Tag: whats

  • What’s missing from the UK’s international student offer?

    What’s missing from the UK’s international student offer?

    It’s been over six years since the last International Education Strategy.

    We now have a new one – with three core ambitions, including to “sustainably recruit high-quality international students.”

    But this isn’t really the higher education international education strategy. That’s to come.

    The government’s approach to international student recruitment in HE is parked almost entirely to the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) – a sector-led body tasked with producing an action plan for higher education.

    If nothing else, that should be a good opportunity to get some actual international student voices into the mix – they’ve been notably absent from previous iterations and are hard to find in this high level document too.

    The published strategy commits to “work with the sector” through ESAG on student experience, quality outcomes, housing, infrastructure, support systems, and responsible recruitment. The details will follow.

    Since I last looked at a bunch of strategies from “competitor” countries, I’ve continued to keep an eye on what other countries commit to – and so the question remains – what should be in the higher education action plan when it arrives?

    Graduate outcomes

    The published strategy promises “world-class outcomes for graduates” through ESAG working with institutions, though it doesn’t specify what targets or baseline measurements ESAG should develop – so what have other countries committed to?

    The UK collects some international graduate outcomes data through the Graduate Outcomes survey, but coverage is poor and deteriorating – response rates for non-UK students stood at just 11 per cent in 2021/22 compared to 51 per cent for UK students, and in 2021, HESA stopped telephoning international graduates to follow up non-responses, a cost-saving measure that further reduced data quality.

    Back in 2019, the then education secretary wrote that:

    …it will be critical to ensure the OfS makes public transparent data on the outcomes achieved by international students.

    But five years later, the UK still lacks robust, representative data on where international graduates end up or whether they’re employed.

    Recent Graduate Outcomes data shows rising dissatisfaction among international students, particularly at postgraduate level, with nearly 30 per cent of non-EU postgraduates reporting they’re not using what they learned. But with response rates so low, it’s unclear whether this represents the full picture or just a particularly dissatisfied minority who chose to respond.

    Finland sets explicit retention targets and tracks employment rates post-graduation, with ministry data showing improvement over time and explicitly linking recruitment to national R&D targets and skilled worker shortages through the internationalisation programme and global networks and accompanying strategy document.

    Ireland’s Global Citizens 2030 lists specific indicators – retention, graduation and first employment of international learners, employer satisfaction, and mobility rates – all monitored and reported, as detailed in the IUA publication. Germany’s strategy on the internationalisation of higher education institutions references federal skilled worker shortages and notes international graduates are “particularly attractive for the German labour market”, with DAAD data showing retention rates among the highest in the OECD alongside Canada.

    The Netherlands publishes detailed stay rates through Nuffic research, tracking both immediate post-graduation employment and five-year retention, with the government explicitly noting housing as a major barrier to retention. France’s Cour des comptes found in March 2025 that tracking was inadequate, recommending systematic cohort studies in its evaluation of attractiveness and accompanying synthesis report.

    Perhaps ESAG’s action plan should commit to systematic, robust tracking of international graduate outcomes with adequate response rates.

    Student wellbeing

    The strategy says government will “work closely with the sector” through ESAG on student experience and quality outcomes, but doesn’t specify what this means in practice – so what binding or voluntary frameworks have other countries established?

    Ireland’s International Education Mark creates statutory requirements through its QQI Code of Practice – providers must designate appropriate personnel for learner support, establish mechanisms for emergency financial support, foster a supportive wellbeing environment, create feedback mechanisms, provide intercultural competence training for staff, and maintain written agent agreements, while QQI assesses compliance through panels, and authorisation can be refused, conditioned, or revoked.

    Australia’s National Code under the ESOS framework requires registered providers to give students information about support services and offer reasonable support at no additional cost – providers must have documented critical incident policies, provide information on employment rights, give pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation, and ensure appropriate arrangements for under-18s, while breaches can suspend or cancel registration, and the Tuition Protection Service provides refunds if providers fail, as set out in the legislation.

    Finland’s SIMHE network provides integrated support including Finnish language training, career guidance, and recognition of prior learning, though participation is voluntary for institutions. Germany’s Campus Initiative funds projects supporting the full student lifecycle from recruitment through to labour market transition. Latvia conducts annual international student satisfaction surveys. Ireland explicitly lists student satisfaction as a performance indicator alongside retention and employment outcomes.

    France’s Bienvenue en France Label certifies institutions demonstrating quality welcome services, assessing institutions across six areas – information quality and accessibility, reception facilities, teaching accessibility and support, housing and campus life, post-graduate follow-up, and environmental sustainability – where institutions receive ratings from one to three stars based on performance against 28 indicators, and as of October 2025, 180 institutions hold the label, enrolling 65 per cent of international degree-seeking students. France also operates a €10 million fund supporting institutions to meet label standards.

    Ireland’s International Education Mark operates differently – providers recruiting non-EU/EEA learners requiring study visas must obtain the mark, making it a regulatory requirement rather than voluntary certification, branded as “TrustEd Ireland” and backed by statutory quality standards.

    Maybe ESAG should recommend binding student experience requirements with compliance monitoring, or at least quality standards or voluntary certification recognising institutions demonstrating excellence in international student experience.

    Before arrival

    The strategy says government will “encourage” the Agent Quality Framework to “help tackle the risk of poor practices”. Beyond that, the strategy doesn’t specify pre-arrival or onboarding requirements, leaving these to institutional practice – but what have other countries mandated or encouraged?

    Finland’s Agent Code of Conduct was jointly developed by sector bodies, including ethics requirements, through non-binding voluntary adoption. However, following a December 2024 investigation by national broadcaster Yle which uncovered evidence that third-party agents were spreading false and misleading information to prospective students about work opportunities and living costs, the Finnish government has announced further work.

    Under the proposals, students would only be permitted to use agents that have formal agreements with Finnish universities, and those will be more closely monitored. Ireland’s IEM Code requires written agent agreements incorporating ethics with termination clauses, enforced by QQI. Australia’s ESOS framework creates legally binding agent conduct requirements with sanctions, and Germany’s National Code includes a complaints mechanism where institutions designate a complaints body with unresolved disputes going to mediation, while agents must comply and can be dismissed for violations.

    Australia’s National Code requires providers to give pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation options before students arrive. Ireland’s IEM Code requires providers to give clear information on fees, accommodation costs, insurance requirements, and subsistence costs prior to enrolment, alongside tailored inductions meeting international learner needs.

    Germany’s National Code establishes minimum standards for pre-arrival information, though compliance is voluntary with a complaints mechanism for disputes. France’s Bienvenue en France Label assesses quality of pre-arrival information and reception facilities as part of institutional certification.

    Finland provides preparation through the SIMHE network, though not all institutions participate. The Netherlands acknowledges international students face immediate housing needs creating vulnerability to discrimination, but has no binding pre-arrival housing guarantee requirement.

    Standards for pre-arrival information and onboarding support would be very much appreciated by the international students I’ve talked to.

    Costs are a big concern. France operates VISALE – a free government-backed rental guarantee for students covering rent up to €1,500 monthly in Paris and €1,300 elsewhere, universally available to international students with residence permits who are also eligible for CAF housing benefits.

    Australia requires providers to give pre-enrolment information on living costs, and Ireland requires providers to inform students about average costs including accommodation, food, transport, and medical care.

    Even if cost of living support mechanisms can’t be mandated, minimum transparency requirements about true costs would be very welcome.

    Working while studying

    The strategy doesn’t address during-study work rights or employer connections, though these differ from post-graduation pathways – what approaches have other countries taken?

    Finland permits students to work 30 hours weekly as a yearly average. Germany allows 140 full days or 280 half-days yearly, increased from 120 and 240 in March 2024, or 20 hours weekly. France permits 964 hours yearly, approximately 60 per cent of full-time work.

    Sweden permits work during studies with recent changes to work permit portability. Germany’s Campus Initiative explicitly funds projects covering recruitment through labour market transition, integrating employer connections throughout study. Finland’s Talent Boost programme integrates career services and employer connections with language training.

    France’s “Invest Your Talent in Italy” programme includes mandatory internship components. Ireland includes employer satisfaction with international graduate competencies as an explicit performance indicator. Australia’s National Code requires providers to inform students about employment rights and Fair Work Ombudsman access.

