Tag: Institutions

  • The urgent need to facilitate environmental justice learning in HE institutions

    The urgent need to facilitate environmental justice learning in HE institutions

    by Sally Beckenham

    The crises we are facing globally, from climate change and climate change dispossession to drought and food insecurity, are intersecting social and environmental issues, which need to be recognized and addressed accordingly through integrated and holistic measures. This can only be achieved by eschewing the tendency of existing governance and economic systems to silo social and environmental problems, as if they are separate concerns that can be managed – and prioritised – hierarchically. Much of this requires a better understanding of environmental injustice – the ways in which poor, racialised, indigenous and other marginalized communities are overlooked and/or othered in this power hierarchy, such that they must face a disproportionate burden of environmental harm.

    This is happening with disconcerting regularity around the world, often going under the radar but sometimes making headlines, as for example in May this year, when institutionalised environmental racism in the U.S. manifested in the placement of a copper mine on land inhabited by and sacred to the Apache indigenous group (Sherman, 2025). With limited political power to challenge it they are left to face dispossession, loss of livelihood and physical and mental health ill-effects (Morton-Ninomiya et al, 2023). We have seen this making headlines closer to home recently too, with evidence suggesting that toxic air in the UK is killing 500 people a week and most affecting those in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas (Gregory, 2025). An environmental problem (such as air pollution) cannot be disentangled from its social causes and effects. Or to put it another way, violence done to the environment is violence done to a particular group of people.

    A transformative response to our global challenges that re-centres environmental justice will require a paradigm shift in the ways that we govern, construct our societies, build our communities, run our economies, design our technologies and engage with the non-human world. The role of higher education will be critical to even a modest move in this direction. This is because, as they are probably tired of hearing, this generation of students will shape our collective futures, so it matters that they are literate in the deep entanglement of environmental and social justice challenges. Moreover, as Stickney and Skilbeck caution, “it is inconceivable that we will meet drastic carbon reduction targets without massive coordinated efforts, involving policymakers and educators working in concert at all levels of our governments and education systems (Stickney and Skilbeck, 2020).

    In Ruth Irwin’s article ‘Climate Change and Education’ she alerts us to Heidegger’s treatise in Being and Time (1962) that the effectiveness of a tool’s readiness is ‘hidden’ – only revealed when it ceases to function. Climate might be viewed as a heretofore ‘hidden’ tool, in that it affords opportunities for human action; it has “smoothly enabled our existence without conscious consideration” (Irwin, 2019). Yet its dynamic quality is now an overt, striking, looming spectre threatening the existence of all life on earth; the ‘environment’ writ large is revealing itself through ecological and social breakdown, surfacing our essential reliance upon it as natural beings. Thus unless higher education is competent in dealing with the issues of environmental crisis at all of its registers – social, environmental, political and ecological – the institution of education will be unable to fulfil its fundamental task of knowledge transfer for what is a clear public good (Irwin, 2019). Put another way, “HEIs have a responsibility to develop their educational provision in ways that will support the social transformation needed to mitigate the worst effects of the environmental crisis.” (Owens et al, 2023).

    Indeed, HE requires a paradigm shift in itself given that these realities are unfolding alongside widespread scrutiny of higher education institutions; including about decolonising the academy (Jivraj, 2020; Mintz, 2021), free speech on university campuses and how they are preparing students to meet these pressing issues (Woodgates, 2025). To keep pace with these changes and meet such challenges, educators from across disciplines will need to commit to embedding environmental justice education more widely across programme curricula, session design and teaching practices. It must be recognised as a vital – rather than token – component of environmental education. Doing so fully and effectively also requires us to recognise that environmental justice education encompasses not only subject matter but pedagogical practice. This is the case for all academic disciplines – including those that might seem peripheral to the teaching of environmental issues.

    EJE in HE is a developing area of scholarship and field of study that has gathered pace only over the last decade. Much of the research to date has been focused on the US, where studies have shown that environmental justice remains marginal to or excluded from the curricular offerings of most environmental studies programmes – let alone those not directly related to environmental education (Garibay et al, 2016). A report by the North American Association for Environmental Education (NAAEE), which studied the policies of 230 public U.S. HE institutions and 36 state boards of higher education, found that only 6% of institutions with climate change content in their policies referred to climate justice issues and indigenous knowledge practices (MECCE Project & NAAEE, 2023). Other work has shown that STEM education has tended to frame questions around exploitation of natural resources or technological development as disconnected from social and economic inequalities, though this is starting to be challenged (Greenberg et al, 2024).

    Emerging research into EJ in HE encompasses pedagogical approaches (Rabe, 2024; Moore, 2024); classroom and teaching practices (Walsh et al, 2022; Cachelin & Nicolosi, 2022; D’Arcangelis & Sarathy, 2015), the relationship between sustainability and climate justice education (Haluza-DeLay, 2013; Kinol et al, 2023) and curriculum development (Garibay et al, 2016). In identifying what EJE looks like these studies foreground the importance of community-engaged learning (CEL), providing students with the opportunity to learn about a socio-environmental problem from those with lived experience; critical thinking with regards to positionality, power structures and (especially indigenous) knowledge systems, and a deep concern with place. These critical components are crucial because tackling an act or acts of environmental injustice against marginalised populations often cannot be achieved without addressing systemic power imbalances.

    What also links these studies is an acknowledgement of the complexity of EJE. It is a difficult subject and practice to grapple with for several reasons. Firstly, it means exposing students (and educators) to “an onslaught of bad news,” (Cachelin & Nicolosi, 2022) which can elicit feelings of hopelessness and helplessness, so it is little wonder that expressions of anxiety and alarm are growing within these cohorts (Wallace, Greenburg & Clark, 2020) and that needs to be borne in mind. Secondly EJE requires us to find a way to meaningfully connect with philosophical, discursive, historical and practical questions about power, ethics and the relationship between human beings and the natural environment, within the disciplinary parameters of a specific curricula. This means doing difficult work not only to change current systems and processes (Forsythe et al, 2023) but also to make transformative rather than piecemeal efforts. For example, this might mean actively absorbing students into a community partner’s work in an engaged rather than service-learning model, or moving beyond a simple ‘guest lecture’ format to invite more in-depth input into modules or programmes from a community partner.

    This is a challenge that we shouldn’t understate for many academics and institutions already coping with high workloads (Smith, 2023), stress (Kinman et al, 2019) and job insecurity across a beleaguered sector (The Independent, 2024; The Guardian, 2025). Through this emerging EJE scholarship literature, we are starting to see that, “promoting opportunities for HE educators to develop and enact critical and transformative environmental pedagogy… is a complex business mediated by a variety of (personal, material and social) factors. It involves negotiating conflict, and understanding and confronting entrenched structures of power, from the local and institutional to the national and global.” (Owens et al, 2023). 

    A third (though by no means final) challenge in teaching and learning EJ in higher education is in finding and making space for it in a landscape that is strongly oriented towards sustainability education. Although there is certainly overlap – for example to the extent that the liberal logic underpinning the latter also informs distributive justice – sustainability education has different intellectual and ideological origins to EJ scholarship. Both are valuable, but we should be questioning whether we can justify a lack of explicit EJ practice and framing simply because we are already having sustainability conversations, and instead find space for both. It can be easy to (inadvertently) depoliticise environmental education by avoiding the perceived messiness and complexity of justice in favour of the more technocratic and measurable ‘sustainability’ (Haluza-DeLay, 2013).

    My research seeks to develop a better understanding of the state of environmental justice education in the HE landscape, beginning by mapping its development in the UK. This will reveal the extent and means by which EJE is being incorporated across programme curricula, session design and teaching practices in the UK HE context. In doing so we can identify the intersections of EJE with other dominant pedagogies, including sustainability education and solutions-focused approaches. To pursue a provincialising agenda and avoid the parochial perspective that EJE is the preserve of HEIs in the global North, there is also much value in exploring what EJE looks like in HEIs in the global South, and where cross-cultural lessons can be shared. The questions we need to be asking are:

    • How is environmental justice being taught and learnt and where do we go from here?
    • How are educators overcoming the challenges involved in engaging with EJE?
    • What best practices could we champion?

    Sharing methods, strategies and pedagogical approaches for EJE cross-institutionally and cross-culturally will be a step towards helping us build a better collective, collaborative response to the urgency of our intersecting socio-environmental crises.

