Western Sydney University (WSU) has ranked first in the measure of delivering community impact out of over 2000 universities globally in the Times Higher Education Impact Rankings released Wednesday.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
Hello everyone, and welcome to the World of Higher Education podcast. I’m Tiffany MacLennan, and if you’re a faithful listener, you know what it means when I’m the one opening the episode—this week, our guest is AU.
We’re doing a year in review, looking at some of the global higher education stories that stood out in 2024—from massification to private higher education, from Trump’s international impact to the most interesting stories overall. But I’ll pass it over to Alex.
The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.35 | The Year the Money Ran Out: Global Higher Ed Review
Tiffany MacLennan (TM): Alex, you’re usually the one asking the questions, but today you’re in our hot seat.
Alex Usher (AU): It’s technically the same seat I’m always in.
TM: Fair point. But today, you’re in the question seat. Let’s start with the global elephant in the room.
Last week, we talked at length with Brendan Cantwell about the domestic effects of Donald Trump’s education policies. But what impacts are we seeing internationally? Are any countries or institutions actively trying to capitalize on the chaos in the U.S.? And if so, how serious are those efforts to poach talent and build their reputations?
AU: There are lots of countries that think they’re in a position to capitalize on it—but almost none of them are serious.
The question is: where is the real destruction happening in the United States? Where is the greatest danger? And the answer is in research funding. NIH funding is going to be down by a third next year. NSF funding is going to be down by more than 50%. So it’s the scientists working in STEM and health—those with the best labs in the world—who are suddenly without money to run programs.
But what are they supposed to do? Are there alternatives to labs of that scale? Are there alternatives to the perks of being a top STEM or health researcher at an American university?
Places like Ireland—well, Ireland has no research culture to speak of. The idea that Ireland is going to step in and be competitive? Or the Czech Republic? Or India, which keeps talking about this being their moment? Come on. Be serious. That’s not what’s happening here.
There might be an exodus—but it’s more likely to be to industry than to other countries. It’s not clear to me that there will be a global redistribution of this talent.
Now, the one group that might move abroad? Social scientists and humanities scholars. And you’ve already seen that happening—especially here in Toronto. The University of Toronto has picked up three or four high-profile American scholars just in the last little while.
Why? Because you don’t need to build them labs. The American lead in research came from the enormous amounts of money spent on infrastructure: research hospitals, labs—facilities that were world-class, even in unlikely places. Birmingham, Alabama, for example, has 25 square blocks of cutting-edge health research infrastructure. How? Because America spent money on research like no one else.
But they’re not doing that anymore. So I think a lot of that scientific talent just… disappears. It’s lost to academia, and it’s not coming back. And over the long term, that’s a real problem for the global economy.
TM: Sticking with the American theme, are there other countries that have been taking, well, I hesitate to say lessons, but have been adopting policies inspired by the U.S. since Donald Trump came to power? Or has it gone the other way—more like a cautionary tale of what not to do if you want to strengthen your education sector?
AU: I think the arrival of MAGA really made a lot of people around the world realize that, actually, having talented researchers in charge of things isn’t such a bad idea.
We saw that reflected in elections—in Canada, in Australia—where center-left governments that were thought to be in trouble suddenly pulled off wins. Same thing in Romania.
The one exception seems to be Poland. But even there, I’m not sure the culture war side of things was ever as intense as it was in the United States. In fact, the U.S. isn’t even the originator of a lot of this stuff—it’s Hungary. Viktor Orbán’s government is the model. The Project 2025 crew in the U.S. has made it pretty clear: they want American universities to look more like Hungarian ones.
And the Hungarian Minister of Higher Education has been holding press conferences around the world, claiming that everyone’s looking at Hungary as a model.
So, there’s definitely been a shift—America is moving closer to the Hungarian approach. But I don’t think anyone else is following them. Even in Poland, where there’s been political change, the opposition still controls the parliament, so it’s not clear anything dramatic will happen there either.
