Tag: Policy

  • 3 State Policy Ideas to Accelerate Success in Transfer

    3 State Policy Ideas to Accelerate Success in Transfer

    The Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board is thinking creatively about financial and reputational incentives to improve transfer and learning mobility. In this article, two of the PAB’s members—Sharon Morrissey and Ron Anderson—who are both seasoned, system-level leaders, share their reflections on what is needed next to accelerate success in transfer and learning mobility.

    In April 2025, the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board and Inside Higher Ed collaborated on a webcast entitled “Short-Term Reward, Long-Term Harm: How Current Transfer Practices Hurt Learners and Institutions.” This event drew nearly 400 live attendees across 46 states, including a mix of administrative, faculty and student service leaders from institutions of all kinds.

    During the webcast, participants were polled on the following question: “To what extent do you agree that new financial incentives or budgeting models could help institutions to prioritize improving transfer student outcomes?” The audience’s response was positive, with 85 percent agreeing at least somewhat. However, we see some divisions within the data, with 32 percent saying they “strongly agree” and 53 percent saying they “somewhat agree.”

    While that data might feel a bit hard to make sense of, it rings true to us. Between us we bring over seven decades of experience as faculty, institutional administrators and system office leaders across three states, Minnesota, North Carolina and Virginia. That experience has taught us that improving credit transfer and expanding learning mobility are some of the most complex challenges facing higher education.

    Why is this? For one, improving recognition of learning and credit transfer requires higher education institutions to contend with a wide range of prior learning experiences, including traditional college coursework, high school dual-enrollment courses, career and technical education, work-based learning, military service, industry certification, and more. This implies the participation of numerous learning providers, such as institutions of higher education, high schools, employers and the military. And it involves multiple decision-makers, such as students who choose transfer pathways, faculty who determine what learning to recognize and how to apply that learning to program requirements, enrollment managers who wish to recruit transfer students, registrars who process transcripts, deans and provosts who oversee academic standards, and presidents who are held accountable by policymakers for serving transfer students. In short, there is complexity at every step of the process.

    That complexity points to the fact that—as the mixed results of that poll show—if we are going to make true progress on transfer and learning mobility, we must find solutions that appeal to the priorities of multiple decision-makers. As we think about incentives, for example, the incentives that would influence the behavior of a faculty member are not the same as the incentives that would influence the behavior of an administrator. Those responsible for revenue may be more swayed by a policy that would augment an institution’s state appropriation for increased enrollment and graduation of transfer students, while those responsible for curriculum may be more inclined to accept and apply transfer credit to a degree program based on their assessment of how the prior learning aligns to the learning outcomes of their own local courses.

    Another key theme of the webcast—and, let’s be honest, nearly every discussion held these days about transfer—was that we must zero in on the credential applicability of prior learning. Past reform efforts have advanced incredible work such as understanding the student experience, increasing transfer student belonging, strengthening advising and creating infrastructure for efforts such as credit for prior learning. All that work is critical and must continue. But we must also double down on how to advance credential applicability of courses and other forms of prior learning. We are not helping transfer students meet their educational goals if we fail to apply their prior learning to program requirements.

    Finally, a third theme elevated in the webcast was about shifting culture and mindsets. Achieving increased credential applicability will require a shift away from the current culture that interrogates every aspect of a course or other prior learning experience to find a course-to-course equivalency. Does anyone really believe that a student cannot be successful in a subsequent course, or in the workforce, if they happen to read a different textbook? As the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions recently elevated, the practice of interrogating the minutiae of courses and other learning experiences should, instead, focus at a higher level, on questions such as:

    • Does the sum of a student’s learning provide an appropriate foundation to set them up for continued academic success?
    • Can a student be successful in subsequent learning experiences, with appropriate just-in-time support? How can the institution provide that support?
    • What data do we have that a student will not be successful in a subsequent course?

    Based on our experience working with institutions and systems, we share here three state policy ideas that attend to these themes by 1) appealing to the priorities of multiple decision-makers, in this case both faculty and administrators; 2) zeroing in on credential applicability of prior learning; and 3) nudging broader cultural and mindset shifts.

    The first idea is for policymakers to explicitly include credit transfer and applicability within the design of state funding models by pinning rewards to credential applicability of groups of many courses. Right now, some—but not all—states have funding formulas that focus attention on transfer students’ outcomes. Those that do often include metrics such as the rate of students who transfer and bachelor’s degree completion for those who enter as a transfer student.

    On their own, these goalposts are too broad and have not yet produced the level of change needed. How can states improve this approach? We think one approach might be for states to collaborate with institutions to build various program-aligned credit thresholds and then reward institutions for applying that credit to degree requirements, such as:

    • Awarding and applying 15 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of what many refer to as a meta-major, designed to introduce students to a broad program area (e.g., allied health).
    • Awarding and applying 30 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of roughly the first year of college, often represented by a general education transfer core that is customized to include program-aligned courses.
    • Awarding and applying 60 program-aligned credits: The equivalent of a typical associate degree—but again, this must be a program-aligned associate degree.

    The goal here is for receiving institutions to not pull these credit blocks apart and pick and choose which credits apply. If students have met a threshold and their preparation is program-aligned, they should be advanced toward program completion for all of those credits. The groups of courses students have completed add to more than the sum of their parts. Students are journeying through a learning experience, with a variety of learning outcomes, that when looked at holistically are offering strong preparation for not just subsequent courses, but life and work. The mindset shift here is: Students do not need to have met every single learning outcome addressed in the receiving institution courses to be successful. They need to be prepared enough to be successful in subsequent courses, learning experiences and the workforce.

    Second, we encourage state policymakers to couple this policy change with demonstration projects that engage faculty in pedagogy, curriculum design and research. As receiving institutions accept and apply these groups of courses, what just-in-time supports should receiving institutions offer to students to ensure their success after transfer? How are students performing on a number of measures: in subsequent courses, for graduation and in the workforce? Which curricular design assumptions no longer hold? Where might classroom approaches be strengthened and evolved to reflect shifting needs of learners?

    Finally, all the findings of this work should be elevated through state recognition awards (ideally coupled with some funding) that promote the visibility and reputation of colleges and universities that are embracing all high-quality learning and moving learners toward credential completion.

    Through the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, we’ll continue to push against the status quo to imagine new possibilities for institutions and learners. Connect with us on Instagram (@beyondtransfer) to stay informed on the board’s latest policy insights and ideas, and visit our website to access prior research reports related to transfer, institutional finance and financial aid, including:

    • Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board. (2023). Affordability Disconnects: Understanding Student Affordability in the Transfer and Credit Mobility Era. See paper with visuals and blog.
    • Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board. (2023). Unpacking Financial Disincentives: Why and How they Stymie Degree-Applicable Credit Mobility and Equitable Transfer Outcomes. See paper with visuals and blog.



    Source link

  • Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

    Federal Policy Changes Impact Student Veterans (opinion)

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

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

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

    Cuts to Veterans Upward Bound

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

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

    VA Staffing Cuts and GI Bill Processing Times

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

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

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

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

    Measuring Student Veteran Success

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

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

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

    Conclusion

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Must Take Action on Immigration Policy (opinion)

    Higher Ed Must Take Action on Immigration Policy (opinion)

    Under the current administration, we have witnessed a dangerous cascade of immigration policies and actions. These developments are impacting our students, employees, campuses and communities in real time, imperiling the future of our colleges and universities.

