Tag: Higher

Regis University Partners with Collegis Education to Modernize IT Infrastructure and Strengthen Denver’s Higher Ed Innovation Footprint

Multi-year collaboration to strengthen cybersecurity, streamline systems, and drive operational innovation across campus.

DENVER, Colo. — [November 11, 2025] — Regis University today announced a new five-year partnership with Collegis Education, a nationally recognized provider of higher education technology and data solutions, to modernize and strengthen the university’s IT infrastructure. The collaboration marks a major step in Regis’ ongoing digital transformation strategy, designed to enhance cybersecurity, improve data integration, and deliver more efficient, 24/7 technology services across campus.

In the fall of 2023, Regis launched a comprehensive assessment of its IT infrastructure. The results made clear that gaps in existing systems limited the university’s ability to serve students, faculty, and staff efficiently. Addressing these challenges required reimagining how technology services are delivered to ensure systems are reliable, responsive, and aligned with the needs of a modern learning environment.

“Technology is foundational to how we teach, learn, and work, and this partnership represents a major investment in Regis University’s future,” said Stephanie Morris, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Regis University. “Partnering with Collegis allows us to modernize our IT operations, strengthen security, and provide a more unified and responsive experience for our community, all while maintaining our commitment to operational excellence and fiscal responsibility.”

Regis selected Collegis through a competitive RFP process, following staff recommendations based on prior positive experiences with the company at other institutions. Throughout the evaluation, Collegis distinguished itself by demonstrating a deep understanding of universities’ operational complexities and by recognizing the central role technology plays in supporting teaching, learning, and student success.

As part of the partnership, Collegis will help Regis integrate core systems, including Colleague, Salesforce, and Workday, to create a more seamless experience for students, faculty, and staff. This will allow Regis to improve efficiencies, access diverse levels of expertise, provide 24/7 service availability, and improve system integrations.

The collaboration will provide Regis with access to a broad range of higher education IT expertise and scalable resources. Collegis’ team will collaborate closely with Regis leadership to deliver high-performing systems, improved uptime and reliability, and integrated data systems that strengthen university operations and inform decision-making.

“We are proud to partner with Regis University, an institution with a deep commitment to innovation and service,” said Kim Fahey, CEO of Collegis Education. “Our role is to help Regis leverage technology to empower its mission to support a secure, connected, and efficient digital ecosystem that enhances the student experience and strengthens institutional resilience.”

Under the agreement, Collegis will assume management of day-to-day IT infrastructure operations, while Regis will continue to oversee technology strategy and governance. Faculty, staff, and students will continue to access support through familiar channels—including the online self-service portal and ITS help desk—with the added benefit of 24/7 availability and expanded system monitoring.

The transition will take place over the coming year, with listening sessions and open forums held throughout the process to ensure transparency, collaboration, and feedback from the Regis community.

“Partnership success is realized when operational excellence, trust, and shared purpose combine to deliver reliable technology services; improved faculty, staff, and student experiences; and measurable value to the university’s mission,” said Morris. “With Collegis as a strategic partner, we will be able to evolve to meet changing institutional needs and empower our faculty to teach, our students to learn, and our community to thrive.”

About Regis University

Established in 1877, Regis University is a premier, globally engaged institution of higher learning in the Jesuit tradition that prepares leaders to live productive lives of faith, meaning and service. Regis University, one of 27 Jesuit universities in the nation, has two campus locations in the Denver metro area and extensive online program offerings with more than 6,000 enrolled students. It is a federally designated Hispanic-Serving Institution. For more information, visit www.regis.edu.

About Collegis Education

As a mission-oriented, tech-enabled services provider, Collegis Education partners with higher education institutions to help align operations to drive transformative impact across the entire student lifecycle. With over 25 years as an industry pioneer, Collegis has proven how to leverage data, technology, and talent to optimize institutions’ business processes that enhance the student experience. With strategic expertise that rivals the leading consultancies, a full suite of proven service lines —including marketing, enrollment, retention, IT —and its world-class Connected Core® data platform, Collegis helps its partners drive impact and generate revenue, growth, and innovation. Learn more at CollegisEducation.com or via LinkedIn.

Media Contacts:

Collegis Education

Alyssa Miller

[email protected]

973-615-1292

Regis University

Sheryl Tirol

[email protected]

Our mission is to enable impact in higher education. We help our partners achieve more, deliver superior experiences, and drive impact across the entire student lifecycle by leveraging and aligning data, technology, and talent.

Source link

November 11, 2025
Higher Education Inquirer : Divestment from Predatory Education Stocks: A Moral Imperative
Calls for divestment from exploitative industries have long been part of movements for social and economic justice—whether opposing apartheid, fossil fuels, or private prisons. Today, another sector demands moral scrutiny: the network of for-profit education corporations and student loan servicers that have turned higher learning into a site of mass indebtedness and despair. From predatory colleges to the companies that profit from collecting on student debt, the system functions as a pipeline of extraction. For those who believe education should serve the public good, the issue is not merely financial—it is moral.

The Human Cost of Predatory Education

For decades, for-profit college chains such as Corinthian Colleges, ITT Tech, the University of Phoenix, DeVry, and Capella targeted low-income students, veterans, single parents, and people of color with high-pressure marketing and promises of career advancement. These institutions, funded primarily through federal student aid, often charged premium tuition for substandard programs that left graduates worse off than when they began.

When Corinthian and ITT Tech collapsed, they left hundreds of thousands of students with worthless credits and mountains of debt. But the collapse did not end the exploitation—it simply shifted it. The business model has re-emerged in online form through education technology and “online program management” (OPM) firms such as 2U, Coursera, and Academic Partnerships. These firms, in partnership with elite universities like Harvard, Yale, and USC, replicate the same dynamics of inflated costs, opaque contracts, and limited accountability.

The Servicing of Debt as a Business Model

Beyond the schools themselves, student loan servicers and collectors—Maximus, Sallie Mae, and Navient among them—have built immense profits from managing and pursuing student debt. Sallie Mae, once a government-sponsored enterprise, was privatized in the 2000s and evolved into a powerful lender and loan securitizer. Navient, its spinoff, became notorious for deceptive practices and aggressive collections that trapped borrowers in cycles of delinquency.

