Tag: lead

Faculty Lead AI Usage Conversations on College Campuses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Student Perspectives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Institutional Perspective

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

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

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

Engaging Students in AI

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

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

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

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

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

Source link

November 11, 2025
From curriculum to career: why universities must lead the education–skills revolution
This blog was kindly authored by Dr. Ismini Vasileiou, Associate Professor at De Montfort University. You can find HEPI’s other blogs on the Curriculum and Assessment Review here and here.

When the Department for Education published its Curriculum and Assessment Review, billed as a Curriculum for Life and Work on 4 November 2025, it signalled more than a curriculum reform – it marked a national conversation about what education is for. For the first time, the school curriculum will explicitly combine knowledge, digital capability, employability, and citizenship – preparing young people not just for exams, but for participation in a complex, data-driven, and interconnected world. Crucially, this is not about replacing education with skills. It’s about redefining education as the process through which skills for life and work are formed. The message is clear: education and skills are inseparable, and the system must now be designed as one continuous journey.

A moment of alignment

This announcement completes the trajectory begun by the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper (October 2025). Together, these two policy pillars – one focused on schools, the other on tertiary education – outline a vision of coherence across the learning lifecycle. The Post-16 paper’s introduction of V-Levels, simplification of Level 3 qualifications, and expansion of Higher Technical Qualifications now align with the Curriculum for Life and Work, which embeds the early foundations of employability and digital literacy in every pupil’s experience. For the first time in decades, England’s education policy points in a single direction: towards a joined-up system of education that builds character, competence, and confidence. But the success of this vision depends on one missing piece – universities, which sit at the intersection of learning, innovation, and the workforce.

Education, not training

Much of the public debate risks falling into false dichotomies: academic versus vocational, education versus skills. The government’s language – “life and work” – recognises that these are not opposites but continuums. Education remains the intellectual and moral foundation of a healthy democracy. But when delivered holistically, it also nurtures adaptability, creativity, and applied understanding – the very capacities employers now seek. Universities have a critical role in championing this integrated view. Their purpose is not to become training providers but to model what it means for education to produce confident, employable citizens who can learn, unlearn, and relearn throughout their lives.

Lessons from cyber: integration in action

This holistic approach already exists in one part of the education system: the cyber sector.

The Cyber Workforce of the Future white paper (2025) called for a unified skills taxonomy, a shared definition of competence across education and industry, and seamless progression from schools through FE and HE into work. That model aligns almost exactly with what the new curriculum and the post-16 reforms now propose nationally: an ecosystem where education, employability, and innovation are interdependent rather than sequential. In cyber, this has already meant cross-sector curriculum design, embedded work experience, and a culture that treats technical and academic learning as equally rigorous. The next step is to scale that success across all disciplines – from green technologies to healthcare, design, and AI.

Universities at the centre of reform

Universities can make or break this national vision. Their position in the education–skills continuum gives them both responsibility and leverage. To succeed, they must:
1. Anticipate the learners of 2028: The first cohort to study under the new curriculum will arrive at university at the start of the next decade. Institutions must adapt admissions, pedagogy, and assessment to students whose schooling will emphasise applied learning, digital literacy, and teamwork.
2. Build local and regional partnerships: Collaborating with FE colleges, Skills England, and employers will be essential to map seamless pathways from school to post-16 and higher education.
3. Integrate employability into education: Employability should not be treated as a bolt-on service but as an educational principle – part of how critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration are taught across disciplines.
4. Champion digital confidence: With data, AI, and cyber understanding now fundamental to the new curriculum, universities must ensure every graduate – not only those in STEM – leaves equipped to operate in a digital society.
5. Measure outcomes holistically: Success should not be judged solely by employment rates but by how graduates contribute to innovation, community resilience, and lifelong learning.
Risks and responsibilities

Reform at this scale brings challenges. Without alignment across sectors, the new curriculum could risk being a policy of aspiration rather than transformation. Schools may teach for adaptability, only for universities to assess for recall. Equally, the pressure to define “skills for work” must not narrow education’s scope. The aim is not to produce workers but well-educated citizens who can shape the future of work. Universities can protect that balance – ensuring that the education–skills revolution deepens, rather than dilutes, the purpose of learning.