    It’s time for us in higher education to pull the fire alarm. Pulling the fire alarm does not mean panic. This is a call to respond, mobilize and act.

    Why Collective Action Is Urgent Now

    In recent months, the short- and long-term damage of the administration’s immigration actions has come into sharper focus, requiring significant action.

    • Prospective international student confidence in pursuing their studies in the U.S. has declined dramatically as a result of the administration’s actions. New international student enrollments are already down more than 10 percent this fall for many institutions—and considerably more for some—with analysts projecting more intense declines in future years.
    • The administration is actively taking away in-state tuition and financial aid access for undocumented students in a growing number of states and threatening specific institutions because of their support for undocumented students.
    • Reports of immigration enforcement on and around campuses are increasing, with more institutions grappling with how to respond to fear and anxiety in their communities and how to support students, family members and employees who are caught up in mass enforcement actions.
    • Humanitarian parolees and temporary protected status holders are losing their protections and work authorization, making them vulnerable targets for deportation.

    Campuses are already feeling the impact of these developments—but the economic consequences and implications for U.S. productivity and innovation are far broader. A new National Foundation for American Policy study estimates that the current administration’s immigration policies targeting undocumented, lawfully immigrant and international populations would reduce the number of workers in the U.S. by 6.8 million by 2028, and 15.7 million by 2035, lowering the annual rate of economic growth by nearly one-third.

    A recent paper on “brain freeze” projects that the U.S. will experience significant adverse economic and innovation impacts due to the declines in international students and researchers. The loss of any portion of the immigrant-origin and international students on our campuses, who together now make up close to 40 percent of all students in higher education, would be devastating for many institutions, local economies and states across the country.

    What Can We Do Together?

    Since January, colleges and universities have been responding to policies that adversely impact immigrant, international, refugee and other noncitizen campus members. At the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, we have collaborated with campuses to analyze emerging policies and develop effective responses, producing resources on immigration enforcement on campus, registration requirements for noncitizens and issues related to international students, as well as guidance on funding and tuition equity policies to support Dreamers and on ways to support students and other campus members who may be detained or deported.

    We now need to take it to the next level. Colleges, universities and the associations that represent them need to coordinate consistently to mobilize in response to the immigration-related threats impacting our campuses.

    Support Litigation

    Higher education groups, associations and institutions are engaging in litigation on many fronts. While it might seem overwhelming to challenge this administration’s dubious—and, as many legal experts and courts have concluded, unlawful—immigration policy actions, we need to connect the dots and explain the harm to judges who have the power to halt implementation and call out the administration for its constitutional violations.

    Public institutions in states with Democratic attorneys general can help to make the case to their AGs about the importance of joining these efforts. Some ways higher education institutions can support litigation include:

    • Serving as a named plaintiff. While associations representing colleges and universities, including the Presidents’ Alliance, the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities in Massachusetts, and the Association of American Universities, have shown that they are ready to stand as named plaintiffs in legal challenges related to immigration, we will need more associations and institutions ready to support such litigation. Litigation is one way to interrupt intersecting policy actions that amplify the myriad threats facing immigrant and international communities and establish a record of opposition to potentially unlawful action.
    • Submitting a declaration. Institutions can play a vital role when they submit declarations to support legal challenges. These fact-based documents describe the concrete harms an institution is experiencing and provide crucial evidence that strengthens the overall case.
    • Joining an amicus brief. When campuses join amicus briefs, they demonstrate coordination and solidarity within the higher education sector. For example, last spring, when the American Association of University Professors challenged the administration’s unlawful visa revocations alleging an ideological deportation policy, 86 institutions and organizations joined the Presidents’ Alliance on an amicus brief that highlighted the importance of protecting international and noncitizen students’ and scholars’ freedom of speech. And, this week, 37 institutions and organizations joined us in an amicus brief that demonstrated the importance of tuition-equity policies for Dreamers.

    Speak Out

    Institutions and associations need to work more closely together to support one another and to communicate the damage of harmful immigration policies. During this administration, public and private institutions are more measured and constrained—by boards, state policies and structures and campus politics—in what they say and do publicly. We know that fear of retribution and the potential collateral damage to other campus constituencies informs decision-making. Many institutional leaders with whom I speak are seeking to do what is strategically effective and are weighing multiple priorities and competing commitments.

    What we know now is that not speaking out does not preclude an institution from becoming a target, and many campus constituencies are already being harmed. So, the strategic calculus is changing, and there may be more to be gained in speaking out. Here are some effective ways to speak out:

    • Affirming one for all, all for one. University of Nevada, Reno, president Brian Sandoval, a former Republican governor of Nevada, swiftly responded to the Department of Justice’s attacks on UNR’s support for undocumented students, stating clearly that UNR’s services were lawful and that supporting all students’ success is core to the higher education mission. The Presidents’ Alliance and TheDream.US issued public statements of support, reaffirming the importance of higher education supporting Dreamers and the success of all students. When individual institutions speak out, they often affirm our common mission, and we, in turn, can reaffirm theirs.
    • Supporting associational statements. Associations are playing an important role in convening institutional leaders and leading on statements. We must continue to lean on each other and on associations. Statements organized by the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the American Council on Education on the proposed compact for higher education make our sector’s stances clear. Institutions and associations that can join such statements should continue to do so.
    • Educating and engaging. Institutional leaders and board members can spread accurate, positive messages about immigrant and international students, shifting the narrative through commentaries such as Arizona State University president Michael Crow’s op-ed on the importance of international students.

    Join in Coalition Building

    For collective action to work, we need to build out dedicated spaces for higher education institutions to come together and coordinate. This call to action does not mitigate the need and usefulness for the private conversations that institutional leaders have on their campuses, in their states, on the Hill and with the current administration. While a good number of us may need to stay in more quiet spaces, now is also the time when each of us needs to consider what more we can do together.

    • Join us in coalition-building. Building and hosting immigration-specific coordinating groups and strategy sessions has been a focus for us at the Presidents’ Alliance. It has proven productive for developing relationships with other sectors and building buy-in across regional contexts. We invite you to join us in our work to build common ground across the political spectrum and to advocate for forward-looking, common sense immigration reform.
    • Strengthen your coordination. Institutions must prepare to navigate evolving policies. Strengthening coordination will help campuses understand new developments quickly while avoiding pre-emptive or overcompliance. It will help institutions know what they can do when they need to move swiftly to respond to immigration enforcement or policy actions that may have immediate consequences.

    When we sound the alarm, we call others to take action alongside us. The time for urgent response is here. Together, higher education can take coordinated steps to defend our institutions and community members.

    Miriam Feldblum is the co-founder, president and CEO of the nonpartisan, nonprofit Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration.

    Source link

  • Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74

    Want to Protect American Children? End the Shutdown – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Politicians love to say, “We must protect our children. They are our future.” But looking at what’s happening in Congress right now, children are not being protected. Families are not being prioritized. Instead, lawmakers are locked in a standoff, waiting to see who blinks first as they fight over who gets the last word and how big of a tax break they can give the wealthiest Americans.

