Tag: Impact

  • Trump 2.0’s impact on higher ed: The first year in 8 numbers

    Trump 2.0’s impact on higher ed: The first year in 8 numbers

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Monday marked the end of the first year of President Donald Trump’s second term, and higher education is still reeling from months of nonstop federal whiplash and policy changes.

    The Trump administration has used wide-ranging and unprecedented tactics to gain influence over the academic sector and advance its policy goals. In turn, some college leaders have been forced to decide between defending their institution’s independence and policies or yielding to the federal government’s demands due to financial pressure.

    Below, we’re breaking down some of the biggest impacts of the second Trump administration’s first year, number by number.

    150+

    The number of investigations the Trump administration either opened into colleges or cited while warning of a potential loss of federal funding.

    In March, the U.S. Department of Education put 60 colleges on notice over ongoing Title VI probes into allegations that they weren’t doing enough to protect Jewish students from discrimination or harassment. Title VI bans federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin.

    U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon warned the colleges, many of whose investigations predated Trump’s second term, that federal funding “is a privilege” that is “contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”

    Less than a week later, the Education Department opened 51 additional investigations into colleges over allegations they had programs or scholarships with race-based restrictions for participation or eligibility. The agency again cited potential Title VI violations, along with a February guidance letter aimed at snuffing out diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. That guidance was ultimately struck down in August by federal courts.

    Several well-known colleges were named in both sets of investigations, including Yale, Cornell, Tulane and Arizona State universities.

    Since last March, the Trump administration has opened additional college investigations over institutional policies that run antithetical to the president’s higher education agenda, such as allowing transgender students to play on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. 

    6

    The number of colleges that have publicly brokered deals with the Trump administration to settle allegations of civil rights violations.

    Most of the institutions — Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Northwestern University, and the University of Pennsylvania each faced hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen or canceled federal funding. By settling with the Trump administration, university leaders sought to restore their funding and remove political targets from their institutions.

    The remaining institution, the University of Virginia, still had its funding intact but faced five federal investigations that could have threatened access to such funds. The U.S. Department of Justice paused those probes with the promise of closing them if the university “completes its planned reforms prohibiting DEI” through 2028.

    But many higher education experts have decried such agreements as violating academic freedom and emboldening the Trump administration’s assault on the sector.

    In one deal, Columbia University agreed to pay the federal government $221 million — the most of any college so far — and implement sweeping policy changes. Those included reporting extensive admissions data to the Trump administration, socializing “all students to campus norms and values” via training, and allowing an independent monitor to oversee the university’s compliance with the agreement. 

    The settlement will also put up walls between Columbia and international students by requiring the university to reduce its financial dependence on their tuition dollars and making applicants declare why they wish to study in the U.S.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: The 2025 Immigration White Paper and its impact on international teacher recruitment and retention in MFL and Physics

    WEEKEND READING: The 2025 Immigration White Paper and its impact on international teacher recruitment and retention in MFL and Physics

    This blog was kindly authored by Juliette Claro, Lecturer in Education at St Mary’s University Twickenham and Co-chair of the UCET Special Interest Group in Supporting International Trainee Teachers in Education.

    The Immigration White Paper, published in Summer 2025, introduced sweeping reforms that will reshape England’s teacher workforce. One of the most consequential changes is the reduction of the Graduate Visa route from 24 to 18 months, which directly undermines the ability of international trainees to complete their Early Career Teacher (ECT) induction. Ahead of the debate at the House of Lords on the sustainability of Languages teachers and the impact of the immigration policies on the supply of qualified languages educators in schools and universities, this article examines the implications of this policy shift, supported by recent labour market data and the House of Lords paper by Claro and Nkune (2025), and offers recommendations for mitigating its unintended consequences.

    The White Paper and the impact on shortage subjects

    The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) Annual Report (2025) confirms that Physics and Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) remain among the most under-recruited secondary subjects. Physics met just 17% of its Initial Teacher Training (ITT) target in 2024/25, while MFL reached 42%. These figures reflect a decade-long struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers International trainees have historically played a vital role in plugging these gaps, particularly in MFL, where EU-trained teachers once formed a significant proportion of the workforce.

    Following the significant rise in international applicants for teacher training in shortage subjects such as Physics and MFL, The University Council for the Education of Teacher (UCET) launched in  June 2025 a platform for Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers to discuss the support of international trainee teachers through a Special Interest Group (SIG) composed of 83 members representing ITE providers across England. Members of the SIG shared their concerns towards the immigration reforms and the impact the White Paper may have on the recruitment and retention of teachers in shortage subjects such as Physics or MFL where a strong majority of applicants come from overseas.

    Graduate visa reform: a critical barrier

    The most contentious element of the 2025 Immigration White Paper is the reduction of the Graduate Visa route from 24 to 18 months, which started on 1 January 2026. The new 18-month limit creates a structural misalignment where international trainees will be forced to leave the UK before completing their two-year Early Career Framework (ECF) induction, unless their school sponsors them early through a Skilled Worker Visa. At this stage, many schools are unwilling or unable to undertake this process due to cost, administrative burden, and the complexity of the process.

    UCET SIG members conducted a small-scale research in their settings to understand the barriers with school leaders to sponsor international Early Career Teachers (ECT). Across the sector, the reasons are complex and multilayered, reflecting the lack of financial and administrative support schools have to navigate sponsorship. This is especially true for smaller schools that are not part of a Multiple Academy Trust (MAT).

    The changes in the White Paper not only disrupt career progression but also risk wasting public investment. International trainees in shortage subjects are eligible to receive bursaries of up to £29,000 in Physics and £26, 000 in MFL (2025-2026). If they are forced to leave before completing induction, the return on this investment is nullified. Coherence in policies between the Department for Education recruitment targets and the Home Office immigration policies is needed in a fragile education system.