    International students would commitments in this space to be very welcome indeed.

    Institutional commitments

    Ireland’s International Education Mark creates statutory requirements through its QQI Code, which mandates designated personnel for learner support, mechanisms for emergency financial support, supportive wellbeing environment, feedback mechanisms, intercultural competence training, and written agent agreements incorporating ethics with termination clauses, alongside a Learner Protection Fund for provider failures, while QQI assesses compliance through panels, and authorisation can be refused, conditioned, or revoked.

    Australia’s National Code under the ESOS framework requires information on support services, reasonable support at no additional cost, documented critical incident policy, information on employment rights, pre-enrolment information on living costs and accommodation, and appropriate arrangements for under-18s, while breaches can suspend or cancel registration, and the Tuition Protection Service provides refunds if providers fail.

    Canada’s federal strategy expired unreplaced, but British Columbia implemented provincial standards requiring minimum in-person delivery, institution-controlled locations, and information about academic and housing support. Germany’s National Code establishes minimum standards for information, marketing, admissions, supervision, and follow-up – it’s voluntary but includes a complaints mechanism where institutions designate a body and unresolved disputes go to HRK mediation, while agents must comply and can be dismissed for violations.

    The strategy doesn’t explicitly address consumer protection for international students beyond encouraging the Agent Quality Framework, but the Office for Students has recognised international students face heightened risks of unfair treatment.

    OfS’ proposed initial condition C5 on fair treatment explicitly includes international students, reflecting that they’re exposed to the same risks as domestic students and in some cases greater ones – higher fees, greater reliance on pre-arrival information, visa dependencies, and higher switching costs if things go wrong all amplify the potential for consumer detriment.

    Recent OfS research shows international students aren’t fundamentally different from domestic students in how they understand promises and rights, but they experience some issues more acutely – when disruptions occur, international students were more likely to report that limited support from academic staff had significant impact on their academic experience, and while both international and domestic students show weak awareness of rights and redress mechanisms, this is particularly consequential for international students who are more dependent on institutional processes because informal escalation, legal challenge, or withdrawal are often less viable options.

    The combined evidence implies that international recruitment carries heightened regulatory risk – many international students struggle to identify what was promised versus what was merely expected, increasing the likelihood of disputes and perceived unfairness after enrolment, and while international students aren’t uniquely dissatisfied, they are structurally more exposed when fairness breaks down, justifying closer regulatory scrutiny of provider behaviour at the point of entry and during delivery.

    Were ESAG’s action plan to recommend strengthened consumer protection measures specifically recognising international students’ structural vulnerabilities, students would be pleased.

    Housing

    The strategy mentions housing once – government will work with the sector through ESAG on “adequate infrastructure and access to local housing”.

    While housing coordination mechanisms aren’t detailed in the strategy, what approaches have other countries taken to student housing challenges?

    The Netherlands launched its National Action Plan for Student Housing with government investment, targeting new affordable homes through multi-stakeholder coordination including government, municipalities, housing providers, universities, and SUs, while the plan explicitly acknowledges international students face discrimination and current shortages are substantial.

    Italy allocated significant PNRR funding to increase student beds, France operates a free government-backed rental guarantee for students, Germany identifies housing as a top barrier with government funding promised for student housing, and Hungary’s dormitory programme provides guaranteed places with government funding.

    Ireland acknowledges “tangible constraints can’t be ignored, such as availability of accommodation”, with research finding scams and exploitation widespread while planned on-campus beds remain unbuilt. It now has a national student housing plan, as do several other countries.

    Ideally, ESAG’s action plan would include housing targets, investment proposals, or at least coordination mechanisms with local authorities.

    Coordination

    The strategy is “co-owned by the Department for Education, the Department for Business and Trade, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office” with leadership “sitting firmly across the government”.

    Immigration policy remains under Home Office responsibility – but maybe that’s part of the problem.

    Finland’s Talent Boost is cross-ministerial with Education and Economic Affairs jointly leading, explicitly integrating immigration, education, employment, business, and R&D policy.

    Germany’s strategy is implemented by federal and state governments, explicitly linking to skilled immigration legislation, with agencies working across employment and business while referencing federal skilled worker strategies. Ireland involves multiple departments as lead alongside Justice for immigration and Enterprise for employment, linking to national skills, access, and languages strategies.

    France’s Cour des comptes criticised the absence of Economy and Labour ministries, recommending comprehensive strategy “under Prime Minister’s authority with full involvement of Economy and Labour ministries” after concluding France “failed to define clear strategic priorities.” Sweden’s coordination programme brings together eleven government agencies.

    What next?

    The strategy confirms £925 per international student per year from 2028–29, stating:

    the levy will be fully reinvested into higher education and skills, including the reintroduction of targeted maintenance grant for disadvantaged domestic students.

    This is the strategy’s binding financial commitment regarding international students – extracting funds to redistribute to domestic students.

    Yet many of the mechanisms other countries use to support international students – multi-stakeholder housing coordination, dedicated integration funding, careers support programmes, language provision, pre-arrival services, quality assurance frameworks – require investment.

    International students might reasonably argue that a levy explicitly charged on them should fund improvements to their experience rather than subsidising domestic students’ maintenance.

    If the state can’t afford that kind of investment from general taxation, the case for redirecting levy income toward international student support becomes stronger – especially when rising graduate dissatisfaction suggests current provision is inadequate.

    The published strategy delegates the substance of higher education international student policy to ESAG, and the action plan could include measurable graduate employment targets, published retention tracking data, binding institutional requirements with enforcement, dedicated integration funding, housing targets and investment proposals, cross-departmental coordination mechanisms, language integration programmes, agent regulation with enforcement, quality certification standards, performance-based institutional funding, student experience and wellbeing frameworks, pre-arrival support requirements, cost of living transparency or support, during-study work provisions, consumer protection measures recognising structural vulnerabilities, and risk management frameworks.

    Other countries – including those ramping up their recruitment to English language programmes – have developed accountability frameworks, binding requirements, and funded infrastructure that ESAG could consider for the UK’s higher education action plan.

    The evidence from fifteen other countries provides options to consider.

    Source link

  • What’s Actually Working for Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    What’s Actually Working for Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Editor’s Note By Dean Hoke: This winter, Small College America completed its most ambitious season yet—13 conversations with presidents, consultants, and association leaders who are navigating the most turbulent period in higher education history. What emerged wasn’t theory or wishful thinking. It was a working playbook of what’s actually succeeding on the ground. This article synthesizes the five insights that matter most.

    When Hope Meets Reality

    Jeff Selingo doesn’t mince words.

    “Hope is not a strategy,” he said bluntly in Season 3 of Small College America.

    Jeff Selingo, a Best Selling Author and higher education advisor, named what every small college leader knows but hates to admit: the old playbook is dead. The demographic cliff isn’t coming—it’s here. Traditional enrollment models are broken. And no amount of wishful thinking about “riding out the storm” will change that.

    But here’s what surprised me across 13 conversations this season: nobody was sugarcoating reality, yet the conversations weren’t depressing.

    They were energizing.

    From Frank Shushok describing how Roanoke College built a K-12 lab school that creates a pipeline from kindergarten forward, to Teresa Parrott explaining why Grinnell took over a failing daycare center instead of issuing a mission statement about community engagement, from Gary Daynes doubling down on Salem College’s women’s mission when conventional wisdom said to go co-ed, to Kristen Soares navigating 2,500 California bills every legislative session—Season 3 captured something rare.

    Leaders who have moved past denial and into action.

    What emerged wasn’t abstract strategy consulting. It was concrete, operational intelligence from people doing the work. Here are the five insights that separate institutions that will thrive from those that won’t.

    1. Stop Marketing, Start Building Pipelines

    The traditional enrollment model—recruit high school seniors, get them to visit campus, send them glossy viewbooks, hope they choose you over 47 other colleges—is dead. Small colleges know this. But most are still acting like better marketing will solve it.

    It won’t.

    As Selingo pointed out, “At some point you have to come up with another segment of students if you’re tuition dependent because there just aren’t enough of those students to go around.”

    Translation: You cannot market your way out of a demographic crisis.

    The institutions seeing results aren’t the ones with slicker viewbooks or better social media strategies. They’re the ones building actual infrastructure for new student populations.

