Tag: Training

  • Trump Sends Mixed Signals on Apprenticeship and Job Training

    Trump Sends Mixed Signals on Apprenticeship and Job Training

    President Trump issued an executive order last month instructing federal officials to “reach and surpass” a million new active apprenticeships. It was an ambitious target that apprenticeship advocates celebrated, anticipating new federal investments in more paid on-the-job training programs, in new industries and via a more efficient system.

    “After years of shuffling Americans through an economically unproductive postsecondary system, President Trump will refocus young Americans on career preparation,” federal officials wrote in a fact sheet on the order. They also emphasized that the federal government spends billions on the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, and Career and Technical Education, but “neither of these programs are structured to promote apprenticeships or have incentives to meet workforce training needs.”

    Ryan Craig, author of the book Apprenticeship Nation, managing director of Achieve Partners, co-founder of Apprenticeships for America and an occasional contributor to Inside Higher Ed, said it was the first time a president set a goal for the number of apprentices in the U.S., as far as he’s aware.

    Apprenticeships are “one of the few, perhaps the only area of education, of workforce development, where this administration has said, ‘We want more of this,’” he said shortly after the executive order dropped.

    But the excitement for an expanded apprenticeship model in the U.S. might be short-lived. Craig and other apprenticeship advocates worry that Trump’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 doesn’t reflect the executive order’s vision. The proposal doesn’t promise any significant new investments in apprenticeship and slashes workforce development spending over all.

    “The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing here,” Craig said. “It’s not the sea change that the executive order promised.”

    Mixed Signals

    Among many highlights for advocates, the order also calls for a workforce development strategy with a focus on scrutinizing workforce programs’ outcomes, which currently aren’t carefully tracked.

    Federal officials were given 90 days to review all federal workforce development programs and come out with a report on strategies to improve participants’ experiences, measure performance outcomes, identify valuable alternative credentials and reform or nix ineffective programs. The executive order also generally called for more transparent performance outcomes data, including earning and employment data, for such programs.

    Trump’s skinny budget makes good on his promise to consolidate workforce development spending and cut programs the administration deems ineffective, but it also offers apprenticeships a small slice of that shrinking pie.

    The proposal includes a $1.64 billion cut to workforce development funding under the Department of Labor and eliminates Job Corps, a free career training program for youth, and the Senior Community Service Employment Program, which offers job training and subsidized employment for low-income seniors. The administration also proposed a new program called Make America Skilled Again, or MASA. States would be required to spend 10 percent of their MASA grants on apprenticeships. Almost $3 billion, including WIOA funding, remains to fund the program, down from $4.6 billion, Work Shift reported.

    The budget promises to “give states and localities the flexibility to spend workforce dollars to best support their workers and economies, instead of funneling taxpayer dollars to progressive non-profits finding work for illegal immigrants or focusing on DEI.”

    Craig supports offering states more flexibility and cutting “train-and-pray programs that have little to no connection to employers or employment outcomes”—but he hoped money saved from those cuts would go toward apprenticeships, which are “by definition good jobs with career trajectories and built-in training.”

    He said a mere 10 percent of block grant funding directed to apprenticeships feels “inconsistent” with the bold goals laid out in the executive order. He had high hopes Trump would consider radically changing how apprenticeships are funded, moving away from time-limited, individual grants to a more robust federal funding structure. At the very least, he believes apprenticeships should get the “lion’s share” of workforce development funding.

    “My hope is it’s just the budget proposal and that things get worked out [to be] more consistent with the executive order,” he said, “but it was disappointing to see that.”

    Vinz Koller, vice president of the Center for Apprenticeship and Work-Based Learning at Jobs for the Future, said he similarly felt hopeful about the executive order’s messaging, in particular its commitment to “further protect and strengthen” registered apprenticeships.

    The wording represented a shift in approach.

    During Trump’s previous term, the president sought to create industry-recognized apprenticeships, an entirely separate apprenticeship system to sidestep what he viewed as inefficiencies in the current system and excessive federal regulation. Koller was glad to see Trump interested in reforming and investing in the current system this time rather than making plans to “throw out the rule book.”

