Tag: support

  • Wide-ranging coalition of ‘friends of the court’ continue to support citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal in her return to the Supreme Court

    Wide-ranging coalition of ‘friends of the court’ continue to support citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal in her return to the Supreme Court

    The government can’t jail a journalist for asking a question. And when it does, it can’t get away with it scot-free. But that’s what happened to the police and prosecutors who arrested citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal when she asked an officer questions in the course of reporting the news. 

    It was unconstitutional enough that these Laredo, Texas, officials arrested Priscilla for routine journalism — something freedom-loving Americans know the First Amendment protects. Even worse, they did so because she criticized them. And to further their plan to arrest Priscilla, they deployed a Texas penal statute aimed at curbing abuses of office —and one that Laredo officials had never before tried to enforce in its 23-year history. 

    After the Fifth Circuit denied Priscilla relief for her constitutional injury, the Supreme Court granted her petition and tossed out the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The Court ordered the Fifth Circuit to reconsider her case in light of an earlier ruling. But after the Fifth Circuit mostly reinstated its previous ruling, Priscilla and FIRE once again asked the Supreme Court to intervene. 

    Supporting Priscilla in front of the high court is an impressive and diverse coalition of media organizations, journalists, and defenders of civil liberties. These 11 amicus curiae briefs urge the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in order to protect Americans’ First Amendment right to investigate and report the news and to ensure that officials can be held accountable when they infringe on that obvious right. 

    These reporters and media organizations wrote about how this important First Amendment case will impact the rights of all journalists:

    • The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 24 news organizations including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Dow Jones & Company (owner of The Wall Street Journal) demonstrate how history shows that “no technique has been more routine or central to newsgathering — from the Founding through the present day — than pursuing information about government affairs simply by asking for it.” In addition to attorneys from the Reporters Committee, the media coalition is also represented by Jackson Walker LLP.
    • The MuckRock Foundation, an organization that drives public records requests across the country, is a nonprofit that assists the public in filing governmental requests for public records and then publishes the returned information on its website for public access. Journalists routinely use records MuckRock publishes to expose government corruption, misuse of government funds, and other matters of public concern. MuckRock’s brief warns that if upheld, “the Fifth Circuit’s decision will encourage other government officials, both high and petty, to harass, threaten, and arrest people for requesting information that the government would prefer not to release — even if the government may lawfully release the information under state law.” MuckRock is represented by Prince Lobel Tye LLP.
    • A group of five current and former journalists — David Barstow, Kathleen McElroy, Walter Robinson, John Schwartz, and Jacob Sullum — emphasizes that no reasonable official would have thought Priscilla’s basic reporting practice was criminal. They also use real-life examples to demonstrate that “journalists cannot do their jobs if they must fear that any interaction with the government — even a simple request for truthful, factual information — may be used as a pretext for an arrest and criminal prosecution.” The journalists are represented by counsel at Covington & Burling LLP.
    • The Dallas Free Press submitted a brief with Avi Adelman and Steven Monacelli, two independent journalists who, like Priscilla, have been arrested or detained while reporting on law enforcement. The brief details how when faced with “closed doors and empty mailboxes … journalists must develop alternative sources to perform their job — a public service indispensable to our democracy.” And if communicating with these sources could result in arrest, independent journalists “are especially vulnerable … given that they may lack the resources and institutional backing of a larger news outlet in the event that they are prosecuted.” The Dallas Free Press, Adelman, and Monacelli are represented by the SMU Dedman School of Law First Amendment Clinic, Thomas Leatherbury, and Vinson & Elkins LLP.

    This impressive group of organizations across the ideological spectrum wrote to emphasize the problems with applying qualified immunity in cases like Priscilla’s:

    • First Liberty Institute explains that “the government arresting a journalist for asking questions so obviously violates the First Amendment that no reasonable official would sanction such an action.” And FLI points out that “it comes as no surprise that there is no case directly on point with the facts here” because “these sorts of outrageous fact patterns are more frequently found in law school exams than in real life.” FLI is represented by Dentons Bingham Greenbaum LLP.
    • The Americans for Prosperity Foundation articulates that qualified immunity is inappropriate when it shields government officials from liability for “intentional and slow-moving” infringements of First Amendment rights. Moreover, AFPF argues, qualified immunity especially threatens constitutional rights when officials enforce rarely-used statues, because “the more obscure the state law, the less likely it is that a prior case was decided on a similar set of facts.”
    • The Law Enforcement Action Partnership — whose members include police, prosecutors, and other law-enforcement officials — stress that the Supreme Court “has consistently held that qualified immunity does not shield obvious violations of bedrock constitutional guarantees.” The brief observes that “the dramatic expansion of criminal codes across the country has made it easier than ever” for law enforcement to pretextually arrest someone as punishment for exercising their First Amendment rights. LEAP is represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
    • Young America’s Foundation and the Manhattan Institute highlight that “the First Amendment’s guarantees limit state law, not the other way around.” Their brief also explains how the Fifth Circuit’s failure to recognize decades of Supreme Court precedent protecting “routine news-gathering activities under the First Amendment … erodes essential free-speech and free-press rights.” YAF and the Manhattan Institute are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and The Dhillon Law Group.
    • The Institute for Justice urges reversal of the Fifth Circuit’s decision because “it undermines the text and original meaning of Section 1983,” which protects constitutional rights when violated “under color of” state laws and “notwithstanding” state laws that purport to limit those rights. IJ also stresses that the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity in the context of an obvious constitutional violation “is inconsistent with the prudential rationale underlying qualified immunity: the carefully calibrated balancing of government and individual interests.”  
    • The Constitutional Accountability Center details the history of Section 1983 and cautions that because “qualified immunity is at odds with Section 1983’s text and history, courts should be especially careful to respect the limits on the doctrine.” CAC points out that this is an especially inapt case for qualified immunity because Section 1983 was adopted precisely to combat things like the criminalization of speech by pre-war slave codes and retaliatory prosecutions against critics of slavery.
    • The Cato Institute underlines that in the context of qualified immunity, “clearly established law is an objective inquiry of reasonableness, not a blind reliance on a lack of judicial precedent.” Cato also warns that “freedom of the press cannot meaningfully exist if journalists are not allowed to seek information from government officials.”