Maximus, a major federal contractor, now services defaulted student loans on behalf of the U.S. Department of Education. These companies profit directly from the misery of borrowers—many of whom are victims of predatory schools or structural inequality. Their incentive is not to liberate students from debt, but to sustain and expand it.

The Role of Institutional Investors

The complicity of institutional investors cannot be ignored. Pension funds, endowments, and major asset managers have consistently financed both for-profit colleges and loan servicers, even after repeated scandals and lawsuits. Public sector pension funds—ironically funded by educators—have held stock in Navient, Maximus, and large for-profit college operators. Endowments that pride themselves on ethical or ESG investing have too often overlooked education profiteering.

Investment firms like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street collectively hold billions of dollars in these companies, stabilizing an industry that thrives on the financial vulnerability of students. To profit from predatory education is to participate, however indirectly, in the commodification of aspiration.

Divestment as a Moral and Educational Act

Divesting from predatory education companies and loan servicers is not just an act of conscience—it is an educational statement in itself. It affirms that learning should be a vehicle for liberation, not a mechanism of debt servitude. When universities, pension boards, and faith-based investors divest from corporations like Maximus, Navient, and 2U, they are reclaiming education’s moral purpose.

The divestment movement offers a broader civic lesson: that profit and progress are not synonymous, and that investment must align with justice. Faith communities, student debt activists, and labor unions have made similar stands before—against apartheid, tobacco, and fossil fuels. The same principle applies here. An enterprise that depends on deception, coercion, and financial harm has no place in a socially responsible portfolio.

A Call to Action

Transparency is essential. Pension boards, university endowments, and foundations must disclose their holdings in for-profit education and student loan servicing companies. Independent investigations should assess the human consequences of these investments, particularly their disproportionate impact on women, veterans, and people of color.

The next step is moral divestment. Educational institutions, public pension systems, and religious organizations should commit to withdrawing investments from predatory education stocks and debt servicers. Funds should be redirected to debt relief, community college programs, and initiatives that restore trust in education as a public good.

The corporate education complex—spanning recruitment, instruction, lending, and collection—has monetized both hope and hardship. The time has come to sever public and institutional complicity in this cycle. Education should empower, not impoverish. Divestment is not merely symbolic—it is a declaration of values, a demand for accountability, and a reaffirmation of education’s original promise: to serve humanity rather than exploit it.

Sources:
- U.S. Department of Education, Borrower Defense to Repayment Reports
- Senate HELP Committee, For Profit Higher Education: The Failure to Safeguard the Federal Investment and Ensure Student Success (2012)
- Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) enforcement actions against Navient and Sallie Mae
- The Century Foundation, Online Program Managers and the Public Interest
- Student Borrower Protection Center, Profiting from Pain: The Financialization of the Student Debt Crisis
- Higher Education Inquirer archives
Source link
November 11, 2025
3 Questions for MIT’s Luke Hobson

Luke Hobson does it all. He is not only assistant director of instructional design for MIT xPRO and a lecturer at the University of Miami’s School of Education and Human Development, but Luke also writes books, hosts a podcast, blogs, publishes a newsletter, creates videos on YouTube and seems to know everyone in our field.

I asked if Luke would be willing to step away from all these commitments and projects to answer my questions, and he graciously agreed.

Q: How did your career progress from an individual learning design contributor to advancing into a leadership role at your institution, as well as a thought leader and creator in the learning, technology and design space? What advice do you have for others in our field looking to increase their campus and national impact?

A: I have a bit of an obsession within our field. I still find it remarkable that, for a living, I get to care about designing learning experiences. Funny enough, I had no idea this field even existed until I met an instructional designer back in 2013. As soon as I learned that this was a career, I went all in. That obsessive mentality stayed with me when I became a contributor at Northeastern University and later at MIT. I wanted to find every possible way to create the most effective and meaningful kinds of courses and programs.

Through all of my seldom successes and many, many failures, I learned a thing or two along the way, and I decided to start sharing these stories online. It began with answering questions in Facebook groups, which eventually turned into a blog, a podcast, a YouTube channel, a book and more. What I discovered through sharing these moments is that I developed a love for teaching about instructional design. This led me to pursue a leadership role at MIT and to build a team of instructional designers. It also led me to teach in the University of Miami’s online Ed.D. program. Being able to teach future leaders in learning science has been an incredibly rewarding experience.

The best piece of advice I can give is to share. Share everything. Share your wins. Share your losses. Share your moments of glory. Share the times you fall flat on your face. People appreciate transparency. That’s how I built my brand online and my presence at MIT. I didn’t realize how much of an impact I was having until multiple faculty members mentioned following me on LinkedIn and asked how they could hire an instructional designer for their team. It’s been amazing to see the growth of IDs here from when I first started to now.

Another step you can take today is to build your network. Dig the well before you’re thirsty. You mentioned how it seems like I know everyone in our field and I chuckled, thinking back to when I didn’t know a soul in instructional design. The pandemic opened my eyes: Everyone was stuck at home and on Zoom, so I took advantage of that. I reached out to people on LinkedIn for virtual coffee chats, invited them on my podcast, gave webinars for universities and companies, and more. All of this was to get to know people. If you want to make an impact, you can’t do it alone. You need the support of others, and there is no better community than the learning nerds.

Q: Your Ed.D. is in educational leadership. Please tell us about your program and how completing a terminal degree in this field has impacted your career. For our community of nonfaculty educators—learning nerds—what are your recommendations around pursuing a doctorate while working?

A: I’m thankful that I had a truly fantastic Ed.D. experience. I have to give all the credit in the world to Dr. Peg Ford for what she built at Southern New Hampshire University. I was on the fence about pursuing this degree, but after speaking with current students at the time, I felt like it was the right place for me. The program was built on a core foundation of a cohort-based model and forging strong bonds with fellow members. Dr. Ford understood the perils and curve balls life throws your way when you’re pursuing a doctorate and how easily those challenges can land you in A.B.D. limbo. It didn’t take long to see she was absolutely right. Our cohort faced major life events—losing loved ones, taking on new roles, having children, relocating to new cities and more. Through it all, we stuck together.