    But the proposed budget isn’t “backing it up,” he said.

    His organization recently put out a policy blueprint for expanding and improving apprenticeship—including calling for stronger incentives for employers and more investment in intermediary organizations that offer programs’ support—but those strategies aren’t possible without more federal funding, Koller said. The policy blueprint points out that in fiscal year 2024, the federal government spent at least $184.35 billion on higher education, while the Department of Labor’s apprenticeship budget was just $285 million.

    But Koller also doesn’t believe slashing higher ed spending is the answer, and he’s worried about the proposed cuts to workforce training and to higher ed in the administration’s proposal. He said the goal is to give learners “choice-filled pathways,” including apprenticeships and other forms of work-based learning, not to “rob Peter to pay Paul.”

    Grant consolidation and streamlining can be “positive,” he said, but “we just want to make sure that the support is there to actually do what is needed on the ground,” across program types. “We don’t want to dismantle the other aspects of a healthy educational workforce infrastructure as we build the new parts.”

    Kerry McKittrick, co-director of the Project on Workforce at Harvard University, said the budget poses a double threat to workforce development funding. Not only would the proposal cut more than a billion dollars, but the budget would also dole out the remaining funds in block grants to states, a funding structure that has been shown to lack oversight and generally decrease funding over time.

    The project’s research found “governors do want more flexibility,” she said. “At the same time, we continue to hear from them that the lack of resources is really the biggest problem with the workforce system and meeting workforce needs … There’s no way we’ll see an expansion in apprenticeship with such a massive cut.”

    Lingering Hopes

    Some apprenticeship proponents remain optimistic.

    John Colborn, executive director of Apprenticeships for America, agreed the skinny budget doesn’t seem like “a recipe for substantial growth of apprenticeship,” but he isn’t giving up on the possibility of bold changes just yet.

    He noted that the budget makes no mention of other possible funding sources for apprenticeship mentioned in the executive order fact sheet, such as career and technical education funds, so there may be plans for other funding streams in the works.

    The proposed budget also alludes to a “reallocation” of adult education funding struck from the Education Department to “better support the innovative, workforce-aligned, apprenticeship-focused activities the Department seeks to promote,” though it doesn’t go into further detail.

    He said, based on the executive order, federal officials still have time to draft a plan, and he’s going to wait until they do before arriving at any final conclusions about how apprenticeships will fare under a second Trump term.

    “It’s probably a mistake to look at the skinny budget as a blueprint for the funding of an apprenticeship growth initiative,” he said. He plans “to take it seriously, because it’s a statement of intent from the president, but to not look to it as a constraining document for how we might be thinking about growing apprenticeships going forward.”

    Shalin Jyotishi, managing director of the Future of Work and Innovation Economy Initiative at the left-wing think tank New America, emphasized that “any administration’s policy direction on apprenticeships should be judged on actions, not only words.”

    He pointed out that multiple executive orders, including a recent one on artificial intelligence education, have called for expanding apprenticeships, but some such programs have also undergone cuts under Trump. He wants to instead see renewed investments, like those Trump made in degree-connected apprenticeships during his first term, and argued the field is “ripe” for such efforts.

    “It’s heartening to see the administration emphasize the importance of registered apprenticeships,” Jyotishi wrote to Inside Higher Ed, “and education and workforce leaders will be looking for follow-through through actions, implementation, and resources.”

    Source link

  • Michigan promotes college access and skills training for men

    Michigan promotes college access and skills training for men

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

    Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signed an executive directive that instructs education and labor state agencies to actively reach out to men and inform them about tuition-free opportunities for college and skills training, according to an April 10 announcement from the governor’s office.

    The directive is aimed at closing gender gaps in education and supporting Whitmer’s Sixty by 30 goal to increase the percentage of Michiganders with a post-secondary degree or certificate to 60% by 2030.

    “Here in Michigan, we have been working hard to reduce costs and make it easier for folks to achieve their goals. But too many men don’t have the resources they need to succeed,” Whitmer said in a statement. “That’s why I’m proud to sign this executive order that will ensure more Michiganders are aware of and can access key programs that will lower the cost of education, ensuring more men can get a good paying job and put more money back in their pockets.”