    The fragile pipeline of domestic workforce

    Providers from the SIG who liaised with their local Members of Parliament and other officials were reminded that the White Paper encourages employers not to rely on immigration to solve shortages of skills. Moreover, the revised shortage occupation list narrows eligibility, excluding MFL and Physics teaching specialisms and requiring schools to demonstrate domestic recruitment efforts before sponsoring.

    This adds friction to recruitment as the pipeline of domestic workforce for secondary school teachers in MFL, and Physics is relatively non-existent. The Institute of Physics highlighted in their 2025 report that 700,000 GCSE students do not have a Physics specialist in front of them in class. In MFL, the successive governments and decades of failed government policies to increase Languages students at GCSE and A Level are now showing the signs of a monolingual nation, reluctant to take on languages studies at Higher Education. This has contributed to a shortage of linguists willing to join the teaching profession.

    Why do international teachers matter in modern Britain?

    While the current political climate refutes the importance of immigration to sustain growth and skills in the economy, the White Paper undermines not only the Department for Education recruitment targets in a sector struggling to recruit and retain teachers in shortage subjects, but it also undermines the Fundamental British Values on which our curriculum and Teachers’ Standards are based on. Through a rhetoric that a domestic workforce is better than a foreign workforce, we both deny our young people the opportunity to be taught by subject specialists, and we refute the possibilities for our schools to promote inclusion in the teaching workforce.

    International teachers bring a breadth of experience and expertise. This is being denied to students based on the assumptions that making visas more difficult to obtain and reducing the opportunities for sponsorship will make the economy stronger.

    International trainee teachers joining the teacher training courses from Europe and the Global South often come to England with decades of experience teaching in their country. UCET SIG members’ small-scale research suggests that the majority of them want to stay and work in English schools after they qualify. The latest 2025  Government report on international teacher recruitment also highlights the fact that the majority of internationals aspire for careers progression in highly a performing education system in England. These studies suggest that the rhetoric behind the White Paper is not necessarily applicable in Education and needs reviewing.

    International teachers show strength and resilience adapting to new curricula and new educational systems. They are role models and aspirations for learners not only sharing their expertise in the classroom but also their resilience and determination to thrive.

    Recommendations

    The following recommendations would help to address the current issues:

    • Restore the Graduate Visa to 24 months for teachers to align with the ECT induction period.
    • Introduce automatic Skilled Worker sponsorship for international trainees in shortage subjects who complete Year 1 of induction successfully.
    • Provide centralised visa support for schools, including legal guidance and administrative assistance.
    • Ring-fence bursary funding to ensure it supports retention, not short-term recruitment.
    • Monitor and publish retention data for international teachers to inform future policy.
    • To support the sector, Education and Skills England should collaborate with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to bring coherence to policies linked with sponsorship and visa waivers for shortage subjects for example in Languages and Physics.

    Conclusion

    The 2025 White Paper offers ambitious reforms to address England’s teacher shortages, but its immigration provisions risk undermining progress. The reduction of the Graduate Visa route creates a structural barrier to retention, particularly in MFL and Physics, where international trainees are most needed and the domestic workforce is not supplying the pipeline of specialist teachers. Without urgent policy realignment, England risks losing valuable talent and wasting public investment at a time when stability and inclusion should be the priority.

    Source link

  • FIRE’s 2025 impact in court, on campus, and in our culture

    FIRE’s 2025 impact in court, on campus, and in our culture

    Each passing year gets busier and busier for FIRE, and this year was no different. The numbers alone say a lot: With a current caseload of 34 litigation cases and 300 more non-litigation advocacy matters, 50 amicus brief submissions, and 21,500 media mentions (and counting!) under our belt, FIRE is bringing the heat everywhere. 

    Our big — and growing! — community of supporters enabled us to go big and be bold, to stand up to bullies, to stand up for everyday Americans, and to fight for that precious right to free speech that we all love and cherish. We are proud to serve as the nation’s premier free speech watchdog and achieve victories like those highlighted below.

    In Court

    FIRE notched major litigation victories this year, proving our prowess in court as America’s leading First Amendment defender.

    We argued and won a federal appeal for a professor sanctioned for criticizing his college’s lowering of academic standards, and won a settlement for a pharmacy student expelled for posting song lyrics. We also persuaded a court to halt a new Texas law that bars all expressive activity on campus after 10 p.m., and ensured California won’t force community college faculty to endorse DEI principles.

    Her grad school tried to expel her for a tweet about Cardi B. Now they’ll pay a $250K lawsuit settlement

    Kim Diei’s settlement is a warning to colleges around the country: If you police students’ personal online expression, there will be consequences.


    Read More

    We got a high schooler’s record expunged, his school’s “hate speech” policy amended, and a monetary settlement after he was suspended simply for posting a “meme rap” song on personal time away from school; and achieved victory on behalf of town residents when we fought and won a repeal of an ordinance restricting the holiday decorations they could display.

    Our current docket includes a challenge to Immigration and Nationality Act provisions used to deport lawfully present noncitizens simply for speech the government dislikes. We are also defending a retired police officer jailed for 37 days for posting a Facebook meme, and an Iowa pollster, Ann Selzer, against President Trump’s ongoing lawsuit (we already won a dismissal of a separate class action making the same claims). Our docket also includes a return trip to the Supreme Court on behalf of a Texas citizen reporter jailed for newsgathering, and a challenge by an elected school board member barred by New Jersey law from engaging with her constituents. 

    We are currently awaiting appellate decisions in our challenge to Florida’s STOP WOKE Act, our suit for animal rights activists arrested for “offensive” industrial-farming videos, our lawsuit on behalf of students who wore “Let’s Go Brandon” garb to junior high, and our challenges to various state social media restrictions.

    In Briefs

    These are just some of the cases our team of in-house First Amendment attorneys are litigating directly, but we can’t forget the 50 amicus briefs filed to advance the law. 

