Tag: Higher

  • Closing Equity Gaps in CTE Programs for Black Students

    Closing Equity Gaps in CTE Programs for Black Students

    Black students enroll in career and technical education programs at rates on par with their peers, but studies suggest they’re overrepresented in service-oriented fields that lead to lower-wage jobs, and less likely to participate in CTE courses in potentially lucrative STEM fields.

    A new research brief, released last week by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, delved into such inequities and explored possible solutions based on qualitative interviews with Black program staff, current and former CTE students, members of workforce development organizations, training providers, researchers, and other CTE experts. The authors argue those voices are especially critical when federal legislation funding the programs—the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, or Perkins V—is poised for reauthorization in fiscal year 2026.

    The report pointed out that in the 2022–23 academic year, Black students made up about 13 percent of high school students and about 15 percent of college students in CTE programs. But a 2020 analysis of CTE data in 40 states by Hechinger Report and the Associated Press found that Black students were less likely than their white peers to enroll in courses focused on science, technology, engineering, math and information technology, and more likely to take classes in fields such as hospitality and human services.

    A 2021 report by the Urban Institute also found that compared to their white peers, Black students in CTE courses had significantly lower grade point averages, lower rates of earning credentials or degrees at their first colleges, and a lower likelihood of finding a job in a related field. On average, Black participants in these programs earned more than $8,200 less than white students six years after starting CTE programs, controlling for the highest degree attained and sector of study. Earnings gaps worsened for Black students in online CTE programs; Black students who enrolled in those earned less than half of what their white peers did, despite having started in the same program in the same year, eventually earning the same degrees.

    “These disparities are major barriers to increasing the earning potential of Black workers and learners and to narrowing the racial wealth divide,” Joint Center president Dedrick Asante-Muhammad said in a news release.

    Lessons Learned

    In interviews with the Joint Center, Black CTE experts shared insights into some of the challenges of providing more equitable CTE programs.

    Some emphasized that Black CTE teachers, and technical instructors in general, are hard to recruit and retain because they can make better salaries working industry jobs in their fields, leaving students without mentors who look like them. In general, the experts raised concerns about CTE instructors lacking professional development, including on culturally responsive teaching.

    The research brief also suggested that Black communities don’t always trust CTE programs because historically, schools funneled Black students into low-quality technical programs. CTE programs hold a stigma for some potential students who still view them as pathways for students of color considered unlikely to attend college rather than a viable career step that doesn’t preclude higher education, the brief said.

    Experts also noted that while Perkins V funds require states to submit a local needs assessment, which involves reviewing enrollment and performance data for CTE students, data collection varies across states and gaps in data too often serve students poorly. For example, the mandatory accountability measures for Perkins V funds require data on CTE concentrators—high school students who finished at least two courses in the same CTE program—but that doesn’t include college students or students who dabble in CTE but don’t qualify as a concentrator.

    Co-author of the brief and Joint Center workforce policy director Kayla Elliott also acknowledged that the Trump administration’s recent decision to shift management of CTE programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor creates new uncertainty for the programs.

    “This raises real concerns for the program’s effectiveness and the efficiency of support services for state administrators,” she said in the release. “Some states have already reported waiting months for their Perkins funding with little communication or support from the administration.”

    But CTE experts also said Perkins V funding is flexible in ways that can help support Black students. For example, states can use up to 15 percent of the federal funds to drive innovation and implement new programs. States can also combine Perkins V funding with other funding sources, like the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which can help states better align CTE programs and workforce development programs. The funds can also be used for career exploration activities to introduce Black students to these programs.

    The research brief offered recommendations to improve Black student access and outcomes in CTE, including increasing federal funding during the next reauthorization; improving retention and recruitment strategies for Black CTE teachers, including by raising instructor wages; and enhancing data collection standards. The authors also suggested CTE programs better align with workforce development efforts at the state level and do more engagement and outreach to help Black families better understand how these programs can lead to high-earning technical careers.

    Source link

  • Why Universities Need a Strategic Marketing Shift

    Why Universities Need a Strategic Marketing Shift

    This past week, presenting at the UPCEA MEMS conference in Boston, we explored a question that is becoming central to the future of higher education: What does it actually take to engage learners in lifelong learning with an institution?

    In a moment of rising enrollment volatility, shifting global dynamics and accelerating technological change, this question cuts to the heart of what universities must become. For decades, higher education has centered its marketing and enrollment strategy around discrete, program-level recruitment pipelines: find prospective students, convert them into a program and repeat the cycle for the next cohort.

    But today’s learners don’t behave in discrete cycles. Their lives aren’t structured around one big decision. They move fluidly across roles, industries and learning needs. They progress in fits and starts. They upskill to chase opportunity or reskill to navigate disruption. They return to learning not once, but many times over.

    And that means universities have a unique opportunity—if they choose to seize it.

    Rethinking Acquisition

    Rather than thinking transactionally—acquiring each enrollment anew—we can build relationships that honor a simple premise: If we provide value consistently, learners will keep choosing us.

    This is about rewriting the social contract. Not only with current students, but with alumni, midcareer professionals, online learners and the millions of individuals who may engage with us long before (or long after) a degree is on the table.

    Gone are the days when it is sufficient for a university to promise that earning a college degree is all that is needed for a long, successful career. Today’s learners and our broader society demand more.

