Category: eSchool Media

Powering college readiness through community partnerships

Key points:

Texas faces a widening gap between high school completion and college readiness. Educators are already doing important and demanding work, but closing this gap will require systemic solutions, thoughtful policy, and sustained support to match their efforts.

A recent American Institutes for Research report shows that just 56.8 percent of Texas’ graduating seniors met a college-readiness standard. Furthermore, 27 percent of rural students attend high schools that don’t offer Advanced Placement (AP) courses. This highlights a significant gap in preparedness and accessibility.

This summer, distinguished K-12 educators and nonprofit leaders discussed how to better support college-bound students.

The gap widens

Among them was Saki Milton, mathematics teacher and founder of The GEMS Camp, a nonprofit serving minority girls in male-dominated studies. She stressed the importance of accessible, rigorous coursework. “If you went somewhere where there’s not a lot of AP offerings or college readiness courses … you’re just not going to be ready. That’s a fact.”

Additional roundtable participants reminded us that academics alone aren’t enough. Students struggle considerably with crucial soft skills such as communication, time management, and active listening. Many aspiring college-bound students experience feelings of isolation–a disconnect between their lived experiences and a college-ready mentality, often due to the lack of emotional support.

Says Milton, “How do we teach students to build community for themselves and navigate these institutions, because that’s a huge part? Content and rigor are one thing, but a college’s overall system is another. Emphasizing how to build that local community is huge!”

“Kids going to college are quitting because they don’t have the emotional support once they get there,” says Karen Medina, director of Out of School Time Programs at Jubilee Park. “They’re not being connected to resources or networking groups that can help them transition to college. They might be used to handling their own schedule and homework, but then they’re like, ‘Who do I go to?’ That’s a lot of the disconnection.”

David Shallenberger, vice president of advancement at the Boys & Girls Club of Greater Dallas, indicates that the pandemic contributed to that soft skills deficit. “Many students struggled to participate meaningfully in virtual learning, leaving them isolated and without opportunities for authentic interaction. Those young learners are now in high school and will likely struggle to transition to higher education.”

Purposeful intervention

These challenges–academic and soft skills gaps–require purposeful intervention.

Through targeted grants, more than 35,000 North Texas middle and high school students can access college readiness tools. Nonprofit leaders are integrating year-round academic and mentorship support to prepare students academically and emotionally.

Latoyia Greyer of the Boys & Girls Clubs of Greater Tarrant County introduced a summer program with accompanying scholarship opportunities. The organization is elevating students’ skills through interview practice. Like ours, her vision is to instill confidence in learners.

Greyer isn’t alone. At the Perot Museum of Nature and Science, Development Officer Elizabeth Card uses the grant to advance college readiness by strengthening its high school internship program. She aims to spark students’ curiosity, introduce rewarding career pathways, and foster a passion for STEM. She also plans to bolster core soft skills through student interactions with museum guests and hands-on biology experiments.

These collaborative efforts have clarified the message: We can do extraordinary things by partnering. Impactful and sustainable progress in education cannot occur in a vacuum. Grant programs such as the AP Success Grant strengthen learning and build equity, and our partners are the driving force toward changing student outcomes.

The readiness gap continues to impact Texas students, leaving them at a disadvantage as they transition to college. School districts alone cannot solve this challenge; progress requires active collaboration with nonprofits, businesses, and community stakeholders. The path forward is clear–partnerships have the power to drive meaningful change and positively impact our communities.

Jeffrey A. Elliott, UWorld

Jeffrey A. Elliott is COO at UWorld.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

November 21, 2025
Preserving critical thinking amid AI adoption

Key points:

AI is now at the center of almost every conversation in education technology. It is reshaping how we create content, build assessments, and support learners. The opportunities are enormous. But one quiet risk keeps growing in the background: losing our habit of critical thinking.

I see this risk not as a theory but as something I have felt myself.

The moment I almost outsourced my judgment

A few months ago, I was working on a complex proposal for a client. Pressed for time, I asked an AI tool to draft an analysis of their competitive landscape. The output looked polished and convincing. It was tempting to accept it and move on.

