Tag: Great

  • 5 tips for educators using video

    5 tips for educators using video

    Key points:

    When you need to fix your sink, learn how to use AI, or cook up a new recipe, chances are you searched on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, or even Facebook–and found a video, watched it, paused it, rewound it, and successfully accomplished your goal. Why? Videos allow you to get the big picture, and then pause, rewind, and re-watch the instruction as many times as you want, at your own pace.  Video-based instruction offers a hands-free, multichannel (sight and sound) learning experience. Creating educational videos isn’t an “extra” for creating instruction in today’s world; it’s essential.

    As an educator, over the past 30 years, I’ve created thousands of instructional videos. I started creating videos at Bloomsburg University early in my career so I could reinforce key concepts, visually present ideas, and provide step-by-step instruction on software functionality to my students. Since those early beginnings, I’ve had the chance to create video-based courses for Lynda.com (now LinkedIn Learning) and for my YouTube channel.

    Creating instructional videos has saved me time, expanded my reach, and allowed me to have more impact on my students.

    Tips

    Creating educational videos over the years has taught me a number of key lessons that can help you, too, to create impactful and effective instructional videos.

    Be yourself and have fun

    The first rule is to not overthink it. You are not giving a performance; you are connecting with your students. In your instructional video, talk directly to your students and connect with them. The video should be an extension of your personality. If you tell silly jokes in class, tell silly jokes in the video. You want your authentic voice, your expressions, and your energy in the videos you create.

    And don’t worry about mistakes. When I first did Lynda.com courses, any small mistake I made meant we had to redo the take. However, over the years, the feedback I’ve received on the videos across LinkedIn Learning indicated that flawless performances were not the way to go because they didn’t feel “real.” Real people make mistakes, misspeak, and mispronounce words. Students want to connect with you, not with flawless editing. If you stumble over a word, laugh it off and keep going. The authenticity makes the student feel like you’re right there with them. If you watch some of my current LinkedIn Learning courses, you’ll notice some mistakes, and that’s okay–it’s a connection, not a distraction.

    Speak with the students, don’t lecture

    Video gives you the chance to have an authentic connection with the student as if you were sitting across the desk from them, having a friendly but informative chat. When filming, look directly into the camera, but don’t stare–keep it natural. In actual conversations, two people don’t stare at each other, they occasionally look away or look to the side. Keep that in mind as you are recording. Also make sure you smile, are animated, and seem excited to share your knowledge. Keep your tone conversational, not formal. Don’t slip into “lecture mode.” When you look directly into the camera and speak directly to the student, you create a sense of intimacy, presence, and connection. That simple shift from a lecture mindset to conversation will make the video far more impactful and help the learning to stick.

    Record in short bursts

    You don’t have to record a one-hour lecture all at once. In fact, don’t!  A marathon recording session isn’t good for you. It creates fatigue, mistakes, and the dreaded “do-over” spiral where one slip-up makes you want to restart the entire video. Instead, record in short bursts, breaking your content into segments. Usually, I try to record only about four to five minutes at a time.  The beauty of this technique is that if it’s completely a mess and needs a total “do over,” you only need to re-record a few minutes, not the entire lecture. This is a lifesaver. Before I began using this technique, I dreaded trying to get an entire one-hour lecture perfect for the recording, even though I was rarely perfect in delivering it in class. But the pressure, because it was recorded, was almost overwhelming.

    Now, I record in small segments and either put them all together after I’ve recorded them individually or present them to students individually. The advantage of individually recorded videos for students is that it makes the content easier to learn. They can re-watch the exact piece they struggled with instead of hunting through an hour-long video to find just what they need.

    Keep it moving

    A word of caution: We’ve all seen those videos. You know the ones: A tiny talking head hovers in the corner, reading every bullet point like it’s the audiobook version of the slide while the same slide just sits there for 15 minutes with no movement and no animation–not even a text flying in from the left. Ugh. Don’t let your visuals sit there like wallpaper. Instead, strive for movement. About every 30 seconds, give learners something new to look at. That could mean switching to the next slide, drawing live on a whiteboard, cutting to you speaking and then back to the slide, or animating an illustration to show movement. The point is that motion grabs attention. For a video, cut down your wall-of-text slides. Use fewer words and more slides. If you have 50 words crammed on one slide, split it into three slides. Insert an image, a chart, or even a simple sketch. If you’re teaching software, demonstrate it on screen instead of describing it in words. If you’re explaining a process, illustrate the steps as you go. The more movement, the more likely you are to hold the learner’s attention.