What I appreciated most about my Ed.D. in educational leadership was the range of educators I met. From business professors to special education teachers, from deans to superintendents, I had the opportunity to hear a wide variety of perspectives on education and what it means to support students and fellow educators. I was introduced to the good, the bad and the ugly. By taking in all of those voices, I was able to apply their teachings and life lessons to my own learning experiences. That program shaped me into the educator I am today.

What I find most surprising is that I now teach in an online Ed.D. program in applied learning sciences at the University of Miami. I often share with my students the same message about sticking together as a cohort and how those bonds will carry them through. While Dr. Ford is no longer associated with SNHU’s program, my dissertation chair, Dr. Audrey Rodgers, is now leading it. I recently had the chance to speak with current students, and it’s amazing to see how much the program has grown since I graduated.

Here’s what I wish I knew before pursuing a doctorate: It’s absolutely possible to do, but it will be the hardest thing you’ve ever done. There’s a reason why only a small fraction of the population holds the title of doctor. No matter which school you attend, it’s going to be difficult. But in my opinion, it’s worth it. I knew I wanted to work in academia, and after speaking with a few colleagues, they all advised me to go back to grad school. Every role I wanted in the future required either an Ed.D. or a Ph.D., so it was the logical choice.

With all that said, the first step in your journey as a working professional should be finding the right program for your needs. Not all programs are created equal. After all, you’re about to commit at least three to seven years of your life to this institution, so it’s important to choose wisely. Do your due diligence. Contact the institution and ask as many questions as you want. Watch program webinars. Find currently enrolled students on LinkedIn and ask for a quick chat about their experience. Connect with faculty and administrators. Read online reviews. Go the extra mile before starting this journey.

Once you’ve found the right program for your goals, my best advice is to set up a system that works for your life. Your schedule has to shift to make space for classwork, research, lectures, readings and everything else. For me, this meant starting my days earlier. I found myself constantly distracted during the day, so I decided to wake up before everyone else. Surprisingly, it worked. Once you find a system that fits, it needs to become sacred and a top priority. I also relied heavily on the Pomodoro technique to stay focused and on track. If you haven’t used the “study with me” videos on YouTube, you’re missing out. Whatever helps you get into a state of flow is going to be key.

And I know your question was about going back to school while working, but honestly, work wasn’t the hardest part of my academic journey. For me, it was family and my social life. Work will always be there. But when you start missing family functions, birthdays and social events, it’s tough. I essentially became a hermit during the final stretch of my dissertation. That was the only way I could stay focused and meet my goals.

Q: The growth of online programs has increased the demand for learning designers. There is concern within our profession that in the (near) future, AI will be able to do much of the work that learning designers have traditionally done. How worried should learning designers be and what can they do to ensure they are not replaced by AI?

A: Ah yes, the million-dollar question. What’s funny is that I’ve been designing AI courses long before the generative AI boom, and I could’ve never predicted that AI would find its way into our space. In health care, medication discovery or 3-D printing? Sure. But instructional design? That thought never crossed my mind. Yet here we are.

Let’s break down your question a bit, starting with the concern around AI. You’re going to see this come in waves. A new breakthrough will happen, there will be mass pandemonium online and, within a few weeks, it fades. AI tools will continue to evolve and become more helpful, but someone still has to drive the bus. AI can’t do everything for you. I think that’s where many decision-makers are getting confused. Everyone is trying to add AI into their products, but do people actually want those features? The answer is often no.

AI can be helpful for kick-starting ideas. But if you’re a student and you find out that your entire course was generated by AI and not created by a human, you’d likely be furious.

A great source of insight on this is Reddit. You’ll find post after post from students deeply concerned about how AI is being used, whether by classmates or even by professors. LLMs tend to have a certain tone and style. It’s hard to describe exactly, but the writing often feels off. Unnatural. AI isn’t magical, even though that’s exactly how marketers are presenting it. LLMs work by predicting patterns based on data and trying to say the next most probable thing to please the user. In many cases, this doesn’t add up.

Now, on to the second part of your question: What can instructional designers do to ensure they’re not replaced?

We do what we’ve always done. We learn. Become the most knowledgeable person on your team when it comes to the ins and outs of AI. For many, AI still feels like a black box, and that’s understandable. But if you know which tool serves which purpose and how to use these tools to enhance your designs, ensure accessibility, create flexible learning pathways, transform content into different formats and generate compelling visuals, you’ll be far ahead of the curve.

As you experiment, you’ll also encounter the limits of these tools. And when you see where AI stumbles, you’ll feel much more secure about your place in this evolving landscape. It’s not there yet. And getting an entire industry to adopt something at scale, especially something as complex as AI, is a massive undertaking.

Source link

November 11, 2025
Trump Gutted ED’s Civil Rights Office. Could States Step Up?

The Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, which is supposed to protect students from discrimination based on race, ethnicity, sex, age and disability status, isn’t what it once was.

The Trump administration laid off nearly half the staff in March, shuttered seven of its 12 regional offices, shifted the hollowed-out agency’s focus to new priorities (including keeping transgender women out of women’s sports) and then reportedly terminated more employees amid the ongoing shutdown.

Philadelphia was among the cities that lost its OCR regional office in the first round of layoffs. Lindsey Williams, a Pennsylvania state senator who serves as minority chair of the Senate Education Committee, said the region’s cases now go to Atlanta, “where they may or may not be heard.”

To fill this void, Williams, a Democrat, announced she will file legislation to establish an Office of Civil Rights within the Pennsylvania Department of Education. The bill has yet to be written, but Williams said she wants to “create new authorities for the Pennsylvania Department of Education to investigate and enforce federal civil rights violations.” She noted, “There may be opportunity as well to strengthen our state laws in this regard.”

“We’re looking at all of it to see what we can do,” she said, “because we haven’t been here before.”

Students facing discrimination across the country now have far fewer staff in the federal Education Department OCR who can respond to their complaints. The agency had a large backlog of cases even before President Trump retook office, and then it dismissed thousands of complaints in the spring. Some advocates have expressed particular concern about OCR’s current capacity to process complaints of disability discrimination.

And those left at OCR appear to be applying a conservative interpretation of civil rights law that doesn’t recognize transgender students’ gender identity. The Trump-era OCR has actively targeted institutions for allowing trans women in women’s sports. It’s also focused on ending programs and practices that specifically benefit minorities, to the exclusion of whites.

