File photoThe Department of Education announced a new rule that would allow the agency to exclude certain nonprofit and government employers from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, targeting organizations that “engage in specific enumerated illegal activities” or do not align with the current administration’s priorities.
The rule, which was published Friday in the Federal Register, grants Education Secretary Linda McMahon unilateral authority to determine which organizations are ineligible for the program. It takes effect July 1, 2026.
According to critics, the rule could disqualify employees of sanctuary jurisdictions and nonprofit organizations that provide immigrant family support, gender-affirming care, diversity and equity programs, or assistance to protesters exercising First Amendment rights.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was established by Congress in 2007 on a bipartisan basis. Under the program, federal, state, local and tribal government employees, as well as workers for 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, can have their remaining federal student loan debt forgiven after making 10 years of qualifying payments while working in public service. More than one million workers have received loan forgiveness through the program to date.
Two advocacy organizations, Democracy Forward and Protect Borrowers, issued a joint statement committing to challenge the rule in federal court.
“This is a direct and unlawful attack on nurses, teachers, first responders, and public service workers across the country,” the organizations said. “This new rule is a craven attempt to usurp the legislature’s authority in an unconstitutional power grab aimed at punishing people with political views different than the administration’s.”
Alexander Lundrigan, Higher Education Policy and Advocacy Manager at Young Invincibles, called the changes “illegal” and “politically motivated.”
“The administration cannot unilaterally rewrite a program that was passed into law by Congress,” Lundrigan said. “PSLF eligibility is defined by law, not political ideology.”
Jaylon Herbin, director of federal policy at the Center for Responsible Lending, agrees, adding that the regulation “is the latest in a long list of cruel tricks imposed on workers and groups who hold views or serve people this administration doesn’t like.”
He added that the restrictions “will consign millions of student borrowers to decades of unaffordable debt repayment and will worsen existing shortages of teachers, police and emergency services workers, and nonprofits who help local residents thrive and contribute to building vibrant, economically resilient communities.”
When members of the Ashland County Democratic Party set up a booth at their local fair last month, they might have expected a few political disagreements. What they surely didn’t expect was to be expelled from the fairgrounds and reported to the Secret Service over buttons expressing opposition to President Donald Trump. Now, they’re suing the officials who trampled their First Amendment rights.
The booth displayed various buttons depicting red MAGA-style hats, but instead of “Make America Great Again,” they said things such as “Fascist,” “Resist,” “Felon,” and “8647” (meaning to eighty-six, or remove, the 47th president, Trump).
According to the lawsuit, the trouble started when fair officials told booth staffers they’d received complaints about two particular buttons. One read “Felon” and, beneath that, “Is he dead yet?” The other said “Fascism” and, beneath that, “One day, we will wake up to his obituary.” Officials said the buttons weren’t “family friendly” and had to go. Booth staff had already put them away, but that didn’t get them off the hook.
Officials later returned to the booth with sheriff’s deputies and ordered the group to “pack up and leave.” The sheriff’s office then reported the matter to the Secret Service and began weighing criminal charges over the allegedly “threatening” buttons.
None of this should have happened. As the complaint explains, and as FIRE told the sheriff and fair board in a September letter, the First Amendment squarely protects the buttons’ political messages. That’s true even if the speech offends others or expresses a wish (serious or not) for someone’s demise. By ordering the removal of the buttons and ejecting the Ashland Democrats from the fairgrounds, county officials engaged in classic viewpoint discrimination.
The unwritten “family friendly” standard is far too vague to survive constitutional scrutiny. As this case shows, vague rules invite arbitrary and selective enforcement. Other vendors freely displayed merchandise depicting or glorifying violence or drug use, yet only the Ashland Democrats were shown the exit. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that their political views drove the decision.
Some may find the buttons objectionable. That’s their right, and they’re free to voice that opinion. That exchange of views is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect.
Nor can officials hide behind fairgoers’ complaints. Censorship designed to appease offended onlookers is still censorship. That’s called a heckler’s veto, and it’s flatly unconstitutional.
Reporting the incident to the Secret Service only added to the constitutional violations. There’s no evidence that the Ashland Democrats were threatening to physically harm the president. In Watts v. United States, the Supreme Court reversed a Vietnam War draftee’s conviction for telling a crowd, “If they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want to get in my sights is L.B.J.” The Court recognized the statement as rhetorical, not an actual threat. The generalized slogans on the Ashland Democrats’ buttons are even further from a true threat than Watts’ direct, first-person reference to shooting President Johnson.
The First Amendment also carves out an exception for inciting imminent lawless action, but it’s extremely narrow. Speech qualifies as incitement only when it directs others to commit unlawful acts and they’re likely to do so right away. The Ashland Democrats’ buttons did neither. They expressed disdain, not directives.