    Meanwhile, families — especially families of color and low-income families — are left to hold their breath and wonder what this shutdown means for them. As members of Congress keep making their rounds on television, babies still need formula, toddlers still need health screenings, children still need breakfast and lunch at school and in their child care programs, and parents still need child care so they can work. Amid extreme stress, families are left, wondering how they will be able to take care of their children.

    The demands of children and their families do not stop just because Congress is at a standstill. 

    According to Kids’ Share 2024, an annual report published by the Urban Institute about federal expenditures, children received only about 9% of all federal spending in 2023, while about 43% of federal spending went toward health and retirement benefits for adults 18 years and older. That’s a very small percentage for a nation in which politicians on both sides of the aisle have expressed interest in increased government investment in children. These numbers contradict the narrative that claims children matter because they are our future.

    That 9% starts to feel even smaller during a government shutdown. Some programs, like Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, are mandatory, meaning they don’t require annual congressional approval. But others, including a number of crucial children’s programs, such as the Special Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), are funded through the annual appropriations process, which Congress must approve. This means when lawmakers can’t agree on a budget, these critical programs are left in limbo.

    The fallout on the horizon from this needless dysfunction is becoming clearer.

    In September, the National WIC Association reminded the public that WIC only had enough funds to temporarily remain open during a government shutdown. Now, according to Reuters, at least two dozen state websites warn there could be an unprecedented benefit gap for more than 41 million people in America who get aid from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and the nearly 7 million people who rely on WIC. 

    Georgia Machell, president and chief executive officer of the National WIC Association, delivered this sobering news last week.

    “Without additional support, State WIC Agencies face another looming crisis,” she said. “Several are set to run out of funds to pay for WIC benefits on November 1 and may need to start making contingency plans.”

    Many families in historically marginalized communities, who already face greater barriers to health care, housing and early education, will feel this impact even more sharply. For example, we know that tens of thousands of young children and families rely on vital support received through Head Start, a service that promotes early learning and development, health and well-being. The shutdown is already in its fourth week, and, according to a statement issued on Oct. 16 from the National Head Start Association, if the government shutdown doesn’t end by Nov. 1, more than 65,000 children and families will be at risk of losing critical services. 

    A missed doctor’s appointment, a delay in SNAP benefits or a gap in child care isn’t just inconvenient. It can destabilize a family and hinder a child’s development, especially in the classroom.

    A research brief published by The Food Research & Action Center highlighted the links between hunger and learning, stating that “behavioral, emotional, mental health, and academic problems are more prevalent among children and adolescents struggling with hunger” and that young people experiencing hunger have lower math scores and poorer grades. The shutdown will have real and lasting consequences on the learning, development and well-being of America’s children because these programs are being impacted.

    It’s frustrating to watch lawmakers stand at podiums and declare how much they care about children while their actions — or inaction — puts children at risk. 

    Words don’t put food on the table. Words don’t pay rent. But actions do. 

    And right now, the actions coming out of Congress are sending an unfortunate message to families: protecting children is not the priority.

    If children truly are our future, then they cannot be treated as bargaining chips. Children deserve more than 9% of America’s federal spending budget. We need federal budgets that reflect children’s needs and protection for essential services. Critical programs that protect child health and well-being should never be disrupted by a government shutdown.

    Finally, Americans deserve government accountability. Policymakers should be held responsible for their words and actions, especially when they fail to deliver on the promises they make about protecting children.

    Children cannot wait. They are growing, learning and developing right now. The choices we make as a country today will shape their tomorrow.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Teach For America Partners with Aspen Institute to Add Policy Training for Rural Educators

    Teach For America Partners with Aspen Institute to Add Policy Training for Rural Educators

    A Teach for America teacher works with a student. Teach for AmericaTeach For America has partnered with the Aspen Institute’s Policy Academy to expand leadership training for rural educators.

    The collaboration adds a four-part policy impact series to TFA’s Rural School Leadership Academy, a yearlong fellowship now in its 13th year. The new curriculum aims to help rural educators influence education policy at the state and national levels while addressing challenges in their local schools.

    Seventy fellows will participate in the policy training this year, learning to connect classroom issues to district and state-level decision-making. Past participants requested more tools to influence the systems affecting rural students, according to TFA.

    “RSLA was created to walk alongside those leaders—helping them grow, connect, and see what’s possible,” said Casey DeFord, managing director of alumni career advancement and field integration at Teach For America. “Our partnership with the Aspen Institute will deepen RSLA’s impact by equipping fellows with the policy skills needed to drive lasting change.”

    The Rural School Leadership Academy selects a cohort of educators annually to receive career development through virtual learning, in-person gatherings, school visits and personalized coaching. The program serves educators at various career stages, from aspiring leaders to experienced principals.

    Betsy Cooper, director of the Aspen Policy Academy, said rural educators bring valuable expertise to policymaking.

    “This partnership will enable educators to address unique challenges in their schools through policy entrepreneurship,” Cooper said.

    Participants who complete the program will receive a co-branded certificate from both organizations.

    Source link

  • Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    In today’s fiercely competitive higher education landscape, enrollment leaders are being asked to do more with less. That means more inquiries, more conversions, and more starts, all while working with fewer resources and a shrinking pool of students actively seeking traditional degree paths.

    What separates the institutions that are growing from those that are treading water? In my experience, it’s the willingness to question the status quo. The leaders seeing results are the ones taking a hard look at internal processes and policies and making bold decisions to remove what’s in the way of progress.

    The urgency to remove enrollment barriers

    Many institutions face enrollment plateaus not because they lack student interest, but because of self-imposed friction. Burdensome application requirements, slow review cycles, and legacy processes that haven’t evolved with changing student expectations can all stand in the way of progress.

    Students today expect seamless, responsive experiences. They compare your enrollment process not only to peer institutions but also to the intuitive digital experiences they encounter every day. If your application process is full of red tape or requires too many steps, students will disengage and likely move on to a more accessible option.

    Colleges and universities that want to stay competitive need to start clearing the path. By taking the time to understand how your enrollment process actually operates and identifying where students tend to get stuck, you can make meaningful changes that increase both efficiency and enrollment success.

    Start with a map: Uncovering friction through process review

    The first step to solving an enrollment slowdown is understanding where it’s happening. That’s where process mapping comes in.

    At Collegis, we partner with institutions to conduct comprehensive process assessments. We document and analyze every step of the applicant journey, from inquiry through registration, to uncover inconsistencies, delays, and points of friction that may be limiting your enrollment funnel. We often find that a student’s experience varies widely depending on who they interact with or when they enter the process, revealing a need for greater consistency and coordination.

    In many cases, we find students getting stuck at multiple points across the enrollment journey, starting with the application itself. Lengthy or confusing questions, lack of helpful guidance, and irrelevant fields can all create unnecessary complexity early on. Students may also encounter inconsistent or impersonal communication, making it unclear what to expect next or where they stand in the process.

    Further down the funnel, delays often occur during application review, sometimes taking a week or more due to internal handoffs or manual processes. In some cases, applications sit idle because there’s no system in place to move files forward or flag them for outreach. These gaps add up, slowing momentum and causing potential students to disengage.