    What does that look like in practice?

    At Roanoke College, President Frank Shushok has approached enrollment not as a marketing problem, but as a pipeline design problem.

    Roanoke’s lab school creates a K–12 pathway while simultaneously solving a community need. Students who attend the lab school encounter the college early, come to trust it, and see it as part of their educational journey long before senior year. That’s not recruitment—that’s ecosystem building.

    The same logic shows up in Roanoke’s employer partnerships. The T-Mite Scholars program flips the traditional internship model: students complete two internships, receive a guaranteed job interview upon graduation, and receive tuition support from the employer. That’s not workforce development with a side of enrollment. That’s workforce development with enrollment as the byproduct.

    This pipeline mindset also appears at scale in California, as described by Kristen Soares, President of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. California’s Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) program creates guaranteed, transparent pathways from community colleges into four-year institutions—no credit games, no hidden requirements, no “we’ll evaluate your transcript and get back to you.” Just clear bridges that actually work for the students who need them most.

    Notice what these examples have in common: they aren’t marketing campaigns. They are operational partnerships designed to reduce friction and create consistent flows of students.

    As Shushok observed, “I think what you’re starting to see is some incredibly creative, adaptive, and agile institutions—because it requires a level of courage and resilience and tenacity.”

    The bottom line is straightforward: if your enrollment strategy is still primarily marketing-driven, you’re playing the wrong game. Build infrastructure. Create pipelines. Solve real community problems.
    The students will follow.

    2. Is Your Mission Statement Hurting You

    Teresa Parrott, Principal TVP Communications dropped what might be the most important insight of the entire season: small colleges need to shift “from mission to impact.”

    What she means matters right now.

    Most small college websites lead with mission statements like “We develop well-rounded citizens who think critically and serve their communities.”

    It’s lovely. It’s inspiring to people who already work at the college. And it’s entirely unpersuasive to everyone else.

    Legislators don’t care about your mission. Prospective students’ parents don’t care about your mission. Community members wondering why they should support you don’t care about your mission.

    They care about what you actually do.

    Compare generic mission language to Grinnell College’s approach. When their town’s daycare center was failing, Grinnell didn’t release a statement about their commitment to the community. They took over the daycare center. When the community golf course struggled, they stepped in to sustain it.

    As Parrott put it, “They are so embedded in their community that they really are almost a second arm of the government.”

    That’s not rhetoric. That’s concrete, documentable community impact.

    Or take Gary Daynes, President of Salem College insight about resource sharing at Salem: “It makes zero cents to build a football field. Seems like you could share with the local high school.”

    Simple. Obvious. Rarely done.

    But when colleges actually do it—by sharing theaters, athletic facilities, cultural resources, and programming—they become infrastructure their communities can’t imagine losing. They become politically and economically essential.

    The shift is this: Stop leading with what you believe. Start leading with what you do.

    Not “We believe in service.” Try “We trained 45% of the nurses in this region.”

    Not “We value community.” Try “We operate the only daycare center in town.”

    Not “We develop leaders.” Try “Our graduates run 23 local businesses and employ 400 people.”

    The institutions sufficiently community-embedded to make these claims are politically protected. The ones still leading with inspirational language become vulnerable the moment budgets get tight.

    The takeaway: Your communications team shouldn’t be writing mission statements. They should be documenting measurable community impact and leading with it everywhere.

    3. Lean Into What Makes You Different

    Selingo said it most directly: “There is more differentiation in higher education than we care to admit, but the presidents haven’t leaned into that enough.”

    Translation: You’re already different. You’re just afraid to say it loudly.

    Daynes decided to reaffirm its commitment to educating girls and women. That’s not chasing the market—it’s the opposite. But Daynes explained they looked at their data and realized the women’s college identity was a strength, not a liability they needed to downplay.

    Faith-based institutions are deepening their religious identities rather than treating them as mere historical affiliations that make the college vaguely Methodist or nominally Catholic.

    Health-focused campuses are building employer pipelines instead of trying to be liberal arts generalists who happen to have a nursing program.

    The pattern is clear: institutions trying to be less distinctive are struggling. Institutions doubling down on what makes them unique are finding traction.

    But here’s the critical part Daynes emphasized: distinctiveness has to be operational, not just marketing.

    If you’re a “community-engaged college,” you need actual programs embedded in the community—shared facilities, pipeline programs, workforce partnerships—not just a tagline on your website.

    If you’re “career-focused,” you need employer partnerships with real job placement data and students who can point to specific outcomes.

    If you’re faith-based, that identity needs to shape curriculum, student life, residential programs, and institutional decisions in ways students and families can see and experience.

    When distinctiveness is only branding, students and families see through it immediately. When it’s operational, it becomes your competitive advantage.

    The takeaway: Generic positioning is a slow death. Find what makes you genuinely different, operationalize it across your institution, and communicate it relentlessly.

    4. Real Partnerships vs. Press Releases

    Shushok nailed the mindset shift small colleges need to make: “Partnerships are everything in this moment. And once you get past that you’re competing with any of these entities, you start to realize, no, these are partners.”

    K-12 schools. Community colleges. Employers. Local governments. Hospitals. These aren’t competitors or nice-to-haves anymore. They’re essential infrastructure for institutional survival.

    But Daynes offered the crucial warning: “It’s easy to sign MOUs. It’s harder to sustain them.”

    Read that again.

    Translation: Your partnership announcements don’t mean anything.

    What matters is actual student flow. What matters is shared staffing. What matters is programs that operate year after year, not photo ops at signing ceremonies where everyone shakes hands and nobody follows through.

    Ask yourself right now: Do you know how many students transferred in from your community college “partners” last year? Do you have dedicated staff managing those relationships, or is it an extra duty for someone already overwhelmed?

    If you don’t know those numbers or don’t have dedicated staff, you don’t have partnerships. You have press releases.

    The partnerships that work have dedicated staffing to manage relationships and smooth student transitions, clear metrics measuring student flow rather than signed agreements, operational integration where partner institutions actually share resources, and financial skin in the game from all parties.

    Roanoke’s “Directed Tech” program with Virginia Tech counts the senior year as both undergraduate completion and the first year of a master’s degree. That’s not a partnership; that’s structural integration that changes the economics and value proposition for students.

    California’s ecosystem, where UC, CSU, community colleges, and independent institutions work together on workforce development, isn’t an inspirational collaboration story. It’s an economic necessity backed by 2,500+ pieces of legislation every two years, as Soares noted.

    When the state is writing hundreds of bills requiring coordination, you can’t fake it with a handshake and a press release.

    The bottom line: Count your partnerships that produce actual student flow and resource sharing. If that number is zero or close to it, stop announcing new partnerships and start making the ones you have actually work.

    5. Liberal Arts is Workforce Development (Stop Being Defensive About It)

    The false choice between liberal arts and workforce preparation came up in nearly every conversation. And every single guest rejected it.

    Shushok’s framing was the clearest: “Technical skills get you the first job. Human capacity skills enable 15 career reinventions.”

    Think about that.

    In a world where AI can write code, analyze data, generate reports, and automate technical tasks, what becomes more valuable—technical skills that become obsolete in five years, or the ability to adapt, think critically, communicate clearly, work across differences, and solve novel problems?

    As Shushok put it, “We might find that the liberal arts, the humanities, the small colleges, if we allow ourselves to be shaped by this moment, are exactly what the doctor ordered for the 21st century.”

    The problem: small colleges are still communicating defensively about the liberal arts instead of offensively.

    Stop saying “The liberal arts are ALSO important for careers.”

    Start saying, “The liberal arts are the ONLY preparation for a 40-year career in an unpredictable economy.”

    Stop apologizing for not being pre-professional.

    Start explaining why pre-professional education is increasingly obsolete in an age of AI and constant technological disruption.

    And most importantly: build the bridges so students can actually see the connection.

    That means boards that understand finance, politics, and operations—not just fundraising. CFO leadership that addresses structural challenges honestly. Political engagement that mobilizes entire institutions, not just government relations staff. And communications teams that function as impact documenters, not mission statement writers.

    Kristen Soares noted that 92% of California’s clinical workforce is trained at private colleges. That’s not despite the liberal arts foundation—it’s because of it.

    Nurses need critical thinking to make life-and-death decisions in ambiguous situations.