The slogan “8647” is political shorthand for expressing opposition to Trump. When Joe Biden was president, a prominent conservative commentator used “8646” the same way. Both phrases even appear on Amazonmerchandise. While the precise meaning may vary from one speaker to the next, it doesn’t inherently call for violence. There are ways to eighty-six a president that don’t involve violence, including impeachment and removal from office.
But even if the term is read to imply something darker, it’s still generally protected. Recall that incitement requires the speech to be likely to trigger imminent unlawful action. The idea that a fairgoer would see any of the buttons and then immediately track down the president’s whereabouts and try to kill him is, on its face, ludicrous.
Some may find the buttons objectionable. That’s their right, and they’re free to voice that opinion. That exchange of views is exactly what the First Amendment is designed to protect. What it doesn’t protect is government officials wielding power to silence speech they dislike. Ashland County officials may soon learn that lesson the hard way.
In an age defined by digital transformation, access to reliable, high-speed internet is not a luxury; it is the bedrock of opportunity. It impacts the school classroom, the doctor’s office, the town square and the job market.
As we stand on the cusp of a workforce revolution driven by the “arrival technology” of artificial intelligence, high-speed internet access has become the critical determinant of our nation’s economic future. Yet, for millions of Americans, this essential connection remains out of reach.
This digital divide is a persistent crisis that deepens societal inequities, and we must rally around one of the most effective tools we have to combat it: the Universal Service Fund. The USF is a long-standing national commitment built on a foundation of bipartisan support and born from the principle that every American, regardless of their location or income, deserves access to communications services.
Without this essential program, over 54 million students, 16,000 healthcare providers and 7.5 million high-need subscribers would lose internet service that connects classrooms, rural communities (including their hospitals) and libraries to the internet.
The discussion about the future of USF has reached a critical juncture: Which communities will have access to USF, how it will be funded and whether equitable access to connectivity will continue to be a priority will soon be decided.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court found the USF’s infrastructure to be constitutional — and a backbone for access and opportunity in this country. Congress recently took a significant next step by relaunching a bicameral, bipartisan working group devoted to overhauling the fund. Now they are actively seeking input from stakeholders on how to best modernize this vital program for the future, and they need our input.
I’m urging everyone who cares about digital equity to make their voices heard. The window for our input in support of this vital connectivity infrastructure is open through September 15.
While Universal Service may appear as only a small fee on our monthly phone bills, its impact is monumental. The fund powers critical programs that form a lifeline for our nation’s most vital institutions and vulnerable populations. The USF helps thousands of schools and libraries obtain affordable internet — including the school I founded in downtown Brooklyn. For students in rural towns, the E-Rate program, funded by the USF, allows access to the same online educational resources as those available to students in major cities. In schools all over the country, the USF helps foster digital literacy, supports coding clubs and enables students to complete homework online.
By wiring our classrooms and libraries, we are investing in the next generation of innovators.
The coming waves of technological change — including the widespread adoption of AI — threaten to make the digital divide an unbridgeable economic chasm. Those on the wrong side of this divide experienced profound disadvantages during the pandemic. To get connected, students at my school ended up doing homework in fast-food parking lots. Entire communities lost vital connections to knowledge and opportunity when libraries closed.
But that was just a preview of the digital struggle. This time, we have to fight to protect the future of this investment in our nation’s vital infrastructure to ensure that the rising wave of AI jobs, opportunities and tools is accessible to all.
AI is rapidly becoming a fundamental tool for the American workforce and in the classroom. AI tools require robust bandwidth to process data, connect to cloud platforms and function effectively.
The student of tomorrow will rely on AI as a personalized tutor that enhances teacher-led classroom instruction, explains complex concepts and supports their homework. AI will also power the future of work for farmers, mechanics and engineers.
Without access to AI, entire communities and segments of the workforce will be locked out. We will create a new class of “AI have-nots,” unable to leverage the technology designed to propel our economy forward.
The ability to participate in this new economy, to upskill and reskill for the jobs of tomorrow, is entirely dependent on the one thing the USF is designed to provide: reliable connectivity.
The USF is also critical for rural health care by supporting providers’ internet access and making telehealth available in many communities. It makes internet service affordable for low-income households through its Lifeline program and the Connect America Fund, which promotes the construction of broadband infrastructure in rural areas.
The USF is more than a funding mechanism; it is a statement of our values and a strategic economic necessity. It reflects our collective agreement that a child’s future shouldn’t be limited by their school’s internet connection, that a patient’s health outcome shouldn’t depend on their zip code and that every American worker deserves the ability to harness new technology for their career.