    When you can see the entire process visualized, it becomes easier to ask the right questions:

    • Is the application process intuitive and easy to navigate, or are we introducing unnecessary complexity?
    • Are there clear next steps and calls to action for students at each stage?
    • Do students receive consistent, timely communication that reflects where they are in the journey?
    • Is the messaging and cadence of our marketing and operational emails aligned with what students hear from admissions counselors?
    • Are there opportunities to streamline handoffs, automate manual steps, or standardize the process to ensure every student receives a cohesive experience?

    Process mapping isn’t just a troubleshooting exercise. It’s a strategic investment in institutional agility and student-centered design. Institutions that complete this type of review often uncover both quick wins and opportunities for deeper transformation.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Rethink the rules: Policies that reduce friction and drive results

    Some of the most impactful improvements we’ve seen don’t require major investments or cutting-edge technologies. More often, they come from rethinking the policies that shape your admissions process and how those policies either support or hinder the student experience.

    When we conduct policy reviews with our partner institutions, we often find that some admissions requirements add more complexity than value. It’s crucial to determine whether each requirement is truly essential to making an informed admissions decision. By removing or refining requirements that no longer serve a clear purpose (such as excessive documentation or overly rigid review criteria) institutions can streamline internal workflows and reduce avoidable delays. These targeted adjustments not only improve operational efficiency but also create a more accessible and student-centered experience.

    Impact in action: Practical examples of enrollment transformation

    These are not just hypothetical improvements. We’ve worked directly with institutions to implement these strategies and have seen the tangible impact they can deliver. Here are a few real-world examples that show how practical adjustments have translated into measurable results:

    • Waiving letters of recommendation for applicants who meet a defined GPA threshold. This eliminates a common bottleneck while maintaining admissions rigor.
    • Simplifying transcript requirements by only requesting documentation that includes a conferred degree and any prerequisite coursework required for program entry. Additional transcripts are collected later if necessary, which speeds up the initial review process.
    • Automating workflows that trigger application reviews as soon as all checklist items are complete. This ensures students move through the process without unnecessary delays.
    • Setting up notifications to ensure timely engagement. For example, alerts can be set when a new inquiry or applicant hasn’t received contact from an admissions counselor within 24 hours, or when application reviews are taking longer than expected.

    These types of changes create a more efficient, student-centered process that helps institutions convert interest into enrollment more effectively.

    Don’t just tweak the process, transform it

    If your institution is still relying on outdated processes and rigid policies, now is the time to reevaluate. The enrollment environment is only becoming more competitive. But with the right changes, your institution can become more efficient, more agile, and more appealing to today’s students.

    This isn’t about cutting corners or lowering standards. It’s about rethinking how your process serves students. Process mapping helps uncover ways to simplify steps, ensure consistency, and build trust through clear communication and meaningful staff connections. The result is an experience that’s more efficient, more personal, and better aligned with your institution’s goals.

    Let’s break the bottleneck together

    A process mapping assessment is a powerful starting point. At Collegis, we go beyond identifying issues. We work side by side with our partners to solve them. Our approach is collaborative, our recommendations are practical, and our focus is always on impact.

    If your institution is ready to accelerate enrollment growth, strengthen internal operations, and deliver a more consistent and personalized experience for your students, let’s talk.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Jim Callinan leads enrollment strategy and operational excellence at Collegis Education, where he partners with higher education institutions to design and deploy data-informed admissions and student-journey models. With nearly 20 years of higher education experience, Jim brings deep expertise in aligning cross-functional teams across technology, marketing, analytics, enrollment, and student success to drive growth, streamline operations, and elevate the student and staff experience. His collaborative approach helps institutions align strategy, process, and performance to achieve sustainable success.

    Source link

  • Policy uncertainty emerges as top barrier to student mobility 

    Policy uncertainty emerges as top barrier to student mobility 

    While affordability remains the greatest obstacle for students, IDP Education’s new Emerging Futures survey has revealed the growing impact of sudden and unclear policy changes shaping students’ international study decisions.  

    “Students and families are prepared to make sacrifices to afford their international education dreams. They can adjust budgets, seek scholarships and rely on part-time work. But they cannot plan for uncertainty,” said IDP chief partnerships officer Simon Emmett.  

    “When the rules change, without warning or clarity, trust falls away. Students hesitate, delay, or choose to study elsewhere.” 

    Drawing on the views of nearly 8,000 international students from 134 countries between July and August 2025, the results highlighted the critical importance of study destinations communicating policy changes to sustain trust among students.  

    The US and UK were rated the lowest for providing clear guidance on visas and arrivals processes, while New Zealand was identified as the top communicator in this respect.  

    What’s more, the UK saw the steepest rise in students withdrawing from plans to study there, indicating recent policy changes including plans to shorten the Graduate Route and increase compliance metrics for universities are creating uncertainty among international students. 

    Of the students who said they were pivoting away from major study destinations, over half (51%) indicated tuition fees had become unaffordable and one in five said it was too difficult to obtain a visa.  

    In markets such as Malaysia, the Philippines and the UAE, students reported delaying or redirecting applications almost immediately after unclear announcements by major destinations, the report said. 

    Meanwhile Canada’s share of withdrawals was shown to have eased, indicating messaging is helping to rebuild stability, the authors suggested, though Canadian study permit issuance has fallen dramatically in 2025.

    Without that stability, even the most attractive destinations risk losing trust

    Simon Emmett, IDP

    Despite policy disruptions in Australia over recent years, the country remained the most popular first-choice destination globally, ranked highly for value for money, graduate employment opportunities and post-study work pathways.  

    At the same time, many respondents flagged sensitivities to recent visa and enrolment changes, highlighting the need for consistent and transparent messaging to maintain Australia’s competitiveness, according to IDP.  

    The US saw the largest decline in popularity, dropping to third place behind Australia and the UK. 

    NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw said the findings should serve as a “wake-up call” that policy uncertainty has real human and economic costs, emphasising the need for “clear and consistent” communication from institutions and policymakers.  

    “Students are paying close attention to how the US administration handles student visas and post-study experiential learning opportunities like Optional Practical Training,” said Aw. 

    Visa restrictions and policy hostility have rocked the US under Trump’s second presidency, with global visa appointments suspended for nearly a month this summer, as well as thousands of student visa revocations and travel restrictions on 12 nations.  

    Post-study work opportunities are increasingly fragile in the US with government plans to overhaul the H-1B skilled worker visa to favour better paid jobs and OPT coming under increased scrutiny from policymakers. 

    Emmett highlighted the knock-on effect of these policy shocks, with student journeys being disrupted “not by ambition, but by uncertainty”. 

    “Countries that provide predictability will win the confidence of students and their families. Without that stability, even the most attractive destinations risk losing trust,” he said. 

    Despite financial and political challenges, demand for global study remained strong, with half of all prospective students intending to apply within six months, and a further 29% within a year. 

    South Asia emerged as the main driver of intent, with more than 60% of students surveyed from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh preparing near-term applications, though this region was also the most sensitive to abrupt or confusing policy shifts.  