    Keep production simple

    The good news about creating educational videos is that you don’t need a big budget or a film crew to get started. All you need is a camera, a good microphone, and a simple video creation tool. Now, I would advise not using your laptop’s built-in camera or microphone. They don’t do the job well. You don’t want a grainy, pixelated picture or muffled audio. They make it too hard for students to focus and even harder for them to stay engaged. For video, I recommend using an external webcam. Even a modest one is a huge step up from what’s baked into most PCs. For audio, go with an external microphone, or even a good-quality headset. For the video tool, I have not found a simpler or easier-to-use tool than Camtasia’s free online, cloud-based tool. The free version lets you record your screen, capture your voice, do slight edits, and add backgrounds.  It is more than enough to create clear, useful videos that your students can actually learn from. Remember, the goal isn’t Hollywood production. You want clear, effective, and authentic instructional videos.

    By using these five tips, educators can create instructional videos to save time, expand their reach, and create greater impacts on their students. Grab a good camera, a decent headset, and free video software, and create your first instructional video. Just simply start. You’ll wonder why you waited so long.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Why new math problems won’t solve our nation’s math problem

    Why new math problems won’t solve our nation’s math problem

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #4 focuses on making math instruction more relevant to students.

    Key points:

    How much longer will we keep trying to solve our nation’s dismal math proficiency problem by writing new math problems? Clearly, if that was the answer, it would have worked by now–but it hasn’t, as evidenced by decades of low proficiencies, historic declines post-COVID, and the widest outcome gaps in the world.

    The real question students are asking is, “When am I ever going to use this?” As a former math teacher, I learned that addressing this question head-on made all the difference. Students’ success in math wasn’t found in a book–it was found in how math applied to them, in its relevance to their future career plans. When math concepts were connected to real-world scenarios, they transformed from distant and abstract ideas into meaningful, tangible skills.

    My first-hand experience proved the premise of education innovator Dr. Bill Daggett’s “rigor-relevance-relationship” framework. If students know what they’re learning has real-life implications, meaning and purpose will ensure that they become more motivated and actively engaged in their learning.

    Years later, I founded the nonprofit Pathway2Careers with a commitment to use education research to inform good policy and effective practice. From that foundation, we set out on a path to develop a first-of-its-kind approach to math instruction that led with relevance through career-connected learning (CCL).

    In our initial pilot study in 2021, students overwhelmingly responded positively to the curriculum. After using our career-connected math lessons, 100 percent of students reported increased interest in learning math this way. Additionally, they expressed heightened curiosity about various career pathways–a significant shift in engagement.

    In a more comprehensive survey of 537 students spanning grades 7–11 (with the majority in grades 8 and 9) in 2023, the results reinforced this transformation. Students reported a measurable increase in motivation, with:

    • 48 percent expressing “much more” or “slightly more” interest in learning math
    • 52 percent showing greater curiosity about how math skills are applied in careers
    • 55 percent indicating newfound interest in specific career fields
    • 60 percent wanting to explore different career options
    • 54 percent expressing a stronger desire to learn how other skills translate to careers

    Educators also noted significant benefits. Teachers using the curriculum regularly–daily or weekly–overwhelmingly rated it as effective. Specifically, 86 percent indicated it was “very effective” or “somewhat effective” in increasing student engagement, and 73 percent highlighted improved understanding of math’s relevance to career applications. Other reported benefits included students’ increased interest in pursuing higher education and gaining awareness of various postsecondary options like certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor’s degrees.

    Building on these promising indicators of engagement, we analyzed students’ growth in learning as measured by Quantile assessments administered at the start and end of the academic year. The results exceeded expectations:

    • In Pre-Algebra, students surpassed the national average gain by 101 Quantiles (141Q vs. 40Q)
    • Algebra I students achieved more than triple the expected gains (110Q vs. 35Q)
    • Geometry learners outpaced the average by 90 Quantiles (125Q vs. 35Q)
    • Algebra II showed the most significant growth, with students outperforming the norm by 168 Quantiles (198Q vs. 30Q)

    These outcomes are a testament to the power of relevance in education. By embedding math concepts within real-world career contexts, we transformed abstract concepts into meaningful, tangible skills. Students not only mastered math content at unprecedented levels but also began to see the subject as a critical tool for their futures.

    What we found astounded even us, though we shouldn’t have been surprised, based on decades of research that indicated what would happen. Once we answered the question of when students would use this, their mastery of the math content took on purpose and meaning. Contextualizing math is the path forward for math instruction across the country.

    And there’s no time to waste. As a recent Urban Institute study indicated, students’ math proficiencies were even more significant than reading in positively impacting their later earning power. If we can change students’ attitudes about math, not just their math problems, the economic benefits to students, families, communities, and states will be profound.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • You can write a great essay. But can you tell a great story?

