Tag: Shift

  • Tribal Colleges Brace for Shift to Interior Department

    Tribal Colleges Brace for Shift to Interior Department

    As the U.S. Department of the Interior prepares to take on a greater role in administering federal funding for tribal colleges, institutional leaders fear financial uncertainty and losing long-standing trust with the Education Department.

    The grant program is one of dozens the Education Department reshuffled to other federal agencies late last month in yet another effort by Secretary Linda McMahon to trim down its duties and ultimately dismantle the department. Through an interagency agreement, the Department of the Interior will now manage tribal colleges’ Title III funding, while ED retains oversight and policymaking responsibilities, according to an Education Department announcement.

    Trump administration officials argue the move makes sense. The Department of the Interior, home to the Bureau of Indian Education, already oversees tribal K–12 schools and two tribal higher ed institutions, Haskell Indian Nations University in Kansas and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute in New Mexico. The Department of the Interior also already administers higher education scholarships for Native students and other grant funding for tribal colleges.

    Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said in the announcement that his department will assume administrative responsibilities “for enhancing Indian education programs, streamlining operations, and refocusing efforts to better serve Native youth and adults across the nation.”

    The American Indian Higher Education Consortium said in a statement that it’s monitoring the policy shift and plans to work closely with the Department of the Interior “to ensure stability and continuity” for institutions and their students.

    “AIHEC will continue to advocate for approaches that uphold the federal government’s trust and treaty obligations to Tribal Nations and protect the vital role of TCUs in advancing Tribal sovereignty and student success,” the statement read.

    Concerns and Questions

    Despite reassurances, tribal college leaders are leery of the upcoming change.

    Stephen Schoonmaker, president of Tohono O’odham Community College in Arizona, said he understands the logic of the shift, given tribal colleges already have a strong relationship with the Bureau of Indian Education.

    But the department also proposed cutting more than 80 percent of tribal colleges’ funding earlier this year, from roughly $127 million last year to about $22 million this year.

    Congress didn’t approve the cut, but the proposal “was an existential threat to tribal colleges,” Schoonmaker said.

    He believes institutions like his are safest when they have grants coming from multiple federal agencies. That way, if one agency cuts funding, there are still federal dollars flowing in from elsewhere.

    “Putting everything under one basket that could be just cut all at once is not reassuring,” he said.

    Even though he’s had positive experiences working with the BIE, he said he’s jarred by the uncertainty.

    “With this administration, there is a propensity to shuffle things around and make a flurry of proposals, some of which get headway, some of which get dropped almost immediately,” Schoonmaker said, “and it makes it challenging to plan, to ensure for our students and for our employees and for our communities that we serve that the way we’ve been structured, the way that the trust and treaty obligations work … will continue to be honored.”

    The administration hasn’t shared a transition plan with tribal college leaders, adding to their worries, said Chris Caldwell, president of the College of Menominee Nation in Wisconsin.

    According to Caldwell, tribal college leaders are most concerned about the future of the funding mechanisms and support that has historically come from the Department of Education. “We want to make sure that those are retained or even increased,” Caldwell said.

    He also questions how much the BIE will listen to tribal college leaders in its decision-making. For example, its proposal to slash tribal college funding came shortly after a listening session with institutional leaders, he said.

    At the same time, he’s buoyed by the fact that bipartisan support not only saved colleges from proposed cuts, but it increased their funding; the Education Department funneled a historic one-time tranche of funds to tribal colleges, redirected from grants for other minority-serving institutions, earlier this year. Contributions from philanthropist MacKenzie Scott, including a $10 million gift to the College of Menominee Nation, have also offered some extra stability.

    “I have been on roller coasters, but never a roller coaster like this,” Caldwell said. But “I think that strong bipartisan support bodes well for us, even in the midst of this restructuring.”

    Twyla Baker, president of Nueta Hidatsa Sahnish College in North Dakota, said what’s most concerning to her is that the interagency agreement came as a “total surprise.”

    “Tribes, tribal nations, tribal educators should have known about this,” she said. They “should have had input on this well before any type of moves should have been made, before any type of interagency agreements should have been signed … Consultation should have happened and needs to happen quickly if we’re going to continue on this path.”

    She also has her doubts about ED shifting responsibilities over to the Department of the Interior. She said tribal college leaders have worked to develop expertise within the Education Department about their institutions and now it feels like that effort was for naught.

    “You’re kind of pulling the rug out from under us,” she said. “And that structure, the regularity of how business is done, is going to be dismantled. You can’t just shove it over to somebody else’s responsibility and expect it to work well.”

    She worries the transition could affect students if services and resource allocation are interrupted.

    “That type of interruption can be pretty untenable for small schools in rural areas, which is what a lot of us are.”

    Whatever happens, Baker said the transition is “a diversion of energy that didn’t necessarily have to happen where we could have been just focusing on our missions.”

    A Fraught Past

    The Bureau of Indian Education has come under fire in the past for its negligent oversight of K–12 schools and the two higher ed institutions in its care.

    Members of Congress held a heated hearing last year in which many accused the Bureau of Indian Education of responding slowly or inadequately to student and employee complaints at Haskell Indian Nations University, including reports of sexual assault. Some Kansas lawmakers even proposed removing Haskell from federal control.

    The BIE has also historically drawn criticism for poor academic outcomes, limited reporting, inadequate technology and deferred maintenance backlogs at its K–12 schools, ProPublica reported. A 2014 report by Sally Jewell, interior secretary under President Barack Obama, and former Education Secretary Arne Duncan called the BIE a “stain on our Nation’s history.” The report denounced the agency for producing “generations of American Indians who are poorly educated” and promised to undertake reforms.