With Congress actively debating the future of the fund, now is the time to rally. We must engage in this process, call on our policymakers to champion a modernized and sustainably funded USF and recognize it not as a cost, but as an essential investment in a prosperous, competitive and flourishing America.
Erin Mote is the CEO and founder of InnovateEDU, a nonprofit that aims to catalyze education transformation by bridging gaps in data, policy, practice and research.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
This blog was kindly authored by Professor Lynne Bianchi, Vice Dean for Social Responsibility & Equality, Diversity, Inclusion and Accessibility, at the University of Manchester
I recently had the fortune to be part of a panel discussing the place of Service Learning in higher education, chaired by HEPI. My reflections before and since may inspire you to take time to think about your perspective on the nature and role of Service Learning in fast-changing university and civic landscapes. In its simplest sense, Service Learning is an educational approach that combines academic study with community service.
In my role within a large science and engineering faculty, I have rallied our staff and students to think seriously about the features, advantages and benefits of Service Learning in science and engineering contexts. For our university, this teaching and learning approach isn’t new, with expertise in the biomedical sciences and humanities teaching us much about the way in which undergraduate students can create benefit for our local communities whilst enriching their own academic experiences.
In this blog, I build on my own background as a teacher and higher education academic and draw on my experience in curriculum design when focusing on how we can provide authentic and impactful Service Learning experiences for our undergraduates.
What do we mean by the ‘right’ learning experiences?
It doesn’t take long working in this area to unearth a wide range of terms that are used interchangeably – from place-based learning, real-world learning, community-engaged learning, practice-based learning, critical urban pedagogy, industry-inspired learning and more. A gelling feature is that to get Service Learning working well there must be an authentic benefit to each party involved. The students should develop skills and understanding directly required within their degree, and the partner should have a problem explored, solved, or informed. In essence, the experience must lead to a ‘win-win’ outcome(s) to be genuine.
In our context in science and engineering, we have envisioned Service Learning working well, and considered this to include when:
For students:
Learning has relevance: work on a project, individually or in groups, is contextualised by a problem, issue or challenge that is authentic (as opposed to hypothetical).
Learning has resonance: developing and applying skills and knowledge to inform the problem, issue or project that dovetails with existing course specifications and requirements.
For partners:
They are engaged: partners are involved in the design and delivery of the project to some extent. This may vary in the depth or level of engagement and requires both sides to appreciate the needs of each other.
They are enriching: partners identify real issues that matter and expose elements of the work environment that enrich students’ awareness of the workplace and career pathways.
When is the right time for students to engage in service learning?
I am still pondering this question as there are so many variables and options that influence the choice. Which year group should service learning drop into? Or, does a developmental over time approach suit better? Is Service Learning more impactful in the later undergraduate years, or should it be an integral part of each year of their experience with us? Realistically, there won’t be a one-size-fits-all all model, and there are benefits and challenges to each. What will need to underpin whichever approach we take, will be the focused need to elicit the starting points of our students, our staff and our partners in whichever context.
Going from ‘zero to hero’ in Service Learning will require training and support for all parties. My experience working across the STEM sector for nearly three decades has taught me that no one partner is the same as another – what is a big deal to one can mean nothing to another. My thinking is that we need to see each person involved in the Service Learning experience as a core ‘partner’ and each has learning starting points, aspirations and apprehensions. Our role as programme leaders is to identify a progression model that appreciates that this is ‘learning’ and that scaffolds and key training will be required at different times – even within the process itself.
What support will be required to mobilise this model at scale?
In my early career at this university, I spent time within the Teaching & Learning Student Experience Professional Support teams, where I saw firsthand the integral way that any university programme relies on expertise in taking theoretical ideas into practice. The interplay between project management, planning, timetabling, eLearning, marketing and communications and student experience support teams, to name some, will have play such critical roles in achieving excellence in Service Learning. Working at scale in our faculty across 10 different discipline areas, will require integrated work with other faculties to harness the power of interdisciplinary projects and digital support for course delivery and assessment that can embrace an internal-external interface.
Support for scaling up will also require a culture of risk-taking to be valued and championed. Over the introductory years, we need to provide a sense of supported exploration, a culture of learning and reflection, and an ethos where failure is rarely a negative, but an opportunity. Of course, science and engineering disciplines bring with them our obligations to accrediting bodies, and a close dialogue with them about ambition, relevance and need for this enriching approach needs to be clearly articulated and agreed so that any course alteration becomes a course invigoration rather than a compromise.