From reform to renewal

The Curriculum for Life and Work represents a rebalancing of the national education story: knowledge still matters, but so do capability, confidence, and contribution. This aligns perfectly with the model already tested through the Cyber Workforce of the Future initiative – where education, employability, and innovation are treated as parts of one system. That approach, proven in a fast-moving digital sector, now provides a template for reform across the entire economy. For higher education, the challenge – and the opportunity – is to lead. By embedding employability as a dimension of education, not its substitute, universities can turn these policy reforms into a sustainable framework for growth, equity, and lifelong learning. The UK has a rare moment of alignment: curriculum reform, post-16 reform, and national skills strategy all pointing in the same direction. If higher education steps forward now, this could become not just another skills agenda, but a true education revolution for life and work.
Source link
November 10, 2025
How Veterans Can Lead the Future of Work and Learning

This Veterans Day, we’re reminded that honoring service means more than recognition; it’s a shared responsibility. Colleges and universities play a vital role in translating appreciation into action by working with community and employer partners to expand access, reduce barriers, and build clear, accelerated pathways for veterans to thrive before, during, and after their postsecondary education.

Each year, about 200,000 service members transition out of active duty. They bring with them leadership, discipline, and adaptability, qualities employers consistently say they need most. For many veterans, the first stop is college, supported by the Post-9/11 GI Bill. But not all want, need, or can afford to wait for a four-year degree to launch their next chapter. The real question is: How do we ensure veterans don’t miss the job-ready pathways already reshaping the workforce?

The challenge of underemployment and the demand for talent

On the surface, veterans appear to be doing well; unemployment among former service members is approximately 3% in comparison to non-veterans at 3.9%. But the picture changes when we look deeper. Nearly one in three veterans is underemployed, working in roles that don’t fully use their skills or pay family-sustaining wages. The compressed 180-day transition window, during which service members must make rapid choices about careers, finances, and education, makes it harder to align strengths with opportunity. Veterans who do not find meaningful employment or education in that first year risk long-term financial instability and lower lifetime earnings.

At the same time, labor market demand makes the case urgent. Employers in healthcare, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing, logistics, and clean energy face acute shortages. More than a million cybersecurity roles are currently unfilled, and clean energy jobs grew nearly 4% last year. Veterans, who bring technical expertise, leadership, and adaptability, are uniquely positioned to step into these roles if their skills are translated and recognized in ways that match employer needs.

A moment of opportunity

Across the country, alternative career pathways are gaining momentum. Apprenticeships, certificates, industry certifications, and work-integrated learning programs are offering faster, lower-cost routes into well-paid jobs. National efforts to expand registered apprenticeships highlight just how far the U.S. has to go compared with peer nations. If even a fraction of community college students were connected to apprenticeships, hundreds of thousands of new slots could open roles where veterans’ discipline and readiness give them a natural advantage.

At the same time, higher education is recalibrating. Undergraduate enrollment has dropped by more than a million students since 2019, while institutions are investing in short-term credentials and competency-based programs. Senior leaders are deeply concerned about the public perception of the value of college and their institutions’ long-term financial viability, with nearly eight in ten presidents citing public trust as a major issue. Those concerns are not abstract: by 2032, an estimated 18.4 million experienced workers with postsecondary education are expected to retire, creating urgent pressure to prepare the next generation. Veterans are well-positioned to help fill this gap if institutions translate military learning into both degrees and short-term credentials.

If institutions recognize and apply military learning through credit for prior learning (CPL) and short-term credential pathways, they can accelerate veterans’ success while rebuilding confidence in the relevance of higher education itself. ACE supports this effort through Military Guide, which helps colleges translate military training into academic credit, and through expanding frameworks for CPL that ensure quality and equity in how experience counts. These tools make it possible for veterans to see their service recognized as learning and for institutions to meet learners where they are.

A call to action

This convergence of policy momentum, employer demand, and institutional innovation creates a rare window of opportunity. The traditional “college-for-all” approach is showing its limits, with more than half of four-year graduates underemployed a year after graduation. For veterans, the stakes are even higher. Transition is a once-in-a-lifetime moment to align skills, benefits, and pathways.

Employers: Don’t overlook veteran talent. Create or expand apprenticeships and structured on-ramps that recognize military skills. Veterans bring discipline, adaptability, and leadership—traits every sector needs to stay competitive. They also carry official military transcripts that document their training and education, which can be mapped directly to specific skills and competencies. Military job titles and occupational codes however can be deceiving in the civilian market. Demystifying those roles and challenging stereotypes is essential to avoid overlooking highly qualified candidates. Leveraging veterans’ records and experiences can shorten onboarding, reduce training costs, and ensure they are matched to roles where they can thrive.