    Priscilla and FIRE are exceedingly grateful for the support of this diverse and formidable amicus coalition. With this support, she is hopeful the Supreme Court will hold that journalists — and all Americans — can seek information from government officials without risking arrest. 

    Source link

  • Post-pandemic, student academic recovery remains elusive

    Post-pandemic, student academic recovery remains elusive

    Key points:

    Five years after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, academic recovery has stalled nationwide, and achievement gaps have widened, according to the State of Student Learning 2025 report from from Curriculum Associates.

    The report offers one of the most comprehensive looks at Grades K–8 student performance in reading and mathematics, based on data from close to 14 million students who took the i-Ready Diagnostic assessment in the 2024–2025 school year.

    The report shows that most students have not yet reached pre-pandemic achievement levels, and some are falling even further behind. The report does find some bright spots: Some historically underserved schools, especially majority-Black schools, are seeing modest, positive gains in both reading and mathematics. However, those gains have not yet translated into closing longstanding disparities.

    “This report shows that disrupted schooling due to the pandemic continues to impact student learning, particularly for students who are in early grades, are lower performing, or are from historically underserved communities,” said Kristen Huff, head of measurement at Curriculum Associates. “Academic recovery has never been one-size-fits-all, and these results reaffirm the importance of nuanced, data-informed approaches. Above all, they underscore the vital work educators are doing every day to meet students where they are and help them move forward.”

    Key findings

    • Academic progress has plateaued. Since spring 2023, national achievement has remained flat. While many students are growing at pre-pandemic rates, that growth isn’t closing the gap caused by pandemic disruptions.
    • The achievement gap has grown in many cases. Students who were already behind, particularly those scoring in the bottom 10th percentile, continue to fall behind, while top-performing students have often recovered or surpassed their pre-pandemic levels.
    • Younger students experienced greater learning losses. Even though they were not yet in school during the pandemic, elementary students, especially in Grades K and 1, saw the largest drops in achievement after the pandemic. 
    • Vulnerable populations are experiencing uneven recovery. The report shows widening gaps between the nation’s highest and lowest performers. Across most grades, the differences between higher and lower percentiles have increased over time.

    A data-driven, nationwide look

    The 2025 report examines data through the critical years pre- and post-pandemic, from spring 2019 to spring 2025. Using a nationally representative sample of more than 11.7 million reading and 13.4 million mathematics assessments, the research examines:

    • Grade-level placement: how many students are performing at or below grade level
    • Scale scores by percentile: how learning differs across performance groups
    • Annual growth: whether students are making enough academic progress during the school year to recover lost ground

    The findings reinforce that targeted support is needed to ensure every student can thrive academically, especially younger students, lower-performing students, and historically underserved communities.

    This press release originally appeared online.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • 4 tips to support the literacy needs of middle and high school students

    4 tips to support the literacy needs of middle and high school students

    Key points:

    Today’s middle schoolers continue to struggle post-pandemic to read and write at the level needed to successfully navigate more complex academic content in the upper grades and beyond, according to a new report from NWEA, a K-12 assessment and research organization.

    Based on NWEA’s research, current 8th graders would need close to a full academic year of additional instruction to catch up to their pre-pandemic peers in reading. This trend was reiterated in recent assessment results from the National Assessment on Educational Progress (NAEP), with only 30 percent of eighth-grade students performing at or above the NAEP proficient level.

    While early literacy initiatives have garnered attention in recent years, the fact remains that many students struggle to read and are not prepared for the rigors of middle school. Students quickly find themselves challenged to keep up as they no longer receive explicit, structured reading instruction, even as they are expected to comprehend increasingly complex materials across subjects, like science, history, or English Language Arts.

    The report, Policy recommendations for addressing the middle school reading crisis, is co-authored by Miah Daughtery, EdD, NWEA VP of Academic Advocacy at HMH (NWEA’s parent company), and Chad Aldeman, founder of Read Not Guess.

    “Our current middle and high schoolers were just starting their literacy journey when the pandemic hit, and we cannot lessen the urgency to support them. But, middle school literacy is complex even for students who are reading on grade level. This demands intentional, well-funded, and focused policy leadership that includes support across the K-12 spectrum,” said Daughtery. “Simply put, learning to read is not done when a student exits elementary school; support cannot stop there either.”