    Instead, imagine a world where a learner begins with a short online experience or a noncredit course from an institution and immediately encounters a clear, welcoming pathway:

    Try something, learn something, earn a credential, return to learn more; stack the credentials and pursue a degree; return again for what’s next in their career and life.

    This is not an acquisition and retention strategy rooted in constraints. It is a relationship strategy rooted in community, trust and relevance.

    Lifetime learning becomes a shared journey and not simply a recruitment goal.

    Why Strategic Marketing Must Shift

    Much of higher ed’s traditional marketing infrastructure was built for a different era—one where programs were stable, pipelines were predictable and learners followed linear paths. Budgets are owned by program leaders, who allocate a portion to marketing “their” program. Central marketing functions may provide brand guidelines and a few templates. Marketing happens in silos across the institution.

    Challenges to this model today abound: from surging paid media costs and the rise of nontraditional learners to how AI is reshaping both labor markets and learner preferences. In this landscape, marketing single programs in isolation is not only inefficient—it’s misaligned with how learners actually behave.

    The more effective and learner-centered approach is clear.

    Market On-Ramps and Pathways, Not Just Destinations

    Instead of funding dozens of disconnected campaigns across schools and units, universities can invest centrally in marketing strategic portfolios of programs, composed of not just degrees but noncredit courses, certificates and more. This aligns messaging, reduces duplication, supports brand coherence, expands reach and—most importantly—mirrors the way different learner segments make decisions.

    People don’t all jump straight into an undergraduate degree or master’s program. They explore. They try something small and low-risk. They re-engage when life or work creates new urgency. They seek clarity, not complexity.

    Portfolio-based marketing meets them where they are.

    Building for Lifelong Value

    At the University of Michigan, we have been reorganizing our approach to online learning and marketing through this lens. Michigan Online, stewarded by the Center for Academic Innovation, serves as our unified destination for online, noncredit and for-credit learning opportunities.

    When a learner enters Michigan Online, our goal is not simply to direct them to a single offering; we welcome them into a coherent ecosystem.

    1. Pathways That Make Progression Clear

    We’ve aligned noncredit courses and certificates with for-credit opportunities, creating intentional pathways that help learners move from exploration to deeper engagement. When learners earn value early, the transition to degrees becomes more natural and more meaningful.

    1. CRM and Automation as Relationship Infrastructure

    We invested in CRM and marketing automation, bringing together noncredit and for-credit learner records into a single enterprise system. Just as importantly, we invested in the people and processes to use the tools well. This allows us to nurture learners over time, personalize recommendations, track cross-program engagement and create communications that feel relevant rather than transactional.

    1. A Shared Experience, Not a Siloed One

    By unifying messaging, branding and learner pathways, Michigan Online makes it easier for individuals to see themselves across programs, schools and stages of life. Instead of navigating institutional boundaries, they navigate opportunities.

    1. Reduced Reliance on Expensive Paid Media

    When the value is built into the learning itself—and when pathways clearly connect noncredit to for-credit—universities can rely less on costly late-funnel advertising. The relationship, not the ad spend, becomes the engine of enrollment.

    The Future Belongs to Institutions That Build Relationships, Not Funnels

    A lifetime-value approach to learners is not simply a marketing strategy. It is an institutional strategy. It asks universities to:

    • Design portfolios—not just degree programs
    • Welcome learners early—with value, not pressure
    • Create seamless transitions between credential types
    • Embrace personalization at scale
    • Invest in shared infrastructure instead of parallel campaigns
    • Build trust by offering meaningful learning at every stage

    Learners are telling us, through their behavior and their choices, that the old model no longer fits. They want ecosystems, guidance and clarity. They still want courses and content but they also want coaching and community. They want to return again and again, not because they’re targeted—but because they’re well served.

    The question for universities is not whether this shift is coming. It’s whether they will lead it. Leading means protecting a direct relationship with learners—so access, quality, privacy and long-term benefit remain anchored in educational values, not solely in market logic

    We believe that if institutions embrace this more holistic, value-centered approach—one rooted in lifelong relationship-building—they will not only strengthen enrollment resilience. They will also deepen their impact, broaden their reach and fulfill the promise at the heart of higher education: to support learners not just once, but throughout their lives.

    James DeVaney is associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    James Cleaver is chief marketing officer for the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    Carol Podschwadt is associate director of marketing for the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    Source link

  • ED Calls Civil Rights Workers It’s Trying to Ax Back to Work

    ED Calls Civil Rights Workers It’s Trying to Ax Back to Work

    Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

    The Education Department is calling Office for Civil Rights employees who were fired earlier this year back to work.

    The Trump administration tried to ax half of the Education Department’s OCR staff in March, but it has been paying them not to work since then while it continues to fight litigation contesting its plan. The department says it hasn’t given up on defending that move, but now says it’s “important to refocus OCR’s work and utilize all OCR staff to prioritize OCR’s existing complaint caseload.”

    “In order for OCR to pursue its mission with all available resources, all those individuals currently being compensated by the Department need to meet their employee performance expectations and contribute to the enforcement of existing civil rights complaints,” the department said in Friday emails obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “Utilizing all OCR employees, including those currently on administrative leave, will bolster and refocus efforts on enforcement activities in a way that serves and benefits parents, students, and families.”

    One email gave an employee a Dec. 15 return date, while another said Dec. 29. It’s unclear how many workers will return. Bloomberg reported that the order went out to “more than 260,” while USA Today cited the department as saying “roughly 250,” but the Associated Press said “dozens.” Inside Higher Ed is awaiting clarification from the department.