Higher education: Build shorter, stackable programs that honor prior learning gained through military service and beyond. Military transcripts and experience can serve not only as transfer credit but also as tools for admissions decisions, prerequisite fulfillment, and course waivers, accelerating time to completion. Just as important, institutions should recognize that many veterans are looking to pivot into entirely new career fields. By meeting veterans where they are, higher education can both close critical skills gaps and strengthen enrollment while rebuilding public trust.

Credential providers: Ensure certifications are accessible, affordable, and aligned with industry demand. You are uniquely positioned to bridge the federal government, corporate America, learners, and higher education institutions, making pathways clearer and faster for veterans. In your validation processes, include recognition of military and prior learning so veterans can more easily demonstrate their competencies and translate service-earned experience into credentials with immediate labor market value.

Turning appreciation into action

Veterans bring unmatched skills, experience, and determination, but they shouldn’t have to navigate their next chapter alone. Employers, higher education, and credential providers each have a role to play in creating faster, more transparent, and career-aligned pathways that turn potential into progress.

Higher education has always been central to the American narrative, a source of opportunity, innovation, and community strength. Its next chapter depends on unlocking the full potential of every learner, especially those who have proudly served. When institutions, employers, and credential organizations work in concert, we transform gratitude into real pathways.

For example, Dixon Center for Military and Veterans Services has long championed a “united in purpose” approach, offering technical assistance, resource-sharing, and leadership to amplify veteran-serving efforts across all sectors. Their work underscores the importance of collective responsibility: honoring service not just with words, but with system-wide action. As one example, the center led an effort to formulate and administer the Trucking Business Academy, which mustered colleges, industry leaders, and other nonprofits to chart a comprehensive curriculum for truck drivers to successfully build their own businesses.

This Veterans Day, honoring military service means building pathways forward. By opening clearer, faster, and more trusted routes to learning and work and by aligning across sectors, we can ensure veterans don’t just find jobs. They lead the way in shaping the future of education, workforce development, and national resilience.

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

Source link

November 4, 2025
Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds

A new policy brief from the University of Southern California reveals that six states—Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana—have emerged as national leaders in efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education, with significant consequences for students and faculty of color.

The report, “DEI Under Fire: Policy, Politics, and the Future of Campus Diversity,” released by USC’s Black Critical Policy Collective, analyzed legislative trends across all 50 states between August 2024 and July 2025. Researchers developed a composite scoring system based on bills introduced and laws passed, identifying states with the most aggressive anti-DEI activity.

Texas topped the rankings with a composite score of 16, having introduced 10 bills and passed three laws restricting DEI efforts. Missouri followed with 15 bills introduced, though none passed into law. Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana rounded out the top six states, all scoring between 9 and 14 on the composite scale.

As of July 2025, 14 states have passed a total of 20 anti-DEI laws, up from 12 states with 14 laws when data collection began in December 2024. These laws typically target four main areas: elimination of DEI offices and staff, bans on mandatory diversity training, prohibitions on diversity statements in hiring, and restrictions on identity-based preferences in admissions and employment.

“Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not peripheral ideals. They are institutional functions—woven into the operational, cultural, and legal architecture of colleges and universities,” wrote Dr. Kendrick B. Davis, series editor for the Critical Policy Collective, in the report’s introduction. “When those functions are restricted or removed, the effects are material.”

The institutional responses have been swift and substantial. At the University of Texas System, at least 49 DEI-related employees were terminated following the passage of three bills in 2023. The system shut down its Multicultural Engagement Center and Gender & Sexuality Center at UT-Austin and eliminated funding for student identity-based organizations and scholarships for undocumented students.

In Iowa, following Senate File 2435’s passage in May 2024, the University of Iowa eliminated its Office of Inclusive Education and Strategic Initiatives and laid off 11 DEI-related staff members. The university also removed scholarships specifically aimed at racially minoritized students, redirecting funds to support low-income students more broadly. By October 2024, Iowa’s state universities had reallocated more than $2.1 million from DEI programs.

Indiana University announced one of the most sweeping academic restructurings in its history, planning to suspend, eliminate, or consolidate at least 43 undergraduate programs, including African American and African Diaspora Studies, Gender Studies, and multiple language programs. The changes follow passage of Senate Bills 202 and 289, which banned DEI offices and prohibited diversity statements in hiring.