    Nationally, men are falling behind in education and employment, according to Whitmer’s office. Compared to 2004, the labor force participation rate for young men is 700,000 short. 

    Although most job growth has occurred in sectors where workers have degrees or training, undergraduate enrollment for men dropped by 10% in 2021. While about 55% of women nationwide hold an associate’s degree or higher, only 44% of men have reached the same level.

    In addition, 45,000 fewer boys graduate high school each year, as compared to girls. Boys’ literacy rates are also falling, and boys make up about two-thirds of the bottom 10% of students.

    Whitmer’s directive instructs the Michigan Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential and the Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity to review programming related to job training and post-secondary education, with an aim to lower costs for education and open up more job opportunities.

    Although men in the U.S. still earn more than women on average, young women now earn the same as or more than their male peers in 22 of 250 metro areas, according to a 2022 analysis by the Pew Research Center. The narrowing of the gender gap is tied in part to younger women outpacing men in college graduation, Pew said.

    Other factors play a role as well. Prescription opioids, for instance, could account for 44% of the national decrease in men’s labor force participation between 2001 and 2015, according to a report by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. Optimizing health benefits to serve employees’ needs can help.

    Creating effective learning and development programs can help as well, particularly executive-style training for all employees, according to a CYPHER Learning report. Flexible, engaging options can attract and retain talent, particularly if L&D opportunities match workers’ interests, enhance their skills and advance their careers, the report found. 

    Source link

  • Teacher AI training remains uneven despite uptick

    Teacher AI training remains uneven despite uptick

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Disparities in artificial intelligence implementation at the school district level appear to be persisting among low- and high-poverty districts, according to a recent survey by Rand Corp. 
    • Between 2023 and 2024, the overall percentage of all districts training teachers on AI more than doubled from 23% to 48%. Still, low-poverty districts were far more likely to provide such training in fall 2024 than high-poverty districts at 67% vs. 39%.
    • Based on districts’ reported fall 2025 plans, Rand projects this gap won’t go away in the near future even as more districts provide training. This means districts serving students in high-poverty schools will “likely need additional support to prepare their teachers for AI,” researchers wrote.

    Dive Insight:

    Rand’s findings back up heightened fears that inequities will worsen when it comes to schools’ implementation of AI. These challenges come as the Trump administration has moved to shutter the U.S. Department of Education and has “abolished” the agency’s Office of Educational Technology. 

    For three decades, OET pushed at the federal level for equitable access to technology and developed resources to guide its use in schools. Those efforts included the release of several resources for schools and technology leaders on responsibly using AI in classrooms. Without the office, former OET employees said, it’s unclear how school districts with fewer resources will be able to keep up as AI continues to rapidly develop. 

    “The faster take-up of AI in historically advantaged settings raises concerns about wide disparities in teachers’ and students’ opportunities to learn with these tools — with the notable caveat that it remains unknown to what extent adoption of these generative AI tools will improve teaching and learning,” the Rand report said. 

    Even with AI’s classroom role and impact not yet clearly defined, Rand said that whatever best practices emerge from teachers’ use of the technology should be “equitably shared” through state and regional education networks. To close the teacher AI training gap, high-poverty districts will need targeted funding and support from state and federal agencies as well as from technical assistance centers and philanthropic organizations, the report suggested.

    The Rand report also stressed that AI training at the district level can help address educators’ fears and hesitancy around the technology. Still, nearly all surveyed district leaders reported their training opportunities were optional for teachers. 

    Separate from the survey, Rand interviewed 14 district leaders about what exactly those AI trainings look like. Beyond addressing teachers’ anxiety with the technology, districts said they also wanted to empower educators to effectively use AI for tasks like lesson planning. 

    Efforts to define training priorities on student AI use, however, remain slowgoing. Rand said its interviews suggested “that districts are taking a cautious approach, focusing first on educator proficiency before integrating AI into student learning experiences.”

    Source link

  • Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

    Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

    In a 5-4 split, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to maintain a freeze on millions of dollars in federal teacher training grants.