Civil rights advocates are calling for states to step up.

“We cannot stop what is happening at the federal level,” Williams said. “There’s plenty of lawsuits that are trying … but, in the meantime, what do we as a state do?”

One of those ongoing suits, filed by the Victim Rights Law Center and two parents in April, alleges that shrinking OCR harms students from protected classes. It argues that the federal OCR cuts left “a hollowed-out organization incapable of performing its statutorily mandated functions,” adding that “without judicial intervention, the system will exist in name only.” But that intervention may not work in students’ favor—judges have issued preliminary injunctions, but the Supreme Court has, so far, allowed the Education Department layoffs to continue.

Shelby Chestnut, executive director of the Transgender Law Center and a Pennsylvania resident, said, “States need to be picking up some of the slack.”

“If more states with Democratic leaders started to propose such offices or legislation or money, it would likely create a bigger conversation,” Chestnut said.

He noted that during the Obama administration, the federal government sued North Carolina over its controversial law banning trans people from using bathrooms matching their gender identity. But that’s not something the Trump administration would do. Chestnut said some states are now saying—and more should be saying—“OK, you won’t do your job, so we’ll do your job for you.”

Beth Gellman-Beer, who was director of the Philadelphia regional office of the federal OCR before the Trump administration laid her off, said she doesn’t know of other states creating a new state-level agency like the one that’s been proposed in Pennsylvania. Even there, Republicans control the state Senate, and the legislation isn’t certain to pass. She said other state legislatures “should be really thinking about this and taking immediate steps to build out some kind of civil rights unit to help students in their state.”

Some states already have their own agencies that protect civil rights in higher ed, Gellman-Beer said, including the existing Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission. But she said these entities “are traditionally severely understaffed and don’t have the resources and relied heavily on OCR.”

Chad Dion Lassiter, executive director of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, agreed with Gellman-Beer’s assessment of commissions like his. Lassiter said he feels “sheer exuberance” over the proposed legislation—which he said would be even greater if the new Office of Civil Rights were created in his agency.

“Give us 20 additional staff and we’ll do the work,” Lassiter said. Ideally, 15 would be investigators in his agency’s education division and five would be attorneys, he said.

“Each state that has a human relations commission should have an educational component,” he said. “Fund these commissions.”

Gellman-Beer said the only true fix is to restore a federal OCR—because even if some states do step up, students’ rights will be contingent on where they live.

“It used to be, under the model prior to this administration, that the promise for equal educational opportunity was across the board,” she said.

Unequal Rights Across States

For a student going before a state-level OCR in a state that doesn’t recognize their identity, the process could be as fruitless as seeking help from the Trump-era federal OCR. The Movement Advancement Project, which advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, says 27 states have laws banning trans students from participating in sports matching their gender identity. Such laws don’t all affect postsecondary students, but they often do, the organization said.

Nicholas Hite, a senior attorney at Lambda Legal, which advocates for LGBTQ+ people in court, said the federal OCR was supposed to provide a single, consistent application of federal legal protections. Now, he said, “that just isn’t happening—they’re just refusing to do it.”

“If we’re relying on states to be the enforcement mechanism, we’ve created this patchwork where each state is going to take their own approach,” Hite said.

Universities in states with laws recognizing trans students’ rights have to decide whether to comply with those laws or with the Trump administration’s approach. The administration, using massive cuts to federal research funding, forced concessions from the University of Pennsylvania for allowing a trans woman to compete in women’s sports. But Scott Lewis—a co-founder of the Association of Title IX Administrators and managing partner of TNG Consulting, which advises higher ed institutions on civil rights issues—said so far he’s seen blue-state universities handling discrimination complaints like they did before Trump retook office.

Lassiter, of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission, said, “It’s important for people to know you still have protections under the state.” But protections for trans students can be unclear.

His agency enforces state laws protecting students against discrimination based on gender identity, but wouldn’t directly answer whether that means it would order a university to allow a trans woman to play on a woman’s sports team. Lassiter said his agency avoids “cultural wars.”

Students facing discrimination of all sorts can still sue under federal civil rights law in lieu of seeking help from the federal OCR or any state version of that agency. But personal lawsuits can be expensive.

Williams, the Pennsylvania state senator, noted that lawsuits may also not wrap up by the time a student graduates. Gellman-Beer, the former federal OCR employee, said they also often lead to individual remedies for a victim, rather than “systemic interventions to make sure that the problem doesn’t occur again for other students.” That was the kind of broad solution the federal OCR could achieve, she said.

Hite welcomed people whose rights are being infringed, or who are concerned about others’ rights, to reach out to Lambda Legal. He noted the federal OCR did much of its work through negotiating with universities to fix issues, rather than pursuing litigation. If the federal OCR is no longer doing these negotiations, the burden is placed on students and parents to sue to uphold their own rights—while an added cost of litigation is also placed on universities, he said.

Lewis said that if the Trump administration continues its trajectory, people who don’t feel they’re being served at the federal level will go to the state level.

“If the federal government won’t do it,” he said, “the states are going to be left to do it.”

Source link

November 11, 2025
Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

Every year on Veterans Day, we pause to honor those who have served our country—but our gratitude must extend beyond a single day of reflection. One of the most powerful ways to repay veterans’ service is through education, a goal long supported by the general public and Republican and Democratic administrations alike. Student veterans bring leadership, discipline and unique experiences to college campuses; their postsecondary success strengthens both our communities and economies.

Yet despite their proven academic potential and deep motivation to earn a degree, too many veterans face unnecessary barriers to completing college. At Ithaka S+R, we’ve reported on the value of enrolling and supporting student veterans and the unique challenges these students face in getting to and through higher education, for several years running. From underresourced institutions to opaque transfer processes and predatory recruitment practices, these obstacles result in lower bachelor’s degree attainment among veterans compared to their civilian peers.

Right now, policy and appropriations decisions (including the current government shutdown) could undermine the progress the country has made in providing educational opportunities for our veterans. As we celebrate Veterans Day, it’s time for higher education leaders and policymakers to renew their commitment to supporting those who’ve served. Here are three developing situations that we’re monitoring for their potential impact on student veterans.