    Dr Sally Beckenham is Lecturer in Human Geography and Programme Lead and Admissions Tutor for the BA Human Geography & Environment in the Department of Environment & Geography, University of York. She is also Chair of the Teaching Development Pool and member of the Interdisciplinary Global Development Centre (IGDC). She is an interdisciplinary political geographer with degrees in Modern History, International Politics and International Relations, and welcomes collaboration. Email: [email protected] Bluesky: @sallybeckenham.bsky.social.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Benefits of Centralized Marketing in Higher Ed Institutions

    Benefits of Centralized Marketing in Higher Ed Institutions

    Why Centralized Marketing Matters for Online Programs in Higher Ed

    At Archer, we’ve onboarded hundreds of institutional partners to help them grow their online programs. And while every partner is unique, there’s one pain point we encounter time and again: decentralized school-level marketing that creates more friction than momentum. 

    In many institutions, individual colleges or schools manage their own marketing campaigns, budgets, and creative direction. While this siloed approach offers an initial promise of agility and autonomy, it often leads to deeper problems in the market, such as: 

    • Fragmented messaging 
    • Inconsistent branding 
    • Internal competition 
    • Wasted spend as schools bid against each other 
    • Missed opportunities for reach and impact at the brand and portfolio level

    The result? Confused students consuming competing voices from the same institution, and internal marketing teams scrambling to scale best practices and measure impact — often without apples-to-apples data and reporting for performance comparisons. 

    Universities need an integrated marketing strategy that balances a holistic brand and portfolio-level approach with maintaining individual school-level autonomy for certain decisions and activities. This hybrid model unlocks collaboration, reduces conflict, and lifts visibility for all programs within a portfolio. 

    With shared goals, aligned messaging, and coordinated tactics across all of their schools, universities can amplify their brand and stretch their budgets further — delivering clear, compelling stories across myriad channels to prospective students. 

    Risks of Decentralized Marketing

    In some models of governance, decentralization can be a strength — empowering local leadership and ensuring responsiveness to specific community needs. But when it comes to marketing online university programs in a highly competitive environment, decentralization alone as a strategy is more often a liability than an asset. 

    Having different departments, schools, or programs run their own campaigns and technology stacks may seem like a way to move faster, but in practice, it creates challenges that can hinder online program growth. Let’s explore some examples.

    Brand Confusion          

    As prospective students evaluate your institution’s online offerings, they are not concerned with the internal structures of your institution. They expect clarity and consistency in the information you provide. When each college or division presents a different tone, design style, and creative messaging approach, you’re left with a weakened institutional brand. 

    Mixed marketing across digital ads, program pages, email drips, and even tuition and scholarship messaging can erode the trust and credibility you’ve been building with prospective students. For example, inconsistent explanations of scholarships or conflicting tuition information (e.g., on program pages and via tuition calculators) can trigger frustration or skepticism. 

    In short: Your audience — the prospective student — sees one university. If your university is in conflict with its own marketing, the brand loses power. 

    Inefficiency and Internal Competition

    Without centralized marketing oversight, different teams often end up targeting the same audiences with overlapping campaigns — sometimes even bidding against each other in paid channels. This dilutes your paid marketing efficacy by driving up your cost per lead, wasting precious budget dollars, and undermining the collective impact of your institution’s marketing investments. 

    Inconsistent Student Experience and Success Metrics

    Perhaps the most concerning result of decentralized marketing is a fragmented and uneven student journey. One program might offer seamless inquiry-to-enrollment processes, while another loses momentum after the application process due to poor follow-up and disconnected systems. 

    When your programs use different customer relationship management (CRM) platforms, it becomes difficult to track leads accurately and measure outcomes with consistency. Reporting becomes murky. Success metrics vary. Problems get misdiagnosed. 

    Instead of addressing the root causes of problems, your teams might blame each other (e.g., the marketing team and the admissions team) for the other’s perceived performance issues, when the real problem is systemic disconnection. 

    The Case for Centralized Marketing 

    Centralization doesn’t mean turning every school or program into a cookie-cutter version of the institution’s mission statement, and it doesn’t mean taking any team’s autonomy away. It’s about aligning around a shared strategy — one that empowers individual teams to execute effectively within a cohesive, coordinated framework. 

    Unified Brand Messaging 

    A strong, centralized brand platform allows your university to speak with one clear voice about its online programs, telling the story of: 

    • What your programs offer 
    • Who your programs serve 
    • Why your programs matter 

    This shared narrative should be rooted in your institution’s values and designed to build trust with prospective students. When every program draws from the same story and messaging pillars, it strengthens your presence across every touchpoint — from digital ads and landing pages to nurture emails and program brochures. Each program’s value propositions may differ, but the institution’s story endures. 

    Additionally, a unified approach enables your institution to leverage the brand and portfolio-level marketing that raises visibility across all your programs. For example, some institutions have an integrated marketing program for their undergraduate experience but lack a cohesive approach for their online graduate programs. This is a missed opportunity to build a portfolio-level branded presence through channels that individual schools may not be able to afford on their own. 

    A robust YouTube presence that highlights the benefits of your online graduate education experience (program agnostic), showcases your alumni and graduate education outcomes, and forefronts your strategic organizational partnerships that span individual schools and programs increases the impact for the entire institution with one investment.

    Integrated Campaign Planning 

    Centralized marketing brings together your paid media, content marketing, email strategy, and organic social media into one master plan. 

    Gone are the days of multiple teams across your institution launching disconnected campaigns, as central calendars and shared audience strategies help ensure each tactic contributes to every team’s strategic goals. This means reduced duplication, avoidance of internal bidding wars, and maximization of every marketing dollar. 

    However, your individual schools can and should have decision-making authority over the key value proposition definitions, target personas, and positioning of programs within their fields. This requires a collaborative conversation in an integrated campaign-planning scenario. 

    And schools should continue to develop campaigns where the impact is greatest for them — for example, hosting prospective student events and webinars, offering ambassador programs for prospective student questions, and attending events meaningful to their specific program field, such as at conferences and exhibit halls. 

    Shared Data and Measurement 

    In a world of data, perhaps the greatest and most immediate impact of centralized marketing will be felt in how your institution tracks performance holistically. With unified key performance indicators (KPIs) and shared access to insights, marketing teams at all levels — central and within academic schools — can identify what’s working for them, pivot when needed, and scale successful tactics across programs. 

    Teams can review where the branded portfolio-level efforts are causing the greatest lift in impressions and leads and determine together how school-level marketing activities can make the most impactful use of funds.

    What Centralized Marketing Looks Like in Practice 

    At Archer, we’ve seen institutions achieve dramatic improvements simply by unifying their marketing strategy — even if execution remains shared and distributed. With a strong central foundation in place, teams tap into shared creative resources, coordinate campaigns across programs, and drive stronger performance through unified media buying and consistent messaging. 

    At its best, centralized marketing can: 

    • Empower programs to amplify one another rather than compete 
    • Allow creative strategy to be produced once then repurposed widely 
    • Create paid efforts that are smarter, more cost effective, and better targeted 

    In sum, when your institution implements an integrated marketing model that fosters collaboration among academic schools, it can result in performance that is greater than the sum of its parts. 

    Archer Education knows what it takes to bring siloed departments together. Our unique partnership-based approach allows us to truly understand your institution, then implement efficiencies to ignite your online programs’ potential through a centralized marketing strategy that is balanced with school autonomy and meaningful participation. Contact us today to learn more.

    Source link

  • Machine learning technology is transforming how institutions make sense of student feedback

    Machine learning technology is transforming how institutions make sense of student feedback

    Institutions spend a lot of time surveying students for their feedback on their learning experience, but once you have crunched the numbers the hard bit is working out the “why.”

    The qualitative information institutions collect is a goldmine of insight about the sentiments and specific experiences that are driving the headline feedback numbers. When students are especially positive, it helps to know why, to spread that good practice and apply it in different learning contexts. When students score some aspect of their experience negatively, it’s critical to know the exact nature of the perceived gap, omission or injustice so that it can be fixed.

    Any conscientious module leader will run their eye down the student comments in a module feedback survey – but once you start looking across modules to programme or cohort level, or to large-scale surveys like NSS, PRES or PTES, the scale of the qualitative data becomes overwhelming for the naked eye. Even the most conscientious reader will find that bias sets in, as comments that are interesting or unexpected tend to be foregrounded as having greater explanatory power over those that seem run of the mill.

    Traditional coding methods for qualitative data require someone – or ideally more than one person – to manually break down comments into clauses or statements that can be coded for theme and sentiment. It’s robust, but incredibly laborious. For student survey work, where the goal might be to respond to feedback and make improvements at pace, institutions are open that this kind of robust analysis is rarely, if ever, the standard practice. Especially as resources become more constrained, devoting hours to this kind of detailed methodological work is rarely a priority.

