Tag: Programs

  • George Washington U Pauses Admissions to 5 Ph.D. Programs

    George Washington U Pauses Admissions to 5 Ph.D. Programs

    George Washington University is pausing admissions to five Ph.D. programs for fall 2026, citing financial hardships.

    According to social media posts, applicants to the programs received emails last week alerting them that the programs “will not be reviewing applications for the 2026–2027 academic year.” The emails went on to say that their application fees would be refunded and offered them the opportunity to be considered for master’s programs instead.

    The Ph.D. programs affected are in clinical psychology, anthropology, human paleobiology, political science and mathematics.

    A university spokesperson attributed the pauses to financial difficulties.

    “Like many universities, we are taking a close look at how best to support our PhD programs while maintaining the highest standards in doctoral education in a difficult fiscal environment. Our recent actions do not reflect a long-term closure or suspension of programs,” the spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed in an email. “Rather, they represent a need to limit new commitments in order to ensure that we fully meet our funding commitments to continuing PhD students” in those five departments.

    Two faculty members told Inside Higher Ed that the university was also slashing the total number of Ph.D. packages across all departments within the Columbian College of Arts & Sciences. GWU did not respond to a question about those additional cuts.

    The suspensions follow other instances of high-profile institutions slashing admissions to Ph.D. programs due to budget concerns, including Boston University, the University of Chicago and Harvard University. In a recent Faculty Senate meeting, GWU president Ellen Granberg asked the university’s schools and divisions to prepare “budget contingency plans” amid declines in applications from international students, the student newspaper, The GW Hatchet, reported. International students accounted for about 13 percent of the institution’s enrollment this fall, a decrease from the previous year.

    Huynh-Nhu Le, who leads the clinical psychology Ph.D. program, said that faculty have been aware for a while that cuts might be coming. In addition to declines in international students, GWU has been a victim of the Trump administration’s research funding cuts. And the program’s cohort size was already shrinking; for fall 2025, the clinical psych Ph.D. admitted a record low three students, down from the typical eight or nine.

    But Le didn’t expect that the program would admit no new students for fall 2026. The pause came as a result of the College of Arts & Sciences allocating just two slots for its three doctoral psychology programs combined. Because the American Psychological Association requires a minimum number of students in a clinical psychology Ph.D. cohort to promote “professional socialization,” Le decided not to admit any this year.

    The decision is likely to have a “ripple effect” on GWU’s clinic, Le said, where first-year students typically perform vital duties like answering phones and conducting intake appointments.

    ‘Hoping It’s an Anomaly’

    Other departments had to make similarly difficult decisions. According to Joel Brewster Lewis, an associate mathematics professor and the director of the department’s graduate programs, annual Ph.D. funding packages are decided by the dean’s office. This year, the amount of funding available to the mathematics department was equivalent to the number of continuing Ph.D. students in the department, meaning there was no funding available for new students.

    “We as a department opted to continue their funding next year rather than defund them and run admissions on those packages,” Lewis wrote in an email.

    In the human paleobiology program, funding for an incoming Ph.D. student would have been available only if a current student graduated this summer, according to Alison Brooks, a professor in the anthropology department and a faculty member within the Center for the Advanced Study of Human Paleobiology. One student is on track to graduate this summer, she said, but by the time the department knows for sure, it would be too late to admit another student.

    GWU’s human paleobiology Ph.D. program is one of the most recognized at the institution, Brooks said. In a typical year, the program admits roughly three students.

    “We have very high numbers of graduates in tenure-track jobs and other prestigious positions. Two members of our small faculty are in the National Academy of Science and Medicine. And generally we get some funding every year to support research initiatives, in addition to outside funding, to carry on with what we do,” she said. “We’re not necessarily being singled out, but we’re not being preferred, either.”

    Le, of the clinical psychology Ph.D. program, said she hopes this year is just a “blip.”

    “It’s really unfortunate. It’s not only our program—I think other clinical programs in the U.S. are going through the same thing,” she said. “I’m hoping it’s an anomaly for this year.”