    The administration’s emergency application, filed on March 26, asked the justices to vacate a district court judge’s order requiring the U.S. Department of Education to reinstate some of Trump’s $600 million in slashed funding. The justices granted Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris’ call for an immediate administrative stay, which pauses the March 10 order by Judge Myong Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts while the case continues.

    In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority wrote that the recipient programs wouldn’t suffer permanent damages if the funds were withheld while the case moves through the lower courts. The “respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed,” the opinion said.

    The opinion also suggested the lower court may not have had the authority to issue its order. 

    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the notion that some grant recipients may seek to draw down funds that the Trump administration seeks to terminate was the “only hint of urgency that the Government offers to justify its unusual request for our intervention.”

    “If true, that would be unfortunate, but worse things have happened,” Jackson wrote.

    In a separate dissent, Justice Elena Kagan characterized the majority’s decision as a “mistake” that followed a “barebones briefing,” no argument and little time for reflection. Chief Justice John Roberts did not join either dissent but disagreed with the majority.

    The move is the first time the Supreme Court has considered any challenges to President Donald Trump’s efforts to significantly scale back federal education programs — and ultimately dismantle the Education Department. 

    In the administration’s March 26 emergency request, Harris said the case is an example of a broader question the Supreme Court needs to answer: “‘Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever)’ millions in taxpayer dollars?”

    “Unless and until this Court addresses that question, federal district courts will continue exceeding their jurisdiction by ordering the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back,” Harris wrote. 

    The case in question concerns the Education Department’s February cancellation of over $600 million in what it called “divisive” federal teacher training grants funds. The canceled grants had been made under the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program. 

    In March, eight Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration to restore the awarded funds. In response, Joun granted a temporary restraining order for the department to reinstate those funds to the eight plaintiff states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin.

    If the Supreme Court were to order the Trump administration to reinstate the grants to those eight states, the acting solicitor general said, the department would have to disburse up to $65 million in remaining funds.

    On March 28, the eight states urged in a 44-page filing that the Supreme Court leave Joun’s order in place. The states said the Trump administration’s “real concern” appears to involve other cases “where courts are grappling with a raft of legal disputes arising out of recent actions by the Executive Branch.”

    Source link

  • Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

    Supreme Court maintains freeze on teacher training grants

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

    In a 5-4 split, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration’s emergency request to maintain a freeze on millions of dollars in federal teacher training grants.

    The administration’s emergency application, filed on March 26, asked the justices to vacate a district court judge’s order requiring the U.S. Department of Education to reinstate some of Trump’s $600 million in slashed funding. The justices granted Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris’ call for an immediate administrative stay, which pauses the March 10 order by Judge Myong Joun of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts while the case continues.

    In an unsigned opinion, the Supreme Court majority wrote that the recipient programs wouldn’t suffer permanent damages if the funds were withheld while the case moves through the lower courts. The “respondents have not refuted the Government’s representation that it is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed,” the opinion said.

    The opinion also suggested the lower court may not have had the authority to issue its order. 

    In a dissenting opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, wrote that the notion that some grant recipients may seek to draw down funds that the Trump administration seeks to terminate was the “only hint of urgency that the Government offers to justify its unusual request for our intervention.”

    “If true, that would be unfortunate, but worse things have happened,” Jackson wrote.

    In a separate dissent, Justice Elena Kagan characterized the majority’s decision as a “mistake” that followed a “barebones briefing,” no argument and little time for reflection. Chief Justice John Roberts did not join either dissent but disagreed with the majority.

    The move is the first time the Supreme Court has considered any challenges to President Donald Trump’s efforts to significantly scale back federal education programs — and ultimately dismantle the Education Department. 

    In the administration’s March 26 emergency request, Harris said the case is an example of a broader question the Supreme Court needs to answer: “‘Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever)’ millions in taxpayer dollars?”

    “Unless and until this Court addresses that question, federal district courts will continue exceeding their jurisdiction by ordering the Executive Branch to restore lawfully terminated grants across the government, keep paying for programs that the Executive Branch views as inconsistent with the interests of the United States, and send out the door taxpayer money that may never be clawed back,” Harris wrote. 