    Let me blow your mind

    That is where machine learning technology can genuinely change the game. Student Voice AI was founded by Stuart Grey, an academic at the University of Strathclyde (now working at the University of Glasgow), initially to help analyse student comments for large engineering courses. Working with Advance HE he was able to train the machine learning model on national PTES and PRES datasets. Now, further training the algorithm on NSS data, Student Voice AI offers literally same-day analysis of student comments for NSS results for subscribing institutions.

    Put the words “AI” and “student feedback” in the same sentence and some people’s hackles will immediately rise. So Stuart spends quite a lot of time explaining how the analysis works. The word he uses to describe the version of machine learning Student Voice AI deploys is “supervised learning” – humans manually label categories in datasets and “teach” the machine about sentiment and topic. The larger the available dataset the more examples the machine is exposed to and the more sophisticated it becomes. Through this process Student Voice AI has landed on a discreet number of comment themes and categories for taught students and the same for postgraduate research students that the majority of student comments consistently fall into – trained on and distinctive to UK higher education student data. Stuart adds that the categories can and do evolve:

    “The categories are based on what students are saying, not what we think they might be talking about – or what we’d like them to be talking about. There could be more categories if we wanted them, but it’s about what’s digestible for a normal person.”

    In practice that means that institutions can see a quantitative representation of their student comments, sorted by category and sentiment. You can look at student views of feedback, for example, and see the balance of positive, neutral and negative sentiment, overall, segment it into departments or subject areas, or years of study, then click through to see the relevant comments to see what’s driving that feedback. That’s significantly different from, say, dumping your student comments into a third party generative AI platform (sharing confidential data with a third party while you’re at it) and asking it to summarise. There’s value in the time and effort saved, but also in the removal of individual personal bias, and the potential for aggregation and segmentation for different stakeholders in the system. And it also becomes possible to compare student qualitative feedback across institutions.

    Now, Student Voice AI is partnering with student insight platform evasys to bring machine learning technology to qualitative data collected via the evasys platform. And evasys and Student Voice AI have been commissioned by Advance HE to code and analyse open comments from the 2025 PRES and PTES surveys – creating opportunities to drill down into a national dataset that can be segmented by subject discipline and theme as well as by institution.

    Bruce Johnson, managing director at evasys is enthused about the potential for the technology to drive culture change both in how student feedback is used to inform insight and action across institutions:

    “When you’re thinking about how to create actionable insight from survey data the key question is, to whom? Is it to a module leader? Is it to a programme director of a collection of modules? Is it to a head of department or a pro vice chancellor or the planning or quality teams? All of these are completely different stakeholders who need different ways of looking at the data. And it’s also about how the data is presented – most of my customers want, not only quality of insight, but the ability to harvest that in a visually engaging way.”

    “Coming from higher education it seems obvious to me that different stakeholders have very different uses for student feedback data,” says Stuart Grey. “Those teaching at the coalface are interested in student engagement; at the strategic level the interest is in strategic level interest in trends and sentiment analysis and there are also various stakeholder groups in professional services who never get to see this stuff normally, but we can generate the reports that show them what students are saying about their area. Frequently the data tells them something they knew anyway but it gives them the ammunition to be able to make change.”

    The results are in

    Duncan Berryman, student surveys officer at Queens University Belfast, sums up the value of AI analysis for his small team: “It makes our life a lot easier, and the schools get the data and trends quicker.” Previously schools had been supplied with Excel spreadsheets – and his team were spending a lot of time explaining and working through with colleagues how to make sense of the data on those spreadsheets. Being able to see a straightforward visualisation of student sentiment on the various themes means that, as Duncan observes rather wryly, “if change isn’t happening it’s not just because people don’t know what student surveys are saying.”

    Parama Chaudhury, professor of economics and pro vice provost education (student academic experience) at University College London explains where qualitative data analysis sits in the wider ecosystem for quality enhancement of teaching and learning. In her view, for enhancement purposes, comparing your quantitative student feedback scores to those of another department is not particularly useful – essentially it’s comparing apples with oranges. Yet the apparent ease of comparability of quantitative data, compared with the sense of overwhelm at the volume and complexity of student comments, can mean that people spend time trying to explain the numerical differences, rather than mining the qualitative data for more robust and actionable explanations that can give context to your own scores.

    It’s not that people weren’t working hard on enhancement, in other words, but they didn’t always have the best possible information to guide that work. “When I came into this role quite a lot of people were saying ‘we don’t understand why the qualitative data is telling us this, we’ve done all these things,’” says Parama. “I’ve been in the sector a long time and have received my share of summaries of module evaluations and have always questioned those summaries because it’s just someone’s ‘read.’ Having that really objective view, from a well-trained algorithm makes a difference.”

    UCL has tested two-page summaries of student comments to specific departments this academic year, and plans to roll out a version for every department this summer. The data is not assessed in a vacuum; it forms part of the wider institutional quality assurance and enhancement processes which includes data on a range of different perspectives on areas for development. Encouragingly, so far the data from students is consistent with what has emerged from internal reviews, giving the departments that have had the opportunity to engage with it greater confidence in their processes and action plans.

    None of this stops anyone from going and looking at specific student comments, sense-checking the algorithm’s analysis and/or triangulating against other data. At the University of Edinburgh, head of academic planning Marianne Brown says that the value of the AI analysis is in the speed of turnaround – the institutionl carries out a manual reviewing process to be sure that any unexpected comments are picked up. But being able to share the headline insight at pace (in this case via a PowerBI interface) means that leaders receive the feedback while the information is still fresh, and the lead time to effect change is longer than if time had been lost to manual coding.

    The University of Edinburgh is known for its cutting edge AI research, and boasts the Edinburgh (access to) Language Models (ELM) a platform that gives staff and students access to generative AI tools without sharing data with third parties, keeping all user data onsite and secured. Marianne is clear that even a closed system like ELM is not appropriate for unfettered student comment analysis. Generative AI platforms offer the illusion of a thematic analysis but it is far from robust because generative AI operates through sophisticated guesswork rather than analysis of the implications of actual data. “Being able to put responses from NSS or our internal student survey into ELM to give summaries was great, until you started to interrogate those summaries. Robust validation of any output is still required,” says Marianne. Similarly Duncan Berryman observes: “If you asked a gen-AI tool to show you the comments related to the themes it had picked out, it would not refer back to actual comments. Or it would have pulled this supposed common theme from just one comment.”

    The holy grail of student survey practice is creating a virtuous circle: student engagement in feedback creates actionable data, which leads to education enhancement, and students gain confidence that the process is authentic and are further motivated to share their feedback. In that quest, AI, deployed appropriately, can be an institutional ally and resource-multiplier, giving fast and robust access to aggregated student views and opinions. “The end result should be to make teaching and learning better,” says Stuart Grey. “And hopefully what we’re doing is saving time on the manual boring part, and freeing up time to make real change.”

    Source link

  • Tennessee and SFFA sue over funding for Hispanic-serving institutions

    Tennessee and SFFA sue over funding for Hispanic-serving institutions

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The state of Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions sued the U.S. Department of Education Wednesday over allegations the agency’s decades-long practice of designating federal grant funding for Hispanic-serving institutions is unconstitutional.
    • The plaintiffs argued that the department’s eligibility requirements for HSI grants are discriminatory and undercut opportunities for all students, including those who are Hispanic and attend colleges that aren’t HSIs. To qualify as an HSI, a college must be nonprofit and enroll a full-time undergraduate student body that is at least 25% Hispanic.
    • Asserting that all colleges serve Hispanic students, Tennessee and SFFA are asking the federal court to strike down the HSI grant program’s ethnicity-based requirements and allow all institutions to apply for the grants “regardless of their ability to hit arbitrary ethnic targets.”

    Dive Insight:

    Edward Blum, president of SFFA, said the advocacy organization is suing to ensure equal opportunity for all, not “denying opportunity to any racial or ethnic group.” SFFA successfully challenged race-conscious admissions before the U.S. Supreme Court, getting the practice banned in 2023.

    “This lawsuit challenges a federal policy that conditions the receipt of taxpayer-funded grants on the racial composition of a student body,” Blum said in a statement Wednesday. “No student or institution should be denied opportunity because they fall on the wrong side of an ethnic quota.”

    HSI is a designation first established in 1992 as part of the Higher Education Act, and the federal government began distributing funds to qualifying institutions three years later.

    The Education Department’s HSI division exists to distribute grant funding to “expand the educational opportunities for Hispanic Americans and other underrepresented populations,” according to its website.