Then I forced myself to pause. I began questioning the sources behind the statements and found a key market shift the model had missed entirely. If I had skipped that short pause, the proposal would have gone out with a blind spot that mattered to the client.

That moment reminded me that AI is fast and useful, but the responsibility for real thinking is still mine. It also showed me how easily convenience can chip away at judgment.

AI as a thinking partner

The most powerful way to use AI is to treat it as a partner that widens the field of ideas while leaving the final call to us. AI can collect data in seconds, sketch multiple paths forward, and expose us to perspectives we might never consider on our own.

In my own work at Magic EdTech, for example, our teams have used AI to quickly analyze thousands of pages of curriculum to flag accessibility issues. The model surfaces patterns and anomalies that would take a human team weeks to find. Yet the real insight comes when we bring educators and designers together to ask why those patterns matter and how they affect real classrooms. AI sets the table, but we still cook the meal.

There is a subtle but critical difference between using AI to replace thinking and using it to stretch thinking. Replacement narrows our skills over time. Stretching builds new mental flexibility. The partner model forces us to ask better questions, weigh trade-offs, and make calls that only human judgment can resolve.

Habits to keep your edge

Protecting critical thinking is not about avoiding AI. It is about building habits that keep our minds active when AI is everywhere.

Here are three I find valuable:

1. Name the fragile assumption
Each time you receive AI output, ask: What is one assumption here that could be wrong? Spend a few minutes digging into that. It forces you to reenter the problem space instead of just editing machine text.

2. Run the reverse test
Before you adopt an AI-generated idea, imagine the opposite. If the model suggests that adaptive learning is the key to engagement, ask: What if it is not? Exploring the counter-argument often reveals gaps and deeper insights.

3. Slow the first draft
It is tempting to let AI draft emails, reports, or code and just sign off. Instead, start with a rough human outline first. Even if it is just bullet points, you anchor the work in your own reasoning and use the model to enrich–not originate–your thinking.

These small practices keep the human at the center of the process and turn AI into a gym for the mind rather than a crutch.

Why this matters for education

For those of us in education technology, the stakes are unusually high. The tools we build help shape how students learn and how teachers teach. If we let critical thinking atrophy inside our companies, we risk passing that weakness to the very people we serve.

Students will increasingly use AI for research, writing, and even tutoring. If the adults designing their digital classrooms accept machine answers without question, we send the message that surface-level synthesis is enough. We would be teaching efficiency at the cost of depth.

By contrast, if we model careful reasoning and thoughtful use of AI, we can help the next generation see these tools for what they are: accelerators of understanding, not replacements for it. AI can help us scale accessibility, personalize instruction, and analyze learning data in ways that were impossible before. But its highest value appears only when it meets human curiosity and judgment.

Building a culture of shared judgment

This is not just an individual challenge. Teams need to build rituals that honor slow thinking in a fast AI environment. Another practice is rotating the role of “critical friend” in meetings. One person’s task is to challenge the group’s AI-assisted conclusions and ask what could go wrong. This simple habit trains everyone to keep their reasoning sharp.

Next time you lean on AI for a key piece of work, pause before you accept the answer. Write down two decisions in that task that only a human can make. It might be about context, ethics, or simple gut judgment. Then share those reflections with your team. Over time this will create a culture where AI supports wisdom rather than diluting it.

The real promise of AI is not that it will think for us, but that it will free us to think at a higher level.

The danger is that we may forget to climb.

The future of education and the integrity of our own work depend on remaining climbers. Let the machines speed the climb, but never let them choose the summit.

Laura Ascione is the Editorial Director at eSchool Media. She is a graduate of the University of Maryland’s prestigious Philip Merrill College of Journalism.

Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

Source link

November 14, 2025
How school IT teams lock down QR-based SSO without hurting usability

Key points:

Schools can keep QR logins safe and seamless by blending clear visual cues, ongoing user education, and risk-based checks behind the scenes

QR-based single sign-on (SSO) is fast becoming a favorite in schools seeking frictionless access, especially for bring-your-own-device (BYOD) environments.

The BYOD in education market hit $15.2 billion in 2024 and is projected to grow at a 17.4 percent CAGR from 2025 to 2033, driven by the proliferation of digital learning and personal smart devices in schools.