    Source link

  • Higher education policy: the lie of the land in England and Wales on the cusp of England’s post-16 white paper

    Higher education policy: the lie of the land in England and Wales on the cusp of England’s post-16 white paper

    • This speech was delivered by HEPI Director Nick Hillman at the University of Cardiff on Thursday, 16 October 2025.

    Introduction

    The other day, I was speaking to the University of Liverpool Council at the Ness Botanic Gardens on the Wirral, which as you know is four hours due north of here, pretty much on the Welsh / English border. I started my speech there by noting that I only exist because of the University of Liverpool, as my maternal grandparents met there in the early 1930s. Well, I also only exist because of the Welsh university system, as my parents met while they were students here in Wales in the early 1960s, just as my own children only exist because I met my wife in the early 1990s at university. 

    The fact that three generations of my family originally met while at university is a powerful reminder, at least to me, that higher education change lives. And at HEPI, we had another powerful reminder of that during our first event of this academic year, when – last month – we hosted the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance publication.

    Education at a Glance

    In case you have not come across it before, this is the most useful but worst titled publication on education that appears anywhere in the world each year. It is a vast 541-page compendium of comparative data that you need to pore over rather than glance at.

    This year’s OECD report had a particular focus on tertiary education. While we have become used to people beating up on the UK higher education sector, the OECD actually painted a picture of a very successful sector playing to its strengths. When you look in from the outside, it seems the UK’s higher education institutions are not so bad after all.

    For example, the OECD showed that, among the many developed countries covered in their report, the UK has:

    • higher than average participation in higher education;
    • lower than average graduate unemployment, irrespective of whether the individuals studied STEM, business or humanities; and
    • among the very highest undergraduate completion rates anywhere in the world, vying with Ireland for the top spot.

    I recognise the OECD is looking at averages for the UK as a whole and the position of Wales is not necessarily the same but, in general, the weaknesses the OECD found in were on the lack of good opportunities for people who do not succeed in education first time around.

    Specifically, the OECD found a profound problem among young men, a rising proportion of whom are classified as NEETs (Not in Employment, Education or Training). While the OECD use historic data for a year or two past, last week’s brand new NEET data for Wales confirms the depressing picture. Indeed, it was even more salutary, noting:

    The proportion of young people aged 16 to 24 in Wales who were not in employment, education or training (NEET) was 15.1% in the year ending June 2025, an increase of 3.6 percentage points over the year.

    The OECD additionally found that the UK has the biggest gap of all developed countries when it comes to the difference in earnings between low-skilled adults and those who leave school with A-Levels (or equivalent). This should perhaps worry Wales even more than the rest of the UK, given that Wales scores the worst for schoolchildren’s academic performance for any part of the UK. Indeed, Wales is the only part of the UK to perform worse than the OECD average in all three areas of Mathematics, Reading and Science.

    When it comes to funding of higher education, the OECD found the UK spends more than most other countries … but the shift to loan-based finance means direct government spending on each student in higher education is only half the OECD average and only half the amount spent ‘at primary to post-secondary non-tertiary levels’ ($13,000). Of course, the UK’s figures are distorted by England’s numbers because England is much larger than the other parts of the UK and has moved towards loans to a greater degree than Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. That is one reason why we have worked with London Economics and the Nuffield Foundation to look at the picture in each part of the UK separately.

    There are three profound differences. First, the Exchequer cost is lowest in England, which also has the highest per-student income for institutions. Scotland is at the other end of the scale, with the largest Exchequer cost but the lowest unit-of-resource for institutions. Wales is, as you may expect, somewhere in the middle, with an Exchequer cost and a per-student income for institutions that lies between those in England and Scotland. 

    There is a similar picture when we look – secondly – at the balance of who is paying the costs of higher education. In England, it is mainly former students via the loan system; in Scotland, it is entirely taxpayers (and then some). In Wales there is a more even split approaching 50:50 between the Exchequer and graduates, arguably reflecting the public and private benefits of higher education more accurately. There are probably lessons from Wales for the rest of the UK here, though seemingly not for Kemi Badenoch, who complained at the Conservative Party Conference last week that higher education in England still costs taxpayers too much.

    The third big difference is on student maintenance, where the system in Wales is more generous and more logical than those elsewhere in the UK. Each student gets more and the non-repayable grants are more generous in Wales than elsewhere – all undergraduates have at least a small grant whereas no one currently gets a grant in England, where grants were abolished in 2016. (Ministers promised the return of grants in England at the Labour Conference a fortnight ago, but only for some students on some courses, meaning it is likely to prove a mouse of an intervention and a very complicated one at that. It is certainly set to be nothing like the Welsh system.)

    Many people I know are fans of the system in Wales for the way that it tries to strike a balance. However, while there are certainly far worse systems even within the rest of the UK, I personally think the benefits of the Welsh system are sometimes oversold. For example, I think the structure of student support in Wales is excessively generous to students who come from wealthy households. In other words, it is not means tested enough, perhaps explaining the need for the recent cuts to postgraduate support.

    I have held this view consistently since the current Welsh funding system was introduced on the back of the Diamond review in 2018, but it has got me in trouble. After my concerns reached the front page of the Western Mail, I got not only an official rebuke from the Welsh Government but HEPI also received a formal complaint that came jointly from Universities Wales and NUS Wales. Rather than persuading me to change my view, I must admit this mainly had the effect of making me wonder if higher education debates in Wales are sometimes a little too cosy and stifled.

    Boys, Boys, Boys

    One other area where the OECD painted a less positive picture is on the differential educational performance of young men and young women. Women are more likely to obtain tertiary education across the developed world but the gap between men and women is bigger in the UK than elsewhere and has been growing while it has stayed the same on average across the OECD as a whole. According to the OECD:

    In the United Kingdom, they [women] accounted for 56% of first-time entrants in 2023, up from 55% in 2013. Across the OECD, women make up 54% of new entrants on average, the same share as in 2013.

    This is a convenient segue into some more of HEPI’s recent output because we have long worried about the educational performance of boys and young men and have published a number of papers on the topic over the years, with the most recent one appearing in March 2025. As Mary Curnock Cook wrote in the Foreword:

    Something has surely gone wrong with education if boys – in aggregate at least – do worse than girls at all stages of education from early years to higher education and beyond.

    Overall, out of every 100 female school leavers, 54 proceed to higher education by the age of 19; out of every 100 male school leavers, just 40 do so.

    Again, the problems are worse in Wales than elsewhere. Over half of Inner London school leavers eligible for Free School Meals reach higher education by the age of 19; it is hard to get directly comparable figures for Wales but it seems the numbers are less than half as much for FSM Welsh-domiciled school leavers. Overall, while the gap in school leavers’ entry rates to higher education between men and women is dire in England, it is even worse in Wales. In fact, the proportion of young men who make it to higher education in Wales is lower than in every other part of the UK. It has been a known problem for at least 20 years yet for whatever reason, and perhaps because of misplaced fears of seeming politically incorrect, it has not been addressed.

    Yet if male educational underachievement is not tackled, it seems certain that we will store up further societal problems for the future – including having more under-educated men veering towards the political extremes. Here, I note in passing the high polling of Reform for next year’s Senedd election. It is not rocket science to solve the boy problem, however, to take just one example, some schools following a ‘boy positive’ approach have managed to equalise their results for boys and girls and there is some great work underway in our own sector – for example, at Ulster University and the Arts University Bournemouth.