    Mental health counselors need empathy and adaptability to serve diverse communities.

    Teachers need communication skills and the ability to think on their feet.

    The liberal arts aren’t tangential to workforce needs. They’re central. But you have to stop defending them and start operationalizing the connection in ways students, families, and employers can see.

    The takeaway: The liberal arts are perfectly suited for workforce needs. Stop defending. Start operationalizing. Build the bridges.

    So what do you actually DO with all this?

    Season 3 didn’t just surface problems—it revealed a working playbook. Here’s what leaders who are successfully navigating this moment have in common:

    • They’re building infrastructure for new student populations instead.
    • They’re documenting measurable community impact and leading with it.
    • They’re deepening what makes them genuinely distinctive.
    • They’re measuring student flow and resource sharing.
    • They’re operationalizing the connection to careers.

    Shushok’s insight about “recalibration versus balance” might be the most critical leadership lesson of the season. As he put it, “Balance is not a destination, but constant recalibration.”

    Small college leadership today isn’t about finding the right strategy and executing it for five years. It’s about continuous adjustment based on what’s actually working.

    That means:

    • Boards that understand finance, politics, and operations—not just fundraising

    • CFO leadership that addresses structural challenges honestly

    • Political engagement that mobilizes entire institutions, not just government relations staff

    • Communications teams that function as impact documenters, not mission statement writers

    As Daynes reflected, “I love small colleges. There are folks of intense gifts amongst the faculty and staff who have chosen to be the places that they are.”

    That’s the source of optimism throughout Season 3.

    Not naive hope that things will get better on their own.

    But grounded confidence in devoted people willing to do hard, creative work.

    Jeff Selingo’s blunt assessment—”Hope is not a strategy”—wasn’t meant to demoralize. It was meant to liberate.

    Small colleges that thrive in the next decade will  be the ones that:

    • Build operational infrastructure for new student populations

    • Document and communicate measurable community impact

    • Operationalize distinctiveness throughout the institution

    • Create partnerships that produce actual student flow

    • Connect liberal arts to career outcomes without defensiveness

    • Recalibrate constantly based on what’s working

    The leaders in Season 3 aren’t waiting for permission or hoping for a miracle. They’re building lab schools. They’re taking over daycare centers. They’re sharing facilities with high schools. They’re creating guaranteed pathways to graduate programs. They’re documenting their impact and leading with it.

    They’re doing the work.

    And they’re proving that hope—real, grounded hope based on action rather than wishful thinking—comes from building things that work.

    Looking Forward: Three Conversations to Start This Week

    If you’re a president, provost, trustee, or senior leader, here are three conversations you can start right now if you haven’t already done so :

    1. With your enrollment team: Ask them to map every actual pipeline you have for new students—not marketing campaigns, but structural pathways that produce consistent student flow. If the list is short or non-existent, that’s your answer. Start building infrastructure, not marketing plans.

    2. With your communications team: Ask them to document your measurable community impact in the last 12 months. Not what you believe or aspire to do—what you actually did. How many jobs did you create? How many nurses did you train? What facilities do you share? What problems did you solve? If the answer is vague or mission-statement-heavy, you have work to do.

    3. With your board: Present them with a simple question: “If we could only communicate three things about our institution to prospective students, legislators, and community members, what would they be?” If the answers are about mission and values rather than concrete impact and distinctive programs, you need to shift the conversation.

    These aren’t theoretical exercises. They’re diagnostic tools that reveal whether your institution is still operating from the old playbook or building the new one.

    Selingo was right: hope is not a strategy. But action, infrastructure, partnerships, impact, and constant recalibration is a playbook that works.

    —

    Season 3 of Small College America featured conversations with 13 leaders in the field of higher education. Thanks to everyone who participated, and especially my co-host Kent Barnds and my Producer and lovely wife Nancy Hoke.

    • Raj Bellani, Chief of Staff, Denison College
    • Gary Daynes, President, Salem College
    • Josh Hibbard, Vice President of Enrollment Management, Whitworth University
    • Dean McCurdy, President, Colby Sawyer College
    • Jon Nichols, Faculty member and author
    • Teresa Parrott, Principal TVP Communications
    • Karen Petersen, President, Hendrix College
    • Michael Scarlett, Professor of Education, Augustana College
    • Jeff Selingo, Best Selling Author and higher education advisor
    • Frank Shushok, President, Roanoke College
    • Kristen Soares, President, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
    • Gregor Thuswaldner, Provost, La Roche University
    • Jeremiah Williams, Professor of Physics, Wittenberg University

    The conversations continue.

    Small College America returns in February with a new season featuring candid discussions with presidents, faculty, and leaders navigating the most consequential moment in higher education.

    Hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds, the series explores the evolving role of small colleges, their impact on communities, and the strategies leaders are using to adapt and endure.

    Listen or watch past episodes on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and many others, or preview what’s coming next, and follow the series at www.smallcollegeamerica.net.

    Source link

  • Student Civil Rights Took Center Stage in 2025. Here’s What’s on the Horizon – The 74

    Student Civil Rights Took Center Stage in 2025. Here’s What’s on the Horizon – The 74

    School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark Keierleber. Subscribe here.

    Happy 2026 — and just like that, we’re more than a quarter of the way through this century. For news about school safety and students’ civil rights, 2025 was one for the history books — unless, of course, they get banned. 

    A bid to close the Education Department. Hundreds of thousands of deportations. A free-speech crackdown. And much, much more. 

    With the new year now underway, I figured I’d look back to highlight some of the largest news stories in the School (in)Security universe in 2025 that could see major developments over the next 12 months. 

    Trump’s immigration crackdown breaches the schoolhouse gate

    In an unprecedented response to President Donald Trump’s ongoing immigration crackdown and its impact on education, Minneapolis Public Schools shut down all of its schools for two days this week. The announcement came after immigration authorities reportedly tear-gassed students and arrested staff outside a high school. The Department of Homeland Security denied using tear gas.

    The encounter occurred just hours after a federal agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, who a DHS officer shot dead in her car.

    Students, families and K-12 schools throughout the country have felt the significant and far-reaching effects of the administration’s militarized mission on U.S. soil, which has resulted in more than half a million deportations.

    Student enrollment plunged after the Trump administration eliminated a longstanding policy against conducting raids at schools, churches and other “sensitive locations.” In limited but unprecedented ways, immigration agents acted on the policy change. In Florida, the Pinellas County school district applied to assist ICE in arresting immigrants — only to quickly backtrack as controversy ensued.  

    While agents have conducted “wellness checks” on unaccompanied minors across the country, including through visits to schools, thousands of children have been detained and are reportedly being held “as long as possible to increase the likelihood of deporting them.”

    Through it all, school communities across the country have banded together, my colleague Jo Napolitano reported, to send a clear message: “Not on our watch.”

    Looking forward: The sheer number of agents deployed to Minneapolis, a reported 2,000, and the violence and death that resulted could point to a willingness by the administration to double down on its targeting of cities and schools in the coming year.

    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    DEI became a four-letter word

    Following a presidential campaign that centered on anti-immigrant and anti-transgender rhetoric, Trump made good on a promise with an order barring diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives in schools. And, about as quickly, federal courts clapped back. In April, federal judges blocked the Education Department’s effort to withhold federal money from schools that didn’t pledge to carry out the Trump administration’s interpretation of anti-discrimination laws. 

    In December, the Department of Health and Human Services released a set of sweeping regulations designed to block gender-affirming care for minors, a move that advocates warned puts lives at risk. Iowa, meanwhile, became the first state in the country to strip discrimination protections from transgender and nonbinary people.

    Perhaps most consequential is the Trump administration’s efforts to decimate the Education Department — and its Office for Civil Rights, where thousands of unresolved investigations alleging discrimination in schools based on race and gender were left to languish.

    Expect an even smaller federal presence in school civil rights issues moving forward. In December, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced an order rescinding a 50-year-old rule that held schools responsible for neutral policies that negatively affect students of a certain race or nationality.

    Looking ahead: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments next week over whether conservative states can ban transgender students from competing on school sports teams that align with their gender identity.