However, when attackers wrap malicious links into QR codes, school IT leaders must find guardrails that preserve usability without turning every login into a fortress.

Phishing via QR codes, a tactic now known as “quishing,” is where attackers embed malicious QR codes in emails or posters, directing pupils, faculty, and staff to fake login pages. Over four out of five K-12 schools experienced cyber threat impacts with human-targeted threats like phishing or quishing, exceeding other techniques by 45 percent.

Because QR codes hide or obscure the URL until after scanning, they evade many traditional email spam filters and link scanners.

Below are three strategies to get that balance between seamless logins and safe digital environments right.

How to look out for visual signals

Approximately 60 percent of emails containing QR codes are classified as spam. Branded content, such as the school or district logo, consistent with the look and feel of other web portals and student apps, will help students identify a legitimate QR over a malicious one.

Frontier research shows that bold colors and clear iconography can increase recognition speed by up to 40 percent. This is the kind of split-second reassurance a student or teacher needs before entering credentials on a QR-based login screen.

Training your users to look for the full domain or service name, such as “sso.schooldistrict.edu” under the QR, is good practice to avoid quishing attacks, school-related or not. However, this will be trickier for younger students.

The Frontier report demonstrates how younger children rely more heavily on color and icon cues than on text or abstract symbols. For K-12 students, visual trust cues such as school crests, mascots, or familiar color schemes offer a cognitive shortcut to legitimacy.

Still, while logos and “Secured by…” badges are there to reassure users, attackers know this. Microsoft, Cisco Talos, and Palo Alto Unit42 have documented large-scale phishing campaigns where cybercriminals cloned Microsoft 365 and Okta login pages, complete with fake security seals, to harvest credentials.

For schools rolling out QR-based SSO, pairing visible trust cues with dynamic watermarks unique to the institution makes it harder for attackers to replicate.

User education on quishing risk

Human error drives most breaches, particularly in K-12 schools. These environments handle a mix of pupils who are inexperienced with security risks and, therefore, are less likely to scrutinize QR codes, links, or credentials.

Students and teachers must be taught the meaning of signs and the level of detail to consider in order to respond more quickly and correctly. A short digital literacy module about QR logins can dramatically cut phishing and quishing risk, reinforcing what legitimate login screens should look like. These should be repeated regularly for updates and to strengthen the retrieval and recognition of key visual cues.

Research in cognitive psychology shows that repeated exposure can boost the strength of a memory by more than 30 percent, making cues harder to ignore and easier to recall. When teaching secure login habits, short, repeated micro-lessons–for example, 3-5 min videos with infographics–can boost test scores 10-20 percent. Researcher Piotr Wozniak suggests spacing reviews after 1 day, then 7 days, 16 days, 35 days, and later every 2-3 months.

With proper education, students should instinctively not trust QRs received via text message or social media through unverified numbers or accounts. Encouraging the use of a Secure QR Code Scanner app, at least for staff and perhaps older students, can be helpful, because it will verify the embedded URL before a user opens it.

When to step up authentication after a scan

QR codes make logging in fast, but after a scan, you don’t have to give full access right away. Instead, schools can use these scans as the first factor and decide whether to require more proof before granting access, depending on risk signals.

For example, if a student or teacher scans the QR code with a phone or tablet that’s not on the school’s “known device” list, the system should prompt for a PIN, passphrase, or MFA push before completing login. The same applies to sensitive systems that include student data or financial information.

Microsoft’s 2024 Digital Defense Report shows that adding MFA blocks 99.2 percent of credential attacks. That means a simple SMS or push-based MFA can drastically slash phishing and quishing success rates. By adding a quick MFA prompt only when risk signals spike, school IT teams preserve the speed of QR logins without giving up security.

Schools can also apply cloud-security platforms to strengthen QR-based SSO without sacrificing ease of use. These tools sit behind the scenes, continuously monitoring Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, and other education apps for unusual logins, risky devices, or policy violations.

By automatically logging every QR login event, including device, time, and location, and triggering alerts when something looks off, IT teams gain visibility and early warning without adding extra friction for staff or students. This approach lets schools keep QR sign-ins fast and familiar with risk-based controls and data protection running in the background.