    Policymakers and district leaders must adopt a systems-level approach that supports both early learners and the unique literacy needs of middle and high school students.

    The new report provides four components that can be leveraged to make this happen:

    1. Use high-quality, grade-appropriate assessments that provide specific data on the literacy needs of middle schoolers.
    2. Look at flexible scheduling and policies that promote literacy development throughout the entire school day and help districts more effectively use instructional time.
    3. Understand and support the unique literacy needs of middle schoolers across subjects and disciplines from a systems perspective and invest in teacher professional learning in all disciplines, including at the upper grades, within state and district literacy plans.
    4. Curate relationships with external partners, like community organizations and nonprofits, who share similar goals in improving literacy outcomes, and can both support and reinforce literacy development, stretching beyond the school’s hours and resources.
    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Adding a trauma-responsive lens for student support

    Adding a trauma-responsive lens for student support

    Key points:

    Across the country, our schools are being taxed beyond their capacity to support educational success. We’ve known for a long time that students need a three-dimensional structure of guidance and encouragement to thrive. That’s why the Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework was created–it’s a prevention framework for early identification of varying student needs and the responses needed to maximize academic success. In theory, an MTSS supports academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs in equal measure. However, in practice, many schools are struggling to incorporate social-emotional and behavioral components in their MTSS–even as many of their students come to school bearing the effects of adversity, trauma, or crisis.

    This imbalance is leaving millions of children behind.

    Each year, at least 1 in 7 children in the United States experience abuse, violence, natural disasters, or other adverse childhood experiences (ACEs). By age 16, roughly two-thirds of children will have been exposed to at least one traumatic event. This can impair their ability to learn well and contribute to absenteeism, while secondary trauma spirals out from these students to classmates and teachers, multiplying the overall impact. Left unaddressed, the imprint of such events could warp the future of our school and public communities.

    Since COVID-19, schools have reported unprecedented levels of absenteeism and student distress, and supporting trauma-exposed students without training puts more pressure on teachers, who are already burned out and leaving the profession at high rates. Therefore, it is clear to me that creating school-wide networks of trauma-informed adults is essential for fostering supportive learning and growth for students, enhancing educator capacity to nurture trauma-affected learners, and ensuring effective trauma resource management within districts.

    Research has identified a supportive school community as a strong childhood protective factor against the effects of trauma. We should be hopeful about our path forward. But the vision and blueprint for this enhancement of MTSS need to come as soon as possible, and it needs to come from state-level education leaders and school district leaders.

    Gaps in support and expertise

    Consider this scenario: A student who recently experienced a traumatic car accident sits near a window in class, experiencing significant distress or dysregulation without outward signs. A sudden screech of tires outside activates their sympathetic nervous system (the one associated with fight or flight), and the student shuts down, withdrawing into themselves. Their teacher, unaware of the student’s trauma history and unequipped with relevant training, interprets the response as a continuation of past misbehavior or as an academic deficit.

    This sort of misunderstanding takes place in a thousand places every day. I would stress that this isn’t a reflection of bad intentions, but rather a symptom of fragmented systems and knowledge. Even when trauma is recognized, lack of intentional collaboration and training often result in missed opportunities or inconsistent support, which cannot maximize recovery from trauma and may, in fact, hinder it, as research on retraumatization suggests.

    There might be mismatched expectations when teachers send students to the counselor, not knowing that they themselves have a role to play in the healing. In other cases, students may be referred to a school counselor and have a productive support session–but on their way back to class, a seemingly benign statement from a third party can be misconstrued or cause dysregulation, unintentionally undoing the support they’ve received. The solution to all these problems is school-wide training on trauma-informed skills. This way, all educators and staff alike develop a shared knowledge, understanding, language, and responses as they collaborate and connect with students. With the right tools, adults on campus have better trauma-informed strategies to use in their relationships with students and in building a safe and supportive school community.

    The proof is all around us

    Trauma training works synergistically within MTSS: social-emotional and trauma-responsive support allows for better academic outcomes, which work to further reduce behavioral problems, and so on. At the Center for Safe & Resilient Schools and Workplaces, we see this play out often with our school district partners. For example, at Pasadena Unified School District, which was recently ravaged by the Eaton Canyon Fire, trauma-informed best practices and preparations have enabled district leaders to reopen schools with sufficient psychological understanding and interventions along with the needed material support for the 10,000 students who were affected.

    A truly effective MTSS model does not treat trauma as a peripheral concern. It integrates trauma-responsive strategies into every tier of support–from universal practices, to targeted interventions, to intensive mental health services. In that environment, every adult who comes in contact with students has the training to adhere to trauma best practices.

    We are at a juncture where the impact of trauma poses serious risks to the education system, but evidence-based approaches exist to solve the problem. Change from the state level down is the best way to transform school cultures quickly, and I urge state education leaders to take action. Any MTSS plan isn’t complete without a trauma-informed foundation, lens, and programming. And our students–each and every one–deserve nothing less.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Limited resources at underserved schools can keep students from getting the support they need

    Limited resources at underserved schools can keep students from getting the support they need

    As the first in my family to attend college, I felt a profound commitment to excel academically and gain admission to a top university. Growing up amid the hustle and bustle of Silicon Valley, I always envisioned a bright future ahead, with college at the forefront of my goals since elementary school.