    Rachel Gittleman, president of American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, which represents department employees, said her union hasn’t been told how many workers in its bargaining unit received the email. She said in a statement Monday that “while we are relieved these public servants are finally being allowed to return to work, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has made clear that she would rather play politics than uphold her responsibility to protect students’ rights.”

    “For more than nine months, hundreds of employees at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) have been sidelined from the critical work of protecting our nation’s most vulnerable students and families,” Gittleman said. She said the administration’s actions keeping these employees out of work and on leave “wasted more than $40 million in taxpayer funds.”

    “By blocking OCR staff from doing their jobs, Department leadership allowed a massive backlog of civil rights complaints to grow, and now expects these same employees to clean up a crisis entirely of the Department’s own making,” she added.

    Source link

  • Higher Education and the Culture of Silence

    Higher Education and the Culture of Silence

    American higher education presents itself as a beacon of truth, courage, and critical inquiry. Yet behind the marketing gloss lies a pervasive culture of silence—one that extends far beyond colleges and universities themselves. The same forces that suppress dissent on campus operate through a larger ecosystem of nonprofits, contractors, ed-tech companies, and “public-private partnerships” that orbit higher ed. Together, they form a network of institutional interests that reward secrecy, punish whistleblowers, and prioritize reputation and revenue over honesty and accountability.

    At the center of this system are nondisclosure agreements. NDAs are now standard tools not only in universities, but in the foundations that support them, the think tanks that shape education policy, and the ed-tech corporations that extract profit from student data and public subsidies. Whether a case involves workplace retaliation, fraudulent recruitment, financial misconduct, algorithmic harm, or student exploitation, NDAs are used to hide patterns of abuse and protect organizations from scrutiny. What gets buried is not just information—it is the possibility of reform.

    The threat of litigation is part of the same architecture. Universities, nonprofits, and ed-tech companies routinely rely on aggressive legal strategies to silence critics. Workers attempting to expose unethical contracts, deceptive marketing, or discrimination face cease-and-desist letters. Researchers who publish unflattering findings are pressured to retract or soften their conclusions. Students raising alarms about data privacy or predatory practices encounter legal intimidation disguised as “professional communication.” These organizations—flush with donor money, investor capital, or public funds—use lawsuits and threats of lawsuits as shields and weapons.

    Leadership across this broader ecosystem is often weak, conflicted, or corrupt. University presidents beholden to trustees are mirrored by nonprofit executives beholden to major donors, and by ed-tech CEOs beholden to venture capital. Many leaders prioritize political favor, philanthropic relationships, and corporate growth over the public interest. They outsource accountability to law firms, PR agencies, and consulting outfits whose job is not to fix problems but to bury them.

    And circulating through this system is the same cast of characters: politicians chasing influence, lawyers crafting airtight silence, consultants selling risk-mitigation strategies, bean counters manipulating data, and conmen repackaging failed ideas as “innovation.” The lines between nonprofit, corporate, and educational interests have blurred to the point of erasure. Trustees who shape campus policy sit on nonprofit boards. Ed-tech companies hire former university officials and then market themselves back to campuses. Donors direct funds through philanthropic intermediaries that simultaneously pressure institutions for access and silence.

    The victims of this system—faculty, staff, gig workers in tech and nonprofit roles, graduate students, undergraduates, and even the communities surrounding campuses—are pressured to comply. They face retaliation in the form of job loss, non-renewal, demotion, academic penalties, professional blacklisting, or immigration vulnerabilities. Whistleblowers are isolated. Critics are surveilled. And when the fallout becomes too public to contain, institutions rely on payouts—quiet settlements, buyouts, and confidential agreements that allow perpetrators to move seamlessly to their next institution or company.

    This culture of silence is not a collection of isolated incidents. It is a structural feature of modern higher education and the industries built around it.

    But it is not unbreakable.

    If you have experienced or witnessed this culture—whether in a university, a higher-ed nonprofit, or the ed-tech world—the Higher Education Inquirer invites you to share your story. You may do so publicly or anonymously. We understand the risks. We know many people cannot speak openly without jeopardizing their jobs, degrees, or health. Anonymous accounts are welcome, valued, and protected.

    Your story, no matter how brief, can help illuminate the patterns that institutions spend billions to obscure. Silence is what sustains the system. Truth—shared safely and collectively—is what can dismantle it.


    Sources

    • Elisabeth Rosenthal, An American Sickness

    • Alondra Nelson, Body and Soul

    • Harriet A. Washington, Medical Apartheid

    • Rebecca Skloot, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks

    • Reporting from the Higher Education Inquirer on university corruption, NDAs, donor influence, and ed-tech abuses

    • Investigations into nonprofit and ed-tech misconduct published in public records, court filings, and independent journalism

    Source link

  • U of Kansas Expands Program for Students With Disabilities

    U of Kansas Expands Program for Students With Disabilities

    The University of Kansas has received a five-year, $1.9 million grant from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Postsecondary Education to grow the university’s transition program for students with intellectual disabilities.

    KU Transition to Postsecondary Education (KU TPE) first launched at the Lawrence campus in 2015 to provide experiences for such students to engage in higher education and land a meaningful job. Now, the program will expand to two neighboring institutions, increasing opportunities for learners in the state.

