self to the table without feeling like they need to sacrifice a piece of their personal life to succeed. Instead of feeling impostor syndrome around big opportunities, I hope women ask themselves, “Why not me?”
We still have work to do, but I truly believe we’re making progress. By supporting women, we’re supporting a better industry and better science.
The layoffs of half of the employees of the U.S. Department of Education clearly demonstrate the Trump administration’s follow-through on one of Project 2025’s mandates, which intends to eliminate the resources, protections and opportunities that millions of children and families across this nation rely on.
It is evident that the White House will not stop until it wipes out the most basic protections and supports for the American people, including the youngest children. The first step was the attempt to defund Head Start and Early Head Start, impacting 800,000 young children across the nation. This order was halted by a federal judge in Washington, thanks to the lawsuits filed by Democracy Forward and attorneys general from 23 states.
The mass layoffs will severely hamper the department’s ability to execute on its core responsibilities. This move is a direct assault on millions of students, teachers and families. It is clearly a precursor to dismantling the department without congressional consent, which would have an even more devastating impact. The department serves and protects the most vulnerable children and young adults, ensuring that they have equal access to education. This includes:
26 million students from low-income backgrounds — more than half of all K-12 students — who rely on the department for reasonable class sizes; school meals; tutoring; afterschool and summer programs; school supplies such as laptops and books; parent engagement programs; and, in some cases, transportation
9.8 million students enrolled in rural schools
7.4. million students with disabilities
5 million English learners
1.1 million students experiencing homelessness
87 million college students who receive Pell Grants and student loans
The department was created in 1980 with a single, crucial purpose: to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the nation. Its creation followed decades of systemic inequities that left children in disadvantaged communities without the same learning opportunities as their more privileged peers. The department’s work has been a critical safeguard against discrimination in schools, whether on the basis of race, disability, gender or income.
Without the federal government’s intervention and oversight, the more than 13 million children who live in poverty would be even more vulnerable to systemic inequities. The department ensures that federal dollars are distributed to those students most in need, ensuring that underserved children have the same opportunities for success as their wealthier peers. Without the federal oversight and the department’s support, these students will fall even further behind, and the national achievement gap will grow wider.
The federal government is the only entity that can ensure a baseline level of educational equity across the entire nation. The department holds states accountable for ensuring that all children, regardless of where they live or what their socioeconomic status may be, receive a quality education. If this accountability is removed, the children most at risk — those in underfunded schools, children of color, children with disabilities, English learners and those experiencing homelessness — will be the first to suffer. These children would be denied the critical services and protections they need to succeed in school and in life.
Moreover, the president’s plan to turn education policy over to the states would completely dismantle the federal safety net that ensures that the most vulnerable children are not left behind. Each of the 50 states has different priorities, resources and political climates. While some might be able to provide excellent educational opportunities, others will leave children behind, particularly in rural or economically disadvantaged areas. Inequities between states could widen to an intolerable degree, and the resulting lack of uniform educational standards would only further disadvantage the children who need the most help.
To be clear, the department cannot be dissolved at the whim of a sitting president. Under the Constitution, only an act of Congress can create or dismantle a federal agency. The president does not have the unilateral power to eliminate an entire federal institution that serves the educational needs of millions of children across this country. Attempting to do so would not only undermine the law, but also inflict tremendous harm to the very foundation of America’s educational system.
The idea that dismantling the department could somehow improve that system is not only misguided, but dangerously naïve.
It’s vital that we, as a nation, recognize the long-term damage this action would cause. The attempt to dismantle the Department of Education is not just an attack on a government agency — it is an attack on the future of America’s children.
To parents across the country: This policy is not only unconstitutional — it is a grave threat to your children’s future. Whether your child is in a classroom in New York, Los Angeles or a small town in the Midwest, the U.S. Department of Education has worked to ensure that their educational opportunities are protected, funded and regulated. A president who seeks to eliminate this essential agency is jeopardizing the future of every single student in America.