    Source link

  • New Accreditors, Civic Discourse Programs Win FIPSE Grants

    New Accreditors, Civic Discourse Programs Win FIPSE Grants

    The Education Department said late last year that the grant program, which has funded student success initiatives, would support projects related to accreditation reform, civil discourse, artificial intelligence and workforce training.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images | Pete Kiehart for The Washington Post via Getty Images

    More than 70 colleges, universities, nonprofits and other organizations are sharing $169 million to advance a number of the Trump administration’s priorities.

    Those include accreditation reform, promoting civil discourse, short-term workforce training programs and advancing the use of artificial intelligence in higher education. The Education Department announced the grant competition in November and said Monday that it had awarded the funds, which have historically gone to programs that support student success.

    Colleges received funding to switch accreditors, start short-term programs that will be eligible for the new Workforce Pell program, hold workshops on constructive dialogue and support peer-to-peer engagement in civil dialogue.

    Just over $50 million apiece went to the AI, civil discourse and Workforce Pell priorities, while projects related to accreditation received nearly $15 million, according to an Inside Higher Ed analysis of department data. All the grants in this tranche are for four years.

    Two new accreditors planning to seek federal recognition—the Postsecondary Commission and the Commission for Public Higher Education Inc.—each received $1 million. The department also awarded $1 million to the University of Rochester for its plans to establish an accreditor focused on higher education certificate programs that serve students with intellectual disabilities, and another $1 million to Valley Forge Military College, which wants to create a new hybrid accrediting agency for military-aligned associate and certificate programs. (Valley Forge Military College is one of several institutions that have indicated interest in the Trump administration’s compact for higher education.)

    Meanwhile, Davidson College’s Institute for Public Good is getting nearly $4 million to create the Deliberative Citizenship Network across 100 colleges and universities, according to a news release. Among other goals, the network aims to train faculty and staff on how to facilitate forums on difficult topics and create teaching resources that can be widely shared.

    “With this funding, we will reach thousands of students and educators nationwide,” Chris Marsicano, executive director of the institute, said in a statement. “Davidson’s Institute for Public Good will serve as a national hub that connects research, teaching and public engagement around respectful inclusion across political viewpoints—no matter how unpopular on campus—as well as participating in community efforts to examine, talk through and solve big problems.”

    The department’s initial announcement about the awards didn’t provide specific information about the funded projects, but the agency briefly posted documents Monday afternoon outlining which institutions received awards and for how much. Inside Higher Ed captured some of that information before the documents were taken down and compiled the details into a searchable database below. A department spokesperson said the final documents should be posted next week.

    In the meantime, Inside Higher Ed reached out to the identified institutions for more information about how they plan to use the grant funding. The database will be updated as they respond.

    The grant money comes from the Fund for Improvement of Postsecondary Education, which has historically supported programs related to student success. Those include the Basic Needs, Veteran Student Success and Postsecondary Student Success programs. But in November, the Education Department announced plans to send the funds to a different special projects program—a move that Democrats and advocates criticized. Department officials say this round of funding, for which they “received a historic number of applications,” will help to support students through their academic journeys.

    “This historic investment will realign workforce programs with the labor market, break up the accreditation cartel and support institutions who want to change accreditors, and strengthen responsible use of AI in the classroom,” said Ellen Keast, a department spokesperson, in a statement. “These investments will open new, affordable higher education alternatives to American families, and we are very excited to see federal dollars driving change in the sector that is long overdue.”

    Some critics have raised concerns about the truncated grant-review process. Typically, the FIPSE grant competition opens in the spring and awards go out by Dec. 31, one former department official said. They also question who will administer the program moving forward. Like other higher ed grant programs, FIPSE is slated to move to the Labor Department under agreements announced late last year.

    Source link

  • Beyond DEI offices, colleges are dismantling all kinds of programs related to equity

    Beyond DEI offices, colleges are dismantling all kinds of programs related to equity

    by Jeni Hebert-Beirne, The Hechinger Report
    December 22, 2025

    It started with Harvard University. Then Notre Dame, Cornell, Ohio State University and the University of Michigan. 