    PowerSchool is breached — and millions of documents are leaked

    After PowerSchool became the target of a massive cyberattack in late 2024, Massachusetts teenager Matthew Lane was sentenced to prison for carrying out a failed get-rich-quick scheme that led to perhaps the largest student data breach in history. Now that Lane has had his day in court, attention has pivoted back to PowerSchool’s culpability in the breach. 

    The company has faced lawsuits from dozens of students, parents and school districts over allegations it failed to put adequate safeguards in place to protect troves of sensitive student data.

    In a separate complaint, Texas filed suit against the company, charging it deceived its customers about the strength of its cyber protections. 

    “If Big Tech thinks they can profit off managing children’s data while cutting corners on security, they are dead wrong,” Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a media release. “Parents should never have to worry that the information they provide to enroll their children in school could be stolen and misused.”

    The rise of artificial intelligence — and efforts to keep it contained

    Kids fell in love with AI-powered chatbots last year. No, really. As students turned to AI for help with their homework, for fun and to find romantic partnerships, skeptics warned that young people could grow socially and emotionally disconnected from the humans in their lives. Several lawsuits accused chatbots of leading kids down dark paths — even to suicide.

    On Wednesday, Character.AI and tech giant Google agreed to settle lawsuits filed by parents who said their children harmed themselves after using the startup’s chatbot. 

    Keep your eyes peeled: Bipartisan legislation proposed late last year could require chatbot users to verify their age — and force teens to break up with their digital companions.

    The murder of conservative pundit and operative Charlie Kirk was met with swift backlash as K-12 teachers, professors and college students were disciplined for social media posts celebrating his death. As the Trump administration vowed vengeance on Kirk’s critics, First Amendment protections for students were left on even shakier ground.

    Meanwhile, in Texas, Gov. Greg Abbot announced an initiative to launch Turning Point USA chapters at all high schools in the state — and warned educators of “meaningful disciplinary action” if they didn’t fall in line.

    Add to the mix federal efforts to silence pro-Palestinian college student activists. In September, a federal judge ruled a Trump administration effort to arrest and deport international students based on their pro-Palestinian advocacy was a blatant First Amendment violation.

    What happens next will play out in the courts: On Tuesday, the American Federation of Teachers filed a federal First Amendment lawsuit against the Texas Education Agency alleging it violated the free speech rights of educators in the wake of Kirk’s death.

    Emotional Support

    Sinead contemplates what’s to come in 2026 from her perch.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • What’s next for Latin American international education in 2026?

    What’s next for Latin American international education in 2026?

    Outbound mobility 

    Intra-regional and outbound mobility from Latin America are set to grow over the next five years, according to QS Student Flows data, though tighter visa restrictions in major destinations and shifting student priorities are transforming study decisions. 

    “Outbound flows are being reshaped by affordability pressures and visa tightening in traditional destinations, pushing students toward Europe, especially Spain,” said Studyportals researcher Karl Baldacchino.  

    “Sector analyses highlight affordability, employability and flexibility as the dominant decision drives for Latin American students,” he said, highlighting that post-study rights and labour-market relevance increasingly matter more than institutional brand. 

    What’s more, international student caps in Canada and Australia, as well as stricter English requirements and dependents restrictions in the UK, and political volatility in the US, are accelerating a shift toward continental Europe, stakeholders noted.  

    They highlighted Spain as the most popular European destination, which is supported by favourable policies and linguistic proximity, with Studyportals data confirming this rise in interest across Latin America.  

    What’s more, Baldacchino said Erasmus+ 2026 – which is open to partnerships beyond the EU – was a way for Latin American institutions to strengthen European ties through student and faculty exchange, joint programs and capacity building.  

    The importance of career outcomes and immigration pathways were trends also noted by EdCo LATAM Consulting founder Simon Terrington, who predicted students from Brazil, Mexico and Colombia would continue to dominate outbound flows.  

    According to a recent EdCo LATAM partner enrolment survey, Canada received a greater proportion of undergraduate Latin American students compared to the UK and Europe, which were predominantly seen as postgraduate destinations. This region was popular among master’s students from Mexico – the largest sender of this cohort – closely followed by Colombia and Brazil.

    Alongside educational opportunities, Terrington said the impact of political volatility and security concerns in some Latin American countries were notable drivers for students wanting to study in different environments. 

    Meanwhile, QS senior consultant Gabriela Geron said Trump’s policies in the US – traditionally the primary study destination for Latin America – would be “critical to monitor as they may influence visa regulations, international student flows and partnerships affecting the region”.  

    Amid recent escalations in US-Venezuela relations, students from the South American country are increasingly turning away from the US, with interest from across the region “somewhat softening”, experts have said, amid reports of noticeable declines in visa approval rates for Latin American students.  

    Inbound mobility  

    When it comes to inbound mobility: “Latin America is taking modest but important steps toward becoming a host region thanks to growing scholarship schemes and targeted English taught expansion”, said Baldacchino. 

    “The region’s biggest missed opportunities remain limited English-taught capacity, underdeveloped TNE partnerships, and the absence of a structured pre-tertiary mobility pipeline,” he continued, identifying the former as the primary constraining factor.  

    While the TNE gap between Latin America compared with Asia and the Middle East has become more visible, Baldacchino said awareness of the issue could also create momentum for new partnership models.  

    Geron agreed that limited program expansion, insufficient English-taught courses, language barriers and infrastructure challenges were reducing the region’s competitiveness compared to emerging hubs in Europe and Asia.

    The biggest structural constraint remains underdeveloped English-taught capacity

    Karl Baldacchino, Studyportals

    She identified three key opportunities for the region: “Strengthening engagement with neighbouring countries, leveraging growing demand from Europe and investing in flexible delivery models – including digital solutions and TNE – to remain competitive”. 

    Baldacchino highlighted some progress by institutions in Chile and Ecuador entering the QS Latin America & Caribbean 2026 rankings, driven by increased international collaboration and incremental expansion of English-taught courses.  

    What’s more, scholarship schemes in Brazil and Mexico continue to attract interest from the Global South, “signalling a gradual move toward Latin America becoming a genuine host rather than only a sending region”, he said.  

    Meanwhile, Geron predicted that Argentina would maintain its position as the leading host destination in Latin America, supported by its long-standing offer of accessible public higher education driving significant intra-regional mobility. 

    However, though there are yet to be any formal policy changes, ongoing political debate about charging tuition fees to non-resident international students has introduced a degree of uncertainty for prospective students, Geron noted.  

    Elsewhere, Brazil’s introduction of post-study residence and work authorisation for international graduates “represents a positive step toward linking higher education with labour market retention”, with the policy set to improve the country’s retention outcomes this year, she said.  

    With elections scheduled this year across Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, Peru and Nicaragua, Geron saw several opportunities for Latin America’s development as a study destination.  

    She highlighted positive policy adjustments in countries such as Uruguay, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador and Ecuador, which, while representing progress towards internationalisation, are unlikely to significantly alter the region’s standing in higher education in 2026. 

    “The improved rankings, expanded scholarship schemes, and targeted English-taught provision across Latin America suggest a slow but meaningful pivot toward diversity,” said Badacchino, advising institutions in the region and beyond to articulate clear, employment-led value.  

    Source link

  • What’s going to happen in international education in 2026?

    What’s going to happen in international education in 2026?

    Join HEPI and Advance HE for a webinar on Tuesday, 13 January 2026, from 11am to 12pm, exploring what higher education can learn from leadership approaches in other sectors. Key topics will include innovative approaches to recruitment and diversity, and how to ensure future sector stability through effective leadership. Sign up here to hear this and more from our speakers

    This blog was kindly authored by Viggo Stacey, International Education & Policy Writer at QS Quacquarelli Symonds.

    If 2026 is anything like last year, international education is in for another unpredictable 12 months.

    Much of 2025 was interspersed with speculation in the press about whether degrees were no longer of value for graduate, in a new world of work. There was also recurring discussion about higher education in key study destinations losing reputational ground to emerging education hubs. Despite this, rumours of higher education’s decline have been exaggerated.

    Across the global education landscape, competition for outstanding students continues to heat up. Despite policy changes in key study destinations designed to reduce the number of  international students from arriving onshore; universities and governments continue to vie for the best international talent.

    India

    Canada’s longstanding diplomatic rift with India began to thaw in 2025, with Mark Carney and Narendra Modi agreeing to enhance diplomatic staffing levels and to strengthen people-to-people linkages when they met late last year.