    You can write a great essay. But can you tell a great story?

    What’s the difference between academic writing and writing a news story? How different can they be?

    I started out as a student of political science, became a journalist and then taught at university. Having started as an academic, you’d think returning to academic writing would be a snap. But it wasn’t.

    As a journalist I’d been trained to say what needed to be said in as few words as possible. My writing needed to be easily read by anybody, regardless of their level of education and whether or not they read English as a first language. But academic writing is meant to impress. An essay is written by a student to impress a teacher, or a professor to impress colleagues or a tenure committee, or by a scientist or social scientist to impress a publisher.

    Academic essays, reports and studies are meant to be ready by peers: people at the same or higher education level, who are experts in the same field of specialization and read them in their offices and classes.

    News stories are meant to be read by anyone, sitting around the breakfast table as they munch on corn flakes.

    You’d think the academic writing would be harder, no?

    Telling stories

    Imagine talking to a group of friends about something that happened in school. You don’t have to keep explaining who you are talking about or what you are talking about. They know all your references. But try telling the same story to your parents or better yet, adults who don’t know your school or community. It is a bit frustrating, because they don’t know what a stickler for rules Mr. Jackson is, or why most people avoid the third floor bathroom, or how so-and-so was dating you-know-who’s brother on the down low. You know, all that stuff that you need to know to understand why what happened at school was so significant.

    It is much more difficult to tell a story when the person you are telling it to has no context. Moreover, when you write an essay or report you expect the person you are writing it for to read it. That’s their job. But no one is expected to read a news story.

    As the author, you need to entice readers to choose your story to read. And you need to keep their attention throughout the story, because they aren’t obligated to read it to the end. So the story can’t be boring or tedious to read. Each paragraph has to have something interesting in it. It needs to be a good story worth reading.

    I learned quickly as a journalist to read my stories out loud to myself. By doing so, I could hear when my writing was getting tired and dull. I could picture the person who is hearing the story fall asleep or walk away. When that happened I hit the delete button and started the paragraph again.

    I would rethink whether the information I had included was really needed. Did my reader need to know that piece of data to understand what was happening?

    Comparing academic and journalistic writing

    To see the difference between journalistic and academic writing it is useful to look at a news story that came off of a report.

    The news organization Vox published an article 17 December about a new report on poverty that was done by researchers at four California universities.

    This is how the report began:

    We study poverty minimization via direct transfers, framing this as a statistical learning problem while retaining the information constraints faced by real-world programs. Using nationally representative household consumption surveys from 23 countries that together account for 50% of the world’s poor, we estimate that reducing the poverty rate to 1% (from a baseline of 12% at the time of last survey) would cost $170B nominal per year.

    Would you choose to read that with your corn flakes?

    Here is how Vox reporter Sara Herschander begins the story:

    When it comes to fixing the world’s worst problems, it’s easy to pretend that we’re helpless.

    We tell ourselves that global poverty is just too big, too distant and too intractable an issue for us to solve. If the world could afford to solve it, or something like hunger, then surely somebody else would have done it already.

    But, it turns out, that’s simply not true. According to a new report by a group of anti-poverty researchers that uses AI tools to achieve unusually granular data of the picture on the ground, the price tag for completely ending extreme poverty would be just $318 billion per year.

    Writing that is clear and concise

    The researchers didn’t worry that most people wouldn’t understand the terms “poverty minimization”, “direct transfers”, “statistical learning problem” or “information constraints”.

    But try sticking those terms into a story you tell friends in the school hall and they’ll tune you out.

    There is another big difference between news stories and academic essays and reports. Journalists don’t footnote sources. That’s because you wouldn’t have footnotes in a story you tell out loud. Just try it.

    So instead, when a journalist needs to cite a source they write something like, “that’s according to data from the U.S. Census” or, “a recent study out of Harvard found that.” The journalist would likely hyperlink to the actual study for readers who might want to read it, as I did above for both the Vox article and the report. The idea is that the citation should be as short as possible and it should not break into the story.

    The real challenge for a journalist is that the average reader has a very short attention span. Any break in a story is like an exit door. It is the chance for the reader to leave that depressing story about poverty to go to a more uplifting story about football or Bad Bunny.

    The importance of revision

    That’s why journalists write several drafts of a story before it gets published. In the first draft they just try to get all the information they have onto a page. In the second draft, they think about whether the information is needed and start taking things out and adding in others they might have forgotten. In the third, they try to close all those exit doors — all the places in the story that are tedious.