    Colleges are racing to close or rename their diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) offices, which serve as the institutional infrastructure to ensure fair opportunity and conditions for all. The pace is disorienting and getting worse: since last January, 181 colleges in all.  

    Often this comes with a formal announcement via mass email, whispering a watered-down name change that implies: “There is nothing to see here. The work will remain the same.” But renaming the offices is something to see, and it changes the work that can be done. 

    Colleges say the changes are needed to comply with last January’s White House executive orders to end “wasteful government DEI programs” and “illegal discrimination” and restore “merit-based opportunity,” prompting them to replace DEI with words like engagement, culture, community, opportunity and belonging. 

    One college went even further this month: The University of Alabama ended two student-run magazines because administrators perceived them to be targeting specific demographics and thus to be out of compliance with Attorney General Pamela Bondi’s anti-discrimination guidance. Students are fighting back while some experts say the move is a blatant violation of the First Amendment. 

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

    With the one-year mark of the original disruptive executive orders approaching, the pattern of response is nearly always the same. Announcements of name changes are followed quickly by impassioned pronouncements that schools should “remain committed to our long-standing social justice mission.” 

    University administrators, faculty, students, supporters and alumni need to stand up and call attention to the risks of this widespread renaming.  

    True, there are risks to not complying. The U.S. State Department recently proposed to cut research funding to 38 elite universities in a public-private partnership for what the Trump administration perceived as DEI hiring practices. Universities removed from the partnership will be replaced by schools that the administration perceives to be more merit-based, such as Liberty University and Brigham Young University.  

    In addition to the freezing of critical research dollars, universities are being fined millions of dollars for hiring practices that use an equity lens — even though those practices are merit-based and ensure that all candidates are fairly evaluated.  

    Northwestern University recently paid $75 million to have research funding that had already been approved restored, while Columbia University paid $200 million. Make no mistake: This is extortion. 

    Some top university administrators have resigned under this pressure. Others seem to be deciding that changing the name of their equity office is cheaper than being extorted.  

    Many are clinging to the misguided notion that the name changes do not mean they are any less committed to their equity and justice-oriented missions.  

    As a long-standing faculty member of a major public university, I find this alarming. In what way does backing away from critical, specific language advance social justice missions? 

    In ceding ground on critical infrastructure that centers justice, the universities that are caving are violating a number of historian and author Timothy Snyder’s 20 lessons from the 20th century for fighting tyranny.  

    The first lesson is: “Do not obey in advance.” Many of these changes are not required. Rather, universities are making decisions to comply in advance in order to avoid potential future conflicts.  

    The second is: “Defend institutions.” The name changes and reorganizations convey that this infrastructure is not foundational to university work.  

    What Snyder doesn’t warn about is the loss of critical words that frame justice work.  

    The swift dismantling of the infrastructures that had been advancing social justice goals, especially those secured during the recent responses to racial injustice in the United States and the global pandemic, has been breathtaking.  

    Related: Trump administration cuts canceled this college student’s career start in politics 

    This is personal to me. Over the 15 years since I was hired as a professor and community health equity researcher at Chicago’s only public research institution, the university deepened its commitment to social justice by investing resources to address systemic inequities. 

    Directors were named, staff members hired. Missions were carefully curated. Funding mechanisms were announced to encourage work at the intersections of the roots of injustices. Award mechanisms were carefully worded to describe what excellence looks like in social justice work.  

    Now, one by one, this infrastructure is being deconstructed.  

    The University of Illinois Chicago leadership recently announced that the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Equity and Diversity will be renamed and reoriented as the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Engagement. The explanation noted that this change reflects a narrowed dual focus: engaging internally within the university community and externally with the City of Chicago. 

    This concept of university engagement efforts as two sides of one coin oversimplifies the complexity of the authentic, reciprocal relationship development required by the university to achieve equity goals.  

    As a community engagement scientist, I feel a major loss and unsettling alarm from the renaming of “Equity and Diversity” as “Engagement.” I’ve spent two decades doing justice-centered, community-based participatory research in Chicago neighborhoods with community members. It is doubtful that the work can remain authentic if administrators can’t stand up enough to keep the name. 