    The case in question concerns the Education Department’s February cancellation of over $600 million in what it called “divisive” federal teacher training grants funds. The canceled grants had been made under the Teacher Quality Partnership Program and the Supporting Effective Educator Development program. 

    In March, eight Democratic attorneys general sued the Trump administration to restore the awarded funds. In response, Joun granted a temporary restraining order for the department to reinstate those funds to the eight plaintiff states: California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin.

    If the Supreme Court were to order the Trump administration to reinstate the grants to those eight states, the acting solicitor general said, the department would have to disburse up to $65 million in remaining funds.

    On March 28, the eight states urged in a 44-page filing that the Supreme Court leave Joun’s order in place. The states said the Trump administration’s “real concern” appears to involve other cases “where courts are grappling with a raft of legal disputes arising out of recent actions by the Executive Branch.”

    Source link

  • Judge blocks cuts to Education Department teacher training grants

    Judge blocks cuts to Education Department teacher training grants

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

    The U.S. Department of Education cannot terminate three educator training grant programs, a federal judge ordered on Monday.

    Specifically, the Education Department is enjoined from ending any grants provided through the three congressionally appropriated programs — the Supporting Effective Educator Development Grant Program, the Teacher Quality Partnership Program, and the Teacher and School Leader Incentive Program, according to the ruling from Judge Julie Rubin of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

    In addition to the injunction, the three plaintiffs — teacher preparation groups that sued the Education Department for making cuts to over 70 of these federal grant programs in February — must have their grant awards reinstated within five business days of the March 17 order.

    Rubin wrote that the cuts to the teacher training grant programs are “likely unlawful” under the Administrative Procedure Act.

    The plaintiffs in the case are the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, National Center for Teacher Residencies, and Maryland Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.

    The order means that grantees affiliated with the plaintiff organizations can soon “draw down funds without any restrictions,” AACTE said in a Monday statement. 

    “We are thrilled that the court has ruled in favor of preserving funding for TQP, SEED, and TSL grants, which have a transformative impact on our nation’s education system,” said AACTE President and CEO Cheryl Holcomb-McCoy. 

    “I commend the unwavering dedication that led to this decision and remain hopeful that institutions, nonprofits, and partners across America can continue to strengthen our educator workforce, and address critical shortages while ensuring that every child in our nation has access to exceptional educators and a high-quality educational experience.”

    Last week, eight attorneys general had an initial victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts with a similar lawsuit over the Education Department’s cuts to millions of dollars in teacher training grants. That lawsuit only mentioned the SEED and TQP grants.

    When announcing the cuts on Feb. 17, the Education Department said the $600 million in withdrawn funds had been allocated to “divisive” teacher training grants. The department did not initially name the specific grants it slashed, but it later confirmed to K-12 Dive that the cuts included SEED and TQP.

    Source link

  • Curtain call on traditional time-intensive drama training

    Curtain call on traditional time-intensive drama training

    Recent closures of renowned actor training courses, including the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School’s undergraduate provision and the abrupt collapse of the Academy of Live and Recorded Arts, have laid bare a crisis in drama training. This isn’t only about funding shortfalls; it’s about the very structures and traditions of training, which risk shutting out those able to succeed.

    The financial strain on institutions is undeniable. The historical freeze in undergraduate tuition fees and the high-intensity delivery required in drama and other forms of intensive arts training like dance and music education have made traditional models almost unsustainable. Specialist institutions, unable to cross-subsidise, have stretched themselves to the limit – expanding course offerings, increasing intakes, internationalisation and growing postgraduate provision, where costs can be better covered. Meanwhile, government support through welcome specialist funding streams such as Institution Specific Funding have proven insufficient to address the root challenges.

    These efforts, while necessary, have unintended consequences. Over-speedy expansion creates great challenges for the quality of the learning experience, while institutional survival strategies rarely address the deeper, systemic issues at play. The question is not just how to survive in this increasingly precarious environment, but how to rethink the system entirely.

    The hidden barrier of time poverty

    The financial barriers to entering drama training are well-documented, but there is a more insidious form of exclusion that demands urgent attention: time-poverty.