So no—I don’t think we’re seeing widespread imitation of U.S. education policy right now. Doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen—but we’re not there yet.
TM: One thing we’ve seen a lot of this year is talk—and action—around the massification of higher education. What countries do you think have made some of the most interesting moves in expanding access? And on the flip side, are there any countries that are hitting their capacity?
AU: Everyone who’s making progress is also hitting their capacity. That’s the key thing. Massification isn’t just a matter of saying, “Hey, let’s build a new school here or there.” Usually, you’re playing catch-up with demand.
The really interesting case for me is Uzbekistan. Over the past decade, the number of students has increased fivefold—going from about 200,000 to over a million. I’m not sure any country in the world has moved that fast before. That growth is driven by a booming population, rising wealth, and—crucially—a government that’s willing to try a wide range of strategies: working with domestic public institutions, domestic private institutions, international partners—whatever works. It’s very much a “throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks” approach.
Dubai is another case. It’s up 30% this year, largely driven by international students. That’s a different kind of massification, but still significant.
Then there’s Africa, where we’re seeing a lot of countries running into capacity issues. They’ve promised access to education, but they’re struggling to deliver. Nigeria is a standout—it opened 200 new universities this year. Egypt is another big one. And we’re starting to see it in Kenya, Tanzania, Ghana—places that have reached the level of economic development where demand for higher education takes off.
But here’s the catch: it’s not always clear that universal access is a good idea from a public policy standpoint. At certain stages of economic development, you can support 70% participation rates. At others, you’re doing well to sustain 20%. It really depends where you are.
And these are often countries with weak tax systems—low public revenue. So how do you fund it all? That’s a major challenge.
What we’re seeing in many places is governments making big promises around massification—and now struggling to keep them. I think that tension—between rising demand and limited capacity—is going to be a major story in higher education for at least the next three or four years.
TM: I think that leads nicely into my next question: what’s the role of private higher education in all of this?
Private institutions have been popping up more and more, and the conversation around them has only grown. Sometimes they’re filling important gaps, and sometimes they’re creating problems. But this year, we also saw some pretty major regulatory moves—governments trying to reassert control over what’s become a booming sector.
Do you see this as part of a broader shift? And what do you think it means for the future of private higher education?
AU: I don’t see a big shift in private education in less industrialized countries. What you’re seeing there is more a case of the public sector being exhausted—it simply can’t keep up with demand. So private providers show up to fill the gap.
The question is whether governments are regulating those providers in a way that ensures they contribute meaningfully to the economy, or if they’re just allowing bottom-feeders to flourish. And a lot of places struggle to get that balance right.
That said, there are some positive examples. Malaysia, for instance, has done a pretty good job over the years of managing its private higher education sector. It’s a model that other countries could learn from.
But I think the really interesting development is the growth of private higher education in Europe.
Look at Spain—tuition is relatively cheap, yet 25% of the system is now private. France has free tuition, but still, 25% of its system is private. In Germany, where tuition is also free, the private share is approaching 20%.
It’s a different kind of issue. Strong public systems can ossify—they stop adapting, stop responding to new needs. In Europe, there’s very little pressure on public universities to align with labor market demand. And rising labor costs can mean that public universities can’t actually serve as many students as they’d like.
France is a good example. It’s one of the few countries in Europe where student numbers are still growing significantly. But the government isn’t giving public universities more money to serve those students. So students leave—they say, “This isn’t a quality education,” and they go elsewhere. Often, that means going to private institutions.
We had a guest on the show at one point who offered a really interesting perspective on what private higher education can bring to the table. And I think that’s the fascinating part: you’d expect the private sector boom to be happening in a place like the U.S., with its freewheeling market. But it’s not. The big story right now is in Europe.
TM: Are there any countries that are doing private higher education particularly well right now? What would you say is the “good” private higher ed story of the year?