    As a professor of public health, I train graduate students on the importance of language and naming. For example, people in low-income neighborhoods are not inherently “at risk” for poor health but rather are exposed to conditions that impact their risk level and defy health equity. Health is “a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being,” while health equity is “the state in which everyone has the chance to attain full health potential.” Changing the emphasis from health equity to health focuses the system’s lens on the individual and mutes population impact.  

    Similarly, changing the language around DEI offices is a huge deal. It is the beginning of the end. Pretending it is not is complicity.  

    Jeni Hebert-Beirne is a professor of Community Health Sciences at the University of Illinois Chicago School of Public Health and a public voices fellow of The OpEd Project. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about colleges and DEI 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. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-colleges-are-not-just-saying-goodbye-to-dei-offices-they-are-dismantling-programs-that-assure-institutional-commitment-to-justice/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114031&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-colleges-are-not-just-saying-goodbye-to-dei-offices-they-are-dismantling-programs-that-assure-institutional-commitment-to-justice/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Grad Programs Brace for Loan Caps

    Grad Programs Brace for Loan Caps

    Most of the colleges with the largest graduate programs in the country don’t have clear plans for how they’ll deal with new loan caps, set to kick in next July. And if they do, they aren’t taking publicly about it.

    For years, students could borrow essentially unlimited funds to pay for graduate education, thanks to a program known as Grad PLUS that capped loans at the cost of attendance. Republicans in Congress and other critics have argued that colleges took advantage of this program and raised their prices, fueling the student debt crisis. Loans for grad students make up nearly half of the federal loan portfolio.

    Along the way, colleges have begun to rely on graduate education to fund their university operations, higher ed experts say.

    But now that two-decade-old system is ending. Congress eliminated Grad PLUS over the summer and will cap how much students can borrow for graduate education. Lawmakers also limited Parent PLUS loans, which were also previously uncapped and offered families a way to make up the gap and pay for college. Both changes came out of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    Beginning next summer, most graduate programs will have a federal loan cap of $100,000, with exceptions for a scaled-down number of professional programs with a limit set at $200,000. Those changes have created uncertainty for graduate schools and students who are navigating a changing landscape with fewer resources. Experts say graduate schools could face enrollment declines and some could shutter, thanks to the new limits.

    Even before the loan caps, graduate education was facing a reckoning, particularly after the Trump administration clamped down on federal research funding. Colleges paused graduate admissions for doctoral programs, and sometimes rescinded offers. Meanwhile, colleges are starting to rethink their approaches to humanities doctoral programs, among other shifts in this space.

    Planning for Change

    To better understand how universities are planning ahead, Inside Higher Ed reached out to 20 of the largest graduate programs in the nation. Most did not respond. Those that did emphasized a mix of increased corporate engagement and expanded loan options, among other measures.

    But for the most part, many appear to still be figuring it out.

    “We’re spending a lot of time this year looking at diversifying the streams of funding for graduate students,” said Bonnie Ferri, vice provost for graduate and postdoctoral education at Georgia Institute of Technology.

    Ferri noted that while Georgia Tech already has corporate partnerships that sponsor projects, which in turn help fund students, the university is doubling down on those efforts this year and “focusing on being more systematic” to spread those dollars across more graduate programs.

    At a recent University of Florida Board of Trustees meeting, Vice President and Chief Enrollment Strategist, Mary Parker, said UF will “have to figure out how to fill the gap for our students” as loan options diminish. She noted UF is rolling out Scholarship Universe, a tool to help students find internal and external scholarships. Parker said UF is also “looking at the expansion of our institution loan program” and the university will also help students identify private loan options.

    University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign spokesperson Patrick Wade told Inside Higher Ed by email that Illinois is still in the planning process and it is too early to share specific details. But Wade added that university officials “are directing units to begin developing contingency plans and to communicate proactively with current and prospective students, particularly in professionally oriented programs, where we expect recent changes to have the greatest impact.”

    Several other institutions said it was too early to share details about how they’ll fill loan gaps.