    (Tony Dearman, director of the Bureau of Indian Education since 2016, told ProPublica that the BIE has undergone changes since then, including a more direct process to inspect school buildings, make major purchases and enter into contracts.)

    In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, the Department of the Interior described its new responsibilities toward tribal colleges as an “opportunity to better serve Native youth” and emphasized plans to solicit tribal college leaders’ input during the transition.

    “As we move forward with efforts to improve the coordination and delivery of Native American education programs, the Bureau of Indian Education will continue to engage closely with tribes and education partners to ensure their perspectives inform our work,” the statement read.

    “We value the input we receive from tribes and stakeholders, and we remain dedicated to building a future where Native students have the tools, support, and opportunities they need to thrive for generations to come.”

    Source link

  • The political centre of gravity continues to shift towards higher education sceptics

    The political centre of gravity continues to shift towards higher education sceptics

    Declining trust in institutions is a defining trend of our times. Universities are certainly not immune to it, with the idea of the deteriorating “social licence to operate” of the university now a common item of discussion.

    Some point to the negative press coverage universities have faced in recent years. However, our recent report by UCL Policy Lab and More in Common highlights that something more fundamental is going on in our politics that universities must grapple with: the political centre of gravity has moved towards voters who are more sceptical of universities.

    Since 2016 it is well understood that political attention has shifted towards working class or “left-behind” voters (depending on your preferred characterisation) and to seats in the Midlands and northern England. These voters tend to be non-graduates and are now more commonly those seeing Reform as a potential answer to their frustrations. What our analysis found was a striking gap between how they view universities compared to the remainder of the country.

    Gap analysis

    Graduates are overwhelmingly positive about universities – 81 per cent say universities have a positive impact on the nation. Among non-graduates, that figure drops to just 55 per cent. This is reflected in the wider set of concerns non-graduates have about higher education. Non-graduates are more likely to believe universities only benefit those who attend them and that the system is rigged in favour of the rich and powerful. They are also less convinced that universities have become more accessible to working-class students over the past 30 years.

    It is their concerns that are driving the fact that a majority of voters emphasise the importance of vocational education over degrees and are worried about there being too many “Mickey Mouse” courses (although even graduates agree on that later point). Fewer than half are even fully aware that universities conduct research.

    The graduate gap is in part what creates the more direct political challenge universities face. Reform voters are markedly more sceptical of universities than any other voter group. Less than half believe universities are good for the country. More than a third think they only benefit attendees, and nearly one in ten believe they benefit no one at all. Reform voters overwhelmingly did not go to university. If a key battleground of British politics over the next four years is to be Labour vs Reform, universities will need to engage with these voters’ concerns if they going to find their place in the conversation.

    Reaching the sceptics

    This challenge is not insurmountable. There is as much to be positive about as concerned. Our polling showed the clear majority, 61 per cent, see universities as a positive influence, both nationally and locally and the cynicism regarding some aspects of what universities are delivering is not as dire as that faced by many other institutions. Despite their relative scepticism, 45 per cent of Reform voters still see universities as benefiting the country.

    Those we spoke to in focus groups were not unpersuadable. We found some scepticism, but not hostility. Another recent report by More in Common and the UCL Policy Lab ranked universities as “medium-high” in terms of how trusted they are by voters. In the turbulent times we are in, that is not a bad position.

    As well as outlining where the challenges lie, our report shows how universities might go about maintaining trust and reaching more sceptical voters. Three lessons stood out.

    The first is addressing the sense that universities are not supporting the skills needs of the country. The biggest concern we found about universities is the declining perception of the value of a degree. Focus groups bore out what this meant – degrees not resulting in a good job. There are two arguments which played out in focus groups that might help convince sceptics. Either that more degrees have a clear path, like those for teachers, lawyers and doctors, or by explaining the value of a degree in broadening minds and “opening doors” – that is, leading to a good job that may not relate to the content studied. Regardless, the public want confidence that universities are training the next generation of skilled professionals.

    The second is by demonstrating the value of research, and the innovation and civic engagement it allows, to those who do not attend university. On this point there is much potential. When asked, the public are highly supportive of universities’ role in R&D and see it as a core purpose. In focus group discussions, a sense emerged of the benefits of university research – seen as carried out with a long term and neutral perspective. Yet few raise research unprompted, and less than half of non-graduates in our poll were even fully aware that universities do research. Articulating this role and how it benefits lives is a clear imperative.

    Third is the local role. We found many see universities as a source of local pride, with the idea that universities support local business – and make their areas more vibrant – resonating. At the same time there are concerns, for example around housing and anti-social behaviour. A focus on enhancing the former and acting as a good neighbour on the latter would therefore be advisable.

    All this sits in a wider context of how the public sees universities, which was at the core of what we found. In the public imagination, universities are national institutions with clear responsibilities. Indeed, Reform voters are the most likely to say that universities should focus on their national responsibilities as opposed to their international connections. Showing how these responsibilities are being met – for the whole country, not just those who study for a degree – is how the sector can maintain public trust, and meet the political challenge it faces.

    Source link

  • Cellphone bans can help kids learn — but Black students are suspended more as schools make the shift

    Cellphone bans can help kids learn — but Black students are suspended more as schools make the shift

    Thirty states now limit or ban cellphone use in classrooms, and teachers are noticing children paying attention to their lessons again. But it’s not clear whether this policy — unpopular with students and a headache for teachers to enforce — makes an academic difference. 

    If student achievement goes up after a cellphone ban, it’s tough to know if the ban was the reason. Some other change in math or reading instruction might have caused the improvement. Or maybe the state assessment became easier to pass. Imagine if politicians required all students to wear striped shirts and test scores rose. Few would really think that stripes made kids smarter.