    There are some tricks to doing this. It helps to round up or down numbers that have a lot of digits. A number like $1,569,345 is tedious to read. It takes 13 words to say it out loud. Instead, saying about $1.6 million will do the trick. That’s just five words out loud.

    And it helps to use analogies and metaphors people can recognize. In a story I once wrote about the volatility of the stock market (doesn’t that sound like a yawner?) I likened the stock chart to Bart Simpson’s hair. For a story about an old technology company that kept getting sold and resold, I likened it to a secondhand sofa not moldy enough to toss into a skip.

    But reaching for these analogies isn’t easy; it takes a little extra time and mental effort. In some ways journalists are translators. In general, translators take something in one language and turn it into another — from Japanese to English, for example. A journalist takes something from the language of the boring and tedious and obscure and turns it into the language of interesting and understandable.

    It’s kind of like a jigsaw puzzle. You start with a bunch of pieces that seem to make little sense, but if you put them together in the right way you get a clear picture from it. But sometimes to do that you have to keep moving the different pieces around and sometimes you find you have to undo an entire section because something just doesn’t fit.

    The result, when you are done, though, is pretty satisfying.

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why are news stories so different from essays?

    2. In what ways are journalists translators?

    3. What do you think makes a story interesting to read or hear?

    Source link

  • The great UKRI budget shake-up

    The great UKRI budget shake-up

    UKRI has two functions. The first is to coordinate the work of seven research councils to improve research quality, impact, and infrastructure. The second is to use this convening power to achieve social good such as economic growth. The National Audit Office criticised the impact of UKRI against both of these missions.

    The standard approach of UKRI has been to fund blue-sky research, things that universities and others do that push the boundaries of accepted knowledge, and to fund a portfolio of other projects, buildings, and people, to achieve a broader set of missions shaped by DSIT.

    The forever tension is that this approach can lead to a great sprawl. The internal competition to establish grants underneath each research council requires a great degree of internal coordination. The bidding process for these grants is even sprawlier still. And there is no guarantee that blue-sky research will produce the kinds of things the government wants in order to achieve its mission of economic growth.

    Until now, research funding has been the story of nudges toward the things government wants through bodies it influences but does not control, and through setting the legal and reporting guardrails for the train of unrestricted and unhypothecated research funding largely allocated through QR. This is now going to significantly change.

    Bucketing down

    UKRI’s budget allocation process is the single most powerful tool it has to shape the research ecosystem.

    Today’s new settlement for the next four years of research investment has gone all in on developing cross-disciplinary funding to meet government priorities such as the industrial strategy, targeted investment in key technologies, protecting curiosity-led research, and significant increases to skills and infrastructure. It is funding that follows a government’s plan, and it’s also a marked shift in how the funder operates as an organisation.

    One instructive way in to what’s going on is to compare the newly published allocations explainer to the one covering 2025–26. That previous document was a slim six-page, 1000-word canter through how much each of the funding councils was getting, in essence. UKRI’s new allocations for the rest of the spending review period are a very different beast.

    First up, we’re told that it is “not possible to directly compare these allocations to previous budgets,” such is the nature of the overhaul. And while this sounds like it could be spin to distract from subtle cuts in less politically trendy areas, it is basically true – the whole budget process has been reimagined. It’s also worth observing from the get-go that the generous overall R&D spending review settlement makes it much easier to get away with these big and potentially thorny changes – compare the prompt announcement here with the ongoing wait for news about how the Office for Students’ strategic priorities grant will be reformed.

    In headline terms, it should come as little surprise to see the “bucket theory” front and centre – this had already been established by the Liz Kendall and Ian Chapman speeches last month. To recap, though, overall across the four years there is £14.5bn for curiosity-driven, foundational research (Bucket 1), £8.3bn for targeted R&D addressing strategic government and societal priorities (Bucket 2), and £7.4 billion to support innovative companies’ growth (Bucket 3), as well as £8.4bn for what is basically a fourth bucket, “enabling and strengthening UK R&D”.

    What we see today is that while Bucket 1 will be the largest part of the overall settlement, the increases on offer are located elsewhere – the exact figures are tricky to definitively pinpoint, given how certain elements are slowly moved from one bucket to another over the four years.

    Most surprising is how fundamentally the new way of thinking about what UKRI funds translate into research council settlements. The only per-council announcements we get are for applicant-led research, where each council is seeing increases over the period. It’s tempting to try to draw lines back to previous settlements – but it fundamentally doesn’t work like this.