    Grad Enrollment Fallout

    Some experts believe the changes to federal loans will leave students scrambling.

    “I think when we get to July 1 next year, when these caps are scheduled to go into place, there will be a lot of students who are going to need to come up with another way of paying for graduate school than what’s been true in the past,” Jordan Matsudaira, director of the Postsecondary Education & Economics Research at American University, told Inside Higher Ed.

    Research led by Matsudaira projects that programs such as dentistry, osteopathy and medicine will be particularly squeezed by the changes.

    And given the many other pressures on university budgets, such as federal research funding challenges, federal efforts to limit international enrollment, and the looming demographic cliff, Matsudaira doesn’t expect universities to lower graduate tuition or significantly increase aid.

    “I just think institution budgets are going to be under so much pressure from so many different things that it is just incredibly optimistic thinking, bordering on fantasy, to believe that they’re going to come up with substantial sources of funding to be able to either cut their graduate school prices or be able to fund their own loan program to enroll students,” he said.

    (Some experts have suggested that states should get involved by providing low or no-interest loans as the Grad Plus loan option goes away.)

    Matsudaira expects a “very rough transition period over this coming year” for students. He also expects graduate enrollment to decline.

    “The question is how much does it reduce the number of students pursuing graduate school,” Matsudaira said.

    Private loans are one option students are likely to turn to. He believes private loans will surge, with the market growing from around $3 billion a year currently to $10 billion in the near future.

    But even private loans may prove difficult to obtain for some students.

    “If I had to make predictions, I would guess that private student loan providers will make loans available to students attending programs with a good track record of earnings and loan repayment, but it is less certain whether students in programs that tend to lead to lower earnings and/or worse loan repayment outcomes will be able to access private student loans,” Lesley Turner, an associate professor at the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, wrote by email.

    She added private loans will have “fewer protections and less flexibility in repayment terms.”

    Turner expects that the fallout of the changes to graduate school funding will not only decrease enrollment but may even prod some institutions to shutter such programs as headcount falls.

    Credit rating agencies have also taken a dim view of what the changes will mean.

    “Institutions with a greater proportion of graduate students will likely face more pronounced impacts from these policy changes, particularly if they serve disproportionately high levels of aid- and loan-dependent students,” Fitch Ratings concluded in its 2026 sector outlook, which it described as deteriorating. “While private loan providers can fill gaps created by federal limits, private offerings may nevertheless deter students, as private loans will likely be offered with less favorable rates and limited flexibility compared to what was available under federal programs.”

    Source link

  • Student retention programs that work – Campus Review

    Student retention programs that work – Campus Review

    Commentary

    Student attrition is rarely down to academic ability, it’s down to students not feeling settled yet, or being away from home for the first time

    James HolderDecember 10, 2025Last Updated: December 10, 2025

    0

    Some Australian universities handle student attrition rates very well, and model examples all institutions should undertake to retain students.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Closing Equity Gaps in CTE Programs for Black Students

    Closing Equity Gaps in CTE Programs for Black Students

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

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

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

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

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

    Lessons Learned

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • Funding high-quality teacher preparation programs should be the highest priority for policymakers

    Funding high-quality teacher preparation programs should be the highest priority for policymakers

    by Sharif El-Mekki and Heather Kirkpatrick, The Hechinger Report
    November 25, 2025

    By dismantling the Department of Education, the Trump administration claims to be returning control of education to the states. 

    And while states and local school districts are doing their best to understand the new environments they are working in, they have an opportunity amidst the chaos to focus on what is most essential and prioritize how education dollars are spent.  

    That means recruiting and retaining more well-prepared teachers with their new budget autonomy. Myriad factors affect student learning, but research shows that the primary variable within a school’s control is the teacher. Other than parents, teachers are the adults who spend the most time with our children. Good teachers have been shown to singularly motivate students.  

    And that’s why, amidst the chaos of our current education politics, there is great opportunity. 