AU: That’s a tough one, because these things take years to really play out. But I’d say France and Germany might be success stories. They’ve managed to keep their top-tier public institutions intact while still allowing space for experimentation in the private sector.
There are probably some good stories in Asia that we just don’t know enough about yet. And there are always reliable examples—like Tecnológico de Monterrey in Mexico, which I think is one of the most innovative institutions in the Americas.
But I wouldn’t say there’s anything dramatically different about this year that marks a turning point. That said, I do think we need to start paying more attention to the private sector in a way we haven’t since the explosion of private higher education in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Back then, governments looked around and said, “Okay, we need to do something.” Their public universities—especially in the social sciences—were completely discredited after decades of Marxist orthodoxy. So they let the private sector grow rapidly, and then had to figure out how to rein it in over time.
Some countries managed that fairly well. Romania and Poland, for instance, have built reasonably strong systems for regulating private higher education—though not without some painful moments. Romania in particular had some pretty chaotic years. If you look up Spiru Haret University, you’ll get a sense of just how bad it can get when you completely let the market rip.
But now there are decent examples that other regions—especially Africa and Central Asia—can look to. These are areas where private education is going to be increasingly important in absorbing new demand.
The real question is: how do you translate those lessons from one context to another?
TM: Alex, when it comes to the least good stories of the year, it felt like the headlines were all the same: there’s no money. Budget cuts. Doom and gloom.
What crisis stood out to you the most this year, and what made it different from what we’ve seen in other countries?
AU: Well, I think Argentina probably tops the list. Since President Milei came into power, universities have seen their purchasing power drop by about 60%. It’s a huge hit.
When Milei took office, inflation was already high, and his plan to fix it was to cut public spending—across the board. That meant universities had to absorb the remaining inflation, with no additional support to help cushion the blow. And on top of that, Milei sees universities as hotbeds of communism, so there’s no political will to help.
It’s been brutal. So that’s probably the number one crisis just in terms of scale.
Kenya is another big one. The country has been really ambitious about expanding access—opening new universities and growing the system. But they haven’t followed through with adequate funding. The idea was that students would pick up some of the slack financially, but it turns out most Kenyan families just aren’t wealthy enough to make that work.
They tried to fill the gap with student loans, but the system couldn’t support it. And now there’s blame being placed on the funding formula. But the issue isn’t the formula—it’s the total amount of money being put into the system.
There’s a common confusion: some people understand that a funding formula is about dividing money between institutions. Others mistakenly think it dictates how much money the government gives in total. Kenya’s leadership seems to have conflated the two—and that’s a real problem.
Then you’ve got developed countries. In the UK, there have been lots of program closures. France has institutions running deficits. Canada has had its fair share of issues, and even in the U.S., problems were mounting before Trump came back into the picture.
We’ve almost forgotten the extent to which international students were propping things up. They helped institutions on the way up, and they’re now accelerating the downturn. That’s been a global issue.
And I know people are tired of hearing me say this, but here’s the core issue: around the world, we’ve built higher education systems that are bigger and more generous than anyone actually wants to pay for—whether through taxes or tuition.
So yeah, we’ve created some great systems. But nobody wants to fund them. And that’s the underlying story. It shows up in different ways depending on the country, but it’s the same problem everywhere.
TM: Do you think we’re heading into an era of global higher ed austerity, or are there some places that are bucking the trend?
AU: It depends on what you mean by “austerity.”
Take Nigeria or Egypt, for example—the issue there isn’t that they’re spending less on higher education. The issue is that demand is growing so fast that public universities simply can’t keep up. You see similar dynamics in much of the Middle East, across Africa, to some extent in Brazil, and in Central Asia. It’s not about cuts—it’s about the gap between what’s needed and what’s possible.
Then you have a different set of challenges in places with more mature systems—places that already have high participation rates. There, the problem is maintaining funding levels while demographics start to decline. That’s the situation in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and parts of Europe. The question becomes: can you sustain your system when there are fewer students?