    What remains completely absent, however, is any concerted interest at a national and ministerial level – certainly at Westminster and as far as I can tell in the Senedd too. People who did not want to take the Black Lives Matter protests seriously a few years ago sought to deflect attention from them by saying ‘All Lives Matter’, as if that was ever in doubt. Similarly, when Ministers wish to deflect attention from the crisis in boys’ education they like to respond by saying things like ‘Opportunity should be available to all’, which is true but it papers over the specific challenges faced by young men.

    Our work on male underachievement sits alongside our work on the disadvantages faced by women, such as our reports on the substantial gender pay gap that remains in higher education as well as our other work on the overall gender pay gap among graduates. It also sits alongside a new HEPI report published just three months ago on the impact of menstruation on undergraduates’ attendance, academic engagement and wellbeing.

    This revealed 70% of female students report being unable to concentrate on their studies or assessments due to period pain and that female students miss an average of 10 study days per academic year due to menstrual symptoms. It also suggested that just 15% of universities have a specific menstruation policy and, for those that do, the policy relates solely to staff rather than students.

    So as I hope you can sense, the topics that tend to work best for HEPI are issues – like boys’ underperformance and the impact of menstruation on learning – that we should be speaking about more than we have done. Another area where that is true is public perceptions of higher education.

    Misperceptions

    A year ago, I had a drink with a neighbour who has a background in banking and two graduate children, meaning – in theory at least – that he knows the value of money and the value of education. However, when it came to universities, he expressed some typical rhetoric about them being too numerous, too big, too expensive and so on.

    I responded by telling him I was on the Board at the University of Manchester and asking him to guess that institution’s financial turnover. His reply was £30 million – which is between 40 and 50 times smaller than the actual number of c.£1.3 billion (and over 20 times smaller than Cardiff’s turnover). Once my hangover had subsided, I contacted Bobby Duffy of the King’s College Policy Institute, who is the UK’s greatest expert on misperceptions – that is, the difference between what is true and what we tend to believe is true. This led over a process of many months to a new research project on what the public think about higher education, which we and King’s College launched the results of last month.

    The findings are worth poring over in detail and we have brought hard copies of the work along for each you. Sone of the results particularly stand out.

    For example, we gave people a list of seven institutions: Manchester City, Manchester United, the University of Manchester, the University of Oxford, the Daily Mail, MoneySupermarket.com and Greggs bakery.

    When the public were asked about the relative financial size of these seven, the University of Oxford came fifth and the University of Manchester seventh, at the very bottom. More than half of respondents said they thought either Manchester City or Manchester United was the biggest in terms of their financial size; only 6% chose the right answer, the University of Oxford. The University of Manchester should be third in that list of seven by the way because, while it easily beats City and United in terms of its financial size, you might be surprised to know that Greggs has a turnover of £2 billion.

    Similarly, when we gave the public a list of five big industries – legal services, accountancy services, aircraft manufacturing, telecommunications and higher education – and asked them to say which is least important in terms of export revenues, higher education was the most popular option. That result could not be any more wrong because higher education actually brings in much more export income than each of the others.

    Let me share three other fascinating data points from the survey with you too:

    • people greatly overestimate the level of graduate regret about going to higher education – on average, the public guess 40% of graduates would opt not to go to university if they had their again, when the actual proportion of graduates who say this is only 8%;
    • on average, the public guess half (49%) of graduates say their university debt has negatively impacted their lives – in reality  only 16% of graduates feel this way; and
    • a majority of people, including a majority of Reform voters at the 2024 general election, have positive feelings about universities.

    Oversight and regulation

    Over the past decade, the oversight of tertiary education and research has been transformed in England, though not necessarily for the better. When I worked as a Special Adviser in Whitehall a dozen years ago, there was one Minister for Universities and Science who sat in one Government Department and who had oversight of one regulator that oversaw both teaching and research (known as the Higher Education Funding Council for England). But in recent years we have had different regulators, different Ministers and different Departments for the teaching and research functions of universities, meaning coordinated oversight has been missing.

    Moreover, while the Westminster Government has promised more ‘clarity and coherence’, the latest Machinery of Government changes have made the current situation even more of a dog’s dinner. The Minister for Skills, who has responsibility for higher education, now has one foot in the Department for Education and another in the Department for Work and Pensions, which has just taken on the responsibility for ‘skills’, while the Minister for Science has one foot in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and another in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero. Split ministerial posts tend to be a recipe for chaos, as I saw close up during my own time in Whitehall.

    So while I know that the new Medr (the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research) here in Wales has had some teething challenges, on paper it makes a lot more sense than what England has. At one point, it was thought England’s long-awaited post-16 skills white paper was likely to be heavily influenced by Wales; given the latest reshuffle and associated changes, that now – perhaps regrettably – seems less likely.

    International students

    Finally, I want to end by touching on the issue of international students. The majority of the really big projects HEPI has undertaken over the past few years have focused on international students. Perhaps that is not surprising, given the OECD data I started with, which shows that, while there is one international student for every thirteen home students across the OECD as a whole, the ratio in the UK is completely different at 1:3.

    That helps to explain why we have calculated (more than once) the net economic benefits of international students to the UK. The latest iteration found a gross benefit of £41.9 billion for just one incoming cohort of students and a net benefit (after taking account of the impact on public services and so on) of £37.4 billion. We split up this total to reveal a number for each one of the 650 parliamentary constituencies across the UK, including Cardiff South and Penarth, which is the top-performing constituency in Wales and one where international students contribute significantly over £300 million a year.

    We have separately calculated the positive tax contributions of those former international students who stay in the UK to work after completing their studies, undertaken detailed studies on the Graduate Route visa and looked specifically at the experience of Chinese students in the UK. In addition, we produce each year a Soft-Power Index that looks at how many very senior world leaders have been educated to a higher level outside of their own home country. If they return home with fond memories of their time in the UK and a better understanding of our country, then this tends to bring real benefits. We will be launching the results for 2025 next week but last year’s Soft-Power Index, which is regularly quoted by Ministers, showed that, across the globe’s 195 countries, there were 58 serving world leaders who received some higher education in the UK, second only to the US.

    I am going to stop here because I started the speech on a positive – on the way higher education changes lives for the better. And despite all the numerous political, financial and geopolitical challenges facing higher education across the UK, the continuing immense soft-power benefits delivered by UK higher education institutions is another area where there is a huge amount of which we can be proud.

    Source link

  • Pentagon’s press badge policy unites journalists by offending the Constitution

    Pentagon’s press badge policy unites journalists by offending the Constitution

    Journalists from FOX News, ABC, and over a dozen other news organizations are refusing to sign the Pentagon’s new policy for press credentials, saying in a joint statement that it “threatens core journalistic protections.” They’re right about that. At least a couple of the policy’s provisions burden fundamental newsgathering with vague restrictions that invite government overreach. 

    There’s no way to know when you’re ‘soliciting government employees to break the law’

    The most troubling provision of the policy is found in the “Security Risks” section and states, in part: 

    There is a critical distinction between lawfully requesting information from the government and actively soliciting or encouraging government employees to break the law. The First Amendment does not permit journalists to solicit government employees to violate the law by providing confidential government information. 