Schools can keep QR logins safe and seamless by blending clear visual cues, ongoing user education, and risk-based checks behind the scenes. Students and staff learn to recognize authentic screens, while IT teams add extra verification only when behavior looks risky. Simultaneously, continuous monitoring tracks every scan to catch problems early and improve education resources, all without slowing anyone down.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

November 10, 2025
How districts can avoid 4 hidden costs of outdated facilities systems

Key points:

School leaders are under constant pressure to stretch every dollar further, yet many districts are losing money in ways they may not even realize. The culprit? Outdated facilities processes that quietly chip away at resources, frustrate staff, and create ripple effects across learning environments. From scheduling mishaps to maintenance backlogs, these hidden costs can add up fast, and too often it’s students who pay the price.

The good news is that with a few strategic shifts, districts can effectively manage their facilities and redirect resources to where they are needed most. Here are four of the most common hidden costs–and how forward-thinking school districts are avoiding them.

How outdated facilities processes waste staff time in K–12 districts

It’s a familiar scene: a sticky note on a desk, a hallway conversation, and a string of emails trying to confirm who’s handling what. These outdated processes don’t just frustrate staff; they silently erode hours that could be spent on higher-value work. Facilities teams are already stretched thin, and every minute lost to chasing approvals or digging through piles of emails is time stolen from managing the day-to-day operations that keep schools running.

A centralized, intuitive facilities management software platform changes everything. Staff and community members can submit requests in one place, while automated, trackable systems ensure approvals move forward without constant follow-up. Events sync directly with Outlook or Google calendars, reducing conflicts before they happen. Work orders can be submitted, assigned, and tracked digitally, with mobile access that lets staff update tickets on the go. Real-time dashboards offer visibility into labor, inventory, and preventive maintenance, while asset history and performance data enable leaders to plan more effectively for the long term. Reports for leadership, audits, and compliance can be generated instantly, saving hours of manual tracking.

The result? Districts have seen a 50-75 percent reduction in scheduling workload, stronger cross-department collaboration, and more time for the work that truly moves schools forward.

Using preventive maintenance to avoid emergency repairs and extend asset life

When maintenance is handled reactively, small problems almost always snowball into costly crises. A leaking pipe left unchecked can become a flooded classroom and a ruined ceiling. A skipped HVAC inspection may lead to a midyear system failure, forcing schools to close or scramble for portable units.

These emergencies don’t just drain budgets; they disrupt instruction, create safety hazards, and erode trust with families. A more proactive approach changes the narrative. With preventive maintenance embedded into a facilities management software platform, districts can automate recurring schedules, ensure tasks are assigned to the right technicians, and attach critical resources, such as floor plans or safety notes, to each task. Schools can prioritize work orders, monitor labor hours and expenses, and generate reports on upcoming maintenance to plan ahead.

Restoring systems before they fail extends asset life and smooths operational continuity. This keeps classrooms open, budgets predictable, and leaders prepared, rather than reactive.

Maximizing ROI by streamlining school space rentals

Gymnasiums, fields, and auditoriums are among a district’s most valuable community resources, yet too often they sit idle simply because scheduling is complicated and chaotic. Paper forms, informal approvals, and scattered communication mean opportunities slip through the cracks.

When users can submit requests through a single, digital system, scheduling becomes transparent, trackable, and far easier to manage. A unified dashboard prevents conflicts, streamlines approvals, and reduces the back-and-forth that often slows the process.

The payoff isn’t just smoother operations; districts can see increased ROI through easier billing, clearer reporting, and more consistent use of unused spaces.

Why schools need facilities data to make smarter budget decisions

Without reliable facilities data, school leaders are forced to make critical budget and operational decisions in the dark. Which schools need additional staffing? Which classrooms, gyms, or labs are underused? Which capital projects should take priority, and which should wait? Operating on guesswork not only risks inefficient spending, but it also limits a district’s ability to demonstrate ROI or justify future investments.

A clear, centralized view of facilities usage and costs creates a strong foundation for strategic decision-making. This visibility can provide instant insights into patterns and trends. Districts can allocate resources more strategically, optimize staffing, and prioritize projects based on evidence rather than intuition. This level of insight also strengthens accountability, enabling schools to share transparent reports with boards, staff, and other key stakeholders, thereby building trust while ensuring that every dollar works harder.