    Though a majority of states have at least one HSI, the institutions are clustered in areas with higher Hispanic populations.

    Seven states — California, Texas, New York, Illinois, Florida, New Mexico and New Jersey — and Puerto Rico are home to 81% of HSIs, according to an analysis of federal data by the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities.

    The Hispanic and Latino population is one of the fastest-growing minority groups in the country. In 2023, 65.2 million Hispanic and Latino people lived in the U.S., accounting for nearly a fifth of the population. The Hispanic population is expected to grow to roughly a quarter of the U.S. population by 2060, according to federal data.

    In Tennessee, Hispanic students made up just over 8% of undergraduates in the 2023-24 academic year, according to HACU. The state has just one HSI — Southern Adventist University, a private nonprofit. 

    No public Tennessee college qualifies for HSI funding, despite all serving some population of Hispanic students, state officials said in Wednesday’s lawsuit. This puts public college students at a disadvantage and harms the institutions, they argued.  

    Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti alleged that the HSI grant system “openly discriminates against students based on ethnicity.”

    “The HSI program perversely deprives even needy Hispanic students of the benefits of this funding if they attend institutions that don’t meet the government’s arbitrary quota,” he said in a Wednesday statement.

    Both Skrmetti and Blum invoked the 2023 Supreme Court ruling on race-conscious college admissions in their statements. Blum argued the court “made clear” that federal funding practices like the HSI grant program are “patently unconstitutional.”

    That interpretation of diversity-focused federal funding has yet to be tested judicially. The high court’s 2023 decision only addressed admissions practices. But since then, conservative policymakers and those opposed to diversity initiatives have sought to apply it to a wide range of college affairs, including scholarships and diversity programs for students.

    Now, they are turning their attention to a long-standing federal program through this lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Tennessee.

    The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday. 

    However, the department under Trump has already sought to apply the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against Harvard University and the University of North Carolina to diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at federally funded institutions. In February, the agency threatened to pull all funding from colleges and K-12 schools that considered race in their programs and policies. 

    The department quickly faced lawsuits over the guidance, and it issued a Q&A “to provide clarity” the following month. The document softened the agency’s initial stance, though officials still struck a strident tone. Regardless, a federal judge in April blocked the Education Department from enforcing either document.

    On the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump issued an executive order repealing a Biden-era initiative aimed at boosting educational access via Hispanic-serving institutions. Among several goals, that program sought to expand the educational capacity of Hispanic-serving institutions through federal support. 

    Trump’s order — which revoked dozens of Biden-era executive actions — described the repealed policies as a move to “restore common sense” in the federal government.

    Source link

  • REF is about institutions not individuals

    REF is about institutions not individuals

    The updated guidance on Contributions to Knowledge and Understanding (CKU: formerly known as outputs) will be seen as the moment it became clear what REF is.

    REF is not about solely, or even mostly, measuring researcher performance. Its primary purpose is to assess how organisations measure research excellence.

    It is the release which signals that research may be produced by individuals but it is assessed at an institutional level and the only measure that matters is whether the institution was responsible for supporting the research that led to the output.

    2014 Redux

    It is worth rehashing how we got here.

    REF is the tool Research England and its devolved equivalents use to decide how much QR funding universities will receive. One thing it measures is the research output of universities. The research output of universities are the outputs of the researchers that work there (or a sample of the outputs.)

    The question that REF has always grappled with is whether to measure the quality of research or the quality of researchers. The latter would be quite a straightforward exercise and one that has been done in different formats over the years. Get a cross-sample of researchers to submit their best research at a given point in time and then ask a panel to rate its quality.

    Depending on the intended policy output the exercise might make every researcher submit some research to ensure a sample is truly representative. It might limit how much any one researcher can submit to ensure a sample is balanced. It might tweak measurements in any number of ways to change what a researcher can submit and when depending on the objectives of the exercise.

    The downside of this approach is that it is not an entirely helpful way to understand the quality of university research across an entire institution. It tells you how good researchers are within a specific field, like a Unit of Assessment, but it does not tell us how good the provider is at creating the conditions in which that research takes place. Unless you believe, and it is not an unreasonable belief, that there is no difference between the aggregate of individual research outputs and the overall quality of institutional research.

    Individuals and teams

    To look at it another way. Jude Bellingham looks very different playing for England than he does Real Madrid. He is still the same footballer with the same skills and same flaws. It is that for Real Madrid he is playing for a team with an ethos of excellence and a history of winning. And for England he is playing for a team that consistently fails to achieve anything of note.

    The only fair way to measure England is not to use Jude Bellingham as a proxy of their performance but to measure the performance of the England team over a defined period of time. In other words, to decouple Bellingham’s performance from England’s overall output.

    As put in a rather punchy blog by Head of REF Policy Jonathan Piotrowski,

    REF 2029 shifts our focus away from the individual and towards the environment where that output was created and how it was supported. This change in perspective is essential for two key reasons: first, to gather the right evidence to inform funding decisions that enable institutions to support more excellent research and second, to fundamentally recognise the huge variety of roles and outputs that contribute to the research ecosystem, including those whose names may not appear as authors and outputs that extend beyond traditional journal publications.

    Who does research?

    The philosophical questions are whether research is created by researchers, institutions, or both and to what degree. And in a complex system involving teams of researchers, businesses, and institutions, whether it is any easier or accurate to ascribe outputs to researchers than it is to institutions. The policy implication is that providers should be less concerned about who is doing research but the conditions in which research occurs. The upshot is that the research labour market will become less dynamic, there is less incentive to appoint people as they are “REFable”, which will have both winners and losers.

    The mechanism for decoupling in REF 2029 is to remove the link between staff and their outputs. The new guidance sets out precisely how this decoupling process will work.

    There will be no staff details submitted and outputs will not be submitted linked to a specific author. Instead, outputs are submitted to a Unit of Assessment. This is not a new idea. The 2016 review of the REF (known as the Stern Review) recommended that

    The non-portability of outputs when an academic moves institution should be helpful to all institutions including smaller institutions with strong teams in particular areas which have previously been potential targets for ‘poaching’.

    However, it is worth emphasising that this is an enormous change from previous practice. In REF 2014 the whole output was captured by whichever institution a researcher was at, at the REF census date. In REF 2021 if a researcher moved between institutions the output was captured by both. In REF 2029 the output will be captured by the institution where there is a “substantive link.”

    Substantive links

    A substantive link will usually be demonstrated by employment of a period of 12 months at least 0.2 FTE equivalent. The staff member does not have to be at the provider at the point the output is submitted. Other indicators may include

    evidence of internal research support (for example, funding for research materials, technical or research support, conference attendance) evidence of work in progress presentations (internally and externally) evidence of an external grant to support a relevant program of research.

    In effect, this means that the link between researchers and REF is that their research took place in a specific institution, but it is ultimately the institution that is being assessed. The thing that is being assessed is the relationship between the research environment and the creation of the output. Not the relationship between the output and the researcher.

    As the focus of assessment shifts so do the rules on what can or cannot be submitted. As we know from previous guidance there is no maximum or minimum submissions from staff members. There may be some researchers at, or who were at, a provider who find their work appears in an institution’s submissions a number of times, and maybe even across disciplines (there will no be now no inter-disciplinary flags but an output may be submitted to more than one UOA and receive different scores.)

    The obvious challenge here is that while providers should submit representative outputs the overriding temptation will be to submit what they believe to be their “best” and then work backwards to justify why it is representative. The REF team have anticipated this problem and the representativeness of a submission will be assessed through the disciplinary led evidence statements. The full guidance on what these contain is yet to be released but we know that

    The important issues of research diversity, demographics and career stages will be assessed as part of the wider disciplinary level evidence statements

    Research England’s position is that aligning outputs to where they are created, not who creates them is a better way to measure institutional research performance. This should also end the incentive for universities to recruit researchers and in doing so capture their REF output. The thinking is that this favours the larger universities that can afford to poach research staff.

    Debates had and debates to come

    In a previous piece for Wonkhe Maria Delgado, Nandini Das, and Miles Padgett made the case that portability is key to fairness in REF. The opposite argument that is being put forward by Research England. Maria, Nandini, and Miles made the case that whether we like it or not one of the ways in which academics secure better career prospects is by improving the REF performance of a provider’s UOA. Research England makes the case that

    The core motivation is to minimise the REFs ability to exert undue influence on people’s careers. To achieve this, institutional funding (remember, QR funding does not track to individuals or departments) should follow the institutions that have genuinely provided and invested in the environment in which research is successful. Environments that recognise the collaborative nature of research and the diverse roles involved, rather than simply rewarding institutions positioned to recruit researchers to get reward for their past output.