    At my Title I elementary and middle schools, student-to-teacher ratios were even higher than those listed online. There was a lack of classroom technology and resources like history textbooks. Our two middle school counselors each managed students by the hundreds, making it nearly impossible for them to keep track of individual academic progress and educational goals. Afterward, I attended a private high school, thanks to support from my family. Our caring teachers made the effort to get to know each student, and dedicated counselors advocated for me when it mattered most.

    Yet when conversations about college came around, navigating the complex system was difficult. I had to chart my own path to success through independent research, often looking at data that was scattered and inconsistent. It hindered my ability to educate myself on college-going rates, costs, outcomes and employment prospects post-graduation.

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

    Limited resources available at many underserved schools across the nation make it a more challenging environment for students to get support and excel, thus limiting their true academic potential.

    In my senior year of high school, after gaining newfound confidence while serving as a commissioner at-large in my county’s youth commission, I decided to try to challenge the status quo in higher education through the power of data and find a way to speak up for other first-generation students who find themselves interacting with systems not designed with their experiences in mind. My mentors at a regional food bank where I volunteered shaped me to lead with confidence and heart.

    When I received my admission letter from the University of California, Berkeley, I felt deeply honored to earn a place at one of the world’s leading research and teaching institutions.

    I am now an advisory board member of the recently formed California Cradle-to-Career Data System, the state’s longitudinal system that connects education and career outcomes data in one central place. I have learned firsthand that the resources available for students to gauge their potential postgraduate earnings often rely on self-submitted data or estimates, rather than on an accurate overview of college and career outcomes.

    Related: To better serve first-generation students, expand the definition

    As part of this work, I am now helping my state’s leaders develop tools like the Student Pathways dashboard, which provides insights on the higher education options available to students after high school.

    The tool provides information on a single website for everyone to access at any time. By streamlining access to this data, it allows students and the adults helping them to easily pinpoint which types of degrees or certifications are right for them, which may lead to employment opportunities where they live and which colleges or universities the students’ classmates are headed to.

    Students need access that can help them map out their futures — whether they hope to attend college, earn a certificate or enter the workforce directly after high school. Using data in the pathways tool can clarify how others have navigated to and through college and hopefully help students chart their own paths.

    As the youngest advisory board member, I have the opportunity to provide proposals and recommendations from a student’s perspective on how the system can engage with communities to make its data more accessible. Community engagement involves ensuring that Californians are aware of the data system, can understand and interpret the available data and have an opportunity to share their feedback.

    I often think about how the countless hours I spent trying to find information to help guide my goals and decision-making were both a burden and barrier to attending college. I know firsthand how the power of data can help build a successful future.

    Today, many first-generation and low-income college students do not have the opportunity to assess which pathways will yield the most fruit. I’m confident that with accessible facts and data for our decision-making, we can confidently forge the paths that will bring our dreams to life.

    Mike Nguyen is a rising junior studying business administration and science, technology, and society at the Haas School of Business at the University of California, Berkeley. This piece was written in collaboration with Alexis Takagi, a basic needs coordinator at Santa Clara University. Both Nguyen and Takagi are advisory board members of the California Cradle-to-Career Data System.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

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

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Massachusetts governor pitches $400M to support research funding

    Massachusetts governor pitches $400M to support research funding

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

    Dive Brief: 

    • Massachusetts Gov. Maura Healey has announced plans to propose legislation that would devote $400 million to support research across the state amid federal funding uncertainty. 
    • The money would be split evenly across two funds: a multiyear research funding pool to support projects at universities, hospitals and research institutions, and an additional funding reserve to support research and jobs at the state’s public colleges. 
    • “In the face of uncertainty from the federal government, this is about protecting one of the things that makes Massachusetts so special — our global leadership in health care and helping families across the world,” Healey said in the Thursday announcement. 

    Dive Insight: 

    Healey’s proposal comes as the Trump administration freezes and terminates research grants at universities in its crosshairs to pressure them into making policy changes, along with cutting funding more broadly across major scientific agencies. 

    In Massachusetts alone, the Trump administration has terminated research grants valued at nearly $583 million, according to a recent analysis from the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. When they were canceled, the grants had $252 million left to be paid out. 

    Overall, the Trump administration has terminated research awards valued at roughly $6.9 billion across the U.S., the analysis found. Of that, $3.3 billion of the canceled funding hadn’t yet been disbursed. The analysis did not account for frozen research grants, suggesting the level of hampered research funding across the nation may rise even higher. 

    Healey’s announcement pointed to the state’s economic reliance on federal research funding. The state received nearly $8.6 billion in federal research funding in fiscal year 2024, which supported roughly 81,000 jobs and $7.8 billion in household income, recent findings from the University of Massachusetts Amherst found. 

    Moreover, Massachusetts accounts for 1 in 10 research and development jobs in the U.S., according to the announcement. 

    Half of the $400 million would go toward a one-time funding pool to help pay for projects at universities, hospitals and research institutions. This pool would also support a one-year fellowship program for early-career researchers, the announcement said. 