Faculty culture and the way the university and the sector views and reviews SL will have a significant implication on practice and people feeling safe to innovate. As the university forges and launches its 2035 strategy the spaces for innovation and development are increasingly championed, and the months and years ahead will be ones to watch in terms of establishing a refreshed version of teaching and learning for our students.
In closing this short exploration of Service Learning, I can feel a positive tension in the air – the excitement to work together to further invigorate our student experience whilst supporting our staff and partners to embrace varied new opportunities. The ‘getting it right’ story will have many chapters, many endings as the genres, characters and plots are there for us all to create – or more pertinently ‘co-create’! What drives me most to remain in this space of uncertainty for a while longer is the anticipation of creating experiences that truly make a difference for good. As our universities transform themselves over the coming years, I invite you to join us in the dialogue and development as we have so much to learn through collaboration.
The Trump administration on Friday released a proposed rule that would exclude organizations deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose” from the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, a move that could disqualify thousands of borrowers working for advocacy and legal aid organizations from having their student debt canceled.
The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, published in the Federal Register and scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026, follows President Trump’s March executive order directing the Department of Education to revise PSLF eligibility criteria. The proposed changes would give the Secretary of Education broad authority to determine which employers qualify for the program that has provided loan forgiveness to more than one million public servants.
Under the proposed rule, organizations could lose PSLF eligibility for activities including “aiding or abetting violations of Federal immigration laws,” “engaging in a pattern of aiding and abetting illegal discrimination,” or “engaging in violence for the purpose of obstructing or influencing Federal Government policy.” The Department would use a “preponderance of evidence” standard to make determinations, and employers found ineligible would face a 10-year waiting period before they could regain qualifying status.
The rule specifically targets several types of activities the administration considers problematic, including providing certain medical treatments to transgender minors, assisting with immigration cases, and various forms of protest activity that result in state law violations such as trespassing or disorderly conduct.
Kristin McGuire, President and CEO of Young Invincibles, characterized the proposal as “continuing its attacks on education, deliberately targeting advocacy organizations whose work doesn’t align with its ideological agenda.”
“By using a distorted and overly broad definition of ‘illegal activities,’ the Trump administration is exploiting the student loan system to attack political opponents,” McGuire said. “This is an illegal move by the administration; eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) is defined by law, not political ideology.”
The proposed rule emerged from a contentious negotiated rulemaking process that concluded in July without consensus. According to the Department’s documentation, the negotiator representing civil rights organizations dissented from the draft regulations, preventing the committee from reaching agreement.
The Department of Education estimates the rule would result in budget savings of $1.537 billion over 10 years by reducing the number of borrowers who achieve loan forgiveness. Administrative documents suggest the changes could affect borrowers in multiple sectors, including legal services, healthcare, social work, and education.
Organizations operating under shared federal tax identification numbers could see entire agencies lose eligibility if one component is found to engage in disqualifying activities. The rule includes provisions allowing the Secretary to separate organizations under shared identifiers, but grants ultimate authority to the Department to make such determinations.
The proposed rule draws heavily on the Internal Revenue Service’s “illegality doctrine,” which denies tax-exempt status to organizations with substantial illegal purposes. The Department argues this approach ensures consistency across federal agencies and prevents taxpayer funds from subsidizing activities the government aims to prevent.
Employers would be required to certify on PSLF application forms that they do not engage in activities with substantial illegal purpose. Those who fail to provide such certification would immediately lose qualifying status.
The rule includes safeguards requiring notice and opportunity to respond before final determinations, and allows employers to maintain eligibility if they submit approved corrective action plans before losing qualification.
According to the Department’s regulatory impact analysis, implementation would cost between $1.5 million and $3 million annually during the first two years. The analysis acknowledges that compliance costs for employers would vary significantly, with larger organizations potentially facing higher expenses for legal consultation and operational adjustments.
The Department projects reduced confusion among borrowers due to clearer eligibility criteria, though it acknowledges potential disruptions during the transition period. The analysis notes that borrowers working for disqualified employers would need to find new positions with qualifying organizations to continue progress toward loan forgiveness.
The proposed rule will undergo a 30-day public comment period following publication in the Federal Register on August 18. The Department must review all submitted comments before issuing a final rule.
If implemented as proposed, the new eligibility requirements would apply only to activities occurring on or after July 1, 2026. Borrowers whose employers lose qualifying status would receive notification from the Department and would no longer earn qualifying payment credit while employed by those organizations.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, established in 2007, allows borrowers to have remaining federal student loan balances canceled after making 120 qualifying monthly payments while working full-time for eligible government agencies or qualified nonprofit organizations. The program has faced criticism and administrative challenges since its inception, with many borrowers initially denied forgiveness due to complex eligibility requirements.