    It is possible that both arguments may be right. If outputs are tied to institutions the incentive for institutions who want to do well in REF is to capture a greater number of high quality outputs to include in their submission. The way to do this is to have more researchers supported to do high quality work. On the other hand, at an individual level and in a time of financial crisis for the sector, there are likely some researchers who benefit from being able to take their research output with them when they move institutions.

    In the comments of our initial portability piece it was flagged that researchers’ work could form part of an assessment where they had no relationship with the provider. This feels particularly egregious if they have been made redundant as part of wider cost saving. The message being that the research output is high quality but nonetheless it is necessary to remove your post. The REF team have considered this and

    Outputs where the substantive link occurred before the submitted output was made publicly available, will not be eligible for submission where the author was subject to compulsory redundancy.

    The guidance explains that there may be times where there is a substantive relationship but the research has not yet been published. On the face of it this seems a sensible compromise but if the logic is that a provider is the place where research outputs are created it seems contradictory (albeit kinder) to then limit the conditions through which that work can be assessed. It is possible there will be some outputs which were in the process of being published but not yet assessed which would fall into this clause.

    The guidance confirms a direction of travel that was established as far back as REF 2021 and made clear in the guidance so far for REF 2029. While the debate on who should be assessed in which circumstances continues the wider concern for many will be that there is still significant guidance outstanding, particularly on People Culture and Environment, and the submission window for REF closes in 30 months from now.

    A direction has been set. The sector needs to know the precise rules they are playing by if they are going to go along with it. There is undoubtedly a lot of good will around measuring research environments, culture, and the ways in which outputs are created more comprehensively. That good will, will evaporate if guidance is not timely, clear, or complete.

    Source link

  • Court Approves Final Settlement Allowing Revenue Sharing Between Higher Ed Institutions and College Athletes – CUPA-HR

    Court Approves Final Settlement Allowing Revenue Sharing Between Higher Ed Institutions and College Athletes – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 9, 2025

    On June 6, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California approved a settlement in House v. NCAA, which will allow higher education institutions to share revenue with student-athletes directly.

    The settlement creates a 10-year revenue-sharing model that will allow the athletic departments of the higher education institutions in the Power Five conferences (the ACC, Big 12, Big Ten, Pac-12, and SEC) and any other Division I institutions that opt in to distribute approximately $20.5 million in name, image, and likeness (NIL) revenue during the 2025-2026 season. The revenue-sharing cap will increase annually and be calculated as 22.5% of the Power Five schools’ average athletic revenue. The settlement also includes an enforcement arm to penalize institutions that exceed the $20.5 million cap, which will be overseen by a new regulatory body, the College Sports Commission. Institutions can start to share revenue beginning on July 1, 2025.

    Additionally, the settlement requires the NCAA and Power Five conferences to pay approximately $2.8 billion in damages to Division I athletes who were barred from signing NIL deals. This covers athletes dating back to 2016. It also replaces scholarship limits with roster limits.

    The settlement does not change college athletes’ ability to enter into NIL contracts with third parties, but under the settlement, all outside NIL deals valued at greater than $600 will have to go through a clearinghouse for approval. The clearinghouse will determine if the revenue is for a valid business purpose and if it reflects fair market value.

    Prior to this settlement, college athletes could only earn NIL revenue through partnerships with outside parties, such as companies or donor groups. The original case, House v. NCAA, was brought by two former college athletes in June 2020. They challenged the NCAA’s then-policy that prohibited athletes from earning NIL compensation. The case was consolidated with Carter v. NCAA and Hubbard v. NCAA, two similar cases. None of the cases ever made it to trial. Instead, in an effort to avoid higher damages, the NCAA and Power Five conferences agreed to a settlement in May 2024, and the court granted preliminary approval in October 2024.

    As NCAA President Charlie Baker explained in a letter, the settlement “opens a pathway to begin stabilizing college sports. This new framework that enables schools to provide direct financial benefits to student-athletes and establishes clear and specific rules to regulate third-party NIL agreements marks a huge step forward for college sports.”

    CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of updates related to this settlement and the future of student-athletics.

     



    Source link

  • Securing the Future: The case for Pension Reform in Post-92 Institutions

    Securing the Future: The case for Pension Reform in Post-92 Institutions

    • By Fiona Hnatow, Chief People Officer at the University of Portsmouth.

    In an era of mounting financial pressures across the UK higher education sector, the University of Portsmouth has not been immune to these difficulties. However, through considered efficiency programmes and an innovative approach to pension reform, we are emerging from the initial financial pressures into a stronger and sustainable position.  As one of the largest Post-92 institutions in the UK, the University plays a vital role in the local and national economy. With nearly 4,000 staff and 29,000 students, 6,000 of whom are international, the University is not only a major employer in the Solent region but also a hub of innovation, research and global engagement.

    In 2024 alone, the University contributed an impressive £1.4 billion to the UK economy, including £658 million in the Solent region and £505 million in Portsmouth, supporting over 8,800 jobs locally. These figures underscore the University’s critical role in regional development and its broader impact on the national landscape.

    By early 2023, it became increasingly clear that the UK higher education sector was heading towards a financial crisis. A combination of declining undergraduate and international student applications, rising utility and employment costs and inflexible pension obligations created a perfect storm, particularly for Post-92 universities.

    One of the most significant financial burdens facing these institutions is the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS). Mandated by the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, Post-92 universities are required to offer TPS to all academic staff, with no option to opt out. In contrast, non-Post-92 institutions can offer alternative schemes, such as the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), which carry significantly lower employer contribution rates.

    As of April 2025, TPS employer contributions rose from 23.68% to 28.68%. This means that employing an academic on a £50,000 salary now costs Post-92 institutions nearly £9,000 more per year than their competitors. With further increases projected in 2026, the financial strain is only expected to intensify.

    The Reset Programme: A Strategic Pivot

    Recognising the urgency of the situation, the University of Portsmouth launched its ‘Reset’ programme in early 2023. This comprehensive initiative was designed to reduce both staff and non-staff costs, streamline operations and build a digitally enabled, efficient institution. The goal: to ensure both operational and financial sustainability in the face of unprecedented challenges.

    The Reset programme introduced a series of targeted workstreams over an 18-month period, including:

    • Creation of a staffing subsidiary (UASL) to employ new staff under a more affordable pension scheme.
    • Voluntary Severance Scheme to reduce the need for compulsory redundancies.
    • Enhanced vacancy management, filling only business-critical roles.
    • Non-pay budget reductions, including cuts to travel, training, printing, and consumables.
    • Removal of budget contingencies during annual planning.
    • Policy changes to limit professional accreditation and subscription costs.
    • Professional services reviews to centralise functions and reduce staffing levels.
    • Academic restructuring, including faculty mergers and rebalancing student/staff ratios.
    • Contracted services reviews to improve value for money.
    • Student retention initiatives to reduce withdrawals and protect tuition income.

    UASL: A Bold and Necessary Innovation

    In August 2024, the University launched University of Portsmouth Academic Services Limited (UASL), a wholly owned subsidiary created to employ new academic and professional services staff. While maintaining existing terms and conditions, UASL introduced a new Defined Contribution (DC) pension scheme through Aviva, offering a 12% employer contribution for permanent staff and 6% for casual staff. Additionally, the National Employment Savings Trust (NEST) scheme was introduced for casual workers, primarily students.

    This move was not taken lightly as the University recognises how important pensions are to attract and retain staff. However, it was essential to avoid the unsustainable costs associated with TPS and the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). Importantly, all staff employed before August 2024 retained their existing pension arrangements, helping to maintain strong relationships with unions such as UCU and Unison.

    The TPS, and its statutory imposition on Post-92 providers, is a throwback to when institutions like the University of Portsmouth, as former polytechnics, were administered by their local authority. At the time, it made sense. But in the thirty years since we achieved full University status, it has become impossible to justify the retention of this outdated system. It is clear that those bodies responsible for setting and monitoring higher education funding, who are admittedly not known for their responsiveness, have failed to adapt to the realities of the higher education landscape. When vast swathes of the sector are faced with a worsening financial position, many of those being post-92 institutions, it is baffling that this outdated system remains to hinder determined efforts to manage institutional finances.

    The results have been significant. In 2024/25 alone, the University is on track to save over £1 million, with projected savings rising to £2.8 million in 2025/26 and £4.4 million in 2026/27. Moreover, the new pension schemes have proven attractive, particularly to early-career professionals, international staff, and those on lower salaries—groups that had previously opted out of TPS due to affordability concerns.