    The background: Approximately one in five individuals with disabilities graduate from college, compared to 38 percent of people without disabilities, according to a 2024 report from the U.S. Government Accountability Office.

    The Transition and Post-secondary Programs for Students with Intellectual Disabilities (TPSID) grant provides funding to colleges and universities to create or expand programming for students who meet the criteria.

    Other colleges, including Utah Valley University, have received similar grants from ED to kick-start educational programs for individuals with intellectual disabilities. For the 2025 award year, Northeastern State University in Oklahoma, Washington State University, Texas A&M University–San Antonio, Georgian Court University in New Jersey, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, the University of Memphis and Curry College in Massachusetts were among the grant recipients.

    How it works: Students enrolled in KU TPE complete two-year undergraduate certificates, with the goal of landing a competitive job after graduation that aligns with their personal and career goals, according to the university press release.

    “Students come in as full-fledged, card-carrying Jayhawks,” Dana Lattin, research project director at KU TPE, said in a university press release. “They take courses like those in any other program of study that are aligned with their career and personal interest.”

    TPE students complete 24 credit hours—about six credits per semester—including nine credits on career and life planning, three credits for communication coursework, three credits for health and wellness classes, and nine for electives. In addition, students are encouraged to find employment and paid internships while enrolled, helping set them up for success after graduation.

    Part of the program’s effectiveness stems from the students’ integration into campus life, researchers said. TPE participants engage in campus resources and activities—including clubs, organizations and events—just like their peers enrolled in bachelor’s degree programs.

    Data shows that 74 percent of graduates are employed in their communities after completing their credential; by comparison, only 6 percent of all adults with disabilities in Kansas are employed in a competitive role.

    Scaling up: Campus leaders plan to use the funding to increase program supports for KU TPE participants, including adding credential programs, bolstering peer supports and establishing more career development elements, according to the program abstract submitted to ED.

    The university will also establish a consortium with Wichita State University Tech and Benedictine College, also in Kansas, to create additional transition programs for students with disabilities. The goal is to increase enrollment opportunities for as many as 48 students across the state.

    The KU research team is also looking for additional funding from the state to ensure the programs are sustainable.

    “Sharing that 75 percent of people with intellectual disability who attend college are competitively employed, many of which are working full-time, will help show the value of ongoing support for these programs in Kansas,” Lattin said.

    Get more content like this directly to your inbox. Subscribe here.

    Source link

  • Harvard Prof to Leave U.S. After Immigration Arrest

    Harvard Prof to Leave U.S. After Immigration Arrest

    APCortizasJr/iStock/Getty Images

    Immigration authorities arrested Carlos Portugal Gouvea, a visiting professor at Harvard Law School, on Wednesday after his J-1 visa was revoked for shooting a BB gun outside of a Boston-area synagogue Oct. 2, the day of Yom Kippur. Gouvea agreed to voluntarily leave the United States rather than be deported. 

    The Department of State revoked Gouvea’s visa Oct. 16, and a month later, Gouvea accepted a plea deal “on the charge of illegal use of the air rifle while his other charges for disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, and vandalizing property were dismissed,” the Department of Homeland Security wrote in a news release

    Gouvea shot the pellet gun outside Temple Beth Zion in Brookline, Mass., just a few miles south of the Harvard campus, The New York Times reported. Private security guards for the synagogue heard a loud noise outside, and the temple was put in a lockdown. When a guard saw Gouvea behind a tree and attempted to arrest him, they engaged in a brief physical struggle and then Gouvea fled, the Times reported. He was later arrested by Brookline police. Gouvea fired two total shots, one of which police later discovered had shattered a car window. Harvard officials put Gouvea on administrative leave shortly after his October arrest.

    In its news release, the Department of Homeland Security called the act an “anti-Semitic shooting incident,” a characterization federal officials have maintained since the incident. 

    “It is a privilege to work and study in the United States, not a right. There is no room in the United States for brazen, violent acts of anti-Semitism like this. They are an affront to our core principals as a country and an unacceptable threat against law-abiding American citizens,” Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary for public affairs at DHS, said in a statement. “We are under zero obligation to admit foreigners who commit these inexplicably reprehensible acts or to let them stay here. Secretary Noem has made it clear that anyone who thinks they can come to America and commit anti-American and anti-Semitic violence and terrorism should think again. You are not welcome here.” 

    At the time of his initial arrest, Gouvea said he was “hunting rats.” He was not charged with a hate crime by local police, and leaders from Temple Beth Zion told the Times they did not believe the shooting was motivated by bias. 

    “From what we were initially told by police, the individual was unaware that he lived next to, and was shooting his BB gun next to, a synagogue, or that it was a religious holiday,” Benjamin Maron, the synagogue’s executive director, and Larry Kraus, its president, wrote in the statement to the Times. “It is potentially dangerous to use a BB gun in such a populated spot, but it does not appear to have been fueled by antisemitism.”

    A lawyer for Gouvea also told the Times in October that the matter was “a total misunderstanding of an entirely innocent situation.”

    Source link

  • Coach Buyouts Boom to Record Highs

    Coach Buyouts Boom to Record Highs

    Earlier this year, Pennsylvania State University announced it would close seven campuses due to financial constraints, while Louisiana State University implemented a hiring freeze and other cost-cutting measures.