Young Invincibles and other advocacy organizations indicated they plan to submit detailed comments opposing the rule and may pursue legal challenges if the final version proceeds as proposed.
Another academic year is fast approaching, and with it another promotion and tenure cycle in which faculty members will prepare dossiers for promotion. Some, but not all, universities have detailed instructions on what and what not to include in the dossier. At many research institutions, the service section consists of a list of committees on which the faculty member has served with little information about the nature of their participation. Having managed promotion and tenure at multiple institutions, I know that faculty members are often told to check the service boxes and move on.
Yet, the pandemic and its aftermath threw into high relief what most faculty members already knew: Faculty service is a mission-critical portion of workloads and highly undervalued by our institutions. We also know that mission-critical workload is unevenly allocated to and carried out by some faculty members while others either refuse to participate, focus their service outside the institution for the profession or participate as free riders while others pull their load. This leads to conversations about “service slacking” and “service shaming.” Articles abound with useful suggestions on how to address the uneven distribution of service, including advice on how to say no. And the Faculty Workload Equity project, part of an NSF ADVANCE award to the University of Maryland, provides important tools to better understand the contours of differential workloads and ways to create transparency around them.
This conversation is not new; Joya Misra and colleagues suggested in 2011 that changing the culture around service is essential in order to find ways to distribute the workload more evenly and to develop reward mechanisms for doing critical service in mission-central areas like curricular reform or student outcomes assessment. More than 10 years later, this conversation seems to have stalled. Properly recognizing the value of service would be a good way to restart it.
Articulating the Value of Service
Let me start with a story. About 15 years ago, I co-chaired my institution’s reaccreditation bid with the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools. We were tasked, among other things, with collecting information about how our faculty engaged in outreach to our community. Our campus survey about community engagement came back with pitifully little data. We realized that we needed to excavate the information. After visits to lots of faculty meetings, we had an amazingly rich list of ways our faculty were engaging with schools, nonprofits and local governments in our area. To my question about why these activities didn’t appear in any university document, faculty members universally replied that they didn’t think anyone cared.
As Cullen C. Merrit recently argued, service and engagement activities are ways that the academy provides value to society at large. I agree. Yet we cannot value or demonstrate the impact of what we don’t document.
To that end, colleges can launch a service portfolio that faculty can submit as part of promotion and performance-review processes. The service portfolio documents the range of service activities for each faculty member, as well as success metrics that demonstrate their impact on students, other faculty and the institutional mission. Identifying impact is a first step in increasing the value our institutions place on service activities and establishing fairer systems of allocation and rewards.
The Service Portfolio
Before you stop reading because no one wants to do more service work, a service portfolio can help bring attention to the value of work by demonstrating the impacts and outcomes. Indeed, some universities and colleges already have faculty members provide such information about service; others make suggestions about how to craft a promotion and tenure service and engagement dossier.
As with a teaching portfolio, a service portfolio is a structured assemblage of contributions to mission-critical activities around student and faculty success (e.g., mentoring, curriculum development, professional development) and engagement with local and regional communities (e.g., support for K–12 education, support for local governmental and nongovernmental agencies).
Service portfolio guidelines could begin by listing elements of the stated mission or the strategic planning goals at the department, college/school and institution levels. In consultation with department chairs or deans, faculty members would then select those elements to which they contribute through their service activities. In addition to describing their contributions, faculty could describe outcomes and impacts either in terms of future goals or what can already be measured.
For example, a faculty member might want to prioritize curriculum development or faculty mentoring. In that case, we might expect them to serve locally or institutionally in those areas, to engage in professional development opportunities, or to develop community engagement activities related to their specializations. A focus on value requires that the service portfolio identify the impacts or expected outcomes of each activity. For example, participation in a curriculum revision might result in higher learning outcomes or lower DFW rates. Faculty mentoring can result in improved teaching outcomes, enhanced research productivity and an improved work environment.
There are numerous advantages of a service portfolio over the current way of counting the number of committees on which we serve. First, faculty members can gain agency in the way that they shape and narrate their own contributions to the institutional mission through service. Agency is a motivating factor that might encourage yet more engagement. Faculty members will have a harder time free riding on a committee when they must articulate their contributions and when those contributions are then reviewed by departmental peers. Equity-minded faculty members and chairs/heads will be better able to track individual contributions and ensure that service is equitably allocated. And chairs and departmental colleagues who are impressed with a particular faculty member’s service contributions will be better positioned to suggest that recognition or reward for those contributions may be in order.
To be sure, putting together a service portfolio will require extra time, something that faculty members do not have lots of. But the relatively small time commitment can result in significant benefits to faculty and to the institution. Intentional and agentic shaping of service and engagement workloads can ensure that mission-critical work is accomplished in a visible way and can be assessed for impact. Perhaps most importantly, a service portfolio gives information and tools to our colleagues to amplify impactful and valuable activities.