    Balancing Innovation with Risk

    While the creation of UASL has delivered substantial financial benefits, it has also introduced new challenges. Notably, Research England and UKRI have begun placing restrictions on the eligibility of subsidiary-employed academics for research funding and participation in the Research Excellence Framework (REF). This poses a significant risk to the University’s research ambitions and its ability to compete on a national and global scale.

    Despite these concerns, the University had to weigh the risks of innovation against the very real threat of insolvency. Without decisive action, the financial outlook would have been dire. In 2023/24, the University had budgeted for an income of £321 million but achieved only £304 million, resulting in a £9.2 million deficit—despite achieving £19.7 million in Resetsavings. For 2024/25, the budgeted income is £290.5 million, with a projected deficit of £2.9 million, inclusive of £24 million in planned savings.

    A Call for Sector-Wide Reform

    The University of Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. Many Post-92 institutions across the UK are being forced to consider similar measures, simply to remain viable. In Scotland, the government has stepped in to support institutions facing equivalent pension cost increases, highlighting the uneven playing field across the UK.

    The University is now calling on the Department for Education and the UK Treasury to reform elements of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 that tie Universities to an outdated, restrictive and overly costly pension scheme and advocates for greater flexibility in pension arrangements. Such reform would allow institutions to manage their finances more effectively, attract and retain top talent, and avoid widespread job losses and regional economic disruption. Our view is that it is wholly unfair that the Government have subsidised schools and further education colleges in England to compensate for the rising cost of TPS, yet Higher Education Institutions have not.

    Conclusion: Leading Through Change

    The University of Portsmouth has demonstrated that with strategic foresight, bold decision-making, and a commitment to collaboration, it is possible to navigate even the most challenging financial landscapes. However, we continue to advocate that reform is urgently needed for the good of the sector as a whole, to ensure long-term sustainability.

    Source link

  • Banking on Human Capital: How RBC Sees the Future of Talent, Innovation, and the Role of Post-Secondary Institutions

    Banking on Human Capital: How RBC Sees the Future of Talent, Innovation, and the Role of Post-Secondary Institutions

    Canada’s heading into some pretty choppy waters in 2025. For a century or so, we’ve had a one track economic strategy, closer integration with the United States. Now, the Trump administration with its faith in tariffs as an instrument of both power and corruption, has essentially nuked that strategy, at least as far as the trading goods is concerned. There’s a lot of change coming to Canada, and it’ll be costly. In much the same way that diplomatic evolution and defense needs are forcing European countries to look at higher education in a different light, Canadian universities are looking around at their new situation very nervously too.

    In Canada right now, a few people are making the case for change as strongly as John Stackhouse. John’s the ex editor-in-chief of the Global Mail. He’s now a Senior Vice President at the Royal Bank of Canada, leading that organization’s economics and thought leadership group. He’s the lead author of a recent report called “A Smarter Path, the Case for Post-Secondary Reform.” This report makes a number of, shall we say, uncomfortable observations about the relationship between Canadian higher education and the Canadian knowledge economy, in particular, between high spending and high graduate numbers on the one hand, and low productivity and significant levels of graduate underemployment on the other.

    Though the report does not directly address the issue of Trump or tariffs — it was released 48 hours before Liberation Day — it has added to the sense in Canada that the higher education sector is headed for and indeed needs a shakeup. And just to come clean for a moment, we here at Higher Education Strategy Associates are in a partnership with John and RBC and the Business Higher Education Roundtable, putting together a series of events culminating in a policy summit on post-secondary education in late September of this year.

    In the interview today, I talked to John about what the Canadian system’s biggest challenges are, how universities and businesses can more effectively partner with one another, and why Canadian political parties are increasingly shy about betting on the knowledge economy. But enough for me. Let’s turn it over to John.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.30 | Banking on Human Capital: How RBC Sees the Future of Talent, Innovation, and the Role of Post-Secondary Institutions

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Okay, John, why does a bank care so much about post-secondary education?

    John Stackhouse (JS): That’s a fair question, Alex—and thank you for including us in the podcast. If I can put it in terms of capital, maybe that’s what people would expect from a bank. Our economy, and the society that depends on it, relies on different kinds of capital. We have natural capital, technology capital, and of course, financial capital—which you’d expect from a bank. But just as critical is human capital. That’s core to the economy.

    There’s nothing new in saying that, except to emphasize that from RBC’s perspective, when we look at Canada’s prospects through the 2030s and the prosperity we hope to achieve, we need to think seriously about how we harness all these forms of capital: natural, financial, technological—and critically—human capital.

    We need to develop a more prosperous economy and society, but also the kind of vibrant communities that companies want to be part of, and that we as individuals want to contribute to. As a bank, that matters to us. Our purpose is to help clients thrive and communities prosper—and both of those depend on human capital. We hear that from our clients, our community partners, and our employees. So those are just some of the reasons why RBC is leaning into the post-secondary conversation.

    AU: In the paper you co-wrote, you describe Canada’s post-secondary education system as being slow, costly, and often out of sync with the economy. I think those are fairly common criticisms of higher education around the world. Do you think there’s something specific to Canada in that critique? Or is this more of a general observation about modern higher ed?

    JS: There’s probably some parchment from a thousand years ago where an education critic wrote, “You’re too slow, too costly, and out of touch with the economy.” -Signed, the monks of higher education. But yes, it’s fair to say that Canada isn’t alone in facing these challenges. That said, there are a few things that may be more pronounced here. One is that we’ve been a bit of a victim of our own success. We have a lot of post-secondary education in this country, but we haven’t differentiated enough within the system.

    Continental Europe, for example, continues to differentiate in ways we haven’t. So we end up producing graduates with degrees and diplomas that are too similar—and not always aligned with specific needs.

    We also haven’t allowed the business model to evolve at the pace of the economy or society, or even the expectations of students and educators. Many of them know the world is moving faster than our institutions are.

    And then on the research side—which I’m sure we’ll get to—we really lag behind. As an advanced economy, a G7 country, we’re not where we should be in post-secondary research. Part of the issue lies with the private sector—we haven’t integrated research and business to the degree that an advanced economy will need to in the 2030s.

    AU: RBC has been a really strong voice on the education–work connection. What are employers still not getting from the current system? And what responsibility do you think they have in helping to improve it?

    JS: There’s definitely a shared responsibility—and thanks for mentioning RBC’s commitment to work-integrated learning. One of the reasons we’re so invested in this is because our CEO, Dave McKay, is a product of the co-op system at Waterloo. He has a deep belief that work-integrated learning not only improves the student experience, but also strengthens the education system itself.

    When students return to the classroom after applying their knowledge in the real world, it deepens their learning. And it also improves the organizations they work with. At RBC, we hire a couple thousand co-op students every year—not just programmers from Waterloo, but fantastic interns from TMU and a wide range of colleges and universities across the country.

    We benefit from that. It improves how we work. Yes, it creates a talent pipeline—but we’ve also seen something more transformative. Over the past decade, we’ve started giving our co-op students real challenges to solve. We form teams, provide some management support, and tell them: here are some of our biggest problems—see you in August. Then they present their ideas to senior leadership in what’s essentially a competitive showcase. We’ve had around a hundred patents come out of that system.

    Students bring critical thinking, fresh perspectives, and a collaborative mindset that they develop in post-secondary. They often arrive with stronger teamwork skills than we could teach them from scratch, and they’re able to apply those skills to real problems.

    So what do employers need to do? They need to treat this as a serious investment in their own businesses. It’s a way to drive change, but it requires resources. You have to hire people who are good at managing these programs. Students don’t just walk in and figure it out on their own—it’s not Lord of the Flies. It takes organizational effort.

    AU: Let’s talk about what educational institutions are doing. I got the impression from the report that you think they still need to do more to align educational outputs with labor market needs. That said, there’s been a lot of progress over the last decade: growth in work-integrated learning, the rise of microcredentials, experiments with competency-based learning. But it sounds like you don’t think that’s enough. What more needs to happen?

    JS: Sadly—or depending on your perspective, maybe excitingly—none of us are doing enough. That’s partly because of technology, but also because of broader global forces. The world around us is changing faster than most of us are able to keep up with—including large organizations, small businesses, and educational institutions.

    The pace of change is accelerating, and it will only continue to do so. Institutions need to become much more change-minded in how they operate. That’s hard in education, for all the reasons your listeners will understand.