Cuts to Veterans Upward Bound

Veterans Upward Bound is a federally funded TRIO program focused on precollege, college transition and college success support for veterans. Started in 1972, the program now supports more than 8,000 veterans looking to enroll in or return to college by providing academic instruction, tutoring and counseling. There are 60-plus programs nationally, run by individual colleges and universities. The programs have proven highly effective: Participants are 42 percent more likely than their peers to earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

There is significant uncertainty about whether the federal government will sustain the current and future funding for these Veterans Upward Bound programs. The federal government delayed payment for the majority of TRIO programs this fall, including all Veterans Upward Bound programs. The funding delay came on the heels of proposals to decrease, or even eliminate completely, TRIO programs in next year’s federal budget. The Department of Education got a head start this year, canceling many thousands of dollars in already-allocated funding for TRIO programs, including for VUB programs, in mid-September. Although some of that funding has since been restored, the uncertainty leaves many programs struggling to plan for the year ahead.

VA Staffing Cuts and GI Bill Processing Times

Enrolled student veterans rely on the federal government for the processing of their GI Bill funds. The combination of staffing cuts at the Department of Veterans Affairs and the recent federal government shutdown has created delays, confusion and, ultimately, financial stress for student veterans.

This summer, student veterans and campus advisers reported that benefit eligibility determinations and payments for the GI Bill took three times longer than previously because of understaffing and increased administrative errors. This meant that housing and textbook payments were delayed, which led to some student veterans missing the start of classes (and, in more severe cases, dropping or stopping out).

The situation has worsened since the federal government shut down on Oct. 1. Although education benefits themselves are primarily funded through advance appropriations and thus can continue to be paid out, critical support services have ceased operation during the shutdown. The VA’s GI Bill phone hotline, which many rely on for questions about eligibility, payments and school certification, is closed. Regional VA offices, which normally handle in-person assistance, are also closed. Not only do these closures create challenges in the current moment, but resulting processing delays will result in a backlog even after the government reopens.

For student veterans on fixed schedules, with tight budgets and in transitional life phases, the time and energy to deal with unsettled paperwork add up to real risks for academic progress and financial stability.

Measuring Student Veteran Success

The uncertainty of federal support for student veterans comes at a time when there is shrinking programmatic and rhetorical support for students that higher education has historically struggled to welcome. Veterans are increasingly more likely to belong to other underrepresented groups, such as racial minorities and adult learners, so the challenges they face in accessing and affording higher education may be multiplied.

The states, systems and institutions interested in continuing to serve student veterans are also facing immense challenges as they confront federal policy changes that have downstream financial impacts, such as changes to graduate student loans and the decline in international student enrollment. While these challenges make it even more imperative for institutions to enroll a wider range of students, including student veterans, there is simultaneously increased difficulty in doing so.

Investing in veteran-specific admissions strategies and academic advising, providing efficient credit transfer mechanisms, and tracking postcollege outcomes are initiatives that can help boost student veteran success. The full scope of that success, however, remains elusive, as the data landscape for student veterans remains fragmented and incomplete. Alongside institutional efforts to ensure success, regional and national efforts are needed to more fully understand how many new veterans could benefit from enrolling in higher education each year and in what degree programs they are most interested. To truly understand the scope of the impact of the federal budget and staffing cuts and how other parts of higher education can help fill that breach and prioritize veterans’ enrollment, it is essential to know more about the size and scope of the potential student veteran population we are looking to serve.

Conclusion

As federal uncertainty grows, from cuts to Veterans Upward Bound programs to delays in GI Bill processing, and the shutdown drags on, student veterans risk being left behind just when they need institutional support most. At the same time, colleges face shrinking budgets and shifting demographics that make it harder to serve those who’ve already given so much.

But these challenges also present an opportunity for stakeholders throughout higher education to refocus on veterans. By investing in veteran-specific recruitment, advising and data collection efforts, institutions, states and veteran-serving organizations can open doors to a new generation of leaders ready to contribute to their campuses and communities.

The promise of higher education for veterans should not only depend on bureaucratic stability or federal budget cycles; it requires a collective effort from within and beyond the field of higher education. This Veterans Day and every day after, let’s recommit to ensuring that those who served our nation have every chance to succeed in the classroom and beyond.

Emily Schwartz is a principal of bachelor’s attainment at the nonprofit Ithaka S+R, which conducts research and offers strategic advice on student access and success, among other topics related to higher education and research. Michael Fried is a senior researcher and Daniel Braun is senior development and operations specialist, both at Ithaka S+R.

Source link

November 11, 2025
Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

Since the launch of ChatGPT in 2022, higher education as a sector has grappled with the role large language models and generative artificial intelligence tools can and should play in students’ lives.

A recent survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that nearly all college students say they know how and when to use AI for their coursework, which they attribute largely to faculty instruction or syllabus language.

Eighty-seven percent of respondents said they know when to use AI, with the share of those saying they don’t shrinking from 31 percent in spring 2024 to 13 percent in August 2025.

The greatest share of respondents (41 percent) said they know when to use AI because their professors include statements in their syllabi explaining appropriate and inappropriate AI use. An additional 35 percent said they know because their instructors have addressed it in class.

“It’s good news that students feel like they understand the basic ground rules for when AI is appropriate,” said Dylan Ruediger, principal for the research enterprise at Ithaka S+R. “It suggests that there are some real benefits to having faculty be the primary point of contact for information about what practices around AI should look like.”

The data points to a trend in higher education to move away from a top-down approach of organizing AI policies to a more decentralized approach, allowing faculty to be experts in their subjects.

“I think that faculty should have wide latitudes to teach their courses how they see fit. Trusting them to understand what’s pedagogically appropriate for their ways of teaching and within their discipline” is a smart place to start, Ruediger said.

The challenge becomes how to create campuswide priorities for workforce development that ensure all students, regardless of major program, can engage in AI as a career tool and understand academic integrity expectations.

Student Perspectives

While the survey points to institutional efforts to integrate AI into the curriculum, some students remain unaware or unsure of when they can use AI tools. Only 17 percent of students said they are aware of appropriate AI use cases because their institution has published a policy on the subject, whereas 25 percent said they know when to use AI because they’ve researched the topic themselves.

Ruediger hypothesizes that some students learn about AI tools and their uses from peers in addition to their own research.