Beth Mitchneck is professor emerita in the School of Geography, Development and Environment at the University of Arizona.
Not because parents don’t matter – they do. In fact, my wife, a primary school teacher, often talks about how parental engagement is one of the strongest predictors of a child’s development. So, when I hear that parents are stepping up to help their children navigate the world of work, that’s no bad thing.
But with more graduates returning to the parental home after university, we need fresh policy approaches to support their early careers and ensure talent isn’t lost from regional economies.
Place-based
Regional graduate schemes offer a promising solution. Initiatives like those in West Yorkshire and Sheffield connect skilled graduates with local SMEs, which often struggle to compete with larger employers for talent. These schemes create new pathways for graduates to stay and thrive in the regions where they studied or grew up, while helping employers fill critical skills gaps. Crucially, they also act as a focal point for collaboration between local authorities, businesses, and training providers (including universities) to drive inclusive regional growth.
Expanding these kinds of initiatives also helps signal to policy makers that higher education has a key role to play in the skills discussion, which too often gets overlooked, leading to fragmented policy making. The formation of Skills England has the potential to address this, provided they properly recognise the contribution of higher education.
University careers services hold a huge reservoir of expertise in supporting graduate transitions. With the right backing, they could play a much greater role in driving regional employability initiatives. The potential is there; it just needs the support and opportunity to be fully unlocked.
Worth it
Part of the solution is for the sector to get better at articulating impact, so we can challenge the lazy characterisations you sometimes see in the media about degrees not being worth it, despite much evidence to the contrary.
What’s perhaps less widely understood is just how far university careers services have come in recent years. They’ve shifted from being a niche student support team at the edge of campus life to playing a central role in institutional strategy. In an era where graduate outcomes are a key metric for regulators, rankings, and reputation, careers services have massively upped their game.
Most universities now offer at least two years of careers support after graduation, and lifetime access is rapidly becoming the norm (our latest sector benchmarking report based on responses from 112 Heads of Careers found 41 per cen of careers services now offer lifetime support to alumni). But how many graduates know this? And more importantly, how many are using it? The support is there – from trained, experienced professionals – but we need to do a better job of shouting about it.
Practicality
And careers services today are doing far more than CV checks and advice appointments. They’re innovating to meet students’ real-world needs. Nottingham Trent University, for example, have set up a Professional Student Wardrobe, helping level the playing field by providing smart clothes for interviews and professional workplaces. And most institutions are also experimenting with AI-powered tools to increase efficiency and scale up support.
Innovative practices are also coming out of Kingston University, which runs simulated assessment centres for all second years to help them understand their skills and get the chance to experience graduate recruitment processes before hitting the real thing after graduation. This initiative has been welcomed by employers and Kingston University recently picked up two accolades at the Institute of Student Employers Awards as a result.
Careers services do a fantastic job of providing tailored support for individual students, but scaling impact is no small feat when the average staff-to-student ratio in careers services is around 1:1,080. However, careers services have found one of the best ways of scaling impact across the institution is to proactively work with academics to embed employability in the curriculum. I like to think of it as yeast in a loaf of bread – invisible, but transformative.
Cause for celebration
We need to get better at celebrating the work of careers services because they’re not just a nice extra; they’re fundamental to helping students succeed and universities thrive. Working at AGCAS, we benefit from seeing the global picture, and it’s clear that institutions in the UK and Ireland really are world leading when it comes to employability. It’s time to recognise that, champion it, and make sure careers teams get the visibility and support they need to keep making such a difference. As a first step, we should all work to increase visibility of careers services to parents, so they can better signpost the support that is available.
The inaugural Academic Employability Awards are a sign that the tide is turning. We’re seeing deeper collaboration between careers teams and academic departments, embedding employability into course design, assessment, and pedagogy.
So, is it parents or careers services that help graduates find jobs? Well, it’s both.
Parents know their child better than anyone and may be able to offer networks, but there’s also a huge amount that careers and employability teams do that really moves the dial for students and graduates.
By Dr Ben Lishman, Associate Dean for Students, College of Technology and Environment, London South Bank University.
London South Bank University (LSBU) launched its Energy Advice Centre (EAC) in January 2023. The concept was a simple one. The energy crisis of the previous year had seen average household gas and electricity bills increase by 54% in the spring and a further 27% that autumn. The University already had well-established legal and small business advice clinics, so why not expand the concept to have students in our College of Technology and Environment provide local residents with energy-saving advice?