    One major challenge is the business model. It’s becoming a crisis. Post-secondary institutions aren’t getting the funding they need. Everyone knows that—but they’re losing the argument in the public square when it comes to making the case for new funding. And given the pressures society is under, I don’t see that changing in a meaningful way anytime soon.

    So institutions need more freedom to change—to evolve their business models, including how they generate revenue. And that means becoming more connected to, and responsive to, the broader economy around them. That’s where many of the new opportunities lie.

    AU: John, we’ve been talking mostly about human capital, which you’ve said is a key concern for RBC. But what about research and the co-production of knowledge? What are the respective roles of post-secondary institutions and businesses? Why don’t we see the kind of close connection between enterprises and universities that exists in parts of Europe or the U.S.? What’s the missing link?

    JS: That’s a tough nut to crack—and one that people far smarter than me have studied and debated for decades. But part of the challenge lies in the private sector itself. In many ways, we’ve become too much of a “branch plant” and “hinterland” economy—living off the wealth of the land, our access to the U.S. market, and the dividends of an innovation economy.

    I wouldn’t say that’s coming to an end—because that would be overly dramatic—but we’re clearly experiencing a sharp shift. In an odd way, the Trump challenge to Canada is a bit of a gift. It’s forcing us to acknowledge that we can’t be so dependent on the U.S. market. That’s become a broadly shared Canadian view. We need to build stronger connections with other parts of the world—and that’s going to require more serious investment in R&D from our businesses.

    If we want to transform branch plants into independent, globally competitive facilities, especially ones that can succeed in European and Asian markets—despite the distance—we need to invest in research and development in a way we haven’t for a generation.

    New governments—federal and provincial—need to act with urgency. They should bring business leaders together and ask, “What do we need to build?” And not just through one-off tax incentives. We need to foster a culture of collaboration and dynamism between universities, colleges, polytechnics, and businesses to shape what I’d call a post-Trump Canadian economy.

    That’s not going to happen by copying Germany’s Fraunhofer model or Japan’s approach—those are deeply rooted in specific cultural contexts. We need to develop something uniquely Canadian.

    And we can’t afford to spend years on a Royal Commission or slow-moving studies. This needs to happen quickly. A new federal government could seize this moment to bring together the provinces and private sector with a sense of urgency—and maybe even a crisis mindset.

    AU: I’ll come back to the Trump issue in a moment, but going back to the report—you lay out a number of challenges in the sector: outdated budget models, over-credentialed but under-skilled graduates, and so on. What do you think is the most pressing reform Canadian post-secondary needs right now? What’s the weakest link in the system?

    JS: That’s a great question—and a hard one to answer. But I’d go back to the funding model. Post-secondary institutions need more flexibility to innovate with how they’re funded. They need to move beyond the constraints of provincial funding and develop new approaches to tuition and fees—ones that are more closely tied to performance, outputs, and outcomes.

    There also needs to be more competition within the sector. Most people I know in post-secondary are pretty enthusiastic about that idea—though, understandably, they’d like the model to be structured so they have a good shot at succeeding.

    I think provinces need to be nudged—and maybe not even that much—to open the door to more innovation, more competition, and a bit more daring on the institutional side.

    AU: I think the words you used in the report were “reasonable deregulation.” Tell me more about increased competition—are there things we could do to incentivize more new players in the system who might be more disruptive?

    JS: There’s nothing quite like new players. I’ve studied enough sectors over the years to see that when it comes to innovation, nothing works quite as well as a vibrant, well-funded new entrant. Encouraging that kind of disruption would move us forward significantly—and it would give creative people across the sector permission to come up with ideas they’re not even thinking about yet. That’s the power of competition.

    So one key step is reducing the regulatory barriers that prevent those new players from entering the space.

    I also think employers can play a bigger role by sending clearer market signals. That could be as simple as hiring differently. We tend to recruit from the same institutions over and over—often for good reasons—but “like hires like.” If we want to encourage new entrants, we have to show that their graduates will have good job prospects. That kind of signal travels fast—even down to the high school level, where students are making decisions about their future.

    AU: Outside the scope of the report, you’ve been very outspoken in recent months about the gravity of the threat Canada faces from the U.S. under Trump. You spoke at the Business + Higher Education Roundtable event, and I know people who heard your remarks were quite sobered by them.

    There are clearly big changes coming to the country as a whole. What are the implications for universities? What changes do you think are now baked into the systems of government subsidy and regulation because of the shifting geopolitical situation?

    JS: It’s unfortunate that colleges and universities aren’t more central to the Trump-related conversation. We’re hearing a lot about pipelines, export infrastructure, and ports—which are all important. We’re also hearing a lot about trade-exposed sectors: autos, steel, aluminum, even pharmaceuticals. Guess what? All of those sectors depend on post-secondary institutions.

    So how are we thinking about the steel plant of the future that might be exporting more to Europe or Asia? It’s going to need incentives to retool. The same goes for auto plants that may need to shift into different kinds of manufacturing—including, potentially, defense production as we scale up defense spending. What kind of talent will be needed for that? How are schools in those regions adapting? And to your point about research—how can we better integrate the research side of those institutions into this transformation?

    They’ll need to develop new models—and we need to incentivize that shift. The good news is, I think there will be more money on the table. But it will be different kinds of research and institutional funding than what we’ve seen in the past. And that could be a good thing.

    So how do colleges and universities rise to that challenge? There could be tens of billions of dollars available to support economic transition. They’ll need to step up and play a leading role—and if they do, they’ll be rewarded for it.

    Interestingly, there’s already growing enthusiasm to attract academic talent from the U.S.—what some are calling “Trump intellectual refugees.”

    I’ve seen similar cycles before. After 9/11, during the Bush years, there was a similar kind of excitement. Star academics moved here as a sort of cultural vote for Canada. But that kind of movement doesn’t tend to be sustainable—or even all that interesting—from a long-term perspective.

    So how do we make it sustainable and interesting? One idea, from someone else, is to create a kind of Canada Research Chairs 2.0 for the late 2020s.

    Not a play to say “Come escape Trump,” but rather to say: if you’re an entrepreneurial, ambitious academic working in areas that matter to Canada, there’s no better place in the world to be right now than here.

    AU: One of the points you touched on earlier is that political parties seem to be responding to aggressive tariffs on exports by doubling down on producing goods. I find that kind of strange—surely one of the answers is to pivot more toward services. We’re not especially strong in that area, and in theory, that’s where universities should have an advantage. Why do you think we’re pushing so hard on goods while letting the services side drift?

    JS: That’s a great observation. We’ve become more of a services—or maybe better put, an intangibles—economy. A knowledge economy. That was a popular thing to say a decade ago, though it’s become a bit derided since.

    But we need both. You can have intangibles on their own, but the best ones tend to emerge from tangible activities.

    We need to play to our strengths, and that includes our resource economy. One of the things we noted in our study is that post-secondary doesn’t align with the resource economy as well as it should. That doesn’t mean just producing miners and rig operators—though those roles will still matter for years to come. There’s a whole spectrum of science and discovery we’ve long excelled at, and we need to scale that up if we want to lead in critical minerals, for example.

    It’s not just about having critical mineral mines or processing plants. We’ve shut down many of our best mining schools in this country, while China has established far more than we have—far more than you’d expect based on population size alone.

    So yes, we need to invest in the intangible—knowledge—side of that tangible sector. It’s not just manufacturing, as you said. It’s also processing and resource extraction, which are highly sophisticated fields. Those have earned Canada substantial academic recognition over the decades.

    We need to ensure that the intangible capacity we’re building in our universities and colleges remains closely tied to the real economy—especially to manufacturing and resource development.

    AU: Best case scenario—ten years from now—what does the Canadian post-secondary system look like? How is it different from today?

    JS: It would have much more variation. In fact, we might see something entirely new emerge—something that’s not quite a college, university, or polytechnic, but a distinct Canadian model.

    Just as Canada pioneered community colleges in the 1950s and ’60s, we have a chance to create a new tier. And this wouldn’t be at the expense of the existing systems—but something more suited to evolving needs.

    We’d have institutions that reflect and respond to the economy across all regions, including the far North. We don’t need to be physically present everywhere—we can do a lot of this remotely—but we do need our institutions to better reflect the realities of the country and the economy. And they need to be more connected to the world.

    You and I have talked a lot about the situation with international students. The real tragedy of what’s happened over the last decade would be if we abandoned the whole model. We had something that was largely good—it got mucked up—but that doesn’t mean we throw it out.

    We need to fix what went wrong. And we need to remain a destination for the best and most ambitious students from around the world. Ideally, we want them to stay—but even if they go back home, they can help connect us to the world.