    Months later both institutions fired their head football coaches—for a price. Despite Penn State’s financial challenges, administrators were willing to pay more than $45 million to make head coach James Franklin go away after the Nittany Lions posted a 6-3 record. LSU fired Brian Kelly after a 5-3 start and gave him a buyout of $54 million.

    Franklin’s total buyout was ultimately reduced to $9 million when he landed the head coaching job at Virginia Tech, and Kelly’s exit package will also shrink should he find another position. But the eye-popping compensation numbers are adding up—and setting new records at a time when many colleges and universities are cutting costs.

    Record Buyouts

    Recent data compiled by the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics shows that failing is a lucrative business for college football coaches. Fifteen fired football coaches have already racked up collective buyouts of nearly $228 million from public universities, compared to $120 million in fiscal year 2024. (Those totals are for Football Bowl Subdivision coaches only, formerly known as Division I-A, and only include public universities, since private institutions don’t release such contract details.)

    Former LSU coach Brian Kelly landed one of the largest buyouts in the history of college sports.

    Gus Stark/LSU/University Images/Getty Images

    The Knight Commission noted that individual coaching buyouts this year “are the second, third, fourth, and fifth highest severance pay obligations in history.” The top slot still belongs to Texas A&M University, which fired Jimbo Fisher in 2023 with an exit package of more than $75 million.

    Looking across a longer timeline, the commission estimates that universities shelled out a total of $852 million in severance pay for football coaches, including assistants, between 2012 and 2024.

    University Responses

    Universities often stress that coaching buyouts are paid with donor funds, not public money. Even so, some experts argue that paying vast sums of money to fire coaches is problematic and damages faculty and staff morale, especially at universities that are slashing jobs and budgets.

    Penn State defended its recent buyout to Inside Higher Ed by emphasizing that its athletic program is among the few in the nation “that is self-sustaining and therefore does not use any tuition or taxpayer dollars.” In addition, the university said, it has a major economic impact on the surrounding area.

    “Decisions regarding budgets and operations of the academic enterprise are separate and distinct,” a spokesperson wrote in an emailed response to a question about closing rural campuses across Pennsylvania. “As noted, no tuition or tax dollars are used for athletics. The difficult but necessary decisions Penn State has made impacting campuses and unit budgets, have been made with a core focus on setting our students up with the best opportunities for success.”

    LSU did not provide a statement to emailed questions prior to publication.

    Congressional Scrutiny

    While Congress has deliberated capping pay for college athletes—whom institutions can now pay directly, as of earlier this year—Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics CEO Amy Privette Perko has encouraged lawmakers to rein in coaching salaries.

    “As Congress debates the merits of federal legislation to place limits and guardrails on college athlete compensation, it should also examine the conditions that allow for the continued growth of excessive compensation and severance for football coaches at non-profit universities,” she said in a statement accompanying the organization’s report on buyouts.

    Some members of Congress appear interested in taking on runaway salaries and buyouts.

    In October, Representative Michael Baumgartner, a Washington Republican, introduced the Correcting Opportunity and Accountability in Collegiate Hiring Act, a proposal that would cap annual pay for all athletics department employees. Baumgartner’s proposed bill would limit annual pay to no more than 10 times the cost of in-state tuition for undergraduate students.

    While new LSU coach Lane Kiffin is set to make $13 million a year, his annual salary would be dramatically lower—about $280,000—under the pay scheme proposed by Baumgartner.

    Multiple state attorneys general have already voiced opposition to the proposal.

    Lane Kiffin speaks at a press conference as he is introduced as the new head football coach of the LSU Tigers. He is a white man with short brown hair, wearing a blue suit with a purple tie and patterned shirt.

    New LSU coach Lane Kiffin is poised to make $13 million a year.

    Tyler Kaufman/Getty Images

    Some lawmakers have also questioned whether college sports should remain tax-exempt. Senator Maria Cantwell, a Democrat representing Washington, wrote a letter to the Joint Committee on Taxation earlier this year, seeking an analysis of the implications of stripping the NCAA, member institutions and athletic conferences of their ability to continue as tax-exempt organizations.

    “Given the evolving market dynamics of college sports coupled with changes in the legal framework affecting college athletes, legitimate questions have been raised about whether it is time to rethink the tax-exempt regime under which college sports currently operates,” she wrote.

    But so far, legislation to alter the college sports landscape has proven difficult to pass. The latest effort to overhaul athletics—which would have limited student transfer eligibility and how much universities can spend on name, image and likeness deals—collapsed short of the end zone last week when House members balked on the GOP-backed bill and sponsors pulled it from a vote.

    Source link

  • Conservative Think Tank AEI Names Ben Sasse Senior Fellow

    Conservative Think Tank AEI Names Ben Sasse Senior Fellow

    The American Enterprise Institute, a prominent conservative-leaning think tank, has named former U.S. senator and university president Ben Sasse a nonresident senior fellow, AEI announced Friday. Its website says his work there will focus on “higher education, innovation, technology, American history and culture, and national security.”

    Sasse’s AEI post and his continuing voice at other major conservative institutions—The Wall Street Journal has run at least three op-eds by him this year, including one calling on university board members across the country to stand up to faculty “radicals” and “encourage greater intellectual diversity”—shows he’s not persona non grata after his abrupt exit from the University of Florida last year.

    Sasse attributed his resignation from UF to his wife’s health, though the student newspaper, The Independent Florida Alligator, has reported the board may have forced him out. During the first year of his roughly 18-month presidency, his office spent more than $17 million. Sasse denied wrongdoing and argued that driving new initiatives at UF required major investments.