    Two researchers from the University of Rochester and RAND, a nonprofit research organization, figured out a clever way to tackle this question by taking advantage of cellphone activity data in one large school district in Florida, which in 2023 became the first state to institute school cellphone restrictions. The researchers compared schools that had high cellphone activity before the ban with those that had low cellphone usage to see if the ban made a bigger difference for schools that had high usage. 

    Indeed, it did. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Student test scores rose a bit more in high cellphone usage schools two years after the ban compared with schools that had lower cellphone usage to start. Students were also attending school more regularly. 

    The policy also came with a troubling side effect. The cellphone bans led to a significant increase in student suspensions in the first year, especially among Black students. But disciplinary actions declined during the second year. 

    “Cellphone bans are not a silver bullet,” said David Figlio, an economist at the University of Rochester and one of the study’s co-authors. “But they seem to be helping kids. They’re attending school more, and they’re performing a bit better on tests.”

    Figlio said he was “worried” about the short-term 16 percent increase in suspensions for Black students. What’s unclear from this data analysis is whether Black students were more likely to violate the new cellphone rules, or whether teachers were more likely to single out Black students for punishment. It’s also unclear from these administrative behavior records if students were first given warnings or lighter punishments before they were suspended. 

    The data suggest that students adjusted to the new rules. A year later, student suspensions, including those of Black students, fell back to what they had been before the cellphone ban.

    “What we observe is a rocky start,” Figlio added. “There was a lot of discipline.”

    The study, “The Impact of Cellphone Bans in Schools on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Florida,” is a draft working paper and has not been peer-reviewed. It was slated to be circulated by the National Bureau of Economic Research on Oct. 20 and the authors shared a draft with me in advance. Figlio and his co-author Umut Özek at RAND believe it is the first study to show a causal connection between cellphone bans and learning rather than just a correlation.

    The academic gains from the cellphone ban were small, less than a percentile point, on average. That’s the equivalent of moving from the 50th percentile on math and reading tests (in the middle) to the 51st percentile (still close to the middle), and this small gain did not emerge until the second year for most students. The academic benefits were strongest for middle schoolers, white students, Hispanic students and male students. The academic gains for Black students and female students were not statistically significant.  

    Related: Suspended for…what? 

    I was surprised to learn that there is data on student cellphone use in school. The authors of this study used information from Advan Research Corp., which collects and analyzes data from mobile phones around the world for business purposes, such as figuring out how many people visit a particular retail store. The researchers were able to obtain this data for schools in one Florida school district and estimate how many students were on their cellphones before and after the ban went into effect between the hours of 9 a.m. and 1 p.m.

    The data showed that more than 60 percent of middle schoolers, on average, were on their phones at least once during the school day before the 2023 ban in this particular Florida district, which was not named but described as one of the 10 largest districts in the country. (Five of the nation’s 10 largest school districts are in Florida.) After the ban, that fell in half to 30 percent of middle schoolers in the first year and down to 25 percent in the second year.

    Elementary school students were less likely to be on cellphones to start with and their in-school usage fell from about 25 percent of students before the ban to 15 percent after the ban. More than 45 percent of high schoolers were on their phones before the ban and that fell to about 10 percent afterwards.

    Average daily smartphone visits in schools, by year and grade level

    Average daily smartphone visits during regular school days (relative to teacher workdays without students) between 9am and 1pm (per 100 enrolled students) in the two months before and then after the 2023 ban took effect in one large urban Florida school district. Source: Figlio and Özek, October 2025 draft paper, figure 2C, p. 23.

    Florida did not enact a complete cellphone ban in 2023, but imposed severe restrictions. Those restrictions were tightened in 2025 and that additional tightening was not studied in this paper.

    Anti-cellphone policies have become increasingly popular since the pandemic, largely based on our collective adult gut hunches that kids are not learning well when they are consumed by TikTok and SnapChat. 

    This is perhaps a rare case in public policy, Figlio said, where the “data back up the hunches.” 

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about cellphone bans was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • How Higher Education Can Lead the AI Shift – Campus Review

    How Higher Education Can Lead the AI Shift – Campus Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Source link

  • From improvement to compliance – a significant shift in the purpose of the TEF

    From improvement to compliance – a significant shift in the purpose of the TEF

    The Teaching Excellence Framework has always had multiple aims.

    It was partly intended to rebalance institutional focus from research towards teaching and student experience. Jo Johnson, the minister who implemented it, saw it as a means of increasing undergraduate teaching resources in line with inflation.

    Dame Shirley Pearce prioritised enhancing quality in her excellent review of TEF implementation. And there have been other purposes of the TEF: a device to support regulatory interventions where quality fell below required thresholds, and as a resource for student choice.

    And none of this should ignore its enthusiastic adoption by student recruitment teams as a marketing tool.

    As former Chair and Deputy Chair of the TEF, we are perhaps more aware than most of these competing purposes, and more experienced in understanding how regulators, institutions and assessors have navigated the complexity of TEF implementation. The TEF has had its critics – something else we are keenly aware of – but it has had a marked impact.

    Its benchmarked indicator sets have driven a data-informed and strategic approach to institutional improvement. Its concern with disparities for underrepresented groups has raised the profile of equity in institutional education strategies. Its whole institution sweep has made institutions alert to the consequences of poorly targeted education strategies and prioritised improvement goals. Now, the publication of the OfS’s consultation paper on the future of the TEF is an opportunity to reflect on how the TEF is changing and what it means for the regulatory and quality framework in England.

    A shift in purpose

    The consultation proposes that the TEF becomes part of what the OfS sees as a more integrated quality system. All registered providers will face TEF assessments, with no exemptions for small providers. Given the number of new providers seeking OfS registration, it is likely that the number to be assessed will be considerably larger than the 227 institutions in the 2023 TEF.