    As highlighted in a recent Unipol and HEPI report, the average cost of student rent in London now exceeds the maximum maintenance loan, leaving students struggling to make ends meet. This financial reality forces many to take on part-time work, but the intensive nature of traditional actor training – 30-40 hours a week, often with irregular schedules – leaves little room for paid employment. The result? Only those who can afford not to work can afford to train.

    Traditional training models require high levels of physical presence and stamina. While these methods have been celebrated for their rigour, they exclude those with caring responsibilities, disabilities requiring time flexibility, or the need to support themselves financially. This isn’t just a financial issue – it’s a fundamental inequity in how time is valued in training.

    Addressing time-poverty isn’t about making marginal adjustments; it requires a paradigm shift. Drama schools must reimagine training models to prioritise accessibility and sustainability without compromising quality. Flexible delivery methods, guaranteed non-contact periods for work or rest, and rethinking the necessity of long, traditional schedules are all potential starting points. If we are to be equitable in the way almost all drama schools claim as a value, we must redesign what “intensity” in training means for excellent students who do not arrive with the economic means required. The current system is exclusionary.

    Some institutions are already leading the way. Identity School and Access All Areas have successfully adapted their training processes to accommodate a broader range of students. The Collective Acting Studio excels at balancing time pressures with rigorous training, redefining how intensity can be delivered. These organisations boast impressive alumni who are actively working successfully in the industry. Notably, Sally Ann Gritton, Principal of Mountview, emphasises in her book, The Independent Actor, that long, gruelling days are neither effective nor beneficial for students. These examples prove that change isn’t just possible – it’s essential if we want the arts to become more inclusive.

    Why it matters

    The stakes couldn’t be higher. The creative industries contribute over £100 billion to the UK economy annually, with drama training forming the backbone of the talent pipeline. Rose Bruford College alumna like Jessica Gunning, who recently won Emmy and Golden Globe awards, or Sara Huxley, whose work on Mr. Bates vs. the Post Office catalysed governmental action, exemplify the global impact of British arts education.

    However, the arts are more than an economic driver – they shape how we see ourselves, societal narratives, build empathy, and are key in defining our cultural identity. If access to training is restricted to the privileged, the stories we tell become narrower and less representative. Equity in the arts is not just an educational issue; it is a societal imperative.

    Nearly a decade ago, calls for greater class diversity in the arts sparked important conversations. In 2016, a report from the London School of Economics revealed that only 27 per cent of actors came from working-class backgrounds. While this discussion was absorbed into the broader issue of societal inequality, solutions remained vague and largely limited to the idea of increased funding. Today, with budgets tighter than ever, this approach feels increasingly out of reach.

    In recent years, established actors, including household names like Julie Walters and Christopher Eccleston have voiced concerns that they would no longer be able to afford the cost of training. Their warnings highlight a system where financial barriers stifle talent, despite the well-meaning calls for bursaries and other competitive financial support. The result? A cycle where potential is lost, and the arts grow less accessible.

    We need bold leadership across the sector. Institutions must collaborate to share best practice, experiment with alternative training models, and advocate for systemic support. There are innovative models, and we must deal with the friction preventing them from spreading. Policymakers and trainers must recognise that funding is only one part of the equation; addressing time-poverty is critical to ensuring a truly inclusive arts education.

    The arts are at their best when they reflect the richness of society. It’s time to move beyond tradition and reimagine drama training for a new generation—one where potential, not privilege, determines success.

    Anyone interested in being part of this conversation is welcome to contact the authors directly.

    Source link

  • Why higher education must take control of AI training

    Why higher education must take control of AI training

    In the rush to adopt artificial intelligence, many institutions are making a critical mistake: assuming that off-the-shelf AI solutions will seamlessly integrate into their unique academic environments. This oversight undermines the very essence of what makes each institution distinct and valuable.

    Higher education stands at a unique crossroads. Our institutions possess three powerful advantages that make us ideally suited to shape AI implementation:

    • Deep expertise in learning science and pedagogy,
    • A fundamental commitment to inclusion and accessibility, and
    • Vast repositories of specialized knowledge across disciplines.