    Sasse, a Republican who represented Nebraska in the Senate, remains a professor in UF’s Hamilton Center for Classical and Civic Education. He previously was president of Midland University.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Knowledge and skills in higher education: coherence, conflict or confusion?

    WEEKEND READING: Knowledge and skills in higher education: coherence, conflict or confusion?

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Adam Matthews, Senior Research Fellow at the University of Birmingham.

    Skills have dominated the policy and political discourse in recent years. In a recent HEPI blog, Professor Ronald Barnett observed how the education policy world has been dominated by the language of skills, whilst academic discourse has focused on education and knowledge. Professor Barnett argues that these two discourses are speaking past each other, disconnected and polarising.

    In this blog I look at how skills have come to dominate policy, political and institutional discourse, present some speculations and provocations as to why this might be, and call for precision in language when it comes to knowledge and skills policy. Here, in both simple and more philosophical terms, we are looking at discursive binaries which are concerned with doing (skills) and knowing (knowledge) in higher education.

    The 2025 Post-16 Education and Skills whitepaper is clear in its opening:

    Skills are at the heart of our plan to deliver the defining mission of this government – growth.

    The skills turn in policy and political discourse has, in many cases, sidelined or muted knowledge. This is not the case in academic literature. The Oxford Review of Education, recently published a special issue Knowledge crises and democratic deficit in education.

    Where does this then leave many universities who are, and have been for centuries producers, co-producers and distributors of knowledge? Burton Clark summed up a universities’ core mission well in 1983:

    If it could be said that a carpenter goes around with a hammer looking for nails to hit, then a professor goes around with a bundle of knowledge, general or specific, looking for ways to augment it or teach it to others. However broadly or narrowly we define it, knowledge is the material. Research and teaching are the main technologies.

    This is despite many universities starting life in the 20th century as civic institutions with a focus on the training of professions. Immanuel Kant described these two sides as a Conflict of the Faculties in 1798. In The Conflict of the Faculties, Kant argues that universities contain a necessary tension between “higher” faculties that serve the state’s skills needs and train professionals, and the “lower” faculty of philosophy, which must remain autonomous to pursue knowledge through free inquiry.

    The Post-16 Education and Skills Government white paper, uses the word ‘skills’ 438 times and ‘knowledge’ just 24 times. So, what has happened to knowledge in higher education? Professor Barnett thinks that there is something else going on other than the traditional liberal (education and knowledge) and vocational (skills) polarisation.

    With all of this in mind, I was interested in how universities described their teaching practice in the 2023 TEF submissions (a corpus of 1,637,362 words and 127 qualitative provider submissions). The pattern of a focus on skills continued. Across the whole corpus, in total, ‘skills’ was used 4,785 times, and ‘knowledge’ 1284 times – that means that skills trumped knowledge by a ratio of 3.7.

    I wondered if it made a difference about the type of institution. We might think large, research-intensive universities would be more interested in knowledge in educational terms or, be more balanced on knowledge and skills. So, I divided those numbers up by institution type using the handy, KEF classifications.

    Cluster Skills (per thousand)  Knowledge (per thousand)  Ratio difference 
    All   4785 (2.92)  1284 (0.78)  3.7 
    ARTS (Specialist) 648 (2.28)  220 (0.77)  2.9 
    STEM (Specialist) 384 (4.27)  89 (0.99)  4.31 
    E (Large broad disciplines) 1243 (2.94)  350 (0.82)  3.55 
    J (Mid-size teaching focus) 411 (2.74)  109 (0.72)  3.77 
    V (Very large, research-intensive) 745 (3.28)  184 (0.81)  4.05 
    M (Smaller with teaching focus) 672 (2.9)  197 (0.85)  3.41 
    X (Large, research-intensive, broad discipline) 682 (2.93)  135 (0.58)  5.05 

    As shown above, the pattern holds – skills are being written about more than knowledge.  Institutions in the clusters X and V (large and very large, broad-discipline and research-intensive) show the widest disparity in the balance between knowledge and skills (with the balance in favour of skills). This is surprising as these are the institutions, one might think are more interested in knowledge production alongside and integrated with education.

    Taking a slightly different line of inquiry, the shift does not appear to be drawn within political party lines. In 2022, Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education, Robert Halfon spoke at the Times Higher Education Conference as Minister for Skills, Apprenticeships and Higher Education (no ‘knowledge’ in his job title) and used the word ‘knowledge’ just once.

    At the turn of the century, the political discourse was dominated by knowledge and a knowledge economy, and then Prime Minister, Tony Blair claimed in 2002 that this was the route to prosperity:

    This new, knowledge-driven economy is a major change. I believe it is the equivalent of the machine-driven economy of the industrial revolution.

    This was just as the internet became accessible to all and globalisation dominated, promising an opening up and democratising of knowledge. As we enter the AI revolution, why have skills become the dominant policy and political narrative? Skills-based or knowledge-rich curricula debate has been linked to the emergence of AI technologies.

    Ideologically, knowledge and skills have produced dividing lines in education systems politically. Moreover, knowledge and skills are hotly contested in binary terms in schooling.

    In 2016, the Conservative Party held that knowledge was the route to economic growth, arguing that higher education played a key part in achieving success as a knowledge economy. In the same year, the UK voted to leave the European Union, kicking off a decade of political instability, coinciding with political orders being disrupted globally.