This is why we must all rise up and make our voices heard. We must demand that our leaders stop this dangerous plan in its tracks, that they fix what isn’t working and that they use this opportunity to reimagine public education and invest in a more effective, equitable system that gives all children the opportunity to succeed.
University of Sydney vice-chancellor Mark Scott reaffirmed that all international students are welcome at his university during a meeting of student unions on Wednesday.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Professor Lisa-Dionne Morris is Professor of Public & Industry Understanding of Capability Driven Design in the School of Mechanical Engineering, and the Engagement Champion for the EPSRC EDI Hub+, at the University of Leeds.
Women in higher education and industry leadership, especially in Engineering and STEM, have reshaped academia and industry through groundbreaking contributions. Over the past two centuries, they have advanced knowledge, dismantled systemic barriers, and set new standards in innovation and leadership. Yet Black women remain significantly underrepresented, highlighting the urgent need for institutional change.
After all, when we lack diversity, we limit our ability to evolve and tackle the challenges of a rapidly changing world.
These disparities highlight the urgent need for fundamental change to ensure equitable access to opportunities and resources.
The 200-year journey of Black women in academia has been shaped by structural barriers but also by resilience and advocacy. Initiatives like the Black Female Academics’ Network and the national EDI Hub+, led by the University of Leeds, have played pivotal roles in championing change and providing visibility and support for Black women in academia and higher education leadership. But the reality is that real change comes not just from support networks but from institutions and governance bodies truly committed to transformation through policy implementation and its incorporation into operational management.
Black women have broken barriers in education, research, and industry, driving policy changes and fostering inclusivity. They have led pioneering research, challenged outdated structures, and risen to leadership in historically non-diverse sectors. In Engineering and STEM, figures like Dr. Aprille Ericsson, the first Black woman to earn a PhD in Mechanical Engineering from Howard University, have held key roles at NASA. Yewande Akinola, a Nigerian-born engineer, has advanced sustainable water systems while advocating for diversity. In the UK, Professor Esther Akinlabi has made significant contributions to academic leadership, engineering, research, and advocacy.
These Black women, and countless others, have played critical roles, and yet their paths have not been easy. They have faced barriers, from being underestimated in their abilities to encountering biases that make progression in academia and industry far harder than it should be. It is important to highlight their successes but equally crucial to recognise the dramatic shifts needed to create a more inclusive landscape.
As the first Black female professor in the School of Mechanical Engineering at the University of Leeds, I have witnessed firsthand the impact of underrepresentation on individuals and institutions. Without diverse voices in leadership, we lose perspectives that drive innovation and meaningful change. True equity and inclusion require representation at the highest levels, where policies and practices are shaped.
Mentorship and networking are vital for career progression, yet many Black women in academia and industry lack mentors with shared experiences. Institutions must formalise support systems rather than relying on individual efforts. A cultural shift is needed, one where diversity is not just discussed but reinforced through real structural changes that create lasting opportunities.
Breaking barriers is not just about individuals but about how institutions respond. Are they fostering environments where Black women can thrive? Are they tackling unconscious bias in hiring and promotions? Are they offering real support for retention and advancement beyond just celebrating ‘firsts’? It’s time to move from symbolic gestures to tangible change that empowers the next generation in academia and industry.
The legacy of Black women in academia and industry extends beyond their achievements to the opportunities they create for future generations. Recognising and amplifying their voices is essential. Their contributions must be seamlessly woven into the broader narrative of advancement and innovation in women’s higher education and industry leadership.
Much work remains. Representation is not enough; true progress requires dismantling barriers to access and opportunity. Black women in academia and industry, especially in Engineering and STEM, must be empowered, supported, and able to lead without the constant need to justify their place.
The goal should be that, in the future, their contributions are not exceptional but expected, and their presence in leadership roles is not a rarity but the norm.