With grant funding from the UPP Foundation, we have created a database of advice and ideas, which we share through a website and a drop-in clinic where local residents can talk directly to our students. The students answer questions, make suggestions for domestic changes which will reduce bills, and remove layers of complexity around domestic energy.
One of Bridget Philipson’s five priorities for reform of the higher education system is that universities play a greater civic role in their communities. With 15% of our local borough affected by fuel poverty, the Energy Advice Centre (EAC) is making an active and meaningful contribution to LSBU’s civic mission and our commitment to reducing the university’s carbon use.
Through the website, our Elephant and Castle drop-in clinic, and winter workshops held in Peckham, Camberwell and Canda water, our student advisors have, to date, provided bespoke and detailed advice to over two hundred and fifty homes, as well as schools and SMEs. By providing information and guidance on issues such as improving energy efficiency, fitting insulation, installing solar panels and applying for home improvement grants, we estimate that the Energy Advice Centre has enabled savings of £75,000 on energy bills so far – and much of the advice we’ve given should provide savings for years to come.
The impact of our work has been noticed locally, with Southwark Council making the Energy Advice Centre its official Green Homes Service, providing funding that has allowed the centre to continue once the initial grant from the UPP Foundation had been spent.
It’s not only local residents who benefit from the Centre. In addition to being paid for their time, working at the EAC provides students with the opportunity to engage in civic activities while developing work-ready skills through applying learning from the classroom into the real world. This has enabled a number of the thirty students who have worked for the EAC so far to get jobs in professional energy advice, net-zero buildings research, and jobs in sustainability across their sectors.
I’m thrilled that the UPP Foundation, having seen evidence of the effectiveness of the model, has provided us with further funding to develop a toolkit, which provides guidance on how other universities can develop their own energy advice centres. We are now working with three initial partner universities – Wrexham University, University of Reading and Kingston University London – to set up their own centres. We think there’s a need for a national network of these centres, sharing good ideas, and we want to share what we’ve learned.
If you would be interested in exploring how to set up an energy advice centre at your own institution, the toolkit is being made available on the UPP Foundation’s website. At 1pm on 4th June, HEPI is also holding a webinar on how initiatives such as the EAC can be used to embed employability and civic engagement in higher education.
CHICAGO, IL (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) —Otus, a leading provider of K-12 student data and assessment solutions, has been awarded a prestigious Gold Stevie® Award in the category of Customer Service Department of the Year at the 2025 American Business Awards®. This recognition celebrates the company’s unwavering commitment to supporting educators, students, and families through exceptional service and innovation.
In addition to the Gold award, Otus also earned two Silver Stevie® Awards: one for Company of the Year – Computer Software – Medium Size, and another honoring Co-founder and President Chris Hull as Technology Executive of the Year.
“It is an incredible honor to be recognized, but the real win is knowing our work is making a difference for educators and students,” said Hull. “As a former teacher, I know how difficult it can be to juggle everything that is asked of you. At Otus, we focus on building tools that save time, surface meaningful insights, and make student data easier to use—so teachers can focus on what matters most: helping kids grow.”
The American Business Awards®, now in their 23rd year, are the premier business awards program in the United States, honoring outstanding performances in the workplace across a wide range of industries. The competition receives more than 12,000 nominations every year. Judges selected Otus for its outstanding 98.7% customer satisfaction with chat interactions, and exceptional 89% gross retention in 2024. They also praised the company’s unique blend of technology and human touch, noting its strong focus on educator-led support, onboarding, data-driven product evolution, and professional development.
“We believe great support starts with understanding the realities educators face every day. Our Client Success team is largely made up of former teachers and school leaders, so we speak the same language. Whether it’s during onboarding, training, or day-to-day communication, we’re here to help districts feel confident and supported. This recognition is a reflection of how seriously we take that responsibility and energizes us to keep raising the bar,” said Phil Collins, Ed.D., Chief Customer Officer at Otus.
Otus continues to make significant strides in simplifying teaching and learning by offering a unified platform that integrates assessment, data, and instruction—all in one place. Otus has supported over 1 million students nationwide by helping educators make data-informed decisions, monitor progress, and personalize learning. These honors reflect the company’s growth, innovation, and steadfast commitment to helping school communities succeed.
About Otus
Otus, an award-winning edtech company, empowers educators to maximize student performance with a comprehensive K-12 assessment, data, and insights solution. Committed to student achievement and educational equity, Otus combines student data with powerful tools that provide educators, administrators, and families with the insights they need to make a difference. Built by teachers for teachers, Otus creates efficiencies in data management, assessment, and progress monitoring to help educators focus on what matters most—student success. Today, Otus partners with school districts nationwide to create informed, data-driven learning environments. Learn more at Otus.com.
eSchool Media staff cover education technology in all its aspects–from legislation and litigation, to best practices, to lessons learned and new products. First published in March of 1998 as a monthly print and digital newspaper, eSchool Media provides the news and information necessary to help K-20 decision-makers successfully use technology and innovation to transform schools and colleges and achieve their educational goals.