    During the liberal consensus of the Blair to Cameron era, governments in England aimed to keep taxes low and markets open, whilst expanding the nation’s knowledge capabilities through graduates and research. They had a broad faith in the benefits of growing knowledge and stimulating enterprise, rather than shaping the economy. They also expected communications technologies to empower citizens in a climate of open debate.

    Now, as we enter 2026, the pendulum has swung firmly toward skills dominating policy and political discourse. Rather than swinging between the two polarising discourses, it is important to develop a practical coherence between skills and knowledge.

    Professor Barnett calls for a rebalancing in debates, our language and our practice. Surely, it’s reasonable for educators, students, researchers, policy makers and politicians to expect higher education to consider doing (skills) and knowing (knowledge) as equals rather than sides to be taken. It can be argued that separating these two very human capabilities is not possible at all. However, Skills England have developed a new classifications for skills which could prove useful but needs careful integration with higher education curriculum, knowledge production and pedagogy.

     The question of why the pendulum has swung towards skills at this current moment, I can only speculate and offer provocations to be picked up in the HEPI blog and beyond:

    • The push towards a knowledge economy and 50% of young people attending university failed to result in economic growth (we might argue that the 2008 financial crash, Brexit, pandemic and many other things could have contributed too).
    • Liberalism, globalisation and knowledge came together within the notion of a knowledge economy and society. A populist backlash to knowledge and liberal higher education has resulted in a shift towards skills.
    • A genuine attempt to remedy a left behind 50% of the population who do not pursue a knowledge based academic degree.
    • The internet did not deliver on social or economic positives and growth – as Peter Thiel famously said “We wanted flying cars, instead we got 140 characters”.
    • Artificial intelligence is, or could disrupt knowledge and white collar work.
    • Often, knowledge and skills are used as synonyms for each other leading, to confusion.

    Knowing (knowledge) and doing (skills) should be at the heart of economic growth, social change and flourishing societies and not two binaries to be fought over. Precision in the language we use to make these cases needs to be sharpened and made clearer in order to avoid confusion and aid policy and practice.

    Source link

  • The Relationship Between the Fundamentals and the Emergent – Teaching in Higher Ed

    The Relationship Between the Fundamentals and the Emergent – Teaching in Higher Ed

    Last night was our daughter’s dance recital. She is 11 and in middle school now, and the performance combined the middle school and the upper school. It was such a delight to see all these performers come together, and I kept being reminded of so much of what I’ve learned about learning and teaching through the experience of watching them.

    The Practice

    In James Lang’s book Small Teaching, he tells a story about small ball. I don’t know a lot about baseball, and I probably know more about baseball from reading the description Jim has of something called small ball than I know about anything else in the sport. That may not be true, but that’s how it feels, often. Perhaps that’s because his book has meant so much to me and this idea of small ball, where you focus on the basics.

    I may get some of this wrong because I am not picking up the book and going back and referencing it at this exact moment. Sometimes I feel like I know the book by heart. But Jim talks about just this idea of: now we’re going to run the bases, or now we’re going to hit the ball, and all the things. Those fundamental skills—those things we want to cultivate. James Lang doesn’t say this, but as a set of Lego pieces so that we can achieve enormous heights and something beyond perhaps what even the teacher might have imagined possible. That’s possible when we first start with the basics: those fundamental building blocks.

    And while I don’t know a lot about baseball, I do know a fair amount about dance. I spent 11 years of my life, for example, taking ballet lessons. Our version of small ball in a ballet class was the warm-up. I still can vividly picture the barres that would be brought out. Some were affixed to the walls permanently in the studio, but others would be placed out in the middle of the room. They were in varying heights, and you would come in and select where you wanted to stand. Where you chose had to do with your place in the room as well as the height of the barre appropriate for you.

    Dancers of all levels would come together—whether this was something they did professionally or as a hobby—and we would begin with pliés and relevés in first position, second position, third position, and so on. This became a culture. A practice. It was a small ball experience. It was necessary to warm up our bodies together and move in unison like that, with the music guiding our pace and tempo.

    Then we would move the barres out and get ready for the floor routines. As I reflected on these memories of ballet class, I am reminded that each time I smell a cigar while walking in our neighborhood, I think there must be someone nearby who smokes one occasionally. Our ballet teacher used to smoke cigars, and I’m always reminded of him—which, the juxtaposition of smoking and ballet always cracks me up to this day. Certainly a lot has changed about smoking as I share these words with you in the year 2025, thank goodness.

    The Rehearsal

    As I reflect back on our daughter’s concert, I think about the ways in which rehearsals help shape us. It’s the process of getting ready for that performance. And as we’re getting ready, we do different kinds of rehearsals. Sometimes they’re in costumes, sometimes not. Sometimes we wear makeup, sometimes not. Sometimes the lights are there, changing the dynamics of what the performers can and can’t see and where the visual emphasis gets placed for those watching.

    Some early rehearsals are more what are called blocking—just getting familiar with the space. When we move our bodies to one part of the space, what will that experience be like? Some of this I’m drawing from my background in theater, where you do dry run-throughs that are blocked and you learn how you’re going to move about the stage. Anytime I do a speaking engagement, I try my best to get some time in the space where I’ll be sharing, doing some blocking of my own. I try never to be a high maintenance person, so I seek to build upon the strengths of the existing space and how I might draw on it to engage people during the time we’ll have together.