And then there’s a third category—countries that are still growing, but where governments just don’t want to spend more on higher education. That’s Canada, the United States, and the UK. Those systems aren’t necessarily shrinking, but they’re certainly under strain because of political choices.
But keep in mind—those are also among the richest countries in the world, with some of the best-funded universities to begin with.
In a way, what’s happening internationally mirrors what we saw in Canada with the province of Alberta. For many years, Alberta had post-secondary funding that was 40 to 50% above the national average. Then it started to come down toward the mean.
I think that’s what we’re seeing globally now. Countries like the UK, U.S., and Canada—whose systems were well above the OECD average in terms of funding—are being pulled back toward that average.
To us, it might feel like austerity. But if you’re in a country like Greece or Lithuania, and you look at how much money is still in the Canadian or UK system, you’d probably say, “I wish I had your problems.”
So I’d say we’re seeing three different dynamics at play—not a single, uniform trend.
TM: One of the most fun things about working at HESA is that we get to read cool stories for a good chunk of the time. What was the coolest or most unexpected higher education story you came across this year?
AU: I think my favorite was the story out of Vietnam National University’s business school. Someone there clearly read one of those studies claiming that taller people make more successful business leaders—you know, that there’s a correlation between CEO pay and height or something like that.
Same idea applies to politicians, right? Taller politicians tend to beat shorter ones. Canada, incidentally, has a lot of short politicians right now. Anyway, I digress.
At VNU in Hanoi, someone apparently took that research seriously enough that they instituted a minimum height requirement for admission to the business school. That was easily my favorite ridiculous higher ed story of the year—just completely ludicrous.
There were others, too. Just the other day I saw a job posting at a university in China where credential inflation has gotten so bad that the director of the canteen position required a doctorate. That one stood out. And yet, people say there’s no unemployment problem in China…
Now, in terms of more serious or long-term developments, one story that really caught my attention is about Cintana. They’re using an Arizona State University–approved curriculum and opening franchises across Asia. They’ve had some real success recently in Pakistan and Central Asia, and they’re now moving into South Asia as well.
If that model takes off, it could significantly shape how countries in those regions expand access to higher education. That’s definitely one to watch.
And of course, there’s the gradual integration of AI into universities—which is having all sorts of different effects. Those aren’t headline-grabbing curiosities like the Vietnam height requirement, but they’re the developments we’ll still be talking about in a few years.
TM: That leads perfectly into my last question for you. What’s one trend or change we should be watching in the 2025–26 academic year? One globally, and one locally?
AU: Globally, it’s always going to come back to the fact that nobody wants to pay for higher education. That’s the obvious answer.
And I don’t mean that people in theory don’t want to support higher ed. It’s just that the actual amount required to run higher education systems at their current scale and quality is more than governments or individuals are willing to pay—through taxes or tuition.
So I think in much of the Northern Hemisphere, you’re going to see governments asking: How do we make higher education cheaper? How do we make it leaner? How do we make it less staff-intensive? Not everyone’s going to like those conversations, but that’s going to be the dominant trend in many places.
Not everywhere—Germany’s finances are still okay—but broadly, we’re heading into a global recession. Trump’s policies are playing a role in triggering that downturn. So even in countries where governments are willing to support higher education, they may not be able to.
That means we’re going to see more cuts across the board. And for countries like Kenya and Nigeria—where demand continues to grow but capacity can’t keep up—it’s not going to get any easier.
Unfortunately, a lot of the conversation next year will be about how to make ends meet.
And then there’s what I call the “Moneyball” question in American science. U.S. science—particularly through agencies like NIH and NSF—has been the motor of global innovation. And with the huge cuts now underway, the whole world—not just the U.S.—stands to lose.
In Moneyball, there’s that moment where Brad Pitt’s character says, “You keep saying we’re trying to replace Isringhausen. We can’t replace Isringhausen. But maybe we can recreate him statistically in the aggregate.”