    Australia is already there. The country’s education minister, Jason Clare, has visited India three times in the three and a half years he has held the education portfolio. The latest visit in December saw him invited to dine privately with his counterpart, Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, at his home in New Delhi.

    India is also top of mind for UK universities, with several announcing branch campuses, and many seeking dual degrees or research partnerships with Indian counterparts. Kier Starmer’s trade mission to Mumbai in 2025 focused on business and trade, with India’s demand for 70 million university places needed by 2035 noted as a ‘huge opportunity for UK universities seeking new funding streams’.

    However, official government figures from the end of last year suggested that the numbers of higher education students from India studying abroad overall fell in 2025.

    Beyond India

    At QS, our projections for the total number of internationally mobile students globally are expected to hit 8.5 million by the end of the decade.

    QS has already spoken about the Big four evolving into the Big 14, as the predicted growth rate in global international student numbers over the next five years rises by 4 per cent.

    We also anticipate that the combined market share of the US, UK, Australia and Canada will continue to drop slowly in the next years, from the current 40 per cent towards the projected 35 per cent by the end of the decade.

    If the current US administration continues on its unpredictable path (student visa appointments were paused for an extended period in 2025, before expanded social media vetting for students was announced in June), the UK, Australia, Canada, along with an array of places seeking to become international study hubs, could benefit.

    The US’ new partial bans on student visas from countries such as Nigeria may also prove advantageous for the UK.

    Figures from IIE in late 2025 showed that overall new international student numbers in the US fell by 7 per cent to 277,118. The picture is complicated however. While the number of new graduate students fell by 15 per cent, figures for new undergraduates actually grew by 5 per cent.

    Our own analysis suggested that, if OPT (Optional Practical Training) numbers are outstripped from the total US numbers, international student figures in the US could decline to such an extent that the UK would become the number one destination for international students in the world by 2030.

    In December 2025, the federal government in Canada announced more details of its $1.7 billion Canada Global Impact+ Research Talent Initiative. It follows European initiatives in seeking to recruit scientists, particularly from the US, in the face of funding cuts at home. China has also launched its own visa, seeking to attract talented scientists. This visa (the K-visa) gives applicants with a bachelor’s degree in a STEM field or those engaged in STEM research or education at a recognised institution flexible entry into the country, without the need for employer sponsorship.

    Policies like these are designed to win talent that would otherwise be in the US, and the UK might also benefit among students and scholars who would previously have opted for the US.

    A cap on numbers?

    Canada’s new cap on international students, announced in November 2025, has seen cap numbers reduced from around 300,000 last year to 155,000 in 2026, but notably, it will not include master’s students. In Australia, some two dozen providers are already over the 80 per cent threshold of their New Overseas Student Commencement allocations for 2026.

    Policies such as this could also end up benefiting the UK.

    This all being said, the final impact of the international student levy, as well as the likely boost from re-association with Erasmus+ could alter the overall result for the UK in varied ways.

    Ahead of rejoining the Erasmus+ programme by 2027, the new Basic Compliance Assessment rules on international applications in the UK could see universities punished for high visa refusal and completion rates. This is likely to damage the diversity of international cohorts on UK campuses – some institutions have already publicly said they will not recruit from ‘high risk’ countries in the next year in order to protect the integrity of the sector.

    Australia’s minister Clare repeatedly decried the ‘shonks’ taking advantage of international students during Anthony Albanese and the Labor Party’s first term in Australia. Subsequently, the government brought in changes to ensure that prospective students are genuine students, avoiding those who are supposedly seeking ‘to cheat the system in order to enter Australia’. Clare’s speeches since the re-election in 2025 have been much more supportive.

    International education advocates in other countries will hope that language such as this will be tempered in 2026, as the systems that study destinations have put in place begin to see results.

    This year could well be the year that international education bounces back.

    Source link

  • 8 Tiny Japanese Habits That Make a Massive Difference (What’s The Next Level)

    8 Tiny Japanese Habits That Make a Massive Difference (What’s The Next Level)







    Higher Education Inquirer : 8 Tiny Japanese Habits That Make a Massive Difference (What’s The Next Level)




    Source link

  • What’s not part of university requirements? Eating.

    What’s not part of university requirements? Eating.

    University systems have long been promoted as the most reliable path to upward mobility and economic security.

    Yet for a growing number of students, that promise is part of a troubling paradox: the act of seeking a degree requires a harrowing trade-off between paying for schooling and securing the eating. The result is a lack of physical and economic access to enough safe and nutritious food for a healthy and active life. It is a pervasive crisis of food insecurity,

    Today, nearly nine in 10 United States campuses operate food pantries or “basic need hubs,” serving thousands of students each semester.

    What began as a grassroots response to hunger is now becoming institutionalized — a subtle but significant shift in how universities define student success and well-being. According to a survey conducted by the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, a national research center at Temple University focused on transforming higher education to improve student success and well-being, 59% of students of students at 91 institutions across 16 states experience at least one form of basic needs insecurity, while 41% of students experienced food insecurity.

    Many campus pantries have transformed into one-stop centers that connect students with food assistance programs, financial aid, child-care resources and mental-health support.

    Finding the funds for food

    The Lancer Care Center, which began as the Lancer Pantry in 2015 at the Pasedena City College, has now been integrated into a centralized, holistic support center. Today, it provides coordinated assistance and functions as a single hub for various types of basic needs, ranging from housing, food, emergency funding, peer mentoring and financial assistance.

    Yet, even as they expand, most remain under-funded and overstretched: 60% of campus food pantries lack adequate refrigeration and many rely on short-term grants and student volunteers to operate.

    A survey conducted in 2023 by Swipe Out Hunger, a national non-profit organization dedicated to eliminating student hunger, reported that food pantries face three key challenges: funding, inventory and staffing. More than one in five among the 355 college food pantries surveyed reported that securing stable funding, maintaining streams of funding and obtaining grants remain the most significant challenges.

    Beyond calories, these spaces also provide something harder to quantify: trust.

    “If you have somebody that trusts a systemic function of your campus, like a food pantry, it is likely that they will also trust other systems that are in place,” said Laura Egan of the Clery Center, an organization that focuses on campus safety and student rights. “If and when they or someone they know needs to make a report of a crime or needs to access a resource because they are a survivor of a crime, they will be more likely to look to and trust their campus, who has already established a system of providing them regular support in a non-judgmental [way].”

    When hunger is hidden

    For Egan, said accessibility matters just as much as supply.

    “What we really appreciate seeing with food pantries on college campuses is the community support that it provides, the ready access that provides a student, with no questions asked about why you might need to access that resource,” she said.

    Despite their growing presence, hunger on campus often remains hidden, masked by stigma and assumptions about who is considered food insecure. New York University Izzy Morgan is the administrative coordinator at the College Student Pantry  New York City and says that many students don’t even realize that they are food insecure.

    “I come from a family with money and, you know, I have all these privileges,” Morgan said. “I’m on a pretty big scholarship at school, and even if all of that is true, you could still be insecure.”

    The College Student Pantry, operated by New York City’s Trinity’s Services and Food for the Homeless, serves college and graduate students across the city.

    Affording healthy food

    For Morgan, that self-realization came upon discovering that the pantry provided access to fresh vegetables that would otherwise be unaffordable.

     “Part of why I got this job was because my boss, who is actually my pastor, came up to me and said, ‘Izzy, I think you’re food insecure’,” Morgan said.

    Daniela Bermudez, a volunteer and Outreach and Social Media coordinator at the pantry, said that For many students, hunger is normalized as part of the college experience. “A lot of college students have this (assumption) that they’re supposed to struggle,” Bermudez said. “It’s almost normal to not have a well-balanced meal daily.”

    Understanding food insecurity often comes gradually. “It’s kind of hard to almost wrap your head (around the meaning of food insecurity),” Bermudez said. “I’m noticing that (when) I’m not eating the right food groups and I don’t necessarily have the continuous ability to access these foods, that is a sign of food insecurity.”

    Universities often measure success through graduation rates and employment outcomes, but for a growing number of students, success must depend on something far more basic: the ability to eat regularly, without shame or uncertainty. As higher education continues to market itself as a pathway out of poverty, the persistence of campus hunger raises an urgent question: Can institutions truly promise opportunity while leaving students to choose between a meal and a degree?