College students are known to be strapped for time. A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found the No. 1 stressor in students’ lives is balancing academics with personal, family or financial responsibilities such as work.
Research shows campus involvement is tied to students’ retention, career development and sense of belonging while in college, but helping time-strapped students access these experiences can be a challenge for institutions.
This year, Goucher College in Maryland created a new forum through the office of Community-Based Learning. The short-term micro-experiences allow students to dip their toes into service without committing to a semester or longer. The college first piloted the unpaid opportunities in spring 2024, and student participation in service learning has increased as a result.
The background: The Office of Community-Based Learning offers seven focus areas for community engagement: animal welfare, empowering ability, environmental sustainability, food and housing security, K-12 education and youth development, immigrant and refugee programs, and health and wellness.
Participation could include off-campus Federal Work-Study roles, volunteering with a social justice student club or through a campus organization, taking a Community-Based Learning course, engaging in an internship, or serving as a student director. The office also partners with faculty members to provide experiences in the classroom, such as a semester-long project for a nonprofit partner or a field trip to a partner site.
One of the reasons CBL has previously not offered short-term or one-day service opportunities is because of ethical concerns of how impactful these experiences are for the organizations or individuals being served.
The change is reflective of the needs of today’s students, who are more likely to be working for pay or on a compressed timeline to complete their undergraduate program as quickly as possible, CBL director Lindsay Johnson Walton said.
To ask students to invest in a long-term program that requires three, four or five semesters’ worth of time, “it’s not practical,” she said.
On the other side, nonprofit and community partners can be so desperately in need of support that they hold fewer concerns about the model of service. “It doesn’t matter if it’s the same students as long as it’s engaged students,” Johnson Walton explained.
Offering short-term participation opportunities requires more work from the college to generate the experience and fill out paperwork because it only happens once, but Johnson Walton hopes with future iterations the process will become more streamlined.
How it works: CBL offers around one micro-experience per week, many taking place on a Saturday morning or afternoon. Each experience has a cap of 10 to 12 students.
Students sign up in advance and commit to volunteering for a few hours. College staff handle logistics, including transportation, covering background checks and coordinating with the site, so students just have to show up and serve. Student coordinators, who are part-time staff working for CBL, also contribute to the organization and execution of events.
Some experiences that work well as short-term offerings include volunteering at the food bank or assisting at an animal shelter, while other partners, such as public schools, still operate best with more sustained interactions.
On the trip back, staff lead a short debrief and guided reflection to help students connect their experiences to larger learning objectives and provide additional opportunities to learn or serve, if needed. Students are also sent a short questionnaire that asks them to reflect on their work.
Short-Term Experiential Learning Grows
Community-based learning isn’t the only area where Goucher College has shortened the duration of experiential learning opportunities.
In 2020, Goucher launched micro-internships for students, primarily to address a lack of offerings available to students due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The remote offerings help connect students with alumni and other college partners and give students a project to assist in their career development and growth.
Similarly, the global education office has seen a growth in student interest for three- to five-week study abroad offerings rather than semester-long programs.
Who’s doing it: The micro-experiences have attracted a wide variety of students, some who are curious about service learning and just want to dip their toes in. International students often fall into this category because volunteering can be a uniquely American experience, and the projects give them insight into different organizations and spaces they may not otherwise engage in, such as schools, Johnson Walton said.
Others have a passion for service but are unable to devote much time to it, so micro-experiences provide a flexible opportunity.
Many students had a service requirement while in high school or were told that volunteering is a good feature for their college application, which makes service more of a reflex, Johnson Walton said. “They think they should be doing it, because culturally it’s been built into the list of things you’re supposed to do.”
Each of these students reflects an opportunity to further engage them in longer-term community-based learning in a curricular or co-curricular setting.
Feedback from participants shows that even small or short projects can have an impact on the student. At a volunteer appreciation event, one student wrote they learned how to plant a tree, which is a simple action, but one that can help a lot of people and a skill they can take and use again and again, Johnson Walton said.
Similarly, sorting food at the food bank can seem insignificant, but recognizing how many people that food will feed can help students gain perspective on their service impact.
For organizers of community-based learning experiences, it can be hard to grapple with the potential harm done by short-term community service because of the power dynamics involved, but Johnson Walton has learned that allowing students to get out and do can be a great first start to thoughtful and intentional service.
Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.