    Partly because of the larger number of assessments to be undertaken, TEF will move to a rolling cycle, with a pool of assessors. Institutions will still be awarded three grades – one for outcomes, one for experience and one overall, but their overall grade will simply be the lower of the two other grades. The real impact of this will be on Bronze-rated providers who could find themselves subject to a range of measures, potentially including student number controls or fee constraints, until they show improvement.

    The OfS consultation paper marks a significant shift in the purpose of the TEF, from quality enhancement to regulation and from improvement to compliance. The most significant changes are at the lower end of assessed performance. The consultation paper makes sensible changes to aspects of the TEF which always posed challenges for assessors and regulators, tidying up the relationship between the threshold B3 standards and the lowest TEF grades. It correctly separates measures of institutional performance on continuation and completion – over which institutions have more direct influence – from progression to employment – over which institutions have less influence.

    Pressure points

    But it does this at some heavy costs. By treating the Bronze grade as a measure of performance at, rather than above, threshold quality, it will produce just two grades above the threshold. In shifting the focus towards quantitative indicators and away from institutional discussion of context, it will make TEF life more difficult for further education institutions and institutions in locations with challenging graduate labour markets. The replacement of the student submission with student focus groups may allow more depth on some issues, but comes at the expense of breadth, and the student voice is, disappointingly, weakened.

    There are further losses as the regulatory purpose is embedded. The most significant is the move away from educational gain, and this is a real loss: following TEF 2023, almost all institutions were developing their approaches to and evaluation of educational gain, and we have seen many examples where this was shaping fruitful approaches to articulating institutional goals and the way they shape educational provision.

    Educational gain is an area in which institutions were increasingly thinking about distinctiveness and how it informs student experience. It is a real loss to see it go, and it will weaken the power of many education strategies. It is almost certainly the case that the ideas of educational gain and distinctiveness are going to be required for confident performance at the highest levels of achievement, but it is a real pity that it is less explicit. Educational gain can drive distinctiveness, and distinctiveness can drive quality.

    Two sorts of institutions will face the most significant challenges. The first, obviously, are providers rated Bronze in 2023, or Silver-rated providers whose indicators are on a downward trajectory. Eleven universities were given a Bronze rating overall in the last TEF exercise – and 21 received Bronze either for the student experience or student outcomes aspects. Of the 21, only three Bronzes were for student outcomes, but under the OfS plans, all would be graded Bronze, since any institution would be given its lowest aspect grade as its overall grade. Under the proposals, Bronze-graded institutions will need to address concerns rapidly to mitigate impacts on growth plans, funding, prestige and competitive position.

    The second group facing significant challenges will be those in difficult local and regional labour markets. Of the 18 institutions with Bronze in one of the two aspects of TEF 2023, only three were graded bronze for student outcomes, whereas 15 were for student experience. Arguably this was to be expected when only two of the six features of student outcomes had associated indicators: continuation/completion and progression.

    In other words, if indicators were substantially below benchmark, there were opportunities to show how outcomes were supported and educational gain was developed. Under the new proposals, the approach to assessing student outcomes is largely, if not exclusively, indicator-based, for continuation and completion. The approach is likely to reinforce differences between institutions, and especially those with intakes from underrepresented populations.

    The stakes

    The new TEF will play out in different ways in different parts of the sector. The regulatory focus will increase pressure on some institutions, whilst appearing to relieve it in others. For those institutions operating at 2023 Bronze levels or where 2023 Silver performance is declining, the negative consequences of a poor performance in the new TEF, which may include student number controls, will loom large in institutional strategy. The stakes are now higher for these institutions.

    On the other hand, institutions whose graduate employment and earnings outcomes are strong, are likely to feel more relieved, though careful reading of the grade specifications for higher performance suggests that there is work to be done on education strategies in even the best-performing 2023 institutions.

    In public policy, lifting the floor – by addressing regulatory compliance – and raising the ceiling – by promoting improvement – at the same time is always difficult, but the OfS consultation seems to have landed decisively on the side of compliance rather than improvement.

    Source link

  • Biotech to “Shift to U.K. and China” After U.S. mRNA Cuts

    Biotech to “Shift to U.K. and China” After U.S. mRNA Cuts

    The U.K. and China will be the biggest beneficiaries of the U.S. health secretary’s “own goal” of pulling funding for mRNA vaccines, according to experts.

    Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a controversial member of Donald Trump’s cabinet who claims he wants to “make America healthy again,” is scrapping $500 million in funding for the technology—which was used to combat COVID-19.

    Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, said other countries with active biotechnology industries will benefit, but the decision will still delay the development of new vaccines worldwide.

    “Progress will continue but not as quickly as otherwise. Lives will be lost that could have been saved had there been a vaccine,” he told Times Higher Education.

    The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services said 22 projects by major pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer and Moderna, will be affected. The projects were working on vaccines against bird flu and other viruses.

    “It will certainly make the U.S. poorer for not having a biotechnology industry that is not as competitive as it could be,” added Hunter. “The U.S. will certainly lose out to China and Europe, and when its researchers move overseas, it may not be easy to get them to return later.”

    He said the migration of talent to the U.K. is already under way—with his department recently shortlisting a research assistant who had been working in the U.S.

    Kennedy said mRNA technology “poses more risks than benefits” for respiratory viruses and announced a shift toward “safer, broader vaccine platforms that remain effective even as viruses mutate.”

    “I would certainly say it’s an own goal for the U.S. and something they are likely to regret,” said Robin Shattock, professor of mucosal infection and immunity at Imperial College London.