    Over the year, we participated in multiple cases opposing government efforts to deport lawfully present noncitizen students for expression and viewpoints the administration disfavors; objected (while noting longstanding concerns with the state of free speech at their institutions) to the government’s efforts to withhold funding and interfere in governance and academic freedom at Harvard and Columbia; and opposed government efforts to censor individuals for sharing views on transgender athletes in high school sports.

    FIRE also fought for the right to anonymous speech by challenging actions requiring adults to turn over their government IDs to access online content, and we filed a brief in Garcia v. Character Technologies, a leading-edge case on First Amendment protection for artificial intelligence.

    Out-of-Court Advocacy

    Demonstrating our ability to defend expressive rights without ever setting foot in court, FIRE notched nearly 80 victories defending the First Amendment rights of everyday Americans in 2025. 

    As usual, our cases ran the gamut from defending a student threatened with discipline for wearing a TPUSA hat, to rallying the residents of a New Jersey town to defeat an ordinance requiring a $2 million insurance policy if residents wanted to demonstrate, to fighting for a student journalist who was kicked off campus for publishing criticism of the campus administration. 

    At the Institute of American Indian Arts, criticism of school officials is ‘bullying’

    Administrators kicked the Young Warrior’s editor out of student housing and put him on probation for publishing student work critical of school officials.


    Read More

    Campus Reform 

    In 1999, we started our work on campus because the American university is ground zero for censorship. It’s the place where we see illiberal trends emerge and generations indoctrinated with “free speech for me but not for thee” attitudes. It’s vital we defend and promote the values of free expression on campus so we can secure them for our country and Americans everywhere.

    This year, FIRE met with dozens of campus leaders, resulting in the reform of more than 30 campus policies impacting over 1 million students. We added four new institutions to our list of “green light” schools that maintain no restrictive speech policies, making this the first school year in our history when we tracked more schools that protect speech in their policies than schools that significantly restrict it.

    And, FIRE continues to shape the next generation of free speech leaders. We hosted 22 interns, 14 legal clerks, 100 undergrads at our Student Network Summer Conference, and 200 high schoolers at our second annual week-long summer camp, the Free Speech Forum. Our programs are free to attend and leave young people inspired. Here’s what just one had to say: 

    Before FIRE . . . I could not engage in a civil conversation over controversial topics. After FIRE, I’ve had many civil conversations over the same or different topics. What’s different? I listen, I ask, then I speak.

    Thought Leadership 

    Guiding the national conversation back to nonpartisan free speech principles, FIRE was everywhere this year, warning politicians across the political spectrum that practicing censorship will come back to haunt them, combating the “words are violence” cliche, and explaining that “hate speech” is protected speech. Our staffers placed op-eds in leading publications like The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, and Reason; and The New York Times ran a front-page profile of FIRE and featured FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff on an episode of The Daily.

    Greg was on the speaking circuit nonstop this year. The highlight was his TED Talk, which introduced hundreds of thousands to FIRE’s mission. Check it out if you haven’t yet! 


    Thank You!

    As a nonprofit organization, these achievements are only possible thanks to the generosity of our supporters. If you’ve already donated this year, please know that we sincerely appreciate your support. If you haven’t yet, please consider joining our growing movement of principled, nonpartisan free speech defenders by making a donation before the end of the year.

    Source link

  • The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    The Trump administration’s biggest impact on education in 2025 

    by Nirvi Shah, The Hechinger Report
    December 18, 2025

    Even with a conservative think tank’s blueprint detailing how the second Trump administration should reimagine the federal government’s role in education, few might have predicted what actually materialized this year for America’s schools and colleges. 

    Or what might be yet to come. 

    “2025 will go down as a banner year for education: the year we restored merit in higher education, rooted out waste, fraud and abuse, and began in earnest returning education to the states,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon told The Hechinger Report. She listed canceling K-12 grants she called wasteful, investing more in charter schools, ending college admissions that consider race or anything beyond academic achievement and making college more affordable as some of the year’s accomplishments. 

    “Best of all,” she said, “we’ve begun breaking up the federal education bureaucracy and returning education control to parents and local communities. These are reforms conservatives have championed for decades — and in just 12 months, we’ve made them a reality.” 

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    McMahon’s characterization of the year is hardly universal. Earlier this month, Senate Democrats, led by independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, called out some of the administration’s actions this year. They labeled federal changes, especially plans to divide the Education Department’s duties across the federal government, dangerous and likely to cause chaos for schools and colleges. 

    “Already, this administration has cancelled billions of dollars in education programs, illegally withheld nearly $7 billion in formula funds, and proposed to fully eliminate many of the programs included in the latest transfer,” the senators wrote in a letter to Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy, chair of the committee that oversees education. “In our minds, that is unacceptable.” 

    So, what really happened to education this year? It was almost impossible for the average observer to keep track of the array of changes across colleges and universities, K-12 schools, early education and education research — and what it has all meant. This is a look back at how the education world was transformed. 

    Related: Tracking Trump: How he’s dismantling the Education Department and more 

    Higher education

    The administration was especially forceful in the higher education arena. It used measures including antidiscrimination law to quickly freeze billions of dollars in higher education research funding, interrupting years-long medical studies and coercing Columbia, Brown, Northwestern and other institutions into handing over multimillion-dollar payments and agreeing to policy changes demanded by the administration.

    A more widespread “compact” promising preference for federal funding to universities that agreed to largely ideological principles had almost no takers. But in the face of government threats, universities and colleges scrapped diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs that provided support based on race and other characteristics, and banned transgender athletes from competing on teams corresponding to genders other than the ones they were assigned at birth.

    As the administration unleashed its set of edicts, Republicans in Congress also expanded taxes on college and university endowments. And the One Big Beautiful Bill Act made other big changes to higher education, such as limiting graduate student borrowing and eliminating certain loan forgiveness programs. That includes public service loan forgiveness for graduates who take jobs with organizations the administration designated as having a “substantial illegal purpose” because they help refugees or transgender youth. In response, states, cities, labor unions and nonprofits immediately filed suit, arguing that the rule violated the First Amendment. 