    For buckets 2 and 3, there is no breakdown by funding council. Rather, each industrial strategy area gets its own separate item (in fact, for the digital and technologies sector, it’s split into four: engineering biology, AI, quantum, and the other stuff). The majority of the investment in bucket 2 for these areas “will be delivered by research councils,” we are advised – but this will be a separate process. Aside from specific investments such as the R&D Missions Programme and the Edinburgh supercomputer, this will flow via programmes, each led by an executive chair but described clearly as cross-UKRI.

    Over in bucket 3 we can find HEIF, but much of the rest will be run through Innovate UK, with a growing focus on industrial strategy sectors. After plenty of debate within the sector about where QR should sit, it’s firmly in bucket 1 despite some suggestions that this would both misunderstand its role as a flexible fund and leave it more at risk to future cuts. The UKRI thinking is that basically QR is not government-directed, and therefore it goes in the first bucket.

    Elsewhere we see a substantial investment in the collective talent doctoral funding line item (up to more than £800m next year and over £900m by 2028–29). And we understand that other doctoral funding could come from, for example, bucket 2 cash where linked to industrial strategy priorities.

    A single mission

    UKRI chief executive Ian Chapman describes the budget as being aligned to a “single mission”. He’s talking about the mission of advancing knowledge, improving lives and driving growth – but there’s also a clear sense that the way in which the funding landscape is being restructured gives a much firmer central UKRI steer regarding what gets spent and why, with the role of the funding councils, and Research England, more focused on delivery and detail.

    The role of the industrial strategy in choosing what research investment will be made is even more prominent than many will have expected. Predictably, it’s also very lopsided – AI-related programmes will swallow £400m a year by the end of the decade, while other areas see much less frugality.

    Whether this focus on the IS-8 sectors will translate through to choices about where funding gets invested, as we looked at earlier this week, remains to be seen. But the other issue with the industrial strategy lens, one that as the decade progresses will come into ever sharper focus, is what this will mean for the year after the spending review period, when a new government is likely and other priorities will suddenly have to be accommodated.

    For now, it’s a big ambitious reordering of how research money gets invested, which will have to be reflected within UKRI and its component parts, as they are being asked to work in different ways and pursue fundamentally different goals.

    Source link

  • The Great American University Shakedown

    The Great American University Shakedown

    With each new resolution agreement, it becomes clearer that the Trump administration intends to base the government’s relationship with higher education on extortion. In its recently cut deal, Northwestern University will pay the Treasury $75 million in exchange for about $800 million in congressionally approved research funding it had already secured. NU now joins Columbia on the list of institutions that have paid fees to the federal government—Columbia’s deal included a $200 million payment to the Treasury over three years.

    In the grand scheme of things, $75 million is chump change for Northwestern. It’s a fraction of the research funding that was at risk and barely makes a dent in the institution’s $14.3 billion endowment. It’s less than two months’ worth of the up to $40 million the institution said it was paying every month to supplement lost research funding. The payment was, according to interim president Henry Bienen, “the best and most certain method to restore our federal funding, both now and in the future.”

    Part of that is likely true. Litigation would have taken years and cost many more millions. But nothing in the agreement precludes the government from leveraging federal research funding to extract certain political wins from the university again. The government didn’t even need evidence Northwestern violated any federal laws to revoke its federal funding. Officials offered no conclusions from the three investigations into antisemitism on campus the Departments of Education, Justice and Health and Human Services launched. With the punitive withholding of federal funds, the institution is being punished before it’s proven guilty. As Andrew Gillen, a scholar at the Cato Institute put it, “Much like the Queen in Alice in Wonderland who said, ‘Sentence first—verdict afterwards.’”

    Before this administration, rarely did OCR investigations require institutions to pay money to the government. The resolutions focused mainly on training and improving processes at the university in question. By contrast, the agreements the Trump administration has reached with elite, research-focused universities harm the institution as well as the country. Northwestern, Columbia, Brown and others might have their funding back, but they’re now weighed down by even greater compliance burdens.

    Northwestern has to report admissions data on every student who applies, is admitted and enrolls; socialize international students on the norms of campus life; and make sure nobody is wearing a face mask to conceal their identity. After cutting more than 400 jobs in July, Northwestern now has fewer people around campus to take over additional reporting duty. This is how the administration wants our leading research institutions to spend their time. And while U.S. institutions process paperwork and fight to have funding restored, China sprints ahead in artificial intelligence, robotics and innovation.

    Precedent for paying fines in government settlements exists for other sectors, but those partly fund solutions to problems. Purdue Pharma, for example, paid local and state governments to fund opioid treatment, prevention and recovery services. In its multibillion-dollar settlement with the U.S. government over cheating on emissions tests, Volkswagen paid billions of dollars to fund clean energy initiatives and electric vehicle charging infrastructure. Even Columbia in its settlement agreed to pay an additional $21 million to compensate employees who may have experienced antisemitism on campus after Oct. 7, 2023. Northwestern’s millions simply disappear into Treasury’s coffers and do nothing to combat antisemitism in higher ed.