    That pot of money would be housed at MassDevelopment, the state’s development finance agency, and Massachusetts would use interest from its state stabilization fund to finance it. 

    The other half of the $400 million would be housed in a bridge funding reserve for the state’s public colleges. That funding would support research costs, partnerships and jobs, including positions for graduate and postdoctorate students. 

    That fund would be paid for from revenue from Massachusetts’ Fair Share, which adds a 4% tax on those with incomes above $1 million. 

    Several university leaders in the state praised the proposal. They include the president of the University of Massachusetts, the state’s public university system, as well as leaders of private institutions including Boston University, Northeastern University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 

    “Advances that spring from our universities, hospitals and laboratories benefit all Americans; if we see these institutions diminished or compromised, all Americans stand to lose,” MIT President Sally Kornbluth said in a statement on Thursday. 

    However, Kornbluth noted that “no other source can replace federal funding for sheer scale.”

    MIT has seen over $6 million worth of federal grants terminated, according to Center for American Progress data. 

    Massachusetts is also home to Harvard University, which the Trump administration has cut off from all future federal research funding. Earlier this month, Harvard officials said the Trump administration’s actions combined with recent congressional moves, such as raising the endowment tax wealthy institutions pay, could cost the university $1 billion a year.

    Source link

  • Technical professionals can offer more than support

    Technical professionals can offer more than support

    UK universities are under financial strain. As institutions look to restructure, reduce costs and rethink delivery, there’s a clear need to make better use of the talent that already exists within them.

    Technical professionals – highly skilled, deeply embedded and often misunderstood – are key to this. While often grouped under ‘professional services’, technicians occupy a distinct space in the university workforce. Their work spans research, teaching and operations, often in highly specialised or safety-critical environments. Recognising this distinction isn’t about drawing divisions, it’s about making sure roles are properly understood, supported and used to their full potential.

    At a time when universities must become more agile, efficient and sustainable, the contribution of technical professionals has never been more important.

    Technicians as problem-solvers in a time of reform

    Too often, technical teams are brought into conversations late, after decisions have been made, spaces reallocated, or budgets set. But these are the people who manage the infrastructure, operate the systems, and know what’s really happening on the ground.

    At the University of Nottingham, we’ve taken a different approach, bringing technical leaders into strategic planning early. This is already helping us avoid duplication and develop smarter, more joined-up technical support across the institution. By involving technical leaders from the outset, we’re able to align services more effectively and make better-informed decisions about how we support research and teaching activity.

    These aren’t just operational wins. They’re strategic enablers, unlocking resource savings, reducing risk and supporting more sustainable delivery of core activity.

    Smarter sharing, greater efficiency

    One of the clearest opportunities lies in how we share and manage resources, whether research labs, creative studios or teaching equipment. Technical professionals are central to this.

    We understand how facilities work, how to optimise them, and how to adapt usage models across disciplines. In some institutions, this has led to the creation of “research hotel” models – shared lab spaces managed by technical teams, improving access and utilisation while reducing the need for new investment.

    Nationally, the UK Institute for Technical Skills & Strategy is supporting this through initiatives like the ITSS Capability Showcase, which maps institutional technical facilities and strengths and promotes collaboration across the sector. It’s a model that supports smarter decisions – both within and between institutions.

    A distinct role in shaping what comes next

    Technical professionals sit at the intersection of research, teaching, innovation and operations. They lead facilities, deliver teaching, train students, and increasingly contribute directly to research outputs – from papers and software to exhibitions and datasets.

    In the face of restructuring, universities have a chance to rethink how these roles are supported. Fragmented structures and inconsistent career pathways don’t just affect individuals – they weaken our ability to plan for the future.

    A more strategic approach brings clarity, fairness and future-readiness. It supports succession planning, skills development, and the protection of specialist knowledge. It also helps retain exceptional people – many of whom could thrive in industry, but choose to stay in universities because of their commitment to education and discovery.

    The opportunity now

    Technical professionals aren’t simply support staff. They’re a distinct group within the wider university workforce – working at the intersection of research, education, innovation and operations. Their roles are different from those in professional services but not separate. Both are essential, and both must be recognised for their unique contributions.

    At a recent Technician Commitment event held at Queen’s University Belfast, representatives from institutions across the UK shared practical and strategic actions they believe could help universities weather the current financial crisis. Ideas ranged from income generation through technician-led consultancy and external training, to resource efficiency via equipment sharing and pooled maintenance contracts. Delegates highlighted the importance of breaking down institutional silos, promoting cross-disciplinary technical training and enabling technicians to access internal funding schemes.

    There was also a strong call for structural advocacy – recognising technicians as research enablers and challenging default organisational models that position technical teams within professional services by default. The message was clear: technicians are not a cost centre. They are a strategic asset in how universities respond to financial and operational challenges.

    In a sector facing difficult choices, the opportunity is to harness the full breadth of talent available. Technical professionals are ready – not just to support change, but to help lead it.

    Source link

  • Scientists Took Support “For Granted” Before Trump

    Scientists Took Support “For Granted” Before Trump

    Devastating cuts to U.S. science under Donald Trump’s presidency have been made possible by a pervasive complacency that scientific achievements will always be celebrated, a leading American Nobel Prize winner has said.