    The administration has criticized universities, colleges and liberal students for curbing the speech of conservatives by shouting them down or blocking their appearances on campuses. However, it proceeded to revoke the visas of and begin deportation proceedings against international students who joined protests or wrote opinions criticizing Israeli actions in Gaza and U.S. government policy there.  

    Meanwhile, emboldened legislatures and governors in red states pushed back on what faculty could say in classrooms. College presidents including James Ryan at the University of Virginia and Mark Welsh III at Texas A&M were forced out in the aftermath of controversies over these issues. — Jon Marcus

    Related: How Trump 2.0 upended education research and statistics in one year  

    K-12 education

    Since Donald Trump returned to office earlier this year, K-12 schools have lost millions of dollars in sweeping cuts to federal grants, including money that helped schools serve students who are deaf or blind, grants that bolstered the dwindling rural teacher workforce and funding for Wi-Fi hotspots

    Last summer, the Trump administration briefly froze billions of dollars in federal funding for schools on June 30, one day before districts would typically apply to receive it. Although the money was restored in late July, some school leaders said they no longer felt confident they’ll receive all expected federal funds next year. And they are braced for more cuts to federal budgets as the U.S. Department of Education is dismembered.

    That process, as well as the end goal of returning the department’s responsibilities to the states, has raised uncertainty about whether federal money will continue to be earmarked for the same purposes. If the state of Illinois is in charge of federal funding for every school in the state, said Todd Dugan, superintendent of a rural Illinois district, will rural schools still get money to boost student achievement or will the state decide there are more pressing needs?  

    As part of layoffs at the Education Department during the government shutdown in the fall, the Trump administration cut loose almost everyone who works in the Office of Special Education Programs, alarming many parents and advocates. About 7.5 million children ages 3 to 21 are served under federal law protecting students with disabilities, and the office had already lost staffers after the Trump administration dismissed nearly half the Education Department’s staff in March. Some worry this additional round of layoffs is a big step toward moving oversight of how states treat students with disabilities to the Department of Health and Human Services.

    Even as the Trump administration attempts to push more control over education to the states, it has aggressively expanded federal power over school choice and transgender student rights in public schools. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will create a federal school voucher program, allowing taxpayers to donate up to $1,700 for scholarships that families can use to pay for private school. The program won’t start until 2027, and states can choose whether to participate — setting up potentially divisive fights over new money for education in Democratic-controlled states. 

    Already, some Democratic-led states have come to the defense of schools in funding and legal fights with the federal government over transgender athletes participating in sports. The U.S. departments of Education and Justice launched a special investigations team to look into complaints of Title IX violations, targeting school districts and states that don’t restrict accommodations or civil rights protections for transgender students. Legal experts expect the U.S. Supreme Court to ultimately decide how Title IX — a federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education — applies to public schools.

    The federal government directly runs just two systems of schools — one for military families and the other for children of tribal nations. In an executive order signed in January, the president directed both systems to offer parents a portion of federal funding allocated to their children to attend private, religious or charter schools. 

    And as part of the dismantling of the federal Education Department, the Interior Department — which oversees 183 tribal schools across nearly two dozen states — will assume greater control of Indian education programs. In addition to rolling out school choice at its campuses, the department will take over Indian education grants to public schools across the country, Native language programs, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian programs, tribally controlled colleges and universities, and many other institutions. — Ariel Gilreath and Neal Morton

    Related: Trump administration makes good on many Project 2025 education goals

    Early education

    Early education was not at the top of Trump’s agenda when he returned to office. On the campaign trail, when asked if he would support legislation to make child care affordable, he gave an unfocused answer, suggesting tariff revenue could be tapped to bring down costs. Asked a similar question, Vice President JD Vance suggested that care by family members was one potential solution to child care shortages. 

    However, many of the administration’s actions, including cuts to the government workforce and grants, have affected children who depend on federal support. In April, the administration abruptly closed five of 10 regional offices supporting Head Start, the free, federally funded early childhood program for children from low-income families. Head Start program managers worried they would be caught up in a freeze on grant funding that affected all agencies. Even though administration officials said funds would keep flowing to Head Start, some centers reported having problems drawing down their money. The prolonged government shutdown, which ended Nov. 12 after 43 days, also forced some Head Start programs to temporarily close

    Though the shutdown is over, Head Start advocates are still worried. Many of the administration’s actions have been guided by the Project 2025 policy document created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Project 2025 calls for eliminating Head Start, which serves about 715,000 children from birth to age 5, for a savings of about $12 billion a year. 

    The One Big Beautiful Bill Act contained some perks for parents, including an increase in the child tax credit from $2,000 to $2,200. The bill also created a new program called Trump accounts: Families can contribute up to $5,000 each year until a child turns 18, at which point the Trump account will turn into an individual retirement account. For children born between Jan. 1, 2025, and Dec. 31, 2028, the government will provide a $1,000 bonus. Billionaires Michael and Susan Dell have also promised to contribute $250 to the account of each child ages 10 and under who lives in a ZIP code with a median household income of $150,000 or less. 

    That program will launch in summer 2026. — Christina A. Samuels

    Contact staff writer Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, on Signal at NirviShah.14 or [email protected].   

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

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/how-education-changed-in-one-year-under-trump/”>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&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113955&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/how-education-changed-in-one-year-under-trump/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • The civic university movement at an inflection point: reflecting on the National Civic Impact Accelerator’s legacy

    The civic university movement at an inflection point: reflecting on the National Civic Impact Accelerator’s legacy

    This blog was kindly authored by Adam Leach, Programme Director and John Fell, Policy and Partnerships Manager, at the National Civic Impact Accelerator at Sheffield Hallam University.