    Consider this: Every institution has its own distinctive DNA—unique terminology, specific policies, particular processes and individualized pathways for student success. A campus chat bot trained on generic data can’t possibly understand that your first-year experience program is called Launch Pad or that your student success center is actually The Hub. These aren’t just semantic differences; they reflect your institution’s culture, values and approach to education.

    The stakes are high in an era of contracting budgets, unpredictable enrollment patterns, information overload, and increasing student needs. We cannot afford to misallocate our most valuable resource: human talent.

    The Real Power of Properly Trained AI

    When AI is trained with your institution’s specific context, it becomes more than a cost-cutting tool. It becomes a force multiplier that:

    • Handles routine queries with institutional accuracy,
    • Identifies at-risk students before they struggle,
    • Directs resources where they’re needed most, and
    • Frees staff to focus on meaningful student interactions

    AI transforms our approach from broadcasting general information to providing targeted support. Imagine AI that recognizes your unique early alert indicators, understands your specific financial aid processes, knows your specific mental health resources and protocols, and speaks in your institution’s voice and values.

    Relying on vendor-trained AI means that you are missing crucial institutional context, perpetuating generic solutions and losing opportunities for personalized support or potentially misguiding students with incorrect information.

    Higher education institutions must take an active role in training their AI systems. Remember: Every time you allow an untrained or generic AI to interact with your students, you’re missing an opportunity to provide the personalized, institution-specific support that sets your school apart.

    Breaking It Down

    A generic AI is like a new employee who has read every manual but doesn’t understand your institution’s unique culture, language or processes—it has broad knowledge but lacks specific context. Untrained AI systems, while powerful in general applications, are essentially operating on publicly available information without the benefit of the institutional expertise, proprietary processes or specific student success patterns that make your organization unique.

    Fear of Failure

    The fear of AI implementation manifests in various ways across higher education, often masquerading as practical concerns while hiding deeper anxieties. Like an untrained AI system that lacks institutional context and produces generic responses, an unprepared organization can generate resistance that undermines successful AI adoption.

    • Process guardians: These experienced professionals, while openly complaining about overwhelming workloads, harbor deeper concerns. They worry that AI might not just streamline their processes but potentially replace their expertise. Their resistance often appears as skepticism about AI’s accuracy or reliability—a valid concern that actually points to the need for proper AI training rather than AI avoidance.
    • Generational tensions: Some view AI adoption through a generational lens, suggesting that retirement is the solution to resistance. This perspective misses a crucial point: Seasoned professionals possess valuable institutional knowledge that should be captured and used to train AI systems, not lost to retirement. Their experience isn’t an obstacle; it’s an asset for effective AI implementation.
    • Faculty concerns: In academia, faculty members wield significant influence in approval processes. Their hesitation often stems from legitimate concerns about academic integrity and the quality of education. However, this anxiety about reopening settled decisions can be addressed through proper training and demonstration of how AI can enhance, rather than diminish, academic rigor.

    The Bottom Line

    In higher education, we don’t just need AI—we need AI that understands our individual institutional contexts, speaks our unique language and supports our specific student success goals. This level of customization only comes through intentional, institution-specific training.

    Our mission isn’t just to adopt AI; it’s to shape it into a tool that authentically represents and serves our individual institutions and students. The time and resources invested in proper AI training today will pay dividends in more effective, personalized student support tomorrow.

    The choice is clear: Either train AI to truly understand and represent your institution, or watch as generic solutions fail to meet your unique needs and challenges. In an era where personal attention matters more than ever, can we afford to leave this critical tool untrained?

    Source link

  • Career coaches fill critical gaps in Ph.D. training

    Career coaches fill critical gaps in Ph.D. training

    To the editor:

    In “The Doctoral Dilemma” (Feb. 3, 2025), Inside Higher Ed reporter Johanna Alonso describes career coaching as a “cottage industry” of “gurus” that emerged to fill critical gaps in graduate training. As a career coach cited in the article, I was disappointed to see such an inaccurate and biased portrayal of my work. 

    Coaching is a professional industry with proven methods, tools, and credentialing provided by the International Coaching Federation (ICF). Coaching is distinct from “consulting,” and it’s an intentional, strategic step for anyone seeking to change careers. This is why Johns Hopkins University employs coaches as part of its Doctoral Life Design Studio. Yet, the article portrays these university-led coaching initiatives as legitimate, structured and holistic, while describing coaching outside of the university as an opportunistic “cottage industry.” Why frame the same service in two very different ways?