    Frances Arnold, who won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2018 for her work on engineering enzymes, told an audience of young scientists in Germany that the “utter chaos” in U.S. politics of recent months, which has seen billions of dollars removed from scientific research, might be viewed in terms of a wider failure to communicate the value of scientific discovery.

    “Never take for granted that scientific achievement is celebrated—we took it for granted, and for far too long, and we are paying the price,” Arnold told the June 29 opening ceremony of the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, an annual conference that brings together Nobel laureates and early-career researchers.

    “Instead of viewing science as the foundation of prosperity, as an investment in the future, it is being portrayed as a burden on taxpayers,” said Arnold, professor of chemical engineering at the California Institute of Technology.

    The Trump administration has so far canceled at least $10 billion in federal grants on the grounds that they contravene its anti-DEI agenda, but further unprecedented cuts are in the pipeline; under Trump’s so-called Big Beautiful Bill, the National Science Foundation’s budget will be cut by 57 percent, by $5 billion, while the National Institutes of Health will see its support slashed by 40 percent, or $18 billion.

    In an address given on behalf of 35 Nobelists attending the conference on the Swiss–Austrian border, Arnold said that this “concerted attack on the universities will drive many brilliant young scientists to Europe and other places,” adding, “I hope you will make the best use of this opportunity and give them a home.”

    On the need for more effective communication of science’s benefits, Arnold, who chaired former U.S. president Joe Biden’s presidential council on science and technology for four years, said she hoped other nations would “learn the lesson that we are learning the hard way—that it is so important to convey the joy of science, the joy of discovery and the benefits to our friends and neighbors outside the academic laboratory.”

    “They pay the bills but do not necessarily understand the benefits [of science]—it is up to us to explain that better.”

    Arnold’s comments about the likely U.S. brain drain were also picked up by Germany’s science minister, Dorothee Bar, who told the conference that her government would make funds available in its high-tech strategy, due to be launched shortly, to attract international researchers.

    “We are launching the One Thousand Minds Plus scheme to attract minds from across the world, including from the U.S.,” she said on the plans to divert some of the $589 billion technology and infrastructure stimulus plan toward recruiting global talent.

    Appealing directly to disaffected U.S. researchers, Bar said, “You are always welcome here in Germany.”

    Source link

  • From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education

    From playground to lecture hall – working with schools to support wellbeing throughout education

    Higher education institutions are increasingly acknowledging the importance of wellbeing in shaping meaningful and sustainable learning experiences. However, the wellbeing of students and staff is often treated as a separate or secondary issue, addressed through isolated initiatives rather than embedded into the fabric of university life.

    I propose adopting a lifelong approach to wellbeing in education grounded in appreciating that schools and universities are not distinct spheres. Rather, they are stages on a continuous educational journey. The way we foster wellbeing in schools must inform, and align with, our practices in higher education.

    Foundations for wellbeing

    The foundations laid in schools play a crucial role in shaping how learners experience their transition into university. When educational environments nurture emotional resilience, social connection, and inclusive responses to academic pressures, learners arrive in higher education with a stronger base of support. In contrast, when wellbeing is not prioritised earlier in the educational journey, the structural and emotional demands of university life can amplify existing challenges. This underscores the need for continuity and care across the educational continuum, rather than placing responsibility on individuals to adapt alone.

    In many school systems, wellbeing is increasingly recognised as integral to education. A holistic, strengths-based approach helps ensure that wellbeing is supported through curriculum design, teaching practices, and whole-school approaches and policies. Programmes focused on social and emotional learning are embedded, and collaboration across sectors – education, health, and community – creates a network of support that extends beyond the classroom.

    In higher education, this picture is evolving. The work on wellbeing spearheaded by Universities UK in recent years has helped universities to become more attuned to the importance of wellbeing, yet academic culture often remains shaped by competitiveness, performance metrics, and output-driven models. This dynamic also influences schools in some contexts, particularly where high stakes testing and narrow accountability frameworks dominate. However, there tends to be greater acceptance within schools that wellbeing and learning are deeply interconnected.

    In the university context, structural pressures, including institutional expectations and the demands of competitive academic cultures, continue to affect both students and staff, contributing to stress, burnout, and mental health difficulties. Although there is growing attention to student wellbeing in policy and strategy, support for staff wellbeing remains less visible, despite its clear influence on teaching quality and the wider learning environment. There is a need for a joined-up, systemic approach recognising the interdependence of student and staff wellbeing.

    Whole institution approaches

    A whole-university approach, as promoted by Universities UK, is a strategic, institution-wide commitment to embedding wellbeing into every dimension of university life, echoing the well-established whole-school model in many primary and secondary education systems. Just as whole-school approaches integrate wellbeing into teaching, leadership, curriculum, and engagement with families and communities, a whole-university approach ensures that wellbeing is not confined to support services or stand-alone initiatives. It becomes a shared responsibility, woven into the ethos, governance, and daily practices of the institution.