    As the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA) programme concludes this month, we find ourselves at a critical juncture for the civic university movement. After three years of intensive work gathering evidence, developing tools, and supporting universities to deepen their civic engagement, we have learnt a profound lesson: no single formula produces civic university success, but there are proven waypoints that can guide institutions through challenging terrain.

    The timing could not be more important

    The conclusion of the NCIA arrives at a moment of acute tension. On one hand, the Secretary of State for Education has made civic engagement one of her five top priorities for higher education reform. Bridget Phillipson’s November 2024 letter to university leaders was unequivocal: institutions must:

    play a full part in both civic engagement, ensuring local communities and businesses benefit fully from your work; and in regional development, working in partnership with local government and employers.

    On the other hand, many higher education institutions are facing deficit, and NCIA research has revealed the fragility of civic infrastructure within universities. Civic teams are being disbanded, staff on short-term contracts are not being renewed, and years of carefully built community partnerships are at risk. As one participant in our research observed:

    If you are sitting in rooms with leaders of councils and hospitals, for that to be a junior role is a big ask, especially if it is a junior role on a temporary contract.

    This paradox – increased civic responsibility amid deepening financial pressures – represents perhaps the most significant challenge facing the civic university movement.

    What the NCIA has delivered

    The NCIA programme, led by Sheffield Hallam University in partnership with the National Coordinating Centre for Public Engagement (NCCPE), the Institute for Community Studies, City-REDI at the University of Birmingham, and Queen Mary University of London, set out to answer a fundamental question: what works in civic engagement, for whom, and in what contexts?

    Our flagship output is the Civic Field Guide, which distils three years of evidence gathering into 14 practical waypoints organised across seven terrains: People, Place, Partnership, Policy, Practice, Purpose and Process. These waypoints emerged not from theory alone but from the generous sharing of universities across England, who were honest about both their successes and setbacks. Think of our waypoints as signs on a coastal path – they help you understand where you are and what direction you are heading, but they do not walk the path for you.

    Each waypoint addresses critical challenges. One focuses on embedding civic engagement as a core university mission, rather than leaving it to a few passionate individuals – what we call the ‘passion trap’. Another waypoint explores measuring civic impact through both quantitative metrics and qualitative narratives, recognising that numbers alone cannot capture how civic initiatives transform real lives. A third encourages universities to position communities as equal partners through co-design and lived experience, rather than as passive recipients of university expertise.

    Beyond the Field Guide, we have created a wealth of freely accessible evidence, tools and resources. Our Action Learning Programme brought together civic practitioners from across the UK. We have funded innovative civic projects testing new approaches, and we have produced a comprehensive Civic Impact Framework identifying seven domains where universities can make a difference.

    The honest answer

    After three years and significant investment, have we finally cracked civic university success? No. The legacy of the NCIA will not be our outputs and guidance, but what people do with them, and how they use them to  make changes in their places and communities. Civic work is highly place-responsive and context-specific. What succeeds in Sheffield may not work in Southampton. The power to change lies with practitioners and academics applying these insights to their unique contexts.

    Looking ahead: policy proposals for sustainability

    As the NCIA concludes, new structures are emerging to sustain the momentum. Following six years of leadership from Sheffield Hallam University, the NCCPE will steward the Civic University Network into its next phase, ensuring that NCIA resources remain accessible. The Civic 2.0 initiative establishes a consortium of UK universities with the University of Birmingham hosting a national policy hub.

    Yet sustainability requires concrete policy action at institutional, regional and national levels:

    For universities: Civic engagement must move from the margins to the core of institutional strategy. This means long-term budgets for civic teams, senior leadership accountability for delivering civic commitments, and treating community relationships as strategic assets, not expendable add-ons.

    For Government: The devolution agenda and creation of combined authorities create opportunities to embed universities as anchor institutions in regional policy frameworks. Universities should be crucial partners in regional development strategies, with dedicated funding streams for civic infrastructure.

    For funders: Research England and UK Research and Innovation should maintain dedicated civic capacity funding beyond individual programme cycles. The civic infrastructure requires sustained investment, not stop-start project funding.

    The Government’s explicit political support for universities’ civic role creates opportunities that were unimaginable a decade ago. But opportunity must translate into sustainable structures. Universities that demonstrate clear local value will have stronger voices in regional and national policy discussions and stronger support during crises.

    Keeping civic central

    The NCIA has provided navigation tools. Universities now possess comprehensive evidence about what works, practical frameworks for action, and a growing community of civic practitioners willing to share their learning. The question facing the sector is whether institutions will commit to using them despite financial pressures.

    The future of civic engagement depends on universities recognising that their purpose is about contributing meaningfully to the places they call home and the communities they serve. The civic university movement has moved from the margins to the mainstream. Now comes the hard work of keeping it there.

    Source link

  • Policy Impact Undervalued by Universities

    Policy Impact Undervalued by Universities

    Barely a third of social scientists believe their university would promote them based on the strength of their research impact, a global poll of researchers has found.

    Asked whether their institution would promote or give tenure to a scholar for their efforts to apply research outside academia, only 37 percent of 1,805 social scientists surveyed by Sage agreed.

    Only 28 percent of respondents said their efforts to make a difference outside academia would lead to additional research funding from their institution, while just 35 percent said their university offered awards or prizes to recognize impact.

    Thirty percent of the survey’s respondents, who came from 92 countries, say they receive no recognition at all for this work.

    Instead, the survey by the U.S.-based social sciences publisher suggested institutions tend to value and reward publication in highly cited journals more than academics. Asked whether the ultimate goal of research is to make a positive impact on society, 92 percent agreed this is the case for themselves, but only 68 percent believe it’s true for institutions.

    “I don’t care about impacting my colleagues and being cited—I want to impact practice in the field,” explained one U.S.-based respondent, who added there is “no good way to know if this happens.”