    NU won’t be the last institution the government attempts to force into a settlement. This summer it demanded UCLA, a public institution, pay $1.2 billion as part of a settlement to unfreeze millions in research funds. Harvard’s heated legal battle for its funding rages on, and research funds remain frozen for Duke and Princeton.

    These resolutions are a strong indicator of how the administration wants its relationship with research institutions to be—politically self-serving, one-sided and fear-based. Institutions could choose to fight, but mounting expensive legal battles without millions of research dollars isn’t really a choice at all. The agreements might be an offer universities can’t refuse.

    Source link

  • Trump Throws “Great Gatsby” Party at Mar-a-Lago as Food Stamps End for Millions (Democracy Now!)

    Trump Throws “Great Gatsby” Party at Mar-a-Lago as Food Stamps End for Millions (Democracy Now!)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Trump Throws “Great Gatsby” Party at Mar-a-Lago as Food Stamps End for Millions (Democracy Now!)




    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

  • AI can be a great equalizer, but it remains out of reach for millions of Americans; the Universal Service Fund can expand access

    AI can be a great equalizer, but it remains out of reach for millions of Americans; the Universal Service Fund can expand access

    In an age defined by digital transformation, access to reliable, high-speed internet is not a luxury; it is the bedrock of opportunity. It impacts the school classroom, the doctor’s office, the town square and the job market.

    As we stand on the cusp of a workforce revolution driven by the “arrival technology” of artificial intelligence, high-speed internet access has become the critical determinant of our nation’s economic future. Yet, for millions of Americans, this essential connection remains out of reach.

    This digital divide is a persistent crisis that deepens societal inequities, and we must rally around one of the most effective tools we have to combat it: the Universal Service Fund. The USF is a long-standing national commitment built on a foundation of bipartisan support and born from the principle that every American, regardless of their location or income, deserves access to communications services.

    Without this essential program, over 54 million students, 16,000 healthcare providers and 7.5 million high-need subscribers would lose internet service that connects classrooms, rural communities (including their hospitals) and libraries to the internet.

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

    The discussion about the future of USF has reached a critical juncture: Which communities will have access to USF, how it will be funded and whether equitable access to connectivity will continue to be a priority will soon be decided.

    Earlier this year, the Supreme Court found the USF’s infrastructure to be constitutional — and a backbone for access and opportunity in this country. Congress recently took a significant next step by relaunching a bicameral, bipartisan working group devoted to overhauling the fund. Now they are actively seeking input from stakeholders on how to best modernize this vital program for the future, and they need our input.

    I’m urging everyone who cares about digital equity to make their voices heard. The window for our input in support of this vital connectivity infrastructure is open through September 15.

    While Universal Service may appear as only a small fee on our monthly phone bills, its impact is monumental. The fund powers critical programs that form a lifeline for our nation’s most vital institutions and vulnerable populations. The USF helps thousands of schools and libraries obtain affordable internet — including the school I founded in downtown Brooklyn. For students in rural towns, the E-Rate program, funded by the USF, allows access to the same online educational resources as those available to students in major cities. In schools all over the country, the USF helps foster digital literacy, supports coding clubs and enables students to complete homework online.

    By wiring our classrooms and libraries, we are investing in the next generation of innovators.

    The coming waves of technological change — including the widespread adoption of AI — threaten to make the digital divide an unbridgeable economic chasm. Those on the wrong side of this divide experienced profound disadvantages during the pandemic. To get connected, students at my school ended up doing homework in fast-food parking lots. Entire communities lost vital connections to knowledge and opportunity when libraries closed.

    But that was just a preview of the digital struggle. This time, we have to fight to protect the future of this investment in our nation’s vital infrastructure to ensure that the rising wave of AI jobs, opportunities and tools is accessible to all.

    AI is rapidly becoming a fundamental tool for the American workforce and in the classroom. AI tools require robust bandwidth to process data, connect to cloud platforms and function effectively.

    The student of tomorrow will rely on AI as a personalized tutor that enhances teacher-led classroom instruction, explains complex concepts and supports their homework. AI will also power the future of work for farmers, mechanics and engineers.

    Related: Getting kids online by making internet affordable

    Without access to AI, entire communities and segments of the workforce will be locked out. We will create a new class of “AI have-nots,” unable to leverage the technology designed to propel our economy forward.