Preliminary enrollment data following the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—which effectively ended race-conscious admissions—shows declining representation of students of color at several elite institutions. At Harvard Law School, Black student enrollment in 2024 dropped to 19 first-year students, down from 43 the previous year. MIT reported a 1% decrease in the proportion of Hispanic and Black students, while UNC-Chapel Hill experienced a 5% decrease in Black, Indigenous, and people of color students overall.

“The ongoing attacks on DEI, manifested in policy restrictions forcing institutions to comply with race-evasive policies, have significant implications for racial and ethnic diversity, student access and success, and workforce development,” the report states.

Research shows faculty diversity benefits all students by fostering critical thinking and better preparing graduates for diverse workforces. However, DEI rollbacks make it significantly more difficult to recruit faculty of color, as institutions are now restricted from considering race in hiring decisions—a limitation reinforced by the Harvard ruling.

The report’s authors—Mya Haynes, Glenda Palacios Quejada, Shawntae Mitchum, and Alexia Oduro—note that even private institutions like Vanderbilt University have implemented similar changes despite not being subject to state laws, “reflecting broader anxieties within the private sector about maintaining—or being seen to maintain—equity-oriented infrastructure under political scrutiny.”

Student activism has emerged in response to the restrictions. Iowa State University students organized rallies and petitions opposing the elimination of the DEI office and restructuring of the LGBTQIA+ Center. In Alabama, university professors and students filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s DEI ban, arguing it violates First Amendment rights.

“What is one of the things that’s sometimes difficult to see is the level of coordination between states,” Davis said in an interview. “Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, and Missouri—they’re not just a random collection. They’re a coordinated collection of states that have made some formal, some informal decisions, but what is clear through the legislation is that they share a common goal in restricting access to anything that is culturally relevant or sensitive to racially and ethnically minoritized groups in this country.”

Davis noted that while federal actions have dominated recent headlines, states initiated the anti-DEI movement shortly after 2020.

“We have to remember the states started this anti-DEI, anti-critical race theory movement shortly after 2020,” he explained. “This has been a long time in the making, and I think the current federal efforts are just complementary to what states had already been doing.” The report aims to help policymakers and practitioners “get through some of the noise” and track the escalating legislative activity across multiple states, Davis said.

The report recommends that institutions embed DEI principles within broader student success initiatives, leverage private funding where public funding is restricted, and strengthen alliances among students, faculty, staff, and community organizations to advocate for institutional accountability.

Missouri represents a notable exception in the analysis. Despite introducing 14 bills targeting DEI—more than any state except Texas—none have passed into law. The report attributes this to intense legislative gridlock, ideological conflicts within the Republican majority, and strong opposition from educational institutions and community organizations. However, the 2025 legislative session has seen renewed efforts to advance anti-DEI policies.

The researchers emphasize that the policy shifts carry particular consequences for Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, who are losing access to culturally affirming resources, mentorship opportunities, and financial aid programs specifically designed to address historical inequities in higher education access.

“If access is conditional and inclusion retractable, higher education cannot claim to serve the public,” Davis wrote.

The report represents the third in a series examining how equity is being withdrawn across the education pipeline.

Source link

October 19, 2025
University of Rochester student expelled after speaking out about harassment will lead orchestra in concert to affirm free expression

ROCHESTER, N.Y., Oct. 20, 2025 — A former doctoral conducting student at the Eastman School of Music who was silenced after reporting harassment by a faculty member is standing up for herself in the way she knows best — by conducting a classical music concert in support of free expression.

Rebecca Bryant Novak will conduct a volunteer orchestra at the Hochstein School of Music Performance Hall in Rochester, N.Y., on Thursday, Nov. 20, in a concert sponsored by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, our first-ever classical music concert in support of free speech. The evening will feature Beethoven’s Fidelio Overture and selections from Shostakovich’s Symphony No. 5 — two works that faced censorial pressure in their own time and which emphasize the timeless connection between civil liberties and artistic expression.

The event will also feature internationally acclaimed violinist Lara St. John, praised by The New York Times as “a high-powered soloist.”

For Bryant Novak, who was expelled from the University of Rochester earlier this year after filing a complaint against one of her professors at Eastman, the evening will provide her not only with an opportunity to create wonderful music but to send a message to the school that she will not be intimidated into silence.

“All I’ve wanted since I came to Eastman was to become a conductor and share my appreciation for great music with others,” Bryant Novak said. “I’m looking forward to doing so this evening — while reminding Eastman that I’m not going away.”