Some demographic groups were less likely than others to be aware of appropriate AI use on campus, signaling disparities in who’s receiving this information. Nearly one-quarter of adult learners (aged 25 or older) said they don’t  know how or when to use AI for coursework, compared to 10 percent of their traditional-aged peers. Similarly, two-year college students were less likely to say they are aware of appropriate use cases (20 percent) than their four-year peers (10 percent).

Students working full-time (19 percent) or those who had dropped out for a semester (20 percent) were also more likely to say they don’t know when to use AI.

While decentralizing AI policies and giving autonomy to faculty members can better serve academic freedom and AI applications, having clearly outlined and widely available policies also benefits students.

“There is a scenario here where [AI] rules are left somewhat informal and inconsistent that ends up giving an advantage to students who have more cultural capital or are better positioned to understand hidden curricular issues,” Ruediger said.

In a survey of provosts and chief academic officers this fall, Inside Higher Ed found that one in five provosts said their institution is taking an intentionally hands-off approach to regulating AI use, with no formal governance or policies about AI. Fourteen percent of respondents indicated their institution has established a comprehensive AI governance policy or institutional strategy, but the greatest share said they are still developing policies.

A handful of students also indicated they have no interest in ever using AI.

In 2024, 2 percent of Student Voice survey respondents (n=93) wrote in “other” responses to the question, “Do you have a clear sense of when, how or whether to use generative artificial intelligence to help with your coursework?” More than half of those responses—55—expressed distrust, disdain or disagreement with the use of generative AI. That view appears to be growing; this year, 3 percent of respondents (n=138) wrote free responses, and 113 comments opposed AI use in college for ethical or personal reasons.

 “I hate AI we should never ever ever use it,” wrote one second-year student at a community college in Wyoming. “It’s terrible for the environment. People who use AI lack critical thinking skills and just use AI as a cop out.”

The Institutional Perspective

A separate survey fielded by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that more than half of student success administrators (55 percent) reported that their institution is “somewhat effective” at helping students understand how, when and whether to use generative AI tools in academic settings. (“Somewhat effective” is defined as “there being some structured efforts, but guidance is not consistent or comprehensive.”)

More than one-third (36 percent) reported their institution is not very effective—meaning they offer limited guidance and many students rely on informal or independent learning—and 2 percent said their institution is “very effective,” or that students receive clear guidance across multiple channels.

Ithaka S+R published its own study this spring, which found that the average instructor had at least experimented with using AI in classroom activities. According to Inside Higher Ed’s most recent survey of provosts, two-thirds of respondents said their institution offers professional development for faculty on AI or integrating AI into the curriculum.

Engaging Students in AI

Some colleges and universities have taken measures to ensure all students are aware of ethical AI use cases.

Indiana University created an online course, GenAI 101, for anyone with a campus login to earn a certificate denoting they’ve learned about practical applications for AI tools, ethical considerations of using those tools and how to fact-check content produced by AI.

This year the University of Mary Washington offered students a one-credit online summer course on how to use generative AI tools, which covered academic integrity, professional development applications and how to evaluate AI output.

The State University of New York system identified AI as a core competency to be included in all general education courses for undergraduates. All classes that fulfill the information literacy competency requirement will include a lesson on AI ethics and literacy starting fall 2026.

Touro University is requiring all faculty members to include an AI statement in their syllabi by next spring, Shlomo Argamon, associate provost for artificial intelligence, told Inside Higher Ed in a podcast episode. The university also has an official AI policy that serves as the default if faculty do not have more or less restrictive policies.

Source link

November 11, 2025
UNC Chapel Hill Won’t Sign Compact

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill made clear Friday that it won’t sign the federal “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that has been extended to all institutions after seven of the original nine universities invited rejected the offer, WRAL reported.

Last month the Trump administration floated a plan for preferential treatment on federal funding in exchange for universities overhauling admissions and hiring practices, freezing tuition for five years, capping international enrollment at 15 percent, and making various other concessions that many critics have warned will undermine academic freedom.

UNC Chapel Hill chancellor Lee Roberts said Friday that while the university has not received a formal invitation from the Trump administration, he is not interested in the arrangement.

“There are some parts of the compact that we are already doing and there are some parts that would be difficult or impossible,” Roberts said in a faculty council meeting, according to WRAL. “There’s no way we can sign the compact as written and we don’t plan to.”

Invitations to the compact were initially sent to Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Arizona, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University. All but two declined—Vanderbilt said it would provide feedback and Texas has yet to offer a public response.

Multiple others also announced pre-emptive rejections after the initial invitation went out, including Emory University, Pennsylvania State University, Syracuse University and the University of Kansas. So far, only two institutions have announced intentions to sign the compact: New College of Florida and Valley Forge Military College in Pennsylvania.

Source link

November 11, 2025
AI in Higher Education: Academic Thought Leadership
How Faculty Expertise Boosts AI Search Results in Higher Ed

Many higher education enrollment teams assume that the key to growth is spending more on paid leads. It feels logical: increase visibility, boost inquiries, fill the pipeline. Yet, too often, they end up paying for quantity, not quality — resulting in higher budgets that fail to yield students who are a good fit. They see short-term spikes in inquiries, followed by low conversion rates and retention challenges from mismatched students.

Achieving sustainable enrollment growth doesn’t have to mean spending more. What’s needed instead is smarter strategies that enable institutions to attract the right students earlier in the decision process — when they’re still exploring their options, defining their goals, and forming impressions of institutions’ credibility.

Shifting the focus of enrollment strategies from paid acquisition to earned attention — building organic visibility, authority, and trust with prospects before they fill out an application form — is the key to true growth. This approach is increasingly important as more and more students use artificial intelligence (AI) to navigate their higher education journey.

Building Organic Demand with AI and GEO

AI is reshaping how students discover institutions and their programs. While Google used to dominate prospective students’ search efforts, they are increasingly using AI-powered search assistants such as ChatGPT and Gemini to find, summarize, and compare higher education offerings. A 2025 study by the Online and Professional Education Association (UPCEA) found that roughly 50% of prospective students use AI tools at least weekly to research programs, including about 24% who use them on a daily basis.