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why do many university students struggle to pay for food?

    2. What are universities doing to make sure students can eat?

    3. Do you think food should be a basic right for everyone? Why?

    Source link

  • From Promise to Precarity — What’s New in 2026

    From Promise to Precarity — What’s New in 2026

    When HEI published “Guild Education: Enablers of Anti‑Union Corporations and Subprime College Programs” in April 2021, the piece raised serious concerns about Guild’s business model, its corporate clients, and the value of its touted “education as a benefit” for working-class employees. That early reporting highlighted the risk that Guild’s platform — while appearing to offer opportunity — might deliver little meaningful upward mobility while embedding workers more deeply in corporate control.

    Almost five years later, the unfolding story of Guild reveals a deeper crisis: repeated layoffs, leadership instability, and employee dissatisfaction have compounded internal challenges, creating a disconnect between the company’s outward mission and the lived realities of its workforce.

    In 2021, HEI documented Guild’s extensive client network, which included major employers such as Walmart, Lowe’s, and Chipotle. Its partnerships with both for-profit and nonprofit education providers raised questions about the quality of credentials and long-term outcomes. HEI noted that only a small percentage of eligible employees at these companies accessed Guild’s tuition benefits, highlighting limits in the platform’s reach. At the time, Guild was framed as part of a broader “robocollege” ecosystem, where corporate-sponsored online programs risked low completion rates and limited returns for learners.

    The subsequent years have underscored these concerns. After a reported peak valuation of $4.4 billion in 2022, Guild’s value declined sharply by 2024, with secondary market activity placing it around $1.3 billion. The company experienced multiple rounds of layoffs, including a 25 percent workforce reduction in May 2024, adding to prior cuts and heightening employee insecurity. Under new leadership following the departure of founder CEO Rachel Romer Carlson, Guild pivoted strategically, rebranding itself from “Guild Education” to simply “Guild” and acquiring Nomadic Learning to expand its corporate learning offerings.

    While the company reports significant growth metrics — including expanded access to nearly 500,000 new employees and over $1 billion saved in tuition — employee reviews reveal a starkly different internal reality. Former and current staff describe high stress, frequent goal-post shifts, and a demoralizing culture marked by favoritism and inequity. Coaching, once central to Guild’s mission, is now characterized by rigid metrics, performance improvement plans, and limited room for meaningful mentorship. Burnout, extended medical leaves, and frustration with stalled internal mobility are widespread. Many employees report that the company’s original social justice mission has been hollowed out in practice, leaving staff disconnected from the work they once found meaningful.

    Guild’s pivot toward corporate learning reflects broader trends in workforce development, skills-based hiring, and talent management. While the shift may offer employers measurable returns in retention and internal mobility, it also signals a departure from the promise of genuine educational uplift. For employees drawn to Guild for its original mission, the change raises questions about whose needs are being prioritized and at what cost.

    The story of Guild underscores several pressing concerns. Credibility gaps between marketing and internal realities leave workers vulnerable to exploitation. Corporate priorities have overtaken educational mission, demonstrating how profit motives can override commitments to social equity. The devaluation of coaching and credentials as meaningful education risks normalizing lower-quality programs tied primarily to employer needs. For other corporate-sponsored education and edtech ventures, Guild’s trajectory offers a cautionary tale: scaling and investor demands can quickly erode mission and employee well-being.

    Guild’s rise was once seen as a model of opportunity creation for working adults, but the experiences of its employees reveal the fragility of that promise. By 2025, the company is less a beacon of social mobility than a case study in what can happen when education becomes a tool for corporate talent management. For readers committed to equity, accountability, and lifelong learning, Guild’s story serves as a warning: marketing and good intentions are insufficient protections when leadership and corporate priorities fail.

    Sources

    Source link

  • How 2025 Changed Research and What’s Ahead

    How 2025 Changed Research and What’s Ahead

    Ask just about any federally funded researcher to describe 2025, and they use words like chaotic, demoralizing, confusing, destabilizing and transformational.

    “It’s been a very destabilizing year [that’s made] people question the nation’s commitment to research,” Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges, told Inside Higher Ed.

    She expects 2026 to be a year of rebuilding and standard setting.

    Speaking of the National Institutes of Health, which calls itself the world’s largest public biomedical research funder, Pierce said the research community is expecting more major regulation and written policy changes in 2026, which will shed more light on how grants will be funded, how much the federal government will invest in the research enterprise and what priorities will emerge from this administration.

    If the administration’s attacks on federally funded research in 2025 are any indication, the federal government of 2026 will likely be just as willing to advance its conservative ideological agenda by controlling universities through the nation’s research enterprise. And while the administration may not let up in the new year, courts stymied some of its most sweeping changes in 2025 and may continue to be an obstacle in the new year.

    Soon after President Donald Trump started his second term in January, the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, Department of Education and numerous other federal agencies that collectively send billions in research dollars to universities, began freezing and terminating hundreds of grants. Many of the targeted grants—including projects focused on vaccines, climate change, and health and education disparities among women, LGBTQ+ and minority communities—were caught in the crossfire of Trump’s war against diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and so-called woke gender ideology.

    Not only would the terminations lead to the loss of jobs, staff and income, a lawsuit filed by a group of NIH-funded researchers in April predicted that “scientific advancement will be delayed, treatments will go undiscovered, human health will be compromised, and lives will be lost.”

    The true damage comes from the betrayal, the sense of uncertainty and the loss of trust researchers have—or had—vis-à-vis with the federal government. That’s really hard to quantify.”

    Scott Delaney, cofounder of Grant Witness

    Terminated federal grants encompassed a wide range of research projects. Some of the casualties included funding to study the erosion of democracy, the effectiveness of work study, dementia, COVID-19, cancer and misinformation. Others supported teacher-training programs and initiatives designed to attract more underrepresented students into STEM fields.

    “The premise of this award is incompatible with agency priorities,” read a letter the NIH sent to numerous researchers back in March, terminating their active grants. “[R]esearch programs based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

    But it didn’t stop there.

    The Trump administration also temporarily froze billions more dollars in federal research grants at a handful of the nation’s wealthiest, most selective institutions, including Harvard University, Columbia University and the University of California at Los Angeles, for allegedly failing to address antisemitism on campus and ignoring the Supreme Court’s ban on affirmative action, among other allegations. (Most of the universities got their money back after cutting deals with the administration or via court orders.)

    Faculty in the University of California system successfully fought the administration’s funding cuts, winning court orders to restore the money.

    Justin Sullivan/AFP/Getty Images

    And because the NIH, NSF, ED and several other federal agencies also laid off thousands of workers, researchers with questions had far fewer resources to help them navigate changes to application and award processes.

    By some estimates, the government disrupted upward of $17 billion in NIH grants alone this year, according to Scott Delaney, a former lawyer and Harvard University epidemiologist who the university laid off as a result of grant terminations.

    Earlier this year, he cofounded Grant Witness, a website that has been tracking grant cancellations at the NIH, NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency. While both the NIH and NSF have since restored thousands of grants, Delaney said those and other restorations won’t be enough to repair the now-fractured relationship between faculty and federal funding agencies.

    “The true damage comes from the betrayal, the sense of uncertainty and the loss of trust researchers have—or had—vis-à-vis with the federal government. That’s really hard to quantify,” he told Inside Higher Ed this month. “In the years ahead, there will be folks who don’t want to plan long-term research projects because they don’t know if their funds are going to get summarily yanked out from underneath them; folks who don’t want to continue their careers in academic research or train in academic research; trainees who would have had training grant support who don’t now and go do something else. And some researchers will just leave the country.”

    In addition, some of the Trump administration’s research funding proposals have stoked worry this year about the long-term sustainability of the nation’s academic research enterprise.

    Numerous agencies—including NIH, NSF and Department of Energy—have attempted to cut university reimbursement rates for indirect research costs. Higher education and science advocates characterized such policies as “shortsighted and dangerous,” and said it would hamper university budgets, hurt the economy and stymie scientific progress. Although federal courts have since blocked the rate caps, the mere anticipation of such policy changes led some universities—including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Northwestern University—to freeze hiring and, in some cases, graduate admissions.

    But by September, the NIH said it was on track to spend its full $47 billion budget by the end of the fiscal year that month.