Shortly into her first semester as a doctoral student in fall 2023, Bryant Novak complained about behavior by a professor who she said made sexist comments.

After a yearlong investigation, a panel of faculty and administrators agreed that the professor had indeed violated Rochester’s harassment policy and that Eastman’s Title IX coordinator had mishandled her complaint.

Despite all this, Eastman allowed the same school authorities to retain oversight of Bryant Novak’s academic trajectory — with one official telling her that the school restricted her performance times because of her complaint against the professor.

When Bryant Novak complained, Eastman did nothing. As a result of the alleged retaliation, Rochester opened a second investigation into Eastman’s mishandling of the situation in December 2024, and Bryant Novak publicly disclosed the university’s new investigation in a Substack article on Feb. 10.

Two weeks later, Eastman abruptly expelled Bryant Novak, citing a failure to make academic progress, even though the school never showed that she met that criteria. In doing so, the school ignored its written policy that calls for students to be given ample notice if they are in danger of falling short of academic standards.

FIRE is calling on Rochester President Sarah C. Mangelsdorf to immediately reinstate Bryant Novak and ensure that she is able to complete her doctorate under the oversight of Eastman faculty and officials who are not already subject to investigation for misconduct in her case. And we’re not alone. Over 800 members of the public have signed on to our Take Action campaign telling Mangelsdorf to heed the call.

In any case, Bryant Novak won’t be banished from the conductor’s podium. We hope to have you join us for “Outspoken: Music for Free Speech,” an evening championing the right to free expression — hers and yours.

The concert is free and open to the public. To attend, RSVP here to reserve your spot.

The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

CONTACT
Karl de Vries, Director of Media Relations, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

Source link

October 17, 2025
Senate OKs Richey to Lead ED Civil Rights Office

Kim Richey recently served as a senior chancellor in the Florida Department of Education.

Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

The Senate voted this week to confirm Kimberly Richey as the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights—returning her to a role she held in an acting capacity from August 2020 until November 2021, spanning the end of President Trump’s first term and the start of President Biden’s. Richey also worked in the department during the George W. Bush administration.

The vote was 51 to 47 along party lines, with Democrats and Independents all voting nay.

Over the past few years, Richey worked in state positions as a senior chancellor in the Florida Department of Education and a deputy superintendent in the Virginia Department of Education. She now returns to the federal government to lead a greatly diminished Office for Civil Rights—the Trump administration laid off nearly half the OCR staff in March—with a significant case backlog.

The administration is using what’s left of the office as an arm of its campaign against transgender rights, programs aimed at helping minorities and allegations of antisemitism. The OCR has been investigating both K–12 school districts and universities over these issues. Richey told senators during her June confirmation hearing that she’s committed to pursuing cases related to antisemitism and trans women playing on women’s sports teams.

According to a résumé published by government watchdog American Oversight, Richey has also worked with conservative organizations to draft education legislation and policies. Those policy proposals mostly centered on K–12 and included promoting school choice and banning critical race theory (although the topic is not taught in K–12 schools). A 2022 receipt American Oversight uncovered indicated that Richey’s consultancy, RealignEd LLC, was paid $10,000 to “provide subject matter expertise, review and evaluation, and policy advice related to inherently divisive topics and other provisions” shortly after Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order prohibiting “the use of inherently divisive concepts, including critical race theory,” in schools.

Craig Trainor, the principal deputy assistant secretary for civil rights, has led the office as acting secretary since Trump took office earlier this year. In that post, he sent out controversial guidance banning race-based programming and activities, which was later blocked by the courts. He’s now moving to Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he’ll be the assistant secretary for fair housing and equal opportunity.

Source link

October 10, 2025
Richey confirmed to lead Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights

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

The Senate confirmed Kimberly Richey as the next assistant secretary for civil rights at the U.S. Department of Education in a 51-47 vote along party lines late Tuesday afternoon. The approval came as part of a resolution allowing senators to consider for confirmation Richey and over 100 other federal nominees at once.

Richey served as acting assistant secretary at the Education Department under the first Trump administration — first for the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services and then for the Office for Civil Rights — and also worked at OCR under the George W. Bush administration.

Her approval had been nothing short of expected, considering the slight Republican majority in the Senate and President Donald Trump’s nomination in February to head the Education Department’s civil rights arm.