    Shattock said innovation would continue at pace in the U.K., mainland Europe and Asia. While China pushes ahead with RNA technologies, the U.S. appears to be looking to shift to older technology used by Chinese companies.

    “This current retrograde step by the U.S. will allow others to catch up and likely pull ahead in the context of vaccines,” he added. “It will only take another pandemic for them to rapidly see their mistake.”

    Charles Bangham, professor emeritus of immunology also at Imperial, said the cuts to U.S. aid and higher education funding have already been seriously damaging for research, but this latest “antiscience” decision will be harmful to both manufacturing and health.

    “The disinvestment in mRNA vaccine development and production is, in my view, a serious error.”

    “It is a blow to the U.S.’ own interests—they’re shooting themselves in the foot.”

    In the absence of any strong evidence that COVID-19 vaccines caused adverse reactions, Bangham said it was hard to rationalize why the U.S. was acting so decisively on “the basis of a few anecdotes.”

    “It’s more than a lack of competency. I think it’s active and explicit, and often voiced, opposition and denigration and disavowal of the value of scientific evidence, which I think is extremely damaging.”

    Along with the U.K., Europe and China, there are now “huge opportunities” for research development in Southeast Asia, he added.

    Source link

  • Ideology, Outcomes, and a Shift in Higher Ed Oversight

    Ideology, Outcomes, and a Shift in Higher Ed Oversight

    In a bold move that could upend the structure of higher education oversight in the United States, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis announced the creation of the Commission for Public Higher Education (CPHE)—a multi-state effort to challenge what he and his allies call the “activist-controlled accreditation monopoly.” The CPHE includes six Republican-led states: Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

    Positioned as a new accrediting entity with a focus on “student outcomes, transparency, and ideological independence,” the CPHE represents a growing backlash against traditional regional accreditors like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC). According to DeSantis and CPHE proponents, these longstanding organizations have prioritized diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and other perceived progressive mandates over academic quality, workforce readiness, and measurable outcomes.

    The Political Context

    Governor DeSantis has made higher education a central battleground in his broader cultural agenda, particularly since his administration launched efforts to eliminate DEI offices, weaken tenure protections, and reshape public university boards. The CPHE fits neatly into that larger campaign—what DeSantis calls “reclaiming higher education.”

    “We’re breaking the stranglehold of the accreditation cartel,” DeSantis said in Boca Raton. “Florida is leading the way in building an education system based on results, not ideology.”

    The effort is being coordinated with support from public university systems across the South, including the University of South Carolina and the University Systems of Georgia and Texas. University of South Carolina Board Chair Thad Westbrook praised the new accreditor’s “outcomes-based” framework, stating it will “benefit students while making accreditation more efficient.”

    A Threat to the Federal Gatekeeping System?

    Accreditation in the U.S. plays a crucial gatekeeping role: it determines whether institutions are eligible to receive federal student aid, including Pell Grants and federally backed student loans. For CPHE to have any real impact, it must eventually be recognized by the U.S. Department of Education.

    That recognition is far from guaranteed. The process requires years of documentation, reviews, and approvals—and federal education officials may view CPHE’s openly political roots as problematic. Critics argue the consortium is more about ideological conformity than educational quality.

    Risks and Ramifications

    While the CPHE claims to offer a “rigorous” and “transparent” alternative to traditional accreditation, skeptics—including some education policy analysts and faculty advocates—warn that the real motive is political control over higher education institutions. By tying accreditation to a specific ideological framework, opponents fear that academic freedom, faculty governance, and research independence could be undermined.

    There are also practical concerns. Should CPHE institutions lose recognition by federal agencies or face lawsuits over inconsistent standards, students could suffer the consequences—especially those relying on financial aid or seeking degrees with recognized accreditation.

    Moreover, CPHE’s narrow focus on “student outcomes” often means post-graduate earnings or job placement, metrics that oversimplify complex educational goals and ignore broader social and civic benefits of higher education.

    A Test of Federalism in Higher Ed

    This development marks an escalation in the state-federal tug-of-war over higher education. With the U.S. Supreme Court increasingly supportive of state autonomy, and with Congress gridlocked, states like Florida are testing how far they can go in reshaping public education under a conservative vision.

    The CPHE may become a flashpoint in the national debate over what public universities are for—and who gets to decide. Whether this initiative results in meaningful improvement or becomes another chapter in the politicization of higher education remains to be seen.

    Source link

  • Education Dept.’s Penn Demands Show Shift in Title IX

    Education Dept.’s Penn Demands Show Shift in Title IX

    The Department of Education’s demands that University of Pennsylvania “restore” swimming awards and honors that had been “misappropriated” to trans women athletes and apologize to the cisgender women who had lost to them offer a glimpse into how the second Trump administration could use Title IX to force certain changes at colleges, experts and attorneys say.

    The demands, issued April 28 in the form of a proposed resolution agreement, would resolve a civil rights investigation that found Penn violated Title IX by “permitting males to compete in women’s intercollegiate athletics and to occupy women-only intimate facilities.” The Office for Civil Rights didn’t offer specifics, but officials were likely referring to trans swimmer Lia Thomas, who competed on the university’s women’s team in the 2021–22 academic year.

    Today is the deadline for Penn to either agree to the proposed demands or potentially face consequences. Department officials said they would refer to the case to the Justice Department for possible enforcement—a process that could end with the university losing access to federal funding—if Penn didn’t comply. (Penn has already lost $175 million in federal funding over this issue, though White House officials said that decision was separate from the Office for Civil Rights inquiry.)

    Penn is among several colleges and K-12 schools, including San José State University, facing investigations over policies related to trans athletes, but Penn is the first college to be the target of such public demands. Experts say the speed of the investigation, OCR’s unusual demands and the fact that Penn was in compliance with Title IX at the time Thomas competed there reflect a shift toward a more aggressive use of Title IX to further President Donald Trump’s anti-trans agenda.