    Rather than relying on reactive services, this model positions wellbeing as a core value that shapes leadership, curriculum, pedagogy, and institutional relationships. It calls for cultural transformation, redefining success to focus not solely on outcomes, but on flourishing. This includes embedding wellbeing in teaching and assessment, professional development, work-life balance, and inclusive, compassionate organisational values. It requires systems that promote flexibility, equity, and psychological safety as the norm.

    Universities must be understood as ecosystems. When this ecosystem is well, everyone within it is more likely to thrive. This involves designing curricula that support engagement and wellbeing, adopting inclusive policies, and nurturing cultures of trust, care, and belonging in both academic and administrative contexts.

    Higher education can also learn from the progress made in schools. Many school systems have already developed comprehensive frameworks for promoting wellbeing – such as the Health Promoting Schools model – which successfully embed wellbeing into governance, pedagogy, and wider school life. Higher education has much to gain from adapting these models to its own settings, helping to ensure continuity of support as learners move between sectors.

    Embedding wellbeing through national frameworks

    Aligning approaches across schools and universities creates a more cohesive experience for learners and reduces the sense of disorientation that often accompanies educational transitions. It also enables valuable exchange between sectors, where shared learning can lead to better outcomes for all.

    Within this context, and especially given the significance of the transition from school to university, national leadership is essential in embedding wellbeing consistently across education systems. The move into higher education is more than a change of setting; it is a profound developmental shift, often marked by increased autonomy, identity exploration, and academic complexity. While this transition can be exciting, it also brings vulnerability and emotional strain. Maintaining wellbeing support across this bridge is therefore not optional; it is essential. Yet it is precisely at this stage that inconsistencies and gaps often emerge. National policies that intentionally bridge sectors can ensure wellbeing remains a continuous thread throughout a learner’s journey.

    One crucial aspect of national leadership is the development of robust policy and strategy relating to wellbeing, both within institutions and at a broader, systemic level. Country-wide initiatives create coherence, consistency, and a shared vision – particularly important when seeking to strengthen the links between schools and universities. Ireland, for instance, has implemented a national policy and strategy around mental health that spans multiple sectors, not just education. This kind of joined-up approach exemplifies how public policy can help to sustain cultural change across the education system and beyond.

    The wellbeing of our educational communities is not a peripheral concern. It is central to the very purpose of education. By embedding wellbeing across every level – through policy, pedagogy, leadership, and institutional culture – we not only support individuals to succeed, but also help to build resilient, compassionate institutions where everyone can flourish.

    Source link

  • Data Shows Uptake of Statewide Digital Mental Health Support

    Data Shows Uptake of Statewide Digital Mental Health Support

    In 2023, New Jersey’s Office of the Secretary of Higher Education signed a first-of-its-kind agreement with a digital mental health provider, Uwill, to provide free access to virtual mental health services to college students across the state.

    Over the past two years, 18,000-plus students across 45 participating colleges and universities have registered with the service, representing about 6 percent of the eligible postsecondary population. The state considers the partnership a success and hopes to codify the offering to ensure its sustainability beyond the current governor’s term.

    The details: New Jersey’s partnership with Uwill was spurred by a 2021 survey of 15,500 undergraduate and graduate students from 60 institutions in the state, which found that 70 percent of respondents rated their stress and anxiety as higher in fall 2021 than in fall 2020. Forty percent indicated they were concerned about their mental health in light of the pandemic.

    Under the agreement, students can use Uwill’s teletherapy, crisis connection and wellness programming at any time. Like others in the teletherapy space, Uwill offers an array of diverse licensed mental health providers, giving students access to therapists who share their backgrounds or language, or who reside in their state. Over half (55 percent) of the counselors Uwill hires in New Jersey are Black, Indigenous or people of color; among them, they speak 11 languages.

    What makes Uwill distinct from its competitors is that therapy services are on-demand, meaning students are matched with a counselor within minutes of logging on to the platform. Students can request to see the same counselor in the future, but the nearly immediate access ensures they are not caught in long wait or intake times, especially compared to in-person counseling services.

    Under New Jersey’s agreement, colleges and students do not pay for Uwill services, but colleges must receive state aid to be eligible.

    The research: The need for additional counseling capacity on college campuses has grown over the past decade, as an increasing number of students enter higher education with pre-existing mental health conditions. The most recent survey of counseling center staff by the Association for University and College Counseling Center Directors (AUCCCD) found that while demand for services is on the decline compared to recent years, a larger number of students have more serious conditions.

    Over half of four-year institutions and about one-third of community colleges nationwide provide teletherapy to students via third-party vendors, according to AUCCCD data. The average number of students who engaged with services in 2024 was 453, across institution size.

    Online therapy providers tout the benefits of having a service that supplements on-campus, in-person therapists’ services to provide more comprehensive care, including racially and ethnically diverse staff, after-hours support and on-demand resources for students.

    Eric Wood, director of counseling and mental health at Texas Christian University, told Inside Higher Ed that an ideal teletherapy vendor is one that increases capacity for on-campus services, expanding availability for on-campus staff and ensuring that students do not fall through the cracks.

    A 2024 analysis of digital mental health tools from the Hope Center at Temple University—which did not include Uwill—found they can improve student mental health, but there is little direct evidence regarding marginalized student populations’ use of or benefits from them. Instead, the greatest benefit appears to be for students who would not otherwise engage in traditional counseling or who simply seek preventative resources.