As assistant secretary of OCR, Richey will be responsible for overseeing investigations into alleged civil rights complaints, protecting all students’ civil rights, and drafting and implementing civil rights regulations, including but not limited to Title IX, Title VI and Section 504.

She was confirmed to steer a ship that is functioning at half of its previous capacity, with OCR down to five out of 12 of its offices. She faces a backlog of over 12,000 open investigations and more than 25,000 complaints, and a pared down staff as a result of Trump and U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon’s efforts to wind down the department.

She’s also entering the office as the Education Department is embroiled in a lawsuit that, until recently, required OCR be restored to its previous capacity by returning laid off workers to their jobs. Just as the Education Department began returning OCR staffers back to the job in waves, the federal district court order requiring its restoration was overturned in September by the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Education Department, most of whose staff is furloughed as part of the government shutdown, has not responded to K-12 Dive’s requests about what that means for the over 80 staffers who had already returned to their old posts.

Before the Senate’s Health, Education Labor and Pensions Committee confirmed Richey’s nomination in June, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., shared that attorneys at OCR are juggling on average 115 cases, more than double the previously reported caseload of 42 cases per person.

Richey said she would “always advocate for OCR to have the resources to do its job.” However, she dodged questions about whether OCR, under Trump’s first administration, had enough resources to do its job.

“I’m going to have to be really strategic if I’m confirmed, stepping into this role, helping come up with a plan where we can address these challenges,” she said about OCR’s reduced resources under the current administration.

Among her first steps, Richey said, would be to evaluate the current caseload and determine where complaints stand in their investigative timelines. She would also examine the staff distribution and organizational structure of OCR, she said.

Richey said that rather than put certain investigations on pause, as has been the case under the second Trump administration, she would prioritize all complaints that fall at OCR’s footsteps.

After the mass layoffs at the agency that left OCR gutted along with other department offices, the Education Department told K-12 Dive in March that OCR was undergoing organizational changes and said it would deliver on its statutory responsibilities.

Source link

October 9, 2025
Higher Education must help shape how students learn, lead and build the skills employers want most

For the first time in more than a decade, confidence in the nation’s colleges and universities is rising. Forty-two percent of Americans now say they have “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in higher education, up from 36 percent last year.

It’s a welcome shift, but it’s certainly not time for institutions to take a victory lap.

For years, persistent concerns about rising tuition, student debt and an uncertain job market have led many to question whether college was still worth the cost. Headlines have routinely spotlighted graduates who are underemployed, overwhelmed or unsure how to translate their degrees into careers.

With the rapid rise of AI reshaping entry-level hiring, those doubts are only going to intensify. Politicians, pundits and anxious parents are already asking: Why aren’t students better prepared for the real world?

But the conversation is broken, and the framing is far too simplistic. The real question isn’t whether college prepares students for careers. It’s how. And the “how” is more complex, personal and misunderstood than most people realize.

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

What’s missing from this conversation is a clearer understanding of where career preparation actually happens. It’s not confined to the classroom or the career center. It unfolds in the everyday often overlooked experiences that shape how students learn, lead and build confidence.

While earning a degree is important, it’s not enough. Students need a better map for navigating college. They need to know from day one that half the value of their experience will come from what they do outside the classroom.

To rebuild America’s trust, colleges must point beyond course catalogs and job placement rates. They need to understand how students actually spend their time in college. And they need to understand what those experiences teach them.

Ask someone thriving in their career which part of college most shaped their success, and their answer might surprise you. (I had this experience recently at a dinner with a dozen impressive philanthropic, tech and advocacy leaders.) You might expect them to name a major, a key class or an internship. But they’re more likely to mention running the student newspaper, leading a sorority, conducting undergraduate research, serving in student government or joining the debate team.

Such activities aren’t extracurriculars. They are career-curriculars. They’re the proving grounds where students build real-world skills, grow professional networks and gain confidence to navigate complexity. But most people don’t discuss these experiences until they’re asked about them.

Over time, institutions have created a false divide. The classroom is seen as the domain of learning, and career services is seen as the domain of workforce preparation. But this overlooks an important part of the undergraduate experience: everything in between.

The vast middle of campus life — clubs, competitions, mentorship, leadership roles, part-time jobs and collaborative projects — is where learning becomes doing. It’s where students take risks, test ideas and develop the communication, teamwork and problem-solving skills that employers need.

This oversight has made career services a stand-in for something much bigger. Career services should serve as an essential safety net for students who didn’t or couldn’t fully engage in campus life, but not as the launchpad we often imagine it to be.