    The ability to participate in this new economy, to upskill and reskill for the jobs of tomorrow, is entirely dependent on the one thing the USF is designed to provide: reliable connectivity.

    The USF is also critical for rural health care by supporting providers’ internet access and making telehealth available in many communities. It makes internet service affordable for low-income households through its Lifeline program and the Connect America Fund, which promotes the construction of broadband infrastructure in rural areas.

    The USF is more than a funding mechanism; it is a statement of our values and a strategic economic necessity. It reflects our collective agreement that a child’s future shouldn’t be limited by their school’s internet connection, that a patient’s health outcome shouldn’t depend on their zip code and that every American worker deserves the ability to harness new technology for their career.

    With Congress actively debating the future of the fund, now is the time to rally. We must engage in this process, call on our policymakers to champion a modernized and sustainably funded USF and recognize it not as a cost, but as an essential investment in a prosperous, competitive and flourishing America.

    Erin Mote is the CEO and founder of InnovateEDU, a nonprofit that aims to catalyze education transformation by bridging gaps in data, policy, practice and research.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about the Universal Service Fund 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

  • For a great story, get out and report

    For a great story, get out and report

    Sure, you can Zoom someone in on your laptop or chat over WhatsApp. But when you go out to an event or interview you come back with so much more.

    Source link

  • A ‘Great Defection’ threatens to empty universities and colleges of top teaching talent

    A ‘Great Defection’ threatens to empty universities and colleges of top teaching talent

    Paulina Cossette spent six years getting a doctoral degree with the goal of becoming a university professor. But it wasn’t long before she gave up on that path.

    With higher education under political assault, and opportunities as well as job security diminished by enrollment declines, Cossette felt burnt out and disillusioned. So she quit her hard-won job as an assistant professor of American government at a small private college in Maryland and used the skills she’d learned to go into business for herself as a freelance copy editor.

    Now Cossette is hearing from other newly minted Ph.D.s and tenured faculty who want out — so many, she’s expanded her business to help them leave academia, as she did. 

    Seemingly relentless attacks and funding cuts since the start of Donald Trump’s second presidential term have been “the straw that broke the camel’s back,” said Cossette, who left higher education on the eve of the pandemic, in 2019. “I’m hearing from a lot more people that it’s too much.”

    An exodus appears to be under way of Ph.D.s and faculty generally, who are leaving academia in the face of political, financial and enrollment crises. It’s a trend federal data and other sources show began even before Trump returned to the White House. 

    On top of everything else affecting higher education, this is likely to reduce the quality of education for undergraduates, experts say. 

    Nearly 70 percent of people receiving doctorates were already leaving higher education for industry, government and other sectors, not including those without job offers or who opted to continue their studies, according to the most recent available figures from the National Science Foundation — up from fewer than 50 percent decades ago.

    As for faculty, more than a third of provosts reported higher-than-usual turnover last year, in a survey by Hanover Research and the industry publication Inside Higher Ed. That was before the turmoil of this late winter and spring. 

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    “People who can get out will get out,” said L. Maren Wood, director and CEO of the Center for Graduate Career Success, which works with doctoral and other graduate students at 69 colleges and universities to provide career help. 

    If the spree of general job-switching that followed Covid was dubbed “the Great Resignation,” Wood said, what she’s seeing now in higher education is “the Great Defection.”

    Getting a Ph.D. is a traditional pipeline to an academic career. Now some of the brightest candidates — who have spent years doing cutting-edge research in their fields to prepare for faculty jobs — are leaving higher education or signing on with universities abroad, Wood said. 

    “It’s going to affect the quality of a student’s experience if they don’t get to study with those leading minds, who are going into private industry or to other countries,” she said.

    “What’s the joke about those who can’t do, teach? You don’t want to be in a situation where the only people left in your classrooms are the ones who can’t do anything else.”

    Related: So much for saving the planet. Climate careers, and many others, evaporate for class of 2025

    Parents sending children to college in the fall should know that they’ll be taking classes “with a faculty member who is worried about his or her research funding and who doesn’t have the help of graduate student teaching assistants. And that’s really going to impact the quality of your student’s experience,” said Julia Kent, a vice president at the Council of Graduate Schools, who conducts research about Ph.D. career pathways. 

    “The quality of undergraduate education is at stake here,” Kent said.

    Even Ph.D.s who want to work in academia are being thwarted. 

    During the Great Recession and the pandemic — two recent periods when there were few available faculty jobs — doctoral candidates could continue their studies until things got better, Wood said. This time, the Trump administration’s cuts to research funding have stripped many of that option.

    “This is way worse” than those earlier crises, she said. “Doctoral students are in panic mode.”