That’s the mindset we need. If all the stuff that was going to be done through NIH and NSF can’t happen anymore, we need to ask: How can we recreate that collective innovation engine in the abstract? Across Horizon Europe, Canada’s granting councils, the Australian Research Council, Japan—everyone. How do we come together and keep global science moving?
That, I think, could be the most interesting story of the year—if people have the imagination to make it happen.
TM: Alex, thanks for joining us today.
AU: Thanks—I like being on this side. So much less work on this side of the microphone. Appreciate it.
TM: And that’s it from us. Thank you to our co-producer, Sam Pufek, to Alex Usher, our host, and to you, our listeners, for joining us week after week. Next year, we won’t be back with video, but we will be in your inboxes and podcast feeds every week. Over the summer, feel free to reach out with topic ideas at [email protected]—and we’ll see you in September.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling.
Prestigious EdTech Breakthrough award highlights Top Hat’s leadership in delivering flexible, AI-powered courseware to support faculty and students.
TORONTO – June 6, 2025 – Top Hat, the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, has been named the 2025 Courseware Solution Provider of the Year. The annual EdTech Breakthrough Awards honor organizations that push the boundaries of educational technology—benefiting students, educators, and institutions across North America and around the world. In a global field of over 2,700 nominations, Top Hat stood out for its efforts to empower faculty to create and deliver engaging, connected, and affordable learning experiences for students.
“Receiving this award is an honor and supports our belief that better student outcomes begin with the course itself,” said Maggie Leen, CEO of Top Hat. “We’re proud to support thousands of faculty with tools that make it easier to adopt proven teaching practices, and grateful to our team for the creativity and care they show everyday in making great learning experiences a reality for more students.”
Now in its seventh year, the EdTech Breakthrough Awards have become a benchmark for excellence in educational technology. The program celebrates the industry’s most visionary companies—those dreaming bigger, innovating further, and setting new standards for enhancing the practice of teaching and learning. Top Hat’s selection reflects its track record of building solutions that drive measurable academic outcomes and dramatic improvements in student engagement, inside and outside the classroom.
Top Hat’s courseware platform gives instructors unprecedented flexibility to tailor content to their teaching goals. The platform integrates interactive assessments, multimedia, and AI-powered tools that allow educators to instantly create in-class questions and reflection prompts. This makes it easier than ever for instructors to apply evidence-based practices like active learning and low-stakes assessment. Students also benefit from AI-powered on-demand study support and unlimited practice questions rooted directly in course content.
Top Hat has a long-standing commitment to helping faculty adopt, adapt, or create modern, interactive course materials that improve engagement and comprehension while advancing institutional goals around student affordability and equity. By supporting the use of low- or no-cost learning materials—including customizable OpenStax and OER titles enriched with interactive features—Top Hat empowers educators to design meaningful learning experiences that reflect their unique pedagogical goals while reducing costs for students.
About Top Hat
As the leader in student engagement solutions for higher education, Top Hat enables educators to employ evidence-based teaching practices through interactive content, tools, and activities in in-person, online, and hybrid classroom environments. Thousands of faculty at 900 leading North American colleges and universities use Top Hat to create meaningful, engaging and accessible learning experiences for students before, during, and after class. To learn more, please visit tophat.com.
University of Florida presidential pick Santa Ono could earn nearly $3 million a year if confirmed by the Florida Board of Governors next week, according to a copy of the contract proposal.
Ono’s proposed base salary for the presidential role is $1.5 million, an increase from the $1.3 million he earned at the University of Michigan before stepping down to pursue the Florida job. He could also earn 20 percent annual performance bonuses and a yearly raise of 3 percent.
In addition, the proposal includes a role for Ono at UF Health, where he will chair the board and serve as a principal investigator, overseeing a lab, which comes with a $500,000 annual salary. That role also earns a 3 percent annual raise and performance and retention bonuses.