    Until recently, recruiting, preparing and retaining enough great teachers has not been a priority in policy or funding choices. That has been a mistake, because attracting additional teachers and preparing them to be truly excellent is arguably the single biggest lever policymakers can use to demonstrate their commitment to high-quality public schools. 

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

    Great teachers, especially whole schools full of great teachers, do not just happen. We develop them through quality preparation and meaningful opportunities to practice the profession. When teachers are well-prepared, students thrive. Rigorous teacher preparation translates into stronger instruction, higher K-12 student achievement and a more resilient, equitable education system. 

    Teachers, like firefighters and police officers, are public servants. We rightly invest public dollars to train firefighters and police officers because their service is essential to the safety and well-being of our communities. Yet teachers — who shape our future through our kids — are too often asked to shoulder the costs of their own preparation. 

    Funding high-quality teacher preparation should be as nonnegotiable as funding other vital public service professions, especially because we face a teacher shortage — particularly in STEM fields, special education and rural and urban schools.  

    This is in no small part because many potential teaching candidates cannot afford the necessary education and credentialing. 

    Our current workforce systems were not built for today’s teaching candidates. They were not designed to support students who are financially vulnerable, part-time or first-generation, or those with caregiving responsibilities.  

    Yet the majority of tomorrow’s education workforce will likely come from these groups, all of whom have faced systemic barriers in accumulating the generational wealth needed to pursue degrees in higher education. 

    Some states have responded to this need by developing strong teacher development pathways. For example, California has committed hundreds of millions to growing the teacher pipeline through targeted residency programs and preparation initiatives, and its policies have enabled it to recruit and support more future teachers, including greater numbers of educators from historically underrepresented communities. 

    Pennsylvania has created more pathways into the education field with expedited credentialing and apprenticeships for high school students, and is investing millions of dollars in stipends for student teachers. 

    It has had success bringing more Black candidates into the teaching profession, which will likely improve student outcomes: Black boys from low-income families who have a Black teacher in third through fifth grades are 18 percent more interested in pursuing college and 29 percent less likely to drop out of high school, research shows. Pennsylvania also passed a senate bill﷟HYPERLINK “https://www.senatorhughes.com/big-win-in-harrisburg-creating-the-teacher-diversity-pipeline/” that paved the way for students who complete high school courses on education and teaching to be eligible for career and technical education credits. 

    At least half a dozen other states also provide various degrees of financial support for would-be teachers, including stipends, tuition assistance and fee waivers for credentialing.  

    One example is a one-year teacher residency program model, which recruits and prepares people in historically underserved communities to earn a mster’s degree and teaching credential.  

    Related: Federal policies risk worsening an already dire rural teacher shortage 

    Opening new pathways to teaching by providing financial support has two dramatic effects. First, when teachers stay in education, these earnings compound over time as alumni become mentor teachers and administrators, earning more each year.  

    Second, these new pathways can also improve student achievement, thanks to policies that support new teachers in rigorous teacher education programs. 

    For example, the Teaching Academy model, which operates in several states, including Pennsylvania, New York and Michigan, attracts, cultivates and supports high school students on the path to becoming educators, giving schools and districts an opportunity to build robust education programs that serve as strong foundations for meaningful and long-term careers in education, and providing aspiring educators a head start to becoming great teachers. Participants in the program are eligible for college scholarships, professional coaching and retention bonuses.  

    California, Pennsylvania and these other states have begun this work. We hope to encourage other state lawmakers to seize the opportunities arising from recent federal changes and use their power to invest in what matters most to student achievement —teachers and teacher preparation pathways. 

    Sharif El-Mekki is founder & CEO of the Center for Black Educator Development in Pennsylvania. Heather Kirkpatrick is president and CEO Alder Graduate School in California. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about teacher preparation programs 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. 