As AI’s role in higher education marketing expands, institutions have begun to adopt generative engine optimization (GEO) strategies to improve their visibility in AI-driven search results. Unlike standard search engine optimization (SEO) — which focuses on keywords and backlinks — GEO prioritizes structured, authoritative content that AI systems can easily understand, cite, and incorporate into their responses.

When institutions feed these systems with content featuring faculty-driven subject matter expertise and clearly structured information, they train the AI algorithms to view them as authoritative and credible, and to surface them in students’ search results more often. This makes it easier for these institutions to engage high-intent students earlier in their enrollment journey.

The Role of Faculty in Building Authority

No one conveys academic quality and institutional credibility better than the people who embody them. Faculty members represent some of an institution’s most trusted — yet often underutilized — marketing assets. Their expertise not only validates the institution and its programs but also humanizes them.

When faculty voices appear in thought leadership articles, Q&A features, or explainer videos, they do more than share knowledge — they strengthen confidence in the institution among both prospective students and their families.

Leveraged strategically, faculty expertise can enhance multiple facets of an institution’s marketing ecosystem:
- Public relations: Faculty insights can position schools as trusted commentators in media coverage on industry trends.
- Search: Content that highlights subject matter expertise is seen as more credible by both traditional search engines and AI assistants, improving the content’s organic rankings and GEO performance.
- Enrollment marketing: Faculty-driven content that targets prospective students — such as video Q&As, informative blog posts, and interactive webinars — can help bridge the gap for these prospects between aspiration and application.
When institutions center faculty in their marketing efforts, they connect academic storytelling with enrollment strategy, transforming their outreach from promotion into education.

Improving Efficiency and Results

Today, higher ed enrollment growth depends on smarter strategy — not higher spending. Institutions can achieve greater success by balancing their paid and organic channels, building durable content engines, and aligning their marketing spend with actual enrollment outcomes.

Balance Paid and Organic Marketing

Paid campaigns still have great value. But overreliance on them can drive up cost-per-enrollment (CPE) while producing prospective students who are a weaker fit. According to data from UPCEA, the average cost per enrolled student is more than $2,800. By mixing organic channels — faculty thought leadership pieces, GEO-friendly content — with paid efforts, institutions can achieve lower long-term costs while improving the fit and retention of their prospects.

Create a Long-Term Content Engine

Temporary campaigns can deliver short-term boosts, but real authority that leads to sustainable enrollment growth stems from consistent, faculty-led content. Building a content engine anchored in faculty expertise and optimized for AI and GEO is essential, allowing institutions to maintain their visibility and credibility. Over time, this strategy can lower acquisition costs, boost engagement, and support retention.

Align Marketing Spend With Enrollment Outcomes

Too often, marketing dollars are funneled toward maximizing the volume of leads rather than focusing on actual outcomes. True budget efficiency comes from aligning spend with each stage of the student life cycle — supporting strategies that move prospects from application to enrollment to persistence. When institutions’ budgets prioritize quality, engagement, and long-term fit over volume, they can strengthen both their conversion rates and their retention outcomes.
Key Takeaways

More leads don’t always translate to real growth. Sustainable enrollment comes from reaching the right students — not just more of them.

By embracing GEO, leveraging AI in their higher education marketing strategy, and elevating faculty expertise, institutions can deliver content that builds organic authority and attracts qualified prospects earlier in their decision journey. This approach reduces institutions’ reliance on paid efforts, improves their cost efficiency, and enhances their credibility.

Schools that invest in faculty-led content strategies can gain stronger conversions, better retention, and enduring brand trust — the foundation of meaningful, measurable enrollment growth.
Drive Enrollment With Faculty Voices

At Archer Education, we partner with accredited institutions to help them leverage AI and faculty thought leadership to build their credibility and drive their enrollment growth. Contact our team to learn how our tech-enabled marketing and enrollment solutions can help your institution attract the right students more efficiently.

Sources

Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, “Greater Impact Through Faculty Thought Leadership”

Online and Professional Education Association, “AI Tools Are Driving Prospective Student Decisions, UPCEA and Search Influence Research Shows”

Online and Professional Education Association, “How Higher Education Marketing Metrics Help You Boost Enrollment”
Source link
November 10, 2025
Leading Through Change: The Core Values That Guide Collegis and Higher Ed

Higher education is undergoing rapid transformation — from shifting student demographics to the urgent need for digital agility. At Collegis Education, we’ve navigated a similar journey. What began as a services organization has evolved into a technology-enabled partner, helping institutions thrive amid disruption. And while the journey hasn’t always been easy, one thing has kept us steady through it all: our culture.

When we talk about culture, we’re really talking about who we are when things get hard — how we make decisions, how we treat one another, and how we stay focused on our shared mission even when the future feels uncertain.

At Collegis, our culture is built on four core values that have guided every step of our transformation: authenticity, innovation, commitment, and collaboration. These aren’t just words. They’re the foundation that enables us to stay grounded and keep moving forward — together.

Shared transformation with our partners

Institutions across higher education are also undergoing profound transformation — navigating demographic shifts, evolving technology expectations, and increasing pressure to deliver on access and affordability.

These pressures have tested the resilience of colleges and universities nationwide. Yet just like Collegis, many institutions have found strength by doubling down on their missions and values.

That’s why our relationships with our partners are so strong. We understand that mission-driven organizations operate with purpose, and so do we. Higher education is about service, learning, and impact. At Collegis, our purpose is to help institutions live that mission more effectively through innovation, data, and technology — while never losing sight of the human side of education.

Authenticity in action: How trust drives transformation

Transformation requires honesty. Honesty about what’s working, what isn’t, and what comes next. Like many institutions, we’ve made difficult decisions in recent years. We’ve rethought how we serve our partners, restructured internally, and evolved how we operate.

Throughout these moments, authenticity has been our anchor. We communicate openly, acknowledge challenges, and lead with transparency to build trust.

It also means bringing our true selves to work. The people who thrive at Collegis are those who lead with integrity, admit mistakes, and approach challenges with humility and purpose. That creates space for bold ideas and genuine growth.

Authenticity connects us to our partners as well. Institutions strive to build cultures of empathy, honesty, and integrity — just like we do. It’s a value that runs deep across the higher ed ecosystem.

Innovation that moves us forward

Change is accelerating. The ability to innovate isn’t just a differentiator — it’s a requirement.