Facilities may not always be the first thing that comes to mind when people think about student success, but the way schools manage their spaces, systems, and resources has a direct impact on learning. By moving away from outdated, manual processes and embracing smarter, data-driven facilities management, districts can unlock hidden savings, prevent costly breakdowns, and optimize the use of every asset.

Shane Foster, Follett Software

Shane Foster is the Chief Product & Technology Officer at Follett Software.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

October 30, 2025
Why busy educators need AI with guardrails

Key points:

In the growing conversation around AI in education, speed and efficiency often take center stage, but that focus can tempt busy educators to use what’s fast rather than what’s best. To truly serve teachers–and above all, students–AI must be built with intention and clear constraints that prioritize instructional quality, ensuring efficiency never comes at the expense of what learners need most.

AI doesn’t inherently understand fairness, instructional nuance, or educational standards. It mirrors its training and guidance, usually as a capable generalist rather than a specialist. Without deliberate design, AI can produce content that’s misaligned or confusing. In education, fairness means an assessment measures only the intended skill and does so comparably for students from different backgrounds, languages, and abilities–without hidden barriers unrelated to what’s being assessed. Effective AI systems in schools need embedded controls to avoid construct‑irrelevant content: elements that distract from what’s actually being measured.

For example, a math question shouldn’t hinge on dense prose, niche sports knowledge, or culturally-specific idioms unless those are part of the goal; visuals shouldn’t rely on low-contrast colors that are hard to see; audio shouldn’t assume a single accent; and timing shouldn’t penalize students if speed isn’t the construct.

To improve fairness and accuracy in assessments:

Avoid construct-irrelevant content: Ensure test questions focus only on the skills and knowledge being assessed.

Use AI tools with built-in fairness controls: Generic AI models may not inherently understand fairness; choose tools designed specifically for educational contexts.

Train AI on expert-authored content: AI is only as fair and accurate as the data and expertise it’s trained on. Use models built with input from experienced educators and psychometricians.

These subtleties matter. General-purpose AI tools, left untuned, often miss them.

The risk of relying on convenience

Educators face immense time pressures. It’s tempting to use AI to quickly generate assessments or learning materials. But speed can obscure deeper issues. A question might look fine on the surface but fail to meet cognitive complexity standards or align with curriculum goals. These aren’t always easy problems to spot, but they can impact student learning.

To choose the right AI tools:

Select domain-specific AI over general models: Tools tailored for education are more likely to produce pedagogically-sound and standards-aligned content that empowers students to succeed. In a 2024 University of Pennsylvania study, students using a customized AI tutor scored 127 percent higher on practice problems than those without.

Be cautious with out-of-the-box AI: Without expertise, educators may struggle to critique or validate AI-generated content, risking poor-quality assessments.

Understand the limitations of general AI: While capable of generating content, general models may lack depth in educational theory and assessment design.

General AI tools can get you 60 percent of the way there. But that last 40 percent is the part that ensures quality, fairness, and educational value. This requires expertise to get right. That’s where structured, guided AI becomes essential.

Building AI that thinks like an educator

Developing AI for education requires close collaboration with psychometricians and subject matter experts to shape how the system behaves. This helps ensure it produces content that’s not just technically correct, but pedagogically sound.

To ensure quality in AI-generated content:

Involve experts in the development process: Psychometricians and educators should review AI outputs to ensure alignment with learning goals and standards.

Use manual review cycles: Unlike benchmark-driven models, educational AI requires human evaluation to validate quality and relevance.

Focus on cognitive complexity: Design assessments with varied difficulty levels and ensure they measure intended constructs.

This process is iterative and manual. It’s grounded in real-world educational standards, not just benchmark scores.

Personalization needs structure

AI’s ability to personalize learning is promising. But without structure, personalization can lead students off track. AI might guide learners toward content that’s irrelevant or misaligned with their goals. That’s why personalization must be paired with oversight and intentional design.

To harness personalization responsibly:

Let experts set goals and guardrails: Define standards, scope and sequence, and success criteria; AI adapts within those boundaries.