    This runs into a functional problem and a legal problem. Let’s deal with the functional problem first. 

    In most cases, journalists don’t know what answer they’re going to get to a question before they ask. For example, if a journalist asks a question about whether the department is investigating a report on social media of overseas terrorism targeting American assets, the potential responses range from the totally unclassified (e.g., no) to the highly sensitive (e.g., troop locations and plans).  

    While a journalist might reasonably infer that the United States is engaging in some activity that falls into the sensitive or classified categories, they don’t have any power to determine what answer they actually receive. The policy’s interpretation of solicitation or encouragement seems to invest a lot of discretion into the Department of War to decide whether the question was soliciting sensitive information. And it also sets up reporters to be scapegoats for when federal employees release too much information. The fault there starts — and ends — with those employees, not journalists simply doing their job. 

    The legal problem with this provision is that it’s not based in any actual law. As stated, it undermines well-established law. The First Amendment has limited enumerated exceptions, such as speech that is defamatory, speech that would inspire imminent lawless action, and obscenity. “Asking a question where the answer might be classified” isn’t on the list, and reporting on national security matters is protected speech.

     As we recently wrote in our Villarreal v. Alaniz petition to the U.S. Supreme Court: 

    The fundamental “right of citizens to inquire” includes asking the government questions. If the First Amendment guarantees the right “verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest,” then it guarantees the right to peaceably ask an officer questions without risking arrest. [City of Houston v.] Hill, 482 U.S. at 462–63. Likewise, if the government cannot hold Americans in contempt for “speak[ing] one’s mind, although not always with perfect good taste, on all public institutions,” it cannot jail them for posing questions to public institutions. Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252, 270 (1941).

    There’s an attempted savings clause in the policy that says the rules “do not prohibit you … from engaging in constitutionally protected journalistic activities, such as investigating, reporting, or publishing stories.” That offers little comfort when it also opines that some questions aren’t constitutionally protected. 

    The remedy here is not to go after reporters, who we expect to ask tough and probing questions of government officials. Rather, it’s for Pentagon staff to practice message discipline by following law and policy when asked sensitive questions. This is not an unreasonable ask; after all, the government has spent decades finding new and creative ways not to answer such questions, like the Glomar response. It doesn’t need to threaten journalists with punishment if, by misadventure, they accidentally get one answered.

    ‘Unprofessional conduct’ could lead to loss of credentials

    Appendix A lists reasons why credentials might be pulled from “any person reasonably determined to pose a security or safety risk to DoW personnel or property.” That includes “those who have been convicted of any offense involving . . .unprofessional conduct that might serve to disrupt Pentagon operations.” But a later sentence clarifies that “actions other than conviction may be deemed to pose a security or safety risk” and might also lead to loss of credentials. 

    One can imagine situations where this might be appropriate, but if I’m parsing that correctly, a journalist merely seen as unprofessional — even without being “convicted of any offense” — could be regarded as a security risk and have their credentials revoked. That by itself sounds like a problem. It sounds like even more of a problem after President Trump was asked whether he would consider removing the restrictions and replied that he thinks Secretary of War Pete Hegseth “finds the press to be very disruptive in terms of world peace and maybe security for our nation,” adding, “The press is very dishonest.”  

    Most journalists would agree that dishonesty is unprofessional. If the commander in chief already thinks you’re dishonest, then what journalist’s credential is likely to survive this provision? 

    In one instance, the policy singles out journalists for diminished rights

    One thread that runs through the entire credentialing policy is that the government doesn’t want anyone taking pictures of the Pentagon or its environs (the “Pentagon reservation”). In most cases, people need permission and a handler before engaging in recording. When it comes to sensitive areas, this is understandable. But the policy has a particularly odd restriction at the 9/11 Memorial on Pentagon grounds: 

    News media visiting the National Pentagon 9/11 Memorial in their personal capacity, not as a member of the press, may take photos using their personal devices. Filming or photography in the Memorial for a news media interview or to obtain b-roll requires an exception, as described below under Filming/Photography Exception Requests.

    If this were a restraint directed at order, traffic, the use of large cameras or amplification devices, that might make sense. If it were a general time, place, and manner restraint, that might make some sense. But this is a restriction on photography based on the intent to engage in the freedom of the press guaranteed by the Constitution. In other words, you can have the picture, as long as you don’t intend to show anyone. It’s hard to imagine a worse reason to restrict photography. 

    How would this even work in practice? Every day, we see reporters crowdsource photos from events on social media. So reporters are barred from taking a picture, but can get permission from the non-journalist next to them who published the photo on X? I understand the need for extraordinary security around the Pentagon, but singling journalists out for less favorable treatment than the general public is inherently suspect. 

    With these issues, it shouldn’t be surprising that nearly every media outlet has refused to sign the acknowledgement, including CNN, NPR, CBS, FOX, The Washington Times, and The New York Times. Only One America News, a pro-Trump news outlet, has agreed so far. 

    In recent months, the Pentagon had made revisions to improve this policy based on feedback. It’s unclear how much the outlets and the Pentagon will cooperate going forward. 

     (H/t to the Reporter’s Committee for Freedom of the Press, both for writing to the Department of War about the policy and actually sharing the policy with the world, which, in the most recent version, was rare indeed.)

    Source link

  • A TNE policy primer for anyone seeking new funding streams

    A TNE policy primer for anyone seeking new funding streams

    Keir Starmer’s trade mission to India this week sees the Prime Minister accompanied by 14 vice chancellors and other university representatives.

    They have joined the delegation, according to Number 10,

    in recognition of the explosion in demand for higher education in India – with 70 million places needed by 2035, which has created a huge opportunity for UK universities seeking new funding streams.

    The last couple of years have seen a loosening of restrictions on overseas campuses in India and a corresponding piling in from universities in the UK, US, Australia and elsewhere, in particular within the new Edu City development in Navi Mumbai. On the UK side, Southampton, Surrey, York, Aberdeen, Bristol and Liverpool have either opened a new campus or received the go-ahead from India’s University Grants Commission to move forward with plans for one, whether in the new education hub area or elsewhere.

    The government seems keen to trumpet UK higher education’s growing overseas presence as an economic win for the country and the institutions involved. It has also shrewdly observed that some UK universities are indeed “seeking new funding streams.” The future looks bright for TNE then – right?

    Overdue refreshments

    There’s a school of thought which says the government’s long-delayed international education strategy refresh will lean into transnational education, although exactly what this would entail is unclear – probably more trade delegations and better intertwining of the sector’s efforts with wider diplomatic work, rather than anything as flashy as a student number target.

    Jacqui Smith suggested this would be the case in remarks to the House of Lords back in December – admittedly this was when the updated strategy was due to arrive in “early spring”:

    If we look, for example, at the value of transnational education, where UK universities have sites in or relationships with other countries, we see a growing sector, and these are all areas that we will want to look at in the international education strategy.

    This way of thinking is perhaps stimulated by the unlikelihood of Labour’s vision for the strategy being particularly bullish in any other area. A new international student number target is surely off the cards, and while there may be aspirations around overall education export totals, such a large slice of this comes from international students’ fees and living expenses that it’s tricky to be realistic about increases if numbers don’t return to growth.