Related: OPINION: College is worth it for most students, but its benefits are not equitable

We also need to confront a harder truth: Many students enter college assuming success after college is a given. Students are often told that going to college leads to success. They are rarely told, however, what that journey actually requires. They believe knowledge will be poured into them and that jobs will magically appear once the diploma is in hand. And for good reason, we’ve told them as much.

But college isn’t a vending machine. You can’t insert tuition and expect a job to roll out. Instead, it’s a platform, a laboratory and a proving ground. It requires students to extract value through effort, initiative and exploration, especially outside the classroom.

The credential matters, but it’s not the whole story. A degree can open doors, but it won’t define a career. It’s the skills students build, the relationships they form and the challenges they take on along the way to graduation that shape their future.

As more college leaders rightfully focus on the college-to-career transition, colleges must broadcast that while career services plays a helpful role, students themselves are the primary drivers of their future. But to be clear, colleges bear a grave responsibility here. It’s on us to reinforce the idea that learning occurs everywhere on campus, that the most powerful career preparation comes from doing, not just studying. It’s also on us to address college affordability, so that students have the time to participate in campus life, and to ensure that on-campus jobs are meaningful learning experiences.

Higher education can’t afford public confidence to dip again. The value of college isn’t missing. We’re just not looking in the right place.

Bridget Burns is the founding CEO of the University Innovation Alliance (UIA), a nationally recognized consortium of 19 public research universities driving student success innovation for nearly 600,000 students.

Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

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

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Source link

October 6, 2025
Mike Gavin Resigns to Lead DEI Defense Coalition

Mike Gavin, the founder of Education for All, a grassroots group of community college administrators fighting legislative attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion, will step down as president of Delta College in January. He has been in the post since 2021.

Gavin informed the Delta College Board of Trustees last week that he would resign to lead a national coalition focused on defending equity in higher ed.

“My whole career has been focused on equity and how higher ed is situated in the democratic experiment, so when I was asked to do the next thing, I felt compelled to do it,” Gavin told Inside Higher Ed.

“I was not looking for a job. Delta has been amazing. The faculty and staff are some of the most insightful and student-centered I’ve ever seen,” he said.

More information about the coalition, including its priorities and funding model, will be released soon, he added.

Since the early days of the second Trump administration, Gavin has been a leading voice in defending DEI work in higher ed, especially at community colleges. Participation in Education for All surged at the beginning of the year as college leaders sought advice on protecting programs and navigating compliance with Trump administration mandates.

“My scholarship rests on the great thinkers of our past, from Benjamin Franklin to James Baldwin. It is also grounded in the belief that our country depends on a higher education sector that must be free from partisan interference, in order to democratize higher education for all,” Gavin wrote in a letter to the Delta College community.

Delta College trustees said they will begin the process of appointing Gavin’s successor in the coming weeks.

Source link

October 3, 2025
How Higher Education Can Lead the AI Shift – Campus Review

Artificial intelligence is no longer a fringe experiment in education; it is reshaping how institutions design learning, support students, and organise academic work. Although pilot programs and experimentation environments are becoming more common, few institutions have successfully scaled AI to achieve real transformation.

The new white paper, From Pilots to Transformation: Scaling AI for Student Success in Higher Education, produced by Ellucian and Nous Group, offers research-based recommendations for moving from experimentation to institutional-scale impact.

Drawing on insights from sector leaders, global references, and lessons from neighbouring industries, the paper explores the need for deep cultural and strategic alignment in scaling AI initiatives.

It emphasises the importance of incorporating equity, ethics, and student trust into AI projects from the start, while also examining how AI is profoundly reshaping academic work, learning experiences, and governance.

Additionally, the paper provides practical steps that institutions can take to move beyond isolated pilot programs toward sustainable, sector-wide transformation.

Zac Ashkanasy, Principal at Nous Group, frames the challenge clearly: “The real transformation lies in how institutions prepare their people, redesign their roles, and embed AI responsibly into their operating models,” he says.

For institutions across Australia, the message is clear: students are adopting AI faster than staff. Institutions that lead with purpose today will shape the future of the sector, while those that hesitate risk falling behind.

Find out more and download the white paper to discover the strategies and actions that will help your institution scale AI responsibly and unlock the next era of student success.

Do you have an idea for a story?
Email [email protected]

Source link

September 30, 2025