At Collegis, innovation is about more than technology. It’s how we think. It’s how we tackle complex challenges, experiment with new ideas, and find better ways to deliver value.

We’ve seen innovation in action across our organization — in the development of Connected Core^®, in our use of AI to personalize student experiences, and in our operations teams that continuously improve how we work.

Our partners are innovating too. From program design to data strategy to student engagement, institutions are finding new ways to serve their communities. Together, we’re helping higher ed adapt and thrive.

Commitment that never wavers

Change tests commitment. It’s easy to be dedicated when things are smooth. It’s much harder when goals shift, markets move, or resources tighten.

What’s impressed me most about our Collegis team is the depth of commitment I see every day. Our people lean in. They solve problems, meet deadlines, and show up for one another and for our partners.

That same spirit exists across the institutions we serve — a relentless focus on students, on mission, and on progress. It’s what fuels our shared success.

Collaboration that scales

No transformation succeeds in isolation. Every major milestone we’ve achieved at Collegis has happened because of collaboration across disciplines, departments, and partner campuses.

Our strength comes from diverse perspectives — technologists, strategists, enrollment experts, marketers, and more — working together to deliver real outcomes.

Higher education is built on collaboration, too. Shared governance, interdisciplinary research, cross-campus teamwork — it’s all about connection. And that’s where we thrive.

Culture is our constant

We’re living in an era of rapid change. The pace of advancement, the evolving needs of students, and the challenges facing institutions demand agility and resilience.

In that context, culture is our constant. It’s what grounds us. It defines how we show up for one another and for our partners.

Culture doesn’t eliminate uncertainty. But it gives us confidence in how we face it — with respect, dignity, and shared purpose.

Staying grounded in what matters most

We’re proud of how far we’ve come, and we’re even more excited about where we’re headed. Our transformation didn’t happen by chance. It happened because our people chose to lead with authenticity, innovate boldly, stay committed, and collaborate with purpose.

Those values mirror the best of what higher education stands for. We’re honored to work alongside mission-based institutions shaping lives and strengthening communities.

As we continue to evolve, one thing won’t change: our shared belief in dignity, respect, and building organizations that reflect the best of who we are.

If we stay grounded in those values — as a company and as a community of partners — there’s nothing we can’t achieve together.

Source link

November 10, 2025
Advocates warn of risks to higher ed data if Education Department is shuttered

by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report
November 10, 2025

Even with the government shut down, lots of people are thinking about how to reimagine federal education research. Public comments on how to reform the Institute of Education Sciences (IES), the Education Department’s research and statistics arm, were due on Oct. 15. A total of 434 suggestions were submitted, but no one can read them because the department isn’t allowed to post them publicly until the government reopens. (We know the number because the comment entry page has an automatic counter.)

A complex numbers game

There’s broad agreement across the political spectrum that federal education statistics are essential. Even many critics of the Department of Education want its data collection efforts to survive — just somewhere else. Some have suggested moving the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to another agency, such as the Commerce Department, where the U.S. Census Bureau is housed.

But Diane Cheng, vice president of policy at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a nonprofit organization that advocates for increasing college access and improving graduation rates, warns that shifting NCES risks the quality and usefulness of higher education data. Any move would have to be done carefully, planning for future interagency coordination, she said.

“Many of the federal data collections combine data from different sources within ED,” Cheng said, referring to the Education Department. “It has worked well to have everyone within the same agency.”

Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

She points to the College Scorecard, the website that lets families compare colleges by cost, student loan debt, graduation rates, and post-college earnings. It merges several data sources, including the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), run by NCES, and the National Student Loan Data System, housed in the Office of Federal Student Aid. Several other higher ed data collections on student aid and students’ pathways through college also merge data collected at the statistical unit with student aid figures. Splitting those across different agencies could make such collaboration far more difficult.

“If those data are split across multiple federal agencies,” Cheng said, “there would likely be more bureaucratic hurdles required to combine the data.”

Information sharing across federal agencies is notoriously cumbersome, the very problem that led to the creation of the Department of Homeland Security after 9/11.

Hiring and $4.5 million in fresh research grants

Even as the Trump administration publicly insists it intends to shutter the Department of Education, it is quietly rebuilding small parts of it behind the scenes.

In September, the department posted eight new jobs to replace fired staff who oversaw the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the biennial test of American students’ achievement. In November, it advertised four more openings for statisticians inside the Federal Student Aid Office. Still, nothing is expected to be quick or smooth. The government shutdown stalled hiring for the NAEP jobs, and now a new Trump administration directive to form hiring committees by Nov. 17 to approve and fill open positions may further delay these hires.

At the same time, the demolition continues. Less than two weeks after the Oct. 1 government shutdown, 466 additional Education Department employees were terminated — on top of the roughly 2,000 lost since March 2025 through firings and voluntary departures. (The department employed about 4,000 at the start of the Trump administration.) A federal judge temporarily blocked these latest layoffs on Oct. 15.

Related: Education Department takes a preliminary step toward revamping its research and statistics arm

There are also other small new signs of life. On Sept. 30 — just before the shutdown — the department quietly awarded nine new research and development grants totaling $4.5 million. The grants, listed on the department’s website, are part of a new initiative called, “From Seedlings to Scale Grants Program” (S2S), launched by the Biden administration in August 2024 to test whether the Defense Department’s DARPA-style innovation model could work in education. DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, invests in new technologies for national security. Its most celebrated project became the basis for the internet.

Each new project, mostly focused on AI-driven personalized learning, received $500,000 to produce early evidence of effectiveness. Recipients include universities, research organizations and ed tech firms. Projects that show promise could be eligible for future funding to scale up with more students.

According to a person familiar with the program who spoke on background, the nine projects had been selected before President Donald Trump took office, but the formal awards were delayed amid the department’s upheaval. The Institute of Education Sciences — which lost roughly 90 percent of its staff — was one of the hardest hit divisions.

Granted, $4.5 million is a rounding error compared with IES’s official annual budget of $800 million. Still, these are believed to be the first new federal education research grants of the Trump era and a faint signal that Washington may not be abandoning education innovation altogether.

Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

This story about risks to federal education data was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-risks-higher-ed-data/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113283&ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-risks-higher-ed-data/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

Source link

November 10, 2025