    About the only thing we do know at this point about the new strategy is that it will be co-led by the Foreign Office as well as DfE and the Department for Business and Trade (the Home Office still doesn’t seem to be closely involved with the strategy – history suggests that it will suddenly have thoughts at a later date).

    And while the UK trade strategy, launched just before the summer, made only passing reference to education, more recently the business department has continued funding for the QAA to address “regulatory barriers to the growth of UK higher education in priority nations.”

    Doing things leanly

    The future regulatory environment has begun to look more promising too, with new Office for Students chair Edward Peck telling the education committee back in March that increased scrutiny of TNE would not be a priority:

    I think there may be ways of doing things more leanly, which is why I want to explore the legal framework, as I noted. There may be some things that at the moment just are not a priority. The one that has been raised with me by the sector is the interest in more regulatory activity around transnational education. I would want to explore with the OfS why that was thought to be a priority at this moment, given everything else that is going on.

    The regulator’s draft free speech guidance had left the territorial extent of the new requirements somewhat vague, leading to some pointed consultation responses from sector representatives as to why they should very much not apply elsewhere in the world. But the finalised guidance in June 2025 put it bluntly:

    HERA does not require providers or constituent institutions to take steps to secure freedom of speech in respect of their activities outside England.

    Plus earlier this year OfS (and Medr) announced that providers would not be required to submit individualised TNE learner data to the HESA student record “until further notice”, backtracking on earlier plans intended to provide a better understanding of the quality and standards of TNE provision and thus assist the regulator to “more effectively protect the interests of these students.” The regulatory outlook for TNE looks light-touch for the foreseeable future.

    The Industry and Regulators Committee inquiry into OfS was told that the regulator’s falling-out with the QAA was putting at risk future transnational education partnerships involving English providers. But the recent glut of new campuses and programmes seems to bely these fears.

    Sovereign glut

    To pick out a few recent examples, the last year or so has seen new overseas campuses (opening or announced) involving Exeter in Egypt, Lancaster in Indonesia, Keele and York in Greece, and all the ones in India mentioned above. There is plenty more action besides – and plenty of TNE which doesn’t follow the more eye-catching branch campus model.

    Around 20 per cent of UG and PGT students registered for a higher education award are now based overseas in one form or another of TNE. We’re rapidly approaching the inflection point where there are more TNE students in UK higher education than there are international students travelling over here (in fact we may have already passed this important moment, we just don’t have timely enough data to tell us).

    Despite the occasional fears that there are reputational skeletons lurking in the overseas activities of UK universities, the media spotlight is rarely turned their way. We get the occasional scare story when the Telegraph is told the student numbers involved, or occasional deeper digging when an overseas partner becomes too involved in geopolitics – but these are relatively few and far between, as opposed to the incessant drumbeat of negative coverage for many other higher education issues.

    At the risk of breaking the unwritten Wonkhe rule of not writing up imagined HE futures for the second time in a week, you can see a world 20 years hence in which transnational higher education has gone from strength to strength, with UK universities having continued to grow their overseas offer, and the proportion of higher education students whose awards come from institutions outside their country of study ticking ever upwards.

    The UK can benefit from its huge pool of expertise in getting programmes off the ground – and plenty of experience in what can go wrong, if it’s able to learn from it. If the government leans in, the regulators stay largely unengaged, and the press generally continues to ignore the detail of what happens elsewhere in the world – it feels plausible.

    Rescue me

    But there are clearly challenges. Jisc’s new survey of staff and student digital experiences in TNE is a rare window into actual teaching and learning environments at a decent scale (more than 5,000 responses from a wide variety of countries and provision types).

    Staff and students alike reported fairly widespread problems logging into university systems, accessing e-books, journals and software, and restrictions to certain apps or websites. One-third of teaching staff said that unreliable wifi negatively affects student learning – a “significant proportion” of TNE students were found to be paying cellular data costs to access learning resources via smartphones. Of the teaching staff surveyed, only 32 per cent said that most or all students had an understanding of acceptable use of generative AI.

    It’s not all directly about tech either. Students highlighted unclear marking criteria, especially for those learning online, and some mentioned a lack of feedback. The report has two examples (both in China) of students being placed in “potential danger” from the government due to political content of their past or present assignments. There’s an example of synchronous content from the UK being packaged up as an asynchronous programme for learners abroad in a way that hardly screams high quality.

    Some of the issues that emerge are simply around the challenges of delivering university study which is ever more designed around access to tech in places which suffer from moderate to high digital poverty. But others – and it’s these you’d be interested in if prognosticating about future trends in TNE – revolve more around the extent to which the world is becoming more or less technologically, and intellectually, open. You wouldn’t want to bet the farm on models of learning which suppose that internet access internationally is going to become more open, or that the same countries’ companies will continue to enjoy the same access to developing markets that they have over the last decade or so.

    The problems aren’t all insurmountable – the Jisc report emphasises the opportunities of transnational licensing agreements and the importance of the sector setting up publisher agreements in a way that doesn’t forget that it has thousands of students in different domiciles.

    If regulators began to take a closer interest in TNE student experience (and other topics such as assessment and feedback, or academic freedom), the report spells out some areas where there would be a greater impetus for action. Though many of these issues have not really been effectively tackled for UK-based students either.

    Travelling long haul

    Practicalities of staff and student experiences aside, there are plenty of sensible reasons why TNE isn’t a policy solution to the UK higher education sector’s wider funding challenges, a claim the government seems to be flirting with in its trade deal boosterism.

    The chance to relitigate the question of how much it costs to deliver higher education, and at what fee, to students studying in their home country is an enticing one, given how the various UK governments have boxed universities in from doing so here. There may be more margin available in some instances – but there are certainly plenty of examples of institutions losing more than they put in, even if they are not public-spirited enough to fess up and enhance everyone else’s understanding of what not to do.

    The long-term stability of programmes is unclear too. The risk of big geopolitical upheaval changing the landscape in one fell swoop is fairly well-trodden ground at this point (even if it still gets ignored in planning) but smaller policy changes – take Malaysia’s recently instituted tax on international students as but one example – can also make the difference between viability and non-viability. Another clear direction of travel in global TNE is competition: countries who have typically been hosts pivoting into setting up their own initiatives. Transnational education might be ubiquitous in global HE in 2050, but this doesn’t translate to UK institutions necessarily enjoying an ever-upward trajectory.

    The other point that gets largely overlooked is what this hypothetical boom in TNE looks like across the sector – it’s surely unrealistic to see all, or even most, universities with mature transnational offers a couple of decades hence, in the same way that other export industries don’t have a plethora of successful UK actors on the world stage. A more compelling prediction would be a relatively modest number of institutions getting TNE “right” for the longer-term, leaving the others to focus on all that stuff the government wants but doesn’t fund: more civic and local focus, the (re)building of links to local economies and businesses, an ever more ambitious role in enabling opportunity in the UK on a shoestring.

    So TNE might well be an enormous part of UK higher education’s future – but you’d have to predict that for many individual universities it will certainly not be, however much the government might want to trumpet its potential role as a new funding stream. This complicates any efforts to use it as a policy plug for a sector taking on water.

    Source link