    Related: How Trump is changing higher education: The view from 4 campuses 

    The same deep federal cuts mean doctoral candidates in science, technology, engineering, math and other fields can’t complete the research they need to be eligible for what few academic jobs do become available.

    “You’re basically knee-capping that younger generation, which undermines the intergenerational dynamism that takes place in higher education. And that trickles down into the classroom,” said Isaac Kamola, an associate professor of political science at Trinity College and head of the Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom at the American Association of University Professors, or AAUP.

    Doctoral candidates early in their programs are questioning whether they should stay, said Wood. That could reduce the supply of future faculty. So will the fact that some universities have reduced the number of new Ph.D. candidates they will accept or have rescinded admission offers, citing federal budget cuts. Fewer prospective candidates are likely to apply, said Timothy Burke, a professor of history at Swarthmore College who has written about this topic.

    “Our graduating students right now are thinking differently about what it means to start a doctorate,” Burke said.

    Meanwhile, he said, “all the things that were dismaying to many faculty of long standing just feel worse. People who would have been totally content to stay put, whose prospects were good, who had good positions, who were more or less happy — now they’re thinking hard about whether there’s a future in this.”

    That means undergraduates could experience fewer available classroom professors and teaching and graduate assistants or the “only tenuous presence of faculty who are thinking hard about going somewhere else,” he said. “There are going to be programs that are going to be shut. There are going to be departments running on fumes.”

    The route to a university faculty job has always been hard. Finishing a doctoral degree takes a median of nearly six years, according to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences — nearly seven in the arts and humanities. 

    Doctoral students who manage to finish their programs have always had to fight for faculty positions, even before institutions announced cutbacks and hiring freezes. 

    Universities enroll far more doctoral candidates, to provide cheap labor as teaching and research assistants, than they will ever hire. The number of doctoral degrees awarded rose from 163,827 in 2010 to an estimated 207,000 this year, the National Center for Education Statistics says — a 26 percent increase, during a period in which the number of full-time faculty positions went up at less than half that rate. 

    Related: These federal programs help low-income students get to an through college. Trump wants to pull the funding

    With colleges and universities under stress, still more doctoral candidates now face the prospect of spending years “training for a career that isn’t actually available,” said Ashley Ruba, a Ph.D. who left higher education to work at Meta, where she builds virtual reality systems. 

    “If you told someone going to law school that they couldn’t get a job as a lawyer, I don’t think they’d do it,” said Ruba, who is also the founder of a career-coaching service for fellow Ph.D.s called After Academia.

    People already in faculty jobs appear equally on edge. More than 1 in 3 said in a recent survey that they have less academic freedom than in the past; half said they worry about online harassment. And faculty salaries have been stagnant. Pay declined for the three years starting with the pandemic, when adjusted for inflation, the AAUP reports, and has still not recovered to pre-pandemic levels. 

    People with Ph.D.s can earn more outside academia — an average of 37 percent more, one study found. Employers value skills including active learning, critical thinking, problem-solving and resilience, which is “everything you learn in a doctoral program,” Ruba said.

    The proportion of faculty considering leaving their jobs who are looking for work outside of academia has spiked. Before the pandemic, it was between 1 and 8 percent each year. Since then, it has been between 11 and 16 percent, according to R. Todd Benson, executive director and principal investigator at the Collaborative on Academic Careers in Higher Education at the Harvard Graduate School of Education, or COACHE. The figure comes from surveys conducted at 54 major universities and colleges.

    Related: More women are landing construction jobs. Trump’s war on DEI could change that

    A Facebook group of dissatisfied academics, called The Professor Is Out, has swelled to nearly 35,000 members. It was started by Karen Kelsky, a former anthropology professor who previously helped people get jobs in academia and now coaches them on how to leave it.

    “It’s difficult to overcome the stereotype of a university professor, which is that they’re coddled, they’re overprivileged, they’re arrogant and just enjoying total job security that nobody else has,” said Kelsky, who also wrote “The Professor Is In: The Essential Guide to Turning Your Ph.D. Into a Job,” a second edition of which is due out this fall. 

    Today, “they are overworked. They’re grossly underpaid. They are being called the enemy. And they’re bailing on academia,” she said.

    “Every time I talk to a tenured professor, they tell me how miserable they are and how desperate they are to get out,” said Kelsky. “And there’s no way this isn’t having real-life, tangible impacts on the quality of education students are getting.”

    Contact writer Jon Marcus at 212-678-7556, [email protected] or jpm.82 on Signal.

    This story about faculty and doctoral recipients leaving academia was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our higher education newsletter. Listen to our higher education podcast.

    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