    “All the other metrics (like rejection rates, Google scores) are internal to the discipline and don’t really measure anything useful,” the researcher continued, according to the Sage report, titled “Do Social Scientists Care If They Make Societal Impact?” and published Tuesday.

    Similarly, 91 percent of researchers agree the ultimate goal of research is to build on the literature and enable future research, but only 71 percent think the leaders at their institution agree with this.

    That perceived misalignment between the motivation of social scientists and institutions should prompt a rethink on whether prestige metrics used in academia are misaligned with values, argues the Sage report.

    It notes that researchers value peer regard more than citation metrics, yet they perceive that administrators prioritize impact factors, creating tension in tenure and promotion decisions.

    “At times, this means we have to challenge the status quo of what matters in higher education—for example, by moving beyond an overemphasis on scholarly impact measures [and] toward recognizing research that benefits people through policy, practice and public life,” said Ziyad Marar, president of global publishing at Sage.

    “It’s important that we listen closely to researchers themselves as we do this work—understanding what motivates them, where they focus their efforts and what barriers stand in their way. This report does exactly that,” he added.

    Source link

  • One Small Idea Can Have A Big Impact #EdChat

    One Small Idea Can Have A Big Impact #EdChat

    I’ve been very lucky to have been part of many different EdTech Communities over the years. From my time spent with amazing educators at Adobe, Google, Raspberry Pi, Sphero, TED-Ed, and my first EdTech Community, Evernote, I’ve loved how you get what you put into a community. It can be what you need it to be when you want it to be. I’ve taken all of these experiences I use them to help me craft the community experience for educators in the SchoolAI Community

    One of the things I have loved from the different communities was the effort to give the community members a platform to share their story. There is so much we can all learn from each other, but educators are not always given the chance to share or they do not have the ability to attend a conference and share their story. Sometimes the keynote circuit is the same few names and it can be tough to break into those conversations. That’s why I have started the SchoolAI Lightning Talks

    Open to any educator who has an idea worth sharing, I want to give as many educators as possible a chance to share something that matters to them. You can find all of the details here and the submission page here. Do not let “I’m sure everyone already knows this.” or “It probably doesn’t make that big of a difference.” stop you from sharing. Do not let the imposter syndrome take over and prevent you from sharing your idea. If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email at [email protected] or find me on my socials. @TheNerdyTeacher

    Hugs and High Fives to everyone!

    NP

    Source link

  • Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Civic 2.0 – the civic university agenda but with sustainable impact

    Given the likely media habits of Wonkhe’s astute and cerebral readership, you’ve probably had a good fill of Andy Haldane in recent days.

    The former chief economist of the Bank of England has hardly been off the news and current affairs shows. First describing the pre-budget speculation as a “fiscal fandango,” and then continuing his sharp critique by lamenting the prospects for economic growth following the announcement last week.

    Haldane is best known for his economic analysis but as the author of the Levelling Up white paper (RIP) he is also a thoughtful commentator on all things related to “place” and has taken a keen interest in the civic university agenda. If you are not feeling too over-saturated with Haldane content, it is worth revisiting his essay for the Kerslake Collection last year. In it he celebrated the impact of the civic movement within the sector and the great practice it has fostered, but politely pointed out that the Civic University Commission that Lord Kerslake chaired, and its aftermath, had very little impact on policy.

    A place to call home

    This government, like the last one, has often spoken about the importance of place. Whether we think of geographical inequality or “left behind places,” across the political spectrum it is recognised that this complex issue is behind much of the political instability we have seen over the last decade. When it comes to why this matters Cabinet Office minister Josh Simmons put it well the other day when he said “Everything we do in policy should focus on place. We all experience the world through where we live and who we live with.”

    Policy action has not always matched the rhetoric but to be fair to this government, while critics may argue there is a lack of much needed radicalism when it comes to place, there have been a range of welcome place-based initiatives announced during the budget and over the last few months including the Pride in Place strategy, place-based budget pilots, and local economic growth zones.

    For higher education policy specifically, the government has of course included civic engagement as one of its five priorities and the industrial strategy highlights universities as “engines of innovation and skills” that are key to driving economic growth. Nevertheless, it is fair to say that civic engagement is a priority the Whitehall machine is struggling to get to grips with. Universities are inherently policy-domain-spanning institutions – and yet policy ownership of their “civic mission” is restricted to one Whitehall department (Education), where the much more expansive role of universities in driving economic and social growth within their cities and regions is not considered alongside their role in skills and education.

    It is not just the fact universities are often thought of as “big schools” by government which limits their role in place-based policymaking, but, as the National Civic Impact Accelerator (NCIA)/Civic University Network outlined recently there is a “profound fragmentation in both policy and place.” The siloed nature of government departments adds complexity and can limit ambition and potential for unlocking the role of universities in supporting their place. As the NCIA report outlines, the different layers of devolution also presents a fragmented landscape in which universities work.

    Civic 2.0

    So, what can we do about it? Following the NCIA programme we want to build on the success they have had in developing great practice in the sector. We are delighted that the National Co-ordinating Centre for Public Engagement has agreed to host the Civic University Network, convene a national community of practice, and maintain the assets of the Civic University Network and National Civic Impact Accelerator. This ensures continuity for the sector and provides a platform for sharing knowledge and accelerating civic leadership.

    In addition to sector-practice we want to start making a difference to policy and overcoming the Haldane critique! A group of universities and funders – the universities of Birmingham, Newcastle and Queen Mary alongside Midlands Innovation and the NCCPE – have got together to establish a programme to develop policies and ideas which would enable universities’ place-based role to grow.

    We are at the start of this journey but our intended approach is to be both ambitious and pragmatic. What this means in reality is that we do not anticipate a radical departure from the current system in the near or medium term. While we recognise the higher education market and the way research is funded is often at odds with the place agenda, the fiscal environment and challenges faced by government means there is little appetite for structural change.