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-funding-high-quality-teacher-preparation-programs-should-be-the-highest-priority-for-policymakers/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113500&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-funding-high-quality-teacher-preparation-programs-should-be-the-highest-priority-for-policymakers/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Florida public universities plan to cut at least 18 academic programs

    Florida public universities plan to cut at least 18 academic programs

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

    Dive Brief:

    • State University System of Florida institutions collectively plan to terminate 18 academic programs and suspend another eight after reviewing how many degrees they award, Emily Sikes, the public system’s vice chancellor for academic and student affairs, said at a meeting last week with lawmakers. 
    • In the review, SUSF officials identified 214 programs systemwide that they say are underperforming based on how many graduates they’ve produced in the past three years. System universities plan to continue at least 150 of those programs while consolidating another 30.
    • The large majority of underperforming programs, 68%, are in the liberal arts, education and science fields, including ethnic and cultural studies, foreign languages, philosophy and religious studies, and physical and social sciences programs. 

    Dive Insight:

    As required by SUSF regulations, the 12-university system has conducted productivity reviews of degree programs every three to four years for roughly the past decade and a half, Sikes said.

    Over that time, the system’s institutions have axed over 100 programs based on those reviews, she said. Most of those programs were cut in 2011, when the first such review yielded 492 programs deemed to be underperforming, leading university officials to terminate 73 of them.

    In this year’s review, SUSF officials looked for bachelor’s programs graduating fewer than 30 students over the last three years, master’s programs awarding fewer than 20 degrees and doctorate programs with fewer than 10 graduates during that period. 

    Master’s programs made up 55% of the 214 that fell below graduate thresholds. But, Sikes added, there is a reason for that: SUSF universities often award master’s degrees to students who don’t complete doctoral programs so they have something to show for their time and effort.

    Another 31% of the underperforming programs were bachelor’s, and 14% were doctorate.

    For the eight programs set for suspension, the universities will stop enrolling students and “take a hard look” at either updating the curriculum to improve the program or deciding to wind it down, Sikes said.

    While Florida’s university system has reviewed its program productivity for years, other states have begun mandating their public colleges trim their offerings along similar lines. 

    This summer, the Indiana Commission for Higher Education announced that six of the state’s public colleges planned to eliminate 75 programs, suspend another 101 and consolidate 232 others in response to a new state law. 

    In April, Indiana lawmakers introduced graduation quotas for public college programs, requiring a three-year average of at least 15 graduates for bachelor’s programs, 10 for associate degrees, seven for master’s programs and three for doctoral degrees. The quotas were part of a controversial last-minute bonanza of new higher ed policies that lawmakers baked into a budget bill this year. 

    The speed of the program cuts led to confusion and chaos for some Indiana faculty this summer. “Even tenured faculty are wondering, am I going to have a job in two months?” one faculty governance leader in Indiana told local media in June.

    Ohio enacted a similar law this spring, called SB 1, which has led to dozens of proposed program cuts at the state’s public universities.

    Source link

  • Strategic Planning for Legacy Programs: Rejuvenating Degrees

    Strategic Planning for Legacy Programs: Rejuvenating Degrees

    Don’t Let Legacy Programs Stall Your Growth

    In higher education today, generating buzz around new program launches is often viewed as the key to growth and market relevance. While there’s nothing wrong with investing in new programs when it makes sense, institutions tend to do so at the expense of existing offerings — including those that built their reputation. Yet legacy programs, when strategically audited and repositioned, can become some of the strongest assets in an institution’s portfolio.

    The challenge is that these programs often don’t receive the same level of attention or investment as new launches. Over time, many become overshadowed — not necessarily because they’ve lost relevance, but because the institution’s focus has shifted. Without consistent evaluation and modernization, the programs may begin to stagnate — enrollments flatten, marketing efforts diminish — while they continue to drain resources and faculty energy.  

    At the same time, legacy programs often hold unique advantages that newer offerings lack: established reputations, loyal alumni networks, and faculty with deep expertise. When they’re reexamined and repositioned through a strategic lens — leveraging internal data, market insight, and refreshed messaging — legacy programs can drive renewed growth in an increasingly competitive marketplace. 

    Auditing Programs for Their Growth Potential 

    A deliberate, data-informed audit of an institution’s programs can be the first step toward revitalizing those that are underperforming. A well-designed audit doesn’t just identify weaknesses — it also can uncover opportunities for renewal and growth. 