    The crazy part of all of this is they may be asking Penn to discriminate in doing so, because the Trump administration has its interpretation, but that’s not definitive.”

    —Brett Sokolow, former president of the Association of Title IX Administrators

    Opposing Interpretations

    The administration’s forceful attack on institutions that have been home to high-profile trans women athletes fits with its overall playbook, which includes using any tools at its disposal to advance Trump’s agenda.

    In the case of trans athletes’ participation in athletics, the weapon of choice is Title IX, the 52-year-old law passed to guarantee women equal opportunity to education, which has since been interpreted as a broad tool to address sex-based discrimination and harassment on campus.

    In recent years, though, the relationship between trans students’ rights and Title IX has become complicated. Those on the left argue that the nature of Title IX is to protect students from gender-based discrimination, and that includes discrimination against trans and nonbinary individuals. (Such protections were included in the Biden administration’s short-lived Title IX regulations.) But those on the right argue that allowing trans women to participate women’s sports and to use women’s bathrooms and locker rooms violates the rights of their cisgender teammates—a perspective the Trump administration squarely aligns with.

    “The previous administration trampled the rights of American women and girls—and ignored the indignities to which they were subjected in bathrooms and locker rooms—to promote a radical transgender ideology,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement when the Penn investigation was first announced.

    For those in the former camp, Trump’s demands of Penn are just another example of the president using any means possible to erode trans people’s rights.

    “The news out of Penn, to me, was just another example of the way they are, unfortunately, using [Title IX] as a battering ram to beat down safe and inclusive school environments for trans students,” said Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Advocates for Youth, a youth sexual health and LGBTQ+ equality advocacy organization.

    Conservative organizations, though, have applauded the proposed resolution agreement, with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that has repeatedly sued to prevent trans women from playing on women’s sports teams and using women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, calling it “another step in the right direction to restore fairness and safety in women’s sports.”

    An Aggressive Tack

    Since taking office in January, Trump has rolled back trans students’ rights, including signing an executive order banning trans student athletes from playing on the teams that align with their gender. That order prompted the Penn investigation, but at the time that Thomas was competing, trans women who met certain requirements related to hormone therapy—as Thomas did—were permitted by the NCAA and governmental regulations to compete on women’s teams.

    The NCAA has since changed that rule. But despite the NCAA’s stance and the executive order, current Title IX regulations do not disallow trans women from playing women’s sports. In fact, the regulations are the exact same set of rules, passed by the first Trump administration in 2020, that were in place when Thomas swam for Penn. This raises the question, experts say, of whether Penn should be penalized under Title IX despite the fact that the institution was following those regulations to the best of its ability.

    “That’s the interesting challenge, and probably where Penn will hang its hat if it fights this: ‘There was an interpretation of Title IX in place at the time that Penn followed. And there’s an interpretation of Title IX that’s different now. How is it fair to impose today’s interpretation of Title IX on a previous time period?’” said Brett Sokolow, former president of the Association of Title IX Administrators and chair of the crisis management consulting and law firm TNG Consulting.

    This is just one element of the aggressive tack the Trump administration appears to be taking against institutions that allowed trans women to play women’s sports. Multiple experts also pointed out the quick, almost dizzying timeline of OCR’s investigation into Penn.

    Timeline of Penn Investigation

    Feb. 5: Trump signs executive order prohibiting trans athletes from playing on teams that match their gender identity.

    Feb. 6: Trump launches investigation into Penn. NCAA ends policy allowing trans athletes to play on teams that match their gender identity.

    March 19: Trump administration pauses $175 million in federal funds to Penn.

    April 28: OCR says Penn violated Title IX and must “restore” swimming honors given to trans women.

    Ordinarily, investigations can take years to conclude—something that has often been a pain point for victims’ rights advocates, who argue that those timelines can seriously impede victims’ ability to complete their studies.

    But OCR launched this investigation within a month of Trump entering office—and just two days after he signed the EO related to trans athletes—and resolved it less than three months later.

    It’s also unusual for OCR to target a specific student with a resolution agreement, Sokolow said; most such agreements are stripped of names and identifying details. Although Thomas is not named in the department’s press release, it does call out her sport, swimming, and there have been no other out trans athletes at Penn.

    “It’s very indicative of this administration—and concerning—that they’re targeting one person and demonizing them,” he said.

    Experts also say the demands marks a sharp contrast from how OCR has resolved such cases in the past. Levine said that the requirements in resolution agreements are meant to “meaningfully impact a culture of sex-based harassment,” but she feels that OCR’s demands wouldn’t do that—if such a culture even exists at Penn.

    Title IX ‘Pendulum Swing’

    If Penn fights the demands, the case could put the war between those who seek to protect trans athletes from discrimination and those who want to see them excised from their sports teams to the test. And until courts settle the question, students and institutions will be in limbo.

    “The crazy part of all of this is they may be asking Penn to discriminate in doing so, because the Trump administration has its interpretation, but that’s not definitive,” Sokolow said. “It does not have the force of law. If a court were to rule on this that Lia Thomas had rightfully won whatever competition the Trump administration is concerned about, any move to force to Penn to remove those victories could be discriminatory against a person who’s trans.”

    Lia Thomas, a swimmer at University of Pennsylvania, left, and Riley Gaines of the University of Kentucky tied for fifth place in the 200 freestyle at the NCAA swimming championships in March 2022.