    Instead, we want to identify significant themes universities could play a role in tackling, such as social cohesion and rebuilding institutional capacity in local communities, as well as a small number of policy shifts or ideas across different parts of Whitehall to ensure universities are enabled to be more active players in supporting local growth and civic engagement over the next few years.

    In turn this will also help us to provide the sector with additional momentum, leadership and representation on the civic/place agenda – ensuring greater visibility, highlighting excellent practice, developing spokespeople and case-studies for policy makers to engage with and to facilitate partnerships between university leaders, other sectors and national/ regional policymakers.

    We are starting out as a small group of universities and funders committed to the civic agenda, but we recognise there are many other institutions from across the country with different missions and specialisms who really care about the role they play in the places they are part of.

    We would welcome you to join our programme, with the intention that over time we will be able to build a sustainable entity which wouldn’t just look at “civic wins” for the medium term but could also explore the system changes we need to better serve our places for the decades to come.

    More information on the Civic 2.0 programme can be found here.

    Source link

  • School Specialty and College Football Playoff Foundation Celebrate Impact Across Schools Nationwide

    School Specialty and College Football Playoff Foundation Celebrate Impact Across Schools Nationwide

    New media center at North Dade Middle School marks milestone in initiative revitalizing learning environments to benefit the entire learning community

    GREENVILLE, WI– November 21, 2025 – School Specialty and the College Football Playoff (CFP) Foundation today announced the completion of a media center makeover at North Dade Middle School, marking the 100th learning space transformed in collaboration with the Extra Yard Makeover initiative. As a part of their nationwide effort to enhance learning environments for students and educators alike, the two organizations have now invested over $5 million into reinvigorating classrooms across the country.

    Miami will host the 2026 College Football Playoff National Championship in January, and as part of its legacy work in the community, the CFP Foundation has committed to delivering more than 30 Extra Yard Makeovers alongside School Specialty to revitalize innovation spaces across schools in Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties. With this latest round of makeovers, the CFP Foundation will have helped enrich learning environments in every Miami-Dade middle school.

    “Changing our middle school libraries into modern learning spaces has had a tremendous impact on engagement and learning outcomes,” said Dr. Jose L. Dotres, Superintendent of Miami-Dade County Public Schools. “In addition to renovation, the transformation is an investment in our teachers, our students and our future. These new innovative spaces support hands-on learning for students of today and tomorrow, so they can develop greater curiosity for learning and lifelong skills.”

    These makeovers transform static spaces into flourishing learning environments, providing upgrades like flexible furniture, technology, supplies and even fresh paint or murals. Each school receives the School Specialty proprietary Projects by Design experience, which includes comprehensive consultations to determine the type of space that best supports students, educators and the broader school community. Past rooms made over include STEM labs, broadcast classrooms, libraries, media centers, makerspace rooms, teachers lounges, wellness spaces, sensory rooms, multi-purpose rooms, an esports room and a mariachi room.

    “The transformation of our media center is truly invaluable to our students and staff,” said Nicole Fama, Executive Director at Phalen Leadership Academies, which received a makeover in 2024. “We are profoundly grateful to the College Football Playoff Foundation and School Specialty for this investment. Before the media center, we lacked a space that truly fostered community. Now, everything happens here—from senior breakfasts and college athlete signing days to family game nights and teacher appreciation events. It has become the heart of our community, a space we didn’t realize we needed until it was here.”

    These makeovers serve to benefit both students and teachers, allowing schools to improve their offerings, inspire innovation and modern learning, and directly counter some of the top issues in education today.

    “Addressing teacher burnout and maximizing student engagement starts with the physical environment,” said Jeremy Westbrooks, Director of Strategic Account Development at School Specialty. “The physical classroom is an educator’s primary tool, and by modernizing these spaces, the CFP Foundation and School Specialty are delivering a critical resource that empowers teachers to stay focused on their students’ growth and long-term success.”

    “We’re proud to work alongside School Specialty to bring these meaningful makeover projects to life,” said Britton Banowsky, Executive Director College Football Playoff Foundation. “Their expertise in the design of the spaces and incredible generosity make it possible for us to turn vision into impact for teachers and students.”

    In addition to the CFP Foundation and School Specialty, these makeovers have been supported over the years by Bowl Games, Conference partners, Sponsors and host committees of each College Football Playoff National Championship. To date, makeovers have taken place in 18 states across 58 counties.

    To learn more about the College Playoff Foundation’s Extra Yard Makeover initiative, click here.

    To learn more about School Specialty, click here.

    About School Specialty, LLC 

    With a 60-year legacy, School Specialty is a leading provider of comprehensive learning environment solutions for the infant-K12 education marketplace in the U.S. and Canada. This includes essential classroom supplies, furniture and design services, educational technology, sensory spaces featuring Snoezelen, science curriculum, learning resources, professional development, and more. School Specialty believes every student can flourish in an environment where they are engaged and inspired to learn and grow. In support of this vision to transform more than classrooms, the company applies its unmatched team of education strategists and designs, manufactures, and distributes a broad assortment of name-brand and proprietary products. For more information, go to SchoolSpecialty.com.

    About the College Football Playoff Foundation

    The College Football Playoff (CFP) Foundation is the 501(c)3 non-profit organization serving as the community engagement arm of the College Football Playoff and works in partnership with institutions of higher education, sports organizations, corporations and non-profits to support educators and improve student outcomes. The purpose of the CFP Foundation lies in supporting PK-12 education by elevating the teaching profession. The CFP Foundation inspires and empowers educators by focusing its work in four areas: recognition, resources, recruitment and retention, and professional development. To learn more, visit cfp-foundation.org and follow Extra Yard for Teachers (@CFPExtraYard) on social media.