Other elements of the contract, such as benefits and deferred compensation, bring its total value to more than $3 million a year if Ono is approved by the Board of Governors, which has called a special meeting for Tuesday to decide.
Ono, an ophthalmologist by training, would also receive a tenured faculty role in the UF College of Medicine.
The contract includes some unusual provisions. It requires Ono to work with the Florida Department of Government Efficiency “to evaluate and reduce administrative overhead, ensuring that University resources are directed to teaching, research, and student success while safeguarding taxpayer and donor investments.” In addition, he would be prohibited from spending “any public or private funds” on “DEI or political or social activism.”
Though the University of Florida Board of Trustees unanimously approved Ono as president earlier this week, he has faced opposition from conservative critics over past support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Ono spent much of his public interview with the board this week articulating how he changed his mind on DEI. He argued that while he was initially supportive of DEI, he now believes such initiatives are costly, divisive and counterproductive.
Ono’s public about-face comes amid a campaign from anti-DEI activist Chris Rufo, who circulated numerous videos on social media ahead of the UF Board of Trustees meeting that showed Ono supporting DEI and speaking against systemic racism, which Rufo argued was disqualifying because it ran counter to the goals of Republican governor Ron DeSantis.
Other conservative figures have since leveled additional criticism at Ono, including state officials and Donald Trump Jr., who wrote online, “This woke psycho might be a perfect fit for a Communist school in California, but how is he even being considered for this role in Florida?” Trump Jr. also encouraged the Florida Board of Governors to vote against confirming Ono.
While DeSantis, who has wielded considerable influence over university hiring decisions, told local media that Ono’s past comments on DEI have made him “cringe,” he has not joined the chorus of conservatives calling to block Ono and has expressed confidence in the search.
The Department of Education canceled this year’s competition for three Fulbright-Hays fellowship programs, adding to the growing list of higher education grants that have been eliminated since President Donald Trump took office in January.
The decision, announced Thursday on the Federal Register, will affect doctoral students and faculty who applied for the Group Projects Abroad, Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad and Faculty Research Abroad programs—all of which focus on expanding American expertise in critical languages and are congressionally mandated.
About 110 individuals and 22 groups from over 55 institutions benefited from these three programs, according to department data, in fiscal year 2022, the most recent year for which data is available. This year, prior to the cancellation, more than 400 applications had been submitted.
Department officials wrote in Thursday’s announcement that the cancellation is just for fiscal year 2025 and was part of a “comprehensive review” to ensure that all competition criteria and priorities “align with the objectives established by the Trump Administration.”
But outside critics say these cuts signify larger problems that stem from cutting nearly half of the department’s staff in March.
The massive reduction in force was sweeping and impacted nearly every sector of the agency, including the International and Foreign Language Education Office, which oversees Fulbright-Hayes. After the cuts, not one IFLE employee remained.
“When [the department] conducted the reductions in force, it claimed it would continue to deliver on all of its statutory requirements,” said Antoinette Flores, director of higher education accountability and quality at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “But this is evidence that it’s not, and it can’t.”
The Department of Education did not respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for further comment on why the cuts were made and whether the program will resume in fiscal year 2026.
All three of the canceled programs were signed into law by President John F. Kennedy during the Cold War in response to national security concerns. The goal was to ensure Americans had the international exposure and comprehensive language training necessary to maintain the nation’s diplomatic, economic, military and technological prowess.
In total, the 12 Fulbright-Hays programs have allocated more than $2 trillion to nearly 58,000 participants since 2000. But now higher education advocates worry that impact will be squandered.
“This is just a cancellation for these grants for this year, but the entire office that ran these programs was let go. It’s a team that had very specific expertise and knowledge that is not easily transferable or replaceable,” said Flores, who worked as a political appointee in the department during the Biden administration. “This is just one year, but long term, it’s a loss to education over all.”