    One study featured in the Hope Center’s report noted the average student only used their campus’s wellness app or teletherapy service once; the report calls for more transparency around usage data prior to institutional investment.

    The data: Uwill reported that from April 2023 to May 2025, 18,207 New Jersey students engaged in their services at the 45 participating institutions, which include Princeton, Rutgers, Montclair State and Seton Hall Universities, as well as the New Jersey Institute of Technology and Stevens Institute of Technology. Engaged students were defined as any students who logged in to the app and created an account.

    New Jersey’s total college enrollment in 2022 was 378,819, according to state data. An Inside Higher Ed analysis of publicly available data found total enrollment (including undergraduate and graduate students) among the 45 participating colleges to be 327,353. Uwill participants in New Jersey, therefore, totaled around 4 percent of the state’s postsecondary students or 6 percent of eligible students.

    The state paid $4 million for the first year of the Uwill contract, as reported by Higher Ed Dive, pulling dollars from a $10 million federal grant to support pandemic relief and a $16 million budget allocation for higher education partnerships. That totals about $89,000 per institution for the first year alone, or $12 per eligible student, according to an Inside Higher Ed estimate.

    In a 2020 interview with Inside Higher Ed, Uwill CEO Michael London said the minimum cost to a college for one year of services is about $25,000, or $10 to $20 per student per year.

    New Jersey students met with counselors in more than 78,000 therapy sessions, or about six sessions per student between 2023 and 2025, according to Uwill data. Students also engaged in 548 chat sessions with therapists, sent 6,593 messages and requested 1,216 crisis connections during the first two years of service.

    User engagement has slowly ticked up since the partnership launched. In January 2024, the state said more than 7,600 students registered on the platform, scheduling nearly 20,000 sessions. By September 2024, Uwill reported more than 13,000 registered students on the platform, scheduling more than 49,000 sessions. The most recent data, published June 6, identified 18,000 students engaging in 78,000 sessions.

    Over 1,200 of Montclair State’s 22,000 students have registered with Uwill since June 2023, Jaclyn Friedman-Lombardo, Montclair State’s director of counseling and psychological services, said at a press conference, or approximately 6 percent of the total campus population.

    The state does not require institutions to track student usage data to compare usage to campus counseling center services, but some institutions choose to, according to a spokesperson for both the office of the secretary and Uwill. The secretary’s office can view de-identified campus-level data and institutions can engage with more detailed data, as well.

    Creating access: One of the goals of implementing digital mental health interventions is to expand access beyond traditional counseling centers, such as after hours, on weekends or over academic breaks.

    Roughly 30 percent of participants in the Uwill partnership completed a session between 5 p.m. and 9 a.m. on a weeknight or on the weekends. Over the 2024–25 winter break, students engaged in 3,073 therapy sessions. More than 90 of those took place outside New Jersey. Students also used Uwill services over summer vacation this past year (9,235 sessions from May 20 to Aug. 26, of which 10 percent took place outside New Jersey).

    A majority of users were traditional-aged college students (17 to 24 years old), and 32 percent were white, 25 percent Hispanic and 17 percent Black. The report did not compare participating students’ race to those using on-campus services or general campus populations.

    About 85 percent of New Jersey users were looking for a BIPOC therapist, and 9 percent requested therapists who speak languages other than English, including Hindi and Mandarin.

    Postsession assessment completed by students who do schedule an appointment has returned positive responses, with a feedback score of 9.5 out of 10 in New Jersey, compared to Uwill’s 9.2 rating nationally.

    Unanswered questions: Wood indicated the data leaves some questions left unanswered, such as whether students were also clients at the on-campus counseling center, or if the service had improved students’ mental health over time from a clinical perspective.

    “Just because a student had four sessions with a telehealth provider, if they came right back to the counseling center, did it really make an impact on the center’s capacity to see students?” Wood said.

    The high cost of the service should also give counseling center directors pause, Wood said, because those dollars could be used for a variety of other interventions to create capacity.

    The data indicated some benefits to counseling center capacity, including diverse staff and after-hours support. But to create a true return on investment, counseling centers should calculate how much capacity the tele–mental health service created and its direct impact on student wellness, not just participation in services.

    “It would be ideal to compare the number of students receiving services (not just creating an account) through the platform to the number of students who would likely benefit from receiving treatment, as identified by clinically validated mental health screens on population surveys,” said Sara Abelson, assistant professor at the Hope Center and the report’s lead author.

    What’s next: New Jersey renewed its contract with Uwill first in January 2024 and then again in May, extending through spring 2026. State leaders said the ongoing services are still supported by pandemic relief funds.

    On May 2, New Jersey assemblywoman Andrea Katz from the Eighth District introduced a bill, the Mental Health Early Access on Campus Act, which would require colleges to implement mental health first aid training among campus stakeholders, peer support programs, mental health orientation education and teletherapy services to ensure counseling ratios are one to every 1,250 students per campus. The International Accreditation of Counseling Services recommends universities maintain a ratio of at least one full-time equivalency for every 1,000 to 1,500 students.

    “We know that mental health services that our kids need are not going to end when we change governors,” Katz said at a press conference. “We need to make sure that all of this is codified into law.”

    Source link