    Because if we’re being honest with ourselves, what we’re really saying as Canadians—though maybe not quite this explicitly—is that we want to be a more global country. And our post-secondary system is one of the best tools we have to make that happen. But it will take a deliberate effort to reach out to the world—and there’s no sector better positioned to do that than post-secondary.

    AU: John, thanks so much for being with us today.

    JS: Thanks, Alex. I’ve really enjoyed it.

    Alex Usher: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan, Sam Pufek, and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers for following us. If you have any questions or concerns about today’s episode or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at [email protected]. Run, don’t walk to our YouTube page and hit subscribe. That way you’ll never miss an episode of the World of Higher Education Podcast.

    Join us next week when our guest will be Rómulo Pinheiro. He’s a professor at the University of Agder in Norway, and we’ll be talking about university’s role in the economic development strategies of rural and remote regions. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • At Least 15 Florida Institutions Have ICE Agreements

    At Least 15 Florida Institutions Have ICE Agreements

    At least three members of the Florida College System have signed agreements with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to allow their campus police departments to enforce immigration law, bringing the total to 15 institutions across the state.

    Florida SouthWestern State College, Northwest Florida State College and Tallahassee State College have all signed 287(g) agreements with ICE, which allows the agency to delegate immigration enforcement powers to other law enforcement agencies, such as campus police. Those three agreements have been approved by ICE, according to a federal database. Others approved as participating agencies are the police at Florida A&M University, New College of Florida, the University of Central Florida, the University of Florida and the University of West Florida.

    None of the three latest colleges responded to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    Santa Fe College also has a draft agreement in place that has not yet been signed, a spokesperson said, noting the earliest that would be done is at a May 20 board meeting. A spokesperson for Pensacola State College said its campus police are considering an application to partner with ICE.

    Other institutions that have already signed agreements with ICE are:

    • Florida A&M University
    • Florida Atlantic University
    • Florida Gulf Coast University
    • Florida International University
    • Florida Polytechnic University
    • Florida State University
    • New College of Florida
    • University of Central Florida
    • University of Florida
    • University of North Florida
    • University of South Florida
    • University of West Florida

    While all 12 institutions in the State University System have signed on with ICE, Florida SouthWestern State, Northwest Florida State and Tallahassee State appear to be the first of the 28 members in the Florida College System to enter such arrangements.

    Not all of the state colleges have campus police departments. But of those that do have campus police departments, signing on with ICE isn’t a given. For instance, Florida State College of Jacksonville and Polk State College told Inside Higher Ed that neither have a memorandum of agreement with ICE.

    Leaders Defend Agreements

    The agreements with ICE come amid an immigration crackdown driven by Gov. Ron DeSantis and Florida’s Republican-controlled Legislature. In February, DeSantis directed state law enforcement agencies to sign agreements with ICE “to execute functions of immigration enforcement within the state” to make deportations more efficient, according to a news release.

    Florida colleges and universities soon followed by signing memorandums of understanding with ICE that will deputize campus police officers to carry out immigration duties on campus. Institutions have largely declined to speak publicly about the arrangements. However, a recent Faculty Senate meeting at Florida International University with FIU chief of police Alexander Casas yielded insights into why agreements were signed but left many lingering questions.

    Casas argued at the April 18 meeting that it would be better for university police to carry out immigration enforcement duties on campus than outside agencies.

    “I can’t control what ICE does. I can’t control what a state agency does that has jurisdiction. But if I don’t enter the agreement, I don’t even have the opportunity to say, ‘Call us first, let us deal with our community.’ That’s not even an option,” Casas said. He added he wanted to be “in the driver’s seat” but “without the agreement, I’m not even in the car.”

    FIU interim president Jeanette Nuñez, the former lieutenant governor under DeSantis, also defended the deal, telling the Faculty Senate the ICE agreement follows similar arrangements “at almost all of the state universities and many other universities across the country.”

    Immigration experts have told Inside Higher Ed they are unfamiliar with such agreements at universities in other states. Only Florida institutions appear in an ICE database that tracks active and pending 287(g) agreements. (FIU did not respond to questions about Nuñez’s claims.)

    FIU Faculty Senate members, however, did not seem swayed by Casas or Nuñez. Several professors spoke about their distrust for ICE—some clearly emotional—and referenced recent questionable actions by ICE, such as the widely publicized arrest of Juan Carlos Lopez-Gomez, an American citizen who was detained earlier this month and falsely accused of illegally entering Florida as an “unauthorized alien.” Federal officials later blamed Lopez-Gomez for his arrest.

    Ultimately, the Faculty Senate approved a resolution calling for the university to withdraw from the ICE agreement, which members argued ran counter to the values of the institution.

    Statewide Concerns

    Concerns about such agreements have also emerged at universities across the state.

    Students and faculty have protested such agreements at FIU, FAU and elsewhere. United Faculty of Florida, a union that represents professors across the state, condemned the agreements with ICE as a betrayal of the core values of higher education in a recent statement.

    “Our campuses must be institutions of learning, critical inquiry, and inclusion—not instruments of surveillance and state-sponsored oppression,” United Faculty of Florida officials said in a statement last week. “The presence and involvement of ICE on our campuses sows fear among students, staff, and faculty, particularly those from immigrant, undocumented, or international communities. It undermines the very mission of our higher education system: to foster open dialogue, intellectual freedom, and the free exchange of ideas across borders and identities.”

    The agreements also prompted pushback from the Florida Advisory Council of Faculty Senates, which issued a resolution that urged universities to withdraw from existing agreements with ICE.

    “To effectively protect our universities, campus police cultivate a unique relationship with campus communities,” council members wrote in a recent resolution. “They come to know our students, our educational spaces, and our communities. They are present at peaceful protests, in classrooms, and at student events. Repurposing this unique trust for federal immigration enforcement makes our campuses less safe, puts our officers in an untenable position, and chills students’ access to the support services they critically need to succeed.”

    That resolution has already been endorsed by some faculty senates, including at FAU.

    Source link

  • How Can Institutions Best Support Their Online Learners?

    How Can Institutions Best Support Their Online Learners?

    Title: Supporting Online Learners: Insights from SUNY’s Campus Coaching Programs

    Authors: Marjorie Dorimé-Williams, Jálynn Castleman, Parker Cellura, Rebekah O’Donoghue, and Makoto Toyoda

    Source: MDRC

    The structure and delivery of online programs can have significant impacts on a student’s ability to succeed. After examining success coaching practices at three State University of New York institutions, the authors of new analysis from MDRC offer several policy recommendations to support online learners.

    Within each university, there were a variety of approaches to providing help for online students. Analyzing and comparing the programs indicated there are three primary types of support for online learners: coaching communication strategies and technology applications, student engagement, and academic outcomes.

    Some of the most effective practices in each category are:

    Coaching Strategies

    Personalized support from coaches is one of the most effective ways to help students. By minimizing the coach-to-student ratio, institutions can ensure coaches have a manageable workload, enabling them to cater their coaching to fit individual students’ needs.

    Tracking student data can help coaches identify needs and tailor support. Performance and outcome metrics, such as grades, course attendance, and credit accumulation, can be used to identify struggling students and guide intervention strategies. Additionally, learning management systems that track student engagement can facilitate personalized communication to fit students’ needs and preferences.

    Opportunities for professional development help coaches provide the best support for their students. Institutions should continually provide training opportunities to help inform online pedagogy.

    Student Engagement

    Centralizing support services improves student access and awareness.A unified, easily accessible platform can ensure that students know about and use available resources.

    Building community is especially important—and especially challenging—for asynchronous learners. Faculty can foster connections through synchronous or asynchronous study groups and should be mindful of online students’ varied schedules.

    Responsive, innovative communication helps keep students engaged. Timely feedback and meeting students where they are—through tools and communication styles they prefer—can promote sustained engagement.

    Academic Outcomes

    Faculty need targeted training to effectively adapt courses for online delivery. Professional development can help instructors redesign courses for virtual environments and maintain instructional quality.

    Quality standards for course design can improve consistency and effectiveness. Standardized templates and interaction guidelines help ensure that all online courses meet a baseline of student support and instructional quality.

    Coaches and faculty can collaborate to provide holistic academic support. Integration of coaching within academic programs strengthens both in- and out-of-classroom support, creating a more cohesive experience for online students.

    With an increasing proportion of students participating in online courses, building capacity to support online learners promotes success for all students, especially those who are entirely online. Institutions committed to improving their online programs can dedicate resources to developing and evaluating courses and support systems.

    To read the full report, click here.

    —Erica Swirsky

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link