    From our wide-ranging, 20-minute interview, Alonso only highlighted my hourly rate—$250/hour for a single one-to-one meeting—without any context. There is no mention of the benefits of career coaching, or whether universities like Johns Hopkins pay their coaches a similar rate. The monetary cost, presented in isolation, suggests exploitation. The reality? As a neurodivergent person, I find one-to-one meetings draining, so I’ve priced them to limit bookings. Instead, I direct Ph.D.s toward my free library of online content, my lower-cost group programs and my discounted coaching packages, all of which have helped Ph.D.s secure industry roles that double or triple their academic salaries. The article doesn’t include these details.

    The most telling sign of the article’s bias is the use of the word “guru.” Why use a loaded term like “guru” instead of “expert” to describe career coaches? As I frequently remind my clients, language shapes perception. Ph.D.s are more likely to be seen as industry-ready professionals if they use terms like “multi-year research project” instead of “dissertation” or “stakeholders” instead of “academic advisers.” The same logic applies here—calling career coaches “gurus” trivializes our work, implying we are self-appointed influencers rather than qualified professionals. I’ll never forget the professor who once tweeted, “If life outside of academia is so great, why do alt-ac gurus spend so much time talking about it? Don’t they have better things to do?”

    My response? “I wouldn’t have to do this if professors provided ANY professional development for non-academic careers.”

    Because contrary to what the article claims, I didn’t start my coaching business because I wished there were more resources available to me. I started it because, after I quit my postdoctoral fellowship for an industry career, I spent untold hours providing uncompensated career support to Ph.D.s. For nearly two years, I responded to thousands of messages, created online resources, reviewed résumés and met one-to-one with hundreds of Ph.D. students, postdocs and even tenured professors—all for free, in my leisure time. Eventually, I burned out from the incessant demand. I realized that, if I was going to continue pouring my time into helping Ph.D.s, I needed to be compensated. That’s when I started my business.

    Academia conditions us to see for-profit businesses as unethical, while “nonprofit” universities push students into a lifetime of high-interest debt. It convinces us that charging for expertise is predatory, while asking Ph.D.s to work for poverty wages is somehow noble. It forces us to internalize the idea that, if you truly care about something, you should sacrifice your well-being and life for it. But our time is valuable. Our skills are valuable. We deserve to be fairly compensated for our labor, inside and outside of academia.

    Career coaching isn’t the problem. The real problem is that academia still refuses to take a critical look in the mirror.

    Ashley Ruba is the founder of After Academia.

    Source link

  • Education Department staffers suspended over DEI training

    Education Department staffers suspended over DEI training

    Dozens of Education Department employees were notified Friday that they’d been put on paid administrative leave following President Trump’s executive order to root out diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in the federal government. At least some of them received the notices because of their participation in a voluntary session on diversity training, NBC News reported, noting they were encouraged to do so by Trump’s first-term education secretary, Betsy DeVos. 

    Department staffers sent the memos they’d gotten to their American Federation of Government Employees local union, Politico reported over the weekend. The union subsequently said that attendees of a two-day 2019 training for the department’s “Diversity Change Agent Program” had received the notices.

    The “change agents” who participated in the program were supposed to lead DEI training and education in the agency while working to attract and retain talent. The union said DeVos’s goal was to have 400 employees participate, though it’s unclear how many did.

    The suspended staffers were told that the “administrative leave is not being done for any disciplinary purpose.” NBC News reported that the affected employees included “a public affairs specialist, civil rights attorneys, program manager analysts, loan regulators and employees working to ensure schools accommodate special needs children with individualized education programs.” 

    The notices arrived one week after the Education Department rolled out a press release touting its “Action to Eliminate DEI.” That action included putting employees in charge of DEI  programs on paid leave and canceling more than $2.6 million in training and service contracts. The department characterized it as “the first step in reorienting the agency toward prioritizing meaningful learning ahead of divisive ideology in our schools.”

    Source link