IFLE’s former director of institutional services confirmed Flores’s concerns in a court declaration filed in an ongoing lawsuit from Democratic state attorneys general challenging Trump’s efforts to dismantle the department.
In addition to selecting grant recipients, the anonymous declarant said, IFLE assisted the awardees with securing visas and housing, ensured their work aligned with the goals articulated in their applications, helped establish research affiliations, and responded to safety and security concerns if they arose. Furthermore, each of the 18 staff members had expertise in curriculum development, and most were multilingual—skills the declarant said were “critical.”
Without the staff’s expertise, maintaining the program and meeting the department’s statutory obligations would likely be impossible, the former director explained.
“The complete removal of our team, leaving underqualified and overwhelmed staff left to manage these programs, seems to suggest to me that the decision was not made for budgetary efficiency but rather as part of a broader effort to dismantle international education initiatives within the Department and the America[n] education system,” the declarant explained.
And the consequences will not only fall on this year’s applicants whose proposals will be dismissed, but also on last year’s awardees, who are currently abroad and left with no experienced contact point in the States.
“We put in lifesaving mechanisms to ensure that scholars overseas are safe,” the declarant said. “The absence of this expertise puts scholars at extreme risk.”
CHICAGO, IL (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Otus, a leading provider of K-12 student data and assessment solutions, has been awarded a prestigious Gold Stevie® Award in the category of Customer Service Department of the Year at the 2025 American Business Awards®. This recognition celebrates the company’s unwavering commitment to supporting educators, students, and families through exceptional service and innovation.
In addition to the Gold award, Otus also earned two Silver Stevie® Awards: one for Company of the Year – Computer Software – Medium Size, and another honoring Co-founder and President Chris Hull as Technology Executive of the Year.
“It is an incredible honor to be recognized, but the real win is knowing our work is making a difference for educators and students,” said Hull. “As a former teacher, I know how difficult it can be to juggle everything that is asked of you. At Otus, we focus on building tools that save time, surface meaningful insights, and make student data easier to use—so teachers can focus on what matters most: helping kids grow.”
The American Business Awards®, now in their 23rd year, are the premier business awards program in the United States, honoring outstanding performances in the workplace across a wide range of industries. The competition receives more than 12,000 nominations every year. Judges selected Otus for its outstanding 98.7% customer satisfaction with chat interactions, and exceptional 89% gross retention in 2024. They also praised the company’s unique blend of technology and human touch, noting its strong focus on educator-led support, onboarding, data-driven product evolution, and professional development.
“We believe great support starts with understanding the realities educators face every day. Our Client Success team is largely made up of former teachers and school leaders, so we speak the same language. Whether it’s during onboarding, training, or day-to-day communication, we’re here to help districts feel confident and supported. This recognition is a reflection of how seriously we take that responsibility and energizes us to keep raising the bar,” said Phil Collins, Ed.D., Chief Customer Officer at Otus.
Otus continues to make significant strides in simplifying teaching and learning by offering a unified platform that integrates assessment, data, and instruction—all in one place. Otus has supported over 1 million students nationwide by helping educators make data-informed decisions, monitor progress, and personalize learning. These honors reflect the company’s growth, innovation, and steadfast commitment to helping school communities succeed.
About Otus
Otus, an award-winning edtech company, empowers educators to maximize student performance with a comprehensive K-12 assessment, data, and insights solution. Committed to student achievement and educational equity, Otus combines student data with powerful tools that provide educators, administrators, and families with the insights they need to make a difference. Built by teachers for teachers, Otus creates efficiencies in data management, assessment, and progress monitoring to help educators focus on what matters most—student success. Today, Otus partners with school districts nationwide to create informed, data-driven learning environments. Learn more at Otus.com.
Stay connected with Otus on LinkedIn, Facebook, X, and Instagram.
President Donald Trump directed the secretaries of Labor, Education and Commerce to submit a plan within 120 days to “reach and surpass 1 million new active apprentices,” according to an executive order signed April 23.