    However, the NIH awarded 3,500 fewer competitive grants this year with the biggest declines at the Institutes of minority health, nursing, human genome, alcohol abuse and alcoholism and mental health, according to The New York Times. Those changes are part of the White House’s plan to streamline scientific funding by eliminating wasteful spending and cutting “woke programs” that “poison the minds of Americans.”

    Protest against NIH cuts

    The cuts to federal agencies and research spurred protests in the spring.

    As 2025 fades into 2026, the federal research funding picture isn’t looking as bleak—at least not on the surface.

    A flurry of litigation from universities, individual researchers, trade associations and labor unions prompted several federal agencies to reinstate some research grants.

    All things considered, 2025 “could have been worse, but it was still awful,” Delaney said, noting that there are still thousands of grants in limbo at the NSF, DOE and numerous other agencies beyond the NIH.

    “So many people fought so hard—some of them sacrificed their jobs inside these federal agencies—and they succeeded in many ways. To tell a story that doesn’t include both their sacrifice and their success discredits what was a Herculean and heroic effort for scientists, many who have never spoken up in a political way before this year,” he added. “But it’s also important to emphasize that this fight isn’t over, and we need to keep fighting. It can get worse.”

    ‘Not Insulated From Politics’

    Katie Edwards, a social work professor at the University of Michigan, is one of the researchers who sued the NIH. In March, the agency canceled six grants she was using to research mental health and violence prevention among marginalized young people, including Indigenous and LGBTQ+ youth. Valued at $10 million, the grants supported roughly 50 staff, community collaborators and trainees and put them all at risk of losing their jobs.

    “For many trainees—especially those who are LGBTQ+ or people of color—the message they internalized was painful: that research on their communities is ‘ideological’ or expendable,” Edwards wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “The emotional toll of fighting for and protecting staff, reassuring community partners, and trying to navigate a constantly shifting federal landscape has been immense.”

    Fighting for Public Health Research

    April: A group of NIH researchers, a public health advocacy organization and a union representing more than 120,000 higher education workers sued the NIH for terminating more than $2.4 billion in grants.

    June: A federal judge ordered the agency to reinstate the grants immediately and said the government’s actions amounted to a policy of “racial discrimination” guided by “homogeneity, inequity and exclusion.”

    August: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled by a vote of 5 to 4 that any legal challenges to the grant terminations should be litigated in the Court of Federal Claims, not the federal district court system they’ve been moving through for months.

    Kate Edwards smiles for a photo while wearing glasses, a heart necklace and a blazer.
    Edwards

    University of Michigan

    Although her grants have since been reinstated—albeit some with reduced dollar amounts, administrative delays and anti-DEI language in the notice of award—and her team has resumed their work, this year has forever changed her perspective on research.

    “This year made clear that science is not insulated from politics—and that researchers must be prepared to defend not only their projects, but the people those projects exist to serve,” Edwards said. “Federally funded research with marginalized communities requires constant vigilance, strong partnerships, and collective resistance. We cannot simply adjust our science to political winds when real communities rely on this work.”

    But not every researcher who appealed a grant termination got their money back.

    In March, the Education Department informed Judith Scott-Clayton, a professor of economics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, that it was cancelling her six-year grant to examine the impact of receiving federal work-study funding on enrollment and persistence among low-income students four and a half years into the grant.

    Teachers College appealed the decision in April, but the government rejected it in September, stating that Education Department grants were specifically excluded from Columbia University’s settlement with the Trump administration. Support from a private foundation allowed Scott-Clayton and her team to resume their research this November, but she told Inside Higher Ed that the disruptions to research have been “extremely unsettling and demoralizing.”

    And she’s not certain that 2026 will be any better.

    “Even though I believe in the value of what I do, self-doubt can flare up when an authority as significant as the federal government formally declares your work to be a waste of resources,” she said. “I am not sure what the future of our field looks like if our federal government no longer values research evidence. And I am not sure what our society looks like if the federal government can make decisions so arbitrarily without any consequences or constraints.”

    New Year, Old Concerns

    This year is ending with unresolved questions about what the Trump administration’s research policies will ultimately be, and how much the federal government will fund research. Pierce at the Association of American Medical Colleges said she expects next year will provide answers.

    Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), said “I think the [the Energy Department’s] Genesis mission and the prioritization of artificial intelligence and emerging technologies is going to be a key driver in—I guess you could say—filling in the cracks of the foundation of the research enterprise that has been kind of hit by this earthquake in the past year.”

    A pedestrian walks by a glass facade that says “National Institutes of Health."

    The National Institutes of Health has cut staff and is eyeing other changes to how it funds research.

    Wesley Lapointe/The Washington Post via Getty Images

    The continuing resolution that ended the historically long federal government shutdown in November expires Jan. 30, and Congress is leaving town for the holidays without passing funding bills for some major science funding agencies, including the NIH, NSF and Energy.

    Trump proposed slashing about $5.2 billion from the NSF. But House appropriators have suggested cutting $2.1 billion, while senators only put forth axing $60 million, according to an appropriations debate tracker from the AAAS. And while the president proposed cutting nearly 40 percent from the NIH—$18.1 billion—the House and Senate have instead suggested increasing its funding by roughly $1 billion, the tracker shows. That pushback from Congress is promising, advocates say.

    And colleges and universities are still waiting for federal research funding agencies to set indirect cost reimbursement caps, after litigation blocked their plans to set the limit at 15 percent. The forthcoming OMB guidance setting those caps is also supposed to help agencies implement Trump’s controversial August executive order directing “senior appointees” to take charge of awarding, denying, reviewing and terminating new and already awarded grants. Among other changes, that order also said grants can’t “promote” racial preferences or “the notion that sex is a chosen or mutable characteristic,” and that they “should be given to a broad range of recipients rather than to a select group of repeat players.”

    Jayanta Bhattacharya, a man with silver hair and glasses wearing a suit and red tie

    Dr. Jayanta Bhattacharya took over the National Institutes of Health and has pledged to support what the administration calls “gold standard science.” He’s become a vocal supporter of the Make America Healthy Again agenda, which focuses more on chronic diseases.

    Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

    Further, the NIH is eyeing ways to reduce how much of its grant dollars researchers can use to pay scientific journals to publish their work. The proposed options ranged from limiting how much could be spent per publication or capping the percentage of a grant that can go toward publishing fees overall, to no longer funding publication costs whatsoever. The NIH said in the summer that it planned to make whatever policy it chose effective early next year, but it only recently released the public comments, and an agency spokesperson said he couldn’t provide a definitive implementation timeline.

    Just this week, Science published a memo showing that NSF is scaling back its reviews of grant proposals, citing its “significantly reduced” workforce and a need to expedite approvals and denials to address a “significant backlog of unreviewed proposals and canceled review panels” from the government shutdown. The memo also said NSF program officers are “expected to maximize their use of available automated merit review tools, especially tools that identify proposals that should be returned without review.”

    And the NIH ordered staff last Friday to start using a “computational text analysis tool” to scan current and new grants for words and phrases that may mean they’re misaligned with NIH priorities. Staff were told to look out for terms such as “health equity” and “structural racism.” How this and the NSF policy changes will work in practice remains to be seen.

    The educational improvement research field also awaits word on the future of the congressionally required Institute of Education Sciences (IES), which the administration gutted early this year amid its ongoing push to dismantle the larger Education Department. IES is the federal government’s central education data collection and research funding agency. Education secretary Linda McMahon hired a special adviser to “re-envision” it, but the plan hasn’t been released.

    Overall, Pierce said 2026 “will continue to be a challenging year, especially for those researchers, institutions and trainees that have seen their grants terminated.” But she noted medical research is marked by passion for improving the nation’s health.

    “It’s an incredibly resilient field,” she said.

    Source link

  • What’s the gossip from The PIE Live North America?

    What’s the gossip from The PIE Live North America?


    Nicholas Cuthbert

    Nick began his career with Nottingham Trent University in the UK working in international student recruitment, before going on to a wide range of leadership and consultancy roles in the private sector. He joined The PIE in 2021 and is a key commentator on the current trends in the global higher education industry. He curates content for our PIE Live conferences and is the co-host of the Tales from the Departure Lounge podcast. Get in touch with Nick at [email protected]


    View all articles by Nicholas

    Source link