    Another aspect of their performance last night was the student and faculty collaboration. I reveled in the differing levels that came together. Some of the faculty have been professional dancers and choreographed many of the routines. But you also had middle school and high school performers who choreographed their own pieces. That was so delightful to see.

    Even in the group performances, you would have standout performers—those who do this seven days a week. Our daughter’s friend goes to lessons and rehearsals and performances seven days a week. It is a huge focal point of her life and their family. Our daughter’s dancing is solely reliant on what they do during the school day at this point. But in the group performances, they are able to pull together the unique strengths of each performer and create something that is invisible to the audience—because they all reach a certain level of high-quality expectations.

    Then those who can do, in some cases, acrobatic flips or pirouettes with four rotations, as opposed to the beginners who can do just one—what a delight it is to see differing levels come together in synergistic ways. Their differences become assets rather than flaws, thanks to talented choreography, commitment to rehearsing, and the drawing out of one’s unique strengths.

    The Emergent

    This morning, while reflecting on all of this, I came across a video of a couple of dancers I’m not familiar with. The Instagram algorithm “knows” me well and will feed me videos I enjoy. These performers are dancing the Lindy Hop.

    I did the Lindy Hop in my 20s and loved it so much that I would go to multiple group lessons—usually three or four each week. I would take at least one private lesson each week, and then I would go out dancing one or two nights a week. I had an annual pass to Disneyland and would go there by myself, take the tram in by myself, not knowing whether I would see anyone I knew—just to be around the dancers and to hope I would get a chance to dance with others. It was such a special time in my life. I would go to sleep at night and dream. That’s how much the Lindy Hop meant to me.

    I don’t come across it as much these days. It seems West Coast Swing has taken over more of the dance world I used to be part of. So anytime Lindy Hop comes across my screen, I will definitely want to watch what’s happening.

    Many of these dances—including the Lindy Hop—have a basic eight count. As you become more practiced, you’re able to let the music change things up. Much swing music has what are called breaks, where a measure shifts and varies the pattern. The dancers and the music create such amazing playfulness and interaction. It is so fun to watch.

    A song with lots of breaks in it is Shiny Stockings, sung here by the great Ella Fitzgerald:

    In the U.S., as well as many other countries, there are swing dance competitions. I don’t see many Lindy Hop competitions anymore, but I still enjoy Jack and Jill competitions. A lead’s and a follow’s names get drawn from a hat, and a DJ plays a song they’ve never heard. I love watching Jack and Jill competitions because of the improvisational nature of them.

    The Lindy Hop dance I saw this morning looked similar—though these dancers clearly dance together regularly and this wasn’t a competition but a demo. It didn’t appear to be fully choreographed. I could see subtle moments where the follower responded to the lead in real time. To an untrained eye, these steps would look 100% planned. But because I know the context—likely a camp or workshop in Spain—I can pick up on the improvisational clues.

    I’ve started following Nils and Bianca on YouTube and look forward to watching many more of their dances in their back catalog. Their demo of Hey Baby from Rock That Swing 2018 is a delight and I’m confident that there’s so much good dancing coming my way in the future, via Nils and Bianca’s channel. In case you didn’t believe me earlier when I said that they weren’t performing, here’s another example of what it looks like when they are: Good Rockin’ Daddy – Etta James – Stuttgart 2022.

    As I think back on last night’s very planned dances at our daughter’s recital and this morning’s emergent dance, I’m struck by how emblematic all of this is of teaching. The rehearsals, the planning, the choreography—and finally the performance—enable us as educators to respond to the emergent, the uncertain.

    Teaching as Planned Structure and Emergent Possibility

    Mia Zamora on Episode 475 talked about planning for that—how to create structure such that we have equipped ourselves for all of the unexpected. She says on that episode:

    Intentionality and listening are important qualities for facilitation.

    I love how Mia and so many others help us consider the ways in which our intentionality, our planning, our putting structure around teaching and learning can help create communities ready to come together and navigate the unknown. Way back on Episode 218 Alan Levine shared about courses as stories. He and Mia co-taught the Net Narratives class together and used ‘spines’ as a metaphor for how they structured that class for the emergent.

    Randomly (or perhaps not), Alan writes about fractals in a recent post, as it relates to the emergent. He quotes an OEGGlobal colleague in a Slack post as writing:

    In everyday language, especially in adrienne maree brown’s Emergent Strategy, fractal refers to the idea that:

    “How we are at the small scale is how we are at the large scale.”

    If you want organizations, communities, or movements to be compassionate, equitable, and connected, those qualities need to show up in the small day-to-day interactions, too.

    So: small patterns = big impact.

    Alan goes on to describe how fractals inspired the structure of ds106, a course (and ongoing community) designed from its roots to be open, center on digital storytelling, and creating community.

    I’ll let you go read Alan’s post to discover more of his thoughts on the emergent, but for now, all I can help but think of is wondering if Alan saw this video clip of Hasan Minhaj talking to a 13-year-old math genius (Suborno Isaac Bari) about fractals.

    Ever since initially viewing the clip, I have had a growing curiosity about fractals, knowing practically nothing about them before that moment. I am also reminded of how difficult (impossible?) it is to measure learning, just like trying to accurately measure a coastline.

    Or measure just how good a dance recital was…



    Source link