The fact sheet castigated previous administrations’ investments in higher education, stating that many currently funded programs — including the Workforce Investment and Opportunity Act, signed into law in 2014 — do not have the incentives necessary “to meet workforce training needs.”
The requested plan must identify:
The fact sheet suggests that the intention of the administration is to reach this 1 million goal each year.
The order also calls upon the departments of Labor, Commerce and Education to “improve transparency on the performance outcomes of workforce development programs” as well as any credentials that might be supported with federal dollars.
“This decisive action is yet another example of President Trump keeping his promise to American workers, empowering them to fill good-paying, in-demand jobs that will secure our economic comeback,” Lori Chavez-DeRemer, DOL secretary, said in a statement.
The White House called out a shortage of construction and durable goods workers that is projected to persist and grow. The fact sheet also flags AI as a focal point for development.
“As the potential of American AI increases, and as America reshores manufacturing and makes Made in America a mark of international envy, America will need more skilled tradesman [sic] than we’re prepared to train,” the fact sheet said.
Various reports, including one prepared for the DOL Chief Evaluation Office, have shown how registered apprenticeships can help workers access living wages, particularly workers in construction. That report defined a living wage as “the earnings required to pay for minimum basic needs, including food, housing, transportation, clothing, and other essentials.”
During Trump’s first administration, the DOL published an apprenticeship rule that enabled employers to create their own versions of registered apprenticeship programs, called Industry-Recognized Apprenticeship Programs. These programs were vetted and approved by third parties, including industry groups. The Biden DOL rescinded the Trump rule in September 2022.
Today on the HEPI blog, John Cater revisits a quarter-century of teacher education policy to consider how we can solve the teacher supply crisis – read on below.
And Amira Asantewa and Reuel Blair explore how growing social capital – not just academic engagement – is key to tackling the widening Black-white degree awarding gap in UK universities in a powerful reflection on identity, belonging and community. Read that piece here.
Twenty-five years ago, the attraction of teaching was on the wane, and universities’ enthusiasm for training teachers was sinking fast. The Evening Standard’s billboards screamed, ‘Schools in Crisis’ as the capital’s schools closed on Fridays or brought pupils in for just half-days because of a shortage of teachers.
Fast forward to 2025, and the recent National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) publication, Teacher Labour Market in England 2025, has reached the newsstands, prompting the same headlines: ‘Schools in Crisis’.
But two and a half decades ago, it was turned around. A serious attempt to tackle teacher workloads (WAMG, the Workload Allocation Model Group) was put in place, with ‘guaranteed’ non-contact preparation time and a rapid increase in the number and responsibilities of teacher support workers ((Higher Level) Teaching Assistants). And one of the most effective marketing campaigns, No-One Forgets a Good Teacher, was launched.
These are more sceptical, more cynical times, and the challenges of teaching are well understood, but there are strategies which could ameliorate the current crisis.
In the aftermath of the Chancellor’s Spring Statement, the issue of productivity looms large. A highly educated and committed workforce is integral to the future of the UK economy, and a ready supply of well-qualified, passionate teaching professionals is the building block on which that economy can thrive.
by CUPA-HR | April 8, 2025
New research from CUPA-HR shows that median pay increases for most higher education employees in 2024-25 remained strong, although they have dropped from the historically high increases seen in the previous two years. And although raises this past year for most employees outpaced inflation, they are still being paid less than they were in 2019-20 in inflation-adjusted dollars.
The largest gap between pre-pandemic inflation-adjusted salaries and current salaries is for tenure-track faculty (who are paid 10.2% less), followed by non-tenure-track teaching faculty (paid 7.6% less). The smallest gap is for staff (paid 2.8% less).
Some of the other key findings from an analysis of CUPA-HR’s higher ed workforce salary survey data from 2016-17 to 2024-25:
Explore this data and more in CUPA-HR’s newest interactive graphic.