    A program life cycle audit assesses the current health of existing programs and tracks their performance over time. Key metrics in an audit might include:

    • Enrollment and retention trends, to gauge the program’s long-term viability
    • Course completion and graduation rates, as indicators of students’ satisfaction and support
    • Employment outcomes, to measure the program’s industry relevance and career alignment
    • Faculty-learner ratio, to ensure efficient use of instructional resources
    • Program search demand trends, to gauge the market’s interest in the program

    This process helps institutions identify whether their legacy programs are declining, stable, or experiencing renewed interest. These insights enable academic leadership teams to direct resources toward the programs that are most likely to drive growth — or sunset programs that no longer advance the institution’s goals.

    Audits shouldn’t rely solely on internal data. Comparing a program’s performance results with market demand data — such as regional job growth projections and competitors’ offerings — can clarify what the program’s challenges are and whether they stem from internal execution or broader shifts in the field. 

    Measuring Program-Market Fit 

    Analyzing a program’s market fit is just as important as evaluating its internal performance. It can help institutions decide which legacy programs need retooling, which ones are suitable for scale, and which ones should be phased out.   

    A program’s market fit analysis doesn’t have to be overly complex. It can begin with three fundamental questions:

    • Is there still demand?
      The analysis should start with a review of labor market data, industry trends, search trends, and alumni outcomes to determine whether a particular field remains robust or if demand is shifting toward other subjects or credentials.
    • How does our program compare?
      The next step is to assess what other institutions are offering in terms of delivery format (such as in-person versus online learning), curriculum, and pricing for similar programs. Understanding the competitive landscape helps identify areas where an institution’s program overlaps with others and where there may be opportunities to differentiate.
    • Does the program align with our institutional strengths?
      Legacy programs often reflect areas where the institution already has deep expertise or established credibility. If those strengths still align with current market demand, they can serve as a solid foundation for a program’s revitalization rather than a reason for its retirement. 

    Evaluating these three dimensions helps determine whether a program needs a full-blown relaunch or a more subtle refresh. The goal isn’t to reinvent for the sake of reinvention. It’s to make sure that each offering continues to serve students while also supporting the institution’s objectives. 

    Relaunching Programs With Purpose: Marketing Strategies 

    When a legacy program still holds value but needs renewed visibility, a structured relaunch can help ensure its continued relevance. Effective relaunches align academic updates, marketing strategy, and admissions communication so that all teams are working toward the same goal: positioning the program for growth. 

    A comprehensive relaunch checklist can help guide this process. Elements to consider include:

    • Program curriculum and delivery updates that reflect today’s learning preferences — such as hybrid or online models to accommodate adult learners — and industry expectations
    • Consistent messaging across marketing and admissions, ensuring that both internal and external audiences understand what’s new
    • Refreshed and tested marketing materials, including program pages and collateral materials that articulate outcomes, flexibility, and value to prospective students

    Refreshing a program’s branding and positioning is a crucial step. Students’ needs evolve, so the program’s story should evolve too. Simple adjustments — such as updating program names for clarity, refining messaging to align with search trends, or highlighting regional workforce connections — can make legacy programs more discoverable and relevant.

    Faculty also play a vital role in rebranding. Leveraging their expertise lends authenticity and authority to program relaunches. Featuring their research and industry partnerships in marketing materials reinforces the program’s real-world impact and signals that it’s grounded in experience, not just theory. 

    Key Takeaways

    • New program launches aren’t the only pathway to growth. Sustainable success also stems from repositioning existing programs.
    • Strategic audits of legacy offerings that assess their long-term performance and market fit enable your institution to relaunch them with intention.
    • Institutions that regularly review and refresh their degree portfolios are better positioned to achieve scalable, market-responsive growth while honoring the programs that built their foundation. 

    Reinvigorate Your Programs — and Your Growth Strategy

    Archer Education partners with dozens of institutions to help them launch new programs and revitalize existing ones to amplify their visibility and drive real growth. In a competitive market, data-driven program strategies enable greater institutional alignment and better market fit. 

    Contact our team today and let us help you rejuvenate your degree portfolio.

    Source link