    Icon Sportswire/Contributor/Getty Images

    Patricia Hamill, co-chair of the Title IX and campus discipline practice at Clark Hill, a Washington law firm, told Inside Higher Ed via email that the case “highlights the pendulum swing of Title IX in its enforcement and interpretation as well as in the government priorities over the last decade. Institutions are continuously being challenged on how to best to handle these very difficult situations on ground that continues to shift both because of Administration changes but also because of societal changes.”

    Penn had not publicly commented on the proposed resolution agreement as of Wednesday evening. When news broke that the government was suspending its federal funds, Penn officials stressed in a statement that its “athletic programs have always operated within the framework provided by the federal government, the NCAA and our conference.”

    Title IX experts expect that if the university does challenge the proposed agreement in court, it will focus on that very argument—that when Thomas was competing on Penn’s swim team, the university was, in fact, complying with NCAA rules and the department’s guidance.

    Source link

  • Will the use of generative AI shift higher education from a knowledge-first system to a skills-first system?

    Will the use of generative AI shift higher education from a knowledge-first system to a skills-first system?

    On the eve of the release of HEPI’s Student Generative AI Survey 2025, HEPI hosted a roundtable dinner with the report’s sponsor, Kortext, and invited guests to discuss the following essay question:

    How will AI change the university experience for the next generation?

    This was the third roundtable discussion we have hosted with Kortext on AI, over three years. Observing the debate mature from a cautious, risk-averse response to this forward-looking, employability-focused discussion has been fascinating. We spent much of the evening discussing a potential pivot for teaching and learning in the sector.

    The higher education sector places the highest importance on creating, collecting, and applying knowledge. ‘Traditional’ assessments have focused on the recollection of knowledge (exams) or the organisation and communication of knowledge (in essays). The advent of search engines has made acquiring knowledge more accessible, while generative AI has automated the communication of knowledge.

    If knowledge is easily accessible, explainable, and digestible, which skills should our graduates possess that cannot be replaced by ChatGPT, now or in the future? It was suggested that these are distinctly ‘human’ skills: relationship building, in-person communication, and leadership. Are we explicitly teaching these skills within the curriculum? Are we assessing them? Are we rebalancing our taught programmes from knowledge to irreplaceable skills to stay ahead of the AI curve?

    And to get a bit meta about it all, what AI skills are we teaching? Not just the practical skills of application of AI use in one’s field, but deep AI literacy. Recognising bias, verifying accuracy, understanding intellectual property rights and embracing digital ambition. (Professor Sarah Jones of Southampton Solent University has written about this here.)

    Given recent geopolitical events, critical thinking was also emphasized. When and why can something be considered the ‘truth’? What is ‘truth’, and why is it important?

    Colleagues were clear that developing students’ knowledge and understanding should still be a key part of the higher education process (after all, you can’t apply knowledge if you don’t have a basic level of it). In addition, they suggested that we need to be clearer with students about the experiential benefits of learning. As one colleague stated,

    ‘The value of the essay is not the words you have put on the page, it is the processes you go through in getting the words to the page. How do you select your information? How do you structure your argument more clearly? How do you choose the right words to convince your reader of your point?’

    There was further discussion about the importance of experiential learning, even within traditional frameworks. Do we clearly explain to students the benefits of learning experiences – such as essay writing – and how this will develop their personal and employability skills? One of the participants mentioned that they were bribing their son not to complete his Maths homework by using ChatGPT. As students increasingly find their time constrained due to paid work and caring responsibilities, how can we convince students of the value of fully engaging with their learning experiences and assessments when ChatGPT is such an attractive option? How explicitly are we talking to students about their skills development?

    There was a sense of urgency to the discussion. One colleague described this as a critical juncture, a ‘one-time opportunity’ to make bold choices about developing our programmes to be future-focused. This will ensure graduates leave higher education with the skills expected and needed by their employers, which will outlast the rapidly evolving world of generative AI and ensure the sector remains relevant in a world of bite-sized, video-based learning and increasing automation.

    Kortext is a HEPI partner.

    Founded in 2013, Kortext is the UK’s leading student experience and engagement expert, pioneering digitally enhanced teaching and learning in the higher education community. Kortext supports institutions in boosting student engagement and driving outcomes with our AI-powered, cutting-edge content discovery and study products, market-leading learner analytics, and streamlined workflows for higher education. For more information, please visit: kortext.com

    Source link

  • The Enrollment Shift: Strategies for Engaging the Modern Learner

    The Enrollment Shift: Strategies for Engaging the Modern Learner

    Meet Maria. A recent high school graduate with her sights set on a career in web development, Maria surprised her family by choosing a six-month accelerated certificate program at a local community college over a traditional four-year computer science degree. Why? Because Maria, like many of today’s learners, prioritizes a fast track to career readiness, affordability and the flexibility to learn at her own pace. She’s not alone. This trend is playing out across the country, forcing institutions to rethink their approach to attracting and retaining students.

    Maria’s story exemplifies the enrollment shift happening in higher education. Greg Clayton, the President of the EMS division of EducationDynamics says: “Higher education isn’t collapsing, it’s shifting. Schools must adapt to meet the evolving needs of today’s students or they will be left behind.” This shift is driven by a confluence of factors, from changing demographics to evolving student priorities and the rise of new technologies.

    Changing How We Think About the Coming Enrollment Cliff

    As we covered earlier this year in our blog post about the Enrollment Cliff, higher education is about to come up against a demographic shift that will impact first-year enrollment, starting with the Fall 2025 class. With this demographic “apocalypse” just on the horizon, all eyes and thoughts have been on what to do about a shrinking pool of 18-year-olds looking to start their first year of college.