    Media Contact
    Jon Kannenberg
    [email protected]

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • The Impact of Data on Annual Giving Strategy

    The Impact of Data on Annual Giving Strategy

    A Conversation With West Virginia University Foundation’s Kristen Shipp

    Special thanks: It’s a privilege to support West Virginia University (WVU) Foundation’s annual giving outreach and big tent Giving Day Initiative. For almost 10 years, the WVU Day of Giving has relied on the ScaleFunder platform to power its campaign, leading to record-breaking success and a huge positive impact throughout the WVU community. The Foundation has also used the RNL360 report to establish a starting point for the strategic planning, link their wide-reaching fundraising efforts to major donations, and identify actions that can be implemented right away to boost the performance of their annual giving program.

    Our work in the advancement and nonprofit space feels pretty unsettled these days. There’s no shortage of uncertainty and daily headlines that often add to the confusion and concern. Navigating the distractions is hard and can be exhausting.

    What helps cut through the noise and keeps us focused on the work at hand? Our answer is data. Specifically, our RNL360 analytics report has proven to be an invaluable resource. Maybe it’s strange to think of data as a friend, but it can be a source of comfort, creating a little calm and providing clarity and guidance as we do our best to deliver for the people and communities we serve.

    We developed the RNL360 to illustrate historic and current giving trends. The report highlights metrics you would expect, including donor retention, consistency, path to major giving, and behaviors by generation. It offers important context for leaders and stakeholders, especially those new to or outside the advancement field. Insights from the analysis help shape our work with client partners. Whether it’s development of the fiscal year plan, segmentation, revisiting ask arrays or identifying priority donors for higher touch outreach. The “readout” also brings colleagues from across campus together for a better understanding of the general fundraising landscape and relevant, institution-specific trends.

    Focus on what’s actionable

    Kristin Shipp, West Virginia University Foundation
    Kristin Shipp

    At a time when resources are stretched and the stakes are high, RNL360 is used to inform both strategic planning and practical execution—it’s designed to provide specific takeaways and identify donors who should be prioritized.

    We just wrapped up a report with our partners at West Virginia University Foundation (WVUF). We learned a lot, and asked Kristen Shipp, the Foundation’s executive director of annual giving, to weigh in and share her valuable perspective.

    Success in bringing (and keeping) new donors on board

    WVUF’s count of 1,745 new alumni donors last fiscal year was well ahead of the benchmark group and the Foundation also received first-time gifts from an impressive count of more than 5,000 family and friends.

    Q: As you think about acquisition, what’s working for you? What are the campaigns or messages that actually convert?

    Kristen Shipp: WVU Day of Giving has been one of the key drivers in acquiring new donors. Each participating group is highly engaged on social media and takes full advantage of the challenges to inspire alumni and friends to give. Another effective strategy is peer-to-peer fundraising, which allows individuals to promote specific initiatives within their own networks, creating a more personal and powerful connection to the cause.

    Q: How are you approaching stewardship with new donors?

    KS: Our donor engagement team leads first-time donor stewardship by sending personalized messages through ThankView. This has been an effective stewardship strategy that has helped us strengthen donor retention. Overall rates have improved since our last RNL360, and retention among new alumni donors is up more than ten points.

    Median gifts on the rise

    We know that while younger generations are philanthropic, and many have capacity to make bigger gifts, most are directing their philanthropy elsewhere—giving to other causes and charities. WVUF has increased median gift amounts across all generations.

    Q: Are there one or two strategies you’ve found successful in driving movement with gift amounts? Any that are especially effective with younger generations?

    RNL 360 BenchmarkRNL 360 Benchmark

    KS: While the area of greatest need will always remain a priority, we also strive to provide opportunities throughout the year for alumni and donors to give to areas that align with their personal interests. Through our recent alumni survey, fielded by RNL, we learned that many are particularly interested in supporting mental health services, the student emergency fund, and initiatives that assist first-generation students. These priorities are featured in WVU Day of Giving, and we also leverage crowdfunding and peer-to-peer fundraising to raise awareness and support for these important areas.

    Practical, real-world application

     Alumni Donors  Alumni Donors
    Loyal donors = At least five years of consecutive giving.
    New donors = No gift history or no giving in the last decade.

    Q: Can you share a couple of specific ways that you are using the RNL360 outputs? Is the data helpful across teams and departments?

    KS: Through RNL360, we learned that in FY25, 44% of our individual donors were alumni. This reinforces the importance of developing audience-focused strategies for our annual giving campaigns to ensure our messaging resonates with both alumni and non-alumni donors. Another helpful insight was the number of new alumni donors—only 30% were graduates from the last decade. This highlights the need to better connect recent graduates with causes they’re passionate about and to engage them through the communication channels they prefer.

    Keeping the faith and focus

    Q: Circling back to the unsettling times…you’ve experienced a lot of change at WVU and the Foundation. What helps you reduce the noise and stay focused? Anything professionally or personally that helps keep you positive and motivated?

    KS: There have been many changes at WVU and the WVU Foundation, but with change comes new opportunity. I feel incredibly fortunate to be expanding the Annual Giving team by welcoming new staff members. It’s exciting to build a team that shares the same vision, drive, and passion—and to have fun together along the way. I like to keep things light and engaging, so whenever the moment allows, you’ll probably catch me sharing a funny movie quote or GIF with my teammates.

    Ready to increase engagement with your donors?

    Webinar: Starting at the Source: A Look into Data-Driven Paths to Donor GrowthWebinar: Starting at the Source: A Look into Data-Driven Paths to Donor Growth

    Reach out to us today, and we’ll set up a time to discuss your best fundraising strategies. Our strategists can discuss how to optimize your fundraising strategies with the right data, how you can have a great Giving Day, and much more.

    Or watch our webinar, Starting at the Source: A Look into Data-Driven Paths to Donor Growth, where we dive into more detail on insights we’ve learned from an analysis of more than six million cohort records.

    Talk with our fundraising experts

    Let’s talk about how you can increase donor engagement and strengthen your donor pipeline. Ask for a free consultation with our experts.

    Schedule consultation

    Source link