    However, as research from the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center (NSCRC) indicates, we may be looking at an Enrollment Shift that is happening concurrently with the Enrollment Cliff. The latest NSC data for 2024 shows that while enrollment rose 3% overall for the Fall 2024 term over the Fall 2023 term, Fall enrollment for incoming freshmen is down across all institutions at an average of 5%. To be clear, we have not hit the Enrollment Cliff yet. The importance of this data cannot be overemphasized. If 18-year-olds are already considering waiting or taking alternate paths to the workforce and obtaining a degree, the demographic shift will hit that much harder, over a longer period of time.

    Digging further into the data reveals even more startling numbers, which show larger shifts in enrollment trends based on economic background. Compared to Fall 2023 enrollment, institutions which have a high percentage of students utilizing Pell grants, the retraction for both publics and private non-profits is over 10%. From the students’ perspective, “middle” income households are also seeing the steepest decline, at 8%.

    So what does this tell us? It is telling us that the background noise over the past 5-7 years regarding the cost of getting a degree, the methodology with which they are achieved and the career/economic outcomes afterward are absolutely being reflected by the decisions people are making who are most impacted by these economic realities. It is telling us that the current model is not working, it is unsustainable – it is untenable for the students and it is untenable for the schools that are supposed to support them. Match this massive regression in the market with the actual Enrollment Cliff and the numbers are more than startling. It is in the millions, compounded by each year of subsequent birth decline.

    And what is making up for this loss in incoming freshmen? As we have stated before, it is being fueled by a surge in “non-traditional” students – adult learners, international students and those returning to college to upskill or reskill. These students bring with them a wealth of experience and a clear sense of purpose, but they also have unique needs and expectations. Institutions must be prepared to cater to this growing population by offering programs and services that align with their goals and lifestyles.

    Furthermore, the “some college, no credential” (SCNC) population, now numbering 36.8 million, represents a significant opportunity for higher education institutions. Re-enrollment among this group increased by 9.1% in the 2022-2023 academic year, demonstrating a growing desire for continued education and career advancement. Reaching out to this population and providing clear pathways for degree completion can be a valuable strategy for boosting enrollment and serving a population eager to advance their careers.

    It’s also important to recognize that age is no longer a predictor of learning modality. Many younger students, like Maria, are opting for part-time enrollment, online programs, or alternative credentials that offer a quicker path to employment. The Modern Learner, regardless of age, demands flexibility and relevance. They are digital natives, accustomed to accessing information and services online and they expect the same level of convenience and personalization from their educational experiences.

    The Rising of the Modern Learner Era

    To thrive in this new era, consider some of these strategies higher education institutions to adapt to the needs of the Modern Learner.

    Offer Flexible Learning Options

    Expand online and hybrid learning modalities to cater to students who need flexibility in their schedules and learning environment. Offer evening, weekend and accelerated programs to accommodate those balancing work and family commitments. Provide multiple start dates throughout the year to allow students to enroll when it’s convenient for them. Consider incorporating modalities like microlearning and self-paced learning to further cater to individual needs. Offer mobile-friendly learning platforms and resources to allow students to learn on the go.

    Focus on Career Relevance

    Develop programs that align with current and future workforce needs. Partner with employers to offer internships, apprenticeships and other work-based learning experiences that provide students with practical skills and industry connections. Embed industry-recognized certifications within degree programs to enhance their value and marketability. Actively promote career services, networking events and alumni mentorship programs to connect students with career opportunities. Conduct regular labor market analyses to ensure programs are aligned with current and emerging industry trends.

    Make Education More Affordable

    Increase the availability of scholarships and financial aid to help students manage the cost of education. Explore tuition discounts for employees of partner organizations to incentivize upskilling and reskilling. Promote tuition payment plans to make education more accessible to those with limited financial resources. Consider offering income-share agreements or other innovative financing models to align the cost of education with future earning potential. Provide clear and transparent information about tuition costs and financial aid options.

    Provide Robust Student Support Services

    Offer personalized academic advising and career counseling to help students navigate their educational journey and achieve their career goals. Provide support for students balancing work, family and other commitments, such as childcare resources, online tutoring and flexible scheduling options. Create a welcoming and inclusive campus environment where all students feel supported and valued. Offer mental health services, accessibility resources and dedicated support for diverse student populations, including first-generation students, veterans and students with disabilities.

    Streamline the Transfer Credit Process

    Implement a clear and transparent transfer credit policy to facilitate the seamless transfer of credits from other institutions. Adopt a generous policy on accepting transfer credits, recognizing the value of prior learning and experience. Provide dedicated support for SCNC students to help them navigate the re-enrollment process and complete their degrees. Consider implementing prior learning assessment (PLA) programs to grant credit for knowledge and skills acquired outside of the traditional classroom. Develop partnerships with community colleges and other institutions to create seamless transfer pathways.

    Leverage Technology to Enhance the Student Experience

    Use data analytics to personalize communication and support, tailoring messages and interventions to individual student needs. Implement user-friendly online platforms for course registration, financial aid and other services, making it easy for students to access information and complete tasks. Offer on-site chat options on school websites to provide immediate assistance and answer questions in real-time. Explore the use of AI-powered chatbots to provide 24/7 support and personalized guidance. Utilize virtual reality and augmented reality technologies to create immersive learning experiences.

    Embracing the Enrollment Shift

    The future of higher education depends on its ability to adapt to the evolving needs of the Modern Learner. Institutions that embrace flexibility, affordability, career relevance and student-centered approaches will be well-positioned for success.

    It’s time to embrace the enrollment shift. By understanding the motivations and priorities of today’s students, higher education can evolve to meet the challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. This requires a shift in mindset, from a focus on traditional models of education to a more agile, responsive and student-centric approach.

    EducationDynamics is your partner in navigating this changing landscape. We provide the expertise and solutions you need to attract, enroll and retain Modern Learners. Contact us today to learn more.

    Source link