Use AI for diagnostics and drafting, not decisions: Have it flag gaps, suggest resources, and generate practice, while educators curate and approve.

Preserve curricular coherence: Keep prerequisites, spacing, and transfer in view so learners don’t drift into content that’s engaging but misaligned.

Support educator literacy in AI: Professional development is key to helping teachers use AI effectively and responsibly.

It’s not enough to adapt–the adaptation must be meaningful and educationally coherent.

AI can accelerate content creation and internal workflows. But speed alone isn’t a virtue. Without scrutiny, fast outputs can compromise quality.

To maintain efficiency and innovation:

Use AI to streamline internal processes: Beyond student-facing tools, AI can help educators and institutions build resources faster and more efficiently.

Maintain high standards despite automation: Even as AI accelerates content creation, human oversight is essential to uphold educational quality.

Responsible use of AI requires processes that ensure every AI-generated item is part of a system designed to uphold educational integrity.

An effective approach to AI in education is driven by concern–not fear, but responsibility. Educators are doing their best under challenging conditions, and the goal should be building AI tools that support their work.

When frameworks and safeguards are built-in, what reaches students is more likely to be accurate, fair, and aligned with learning goals.

In education, trust is foundational. And trust in AI starts with thoughtful design, expert oversight, and a deep respect for the work educators do every day.

Nick Koprowicz, Prometric

Nick Koprowicz is an applied AI scientist at Prometric, a global leader in credentialing and skills development.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

October 28, 2025
Smart strategies to help students find the perfect college

Key points:

You’ll often hear two words come up in advising sessions as students look ahead to college: match and fit. They sound interchangeable, but they’re not.

Match refers to what colleges are looking for from students. It’s mostly determined by admissions requirements such as GPA and test scores, and in some cases, other criteria like auditions, portfolios, or athletic ability. Fit is more of an art than a science; it refers to what the student is looking for in a college, including personal preferences, social and cultural environment, financial factors, and academic offerings. When we talk to students about college fit, it’s an opportunity for them to ask themselves whether they like what a certain institution offers beyond being admitted.

In the college admissions process, both terms matter. A strong match without a good fit can leave a student disengaged and negatively affect their chances of graduating from college. Nearly a quarter of undergraduate freshmen drop out before their second year, and it seems likely to me that a lot of these cases boil down to bad fits. On the other hand, a great fit that isn’t a match could be difficult for admission in the first place, and if a student is admitted anyway, the rigorous coursework they encounter might be more than they’re ready for. To maximize postsecondary success, advisors, families, and students alike should fully understand the difference between match and fit and know how to approach conversations about each of them.

Match: Reach, target, and solid

As I’ve worked with advisors over the years, one of the best ways we’ve found to guide students on match is using the categories of “Reach,” “Target,” and “Solid” schools. We can determine which schools belong to what category using the data that colleges share about the average incoming GPAs and test scores of admitted classes. Typically, they report weighted GPAs and composite test scores from the middle 50 percent of accepted applicants, i.e., from the students who fall anywhere from the 25th to 75th percentile of those admitted.

Reach: These are schools where admission is less likely, either because a student’s test scores and GPA are below the middle 50 percent or because the school traditionally admits only a small percentage of eligible applicants.

Target: These are schools where either GPA or test scores fall in the middle 50 percent of admitted students.

Solid: These are schools where students are well within the middle 50 percent for both GPA and test scores.

Building a balanced college list across these categories is essential in the college planning process. Often, I see high-achieving students over-index on too many Reach schools, which may make it hard for them to get accepted anywhere on their list, simply because their preferred schools are ultra-selective. Meanwhile, parents and guardians may focus heavily on fit and overlook whether the student actually meets the college’s admission criteria. Advisors play a key role in keeping these data-informed conversations grounded with the goal of a balanced list of college options for students to pursue.

The importance of early planning

Timing matters. In general, if you meet with students early enough, conversations about fit are productive, but if you’re meeting with students for the first time in their senior year, the utmost priority should be helping them build a balanced list. Ideally, we want to avoid a situation where a student thinks they’re going to get into the most competitive colleges in the country on the strength of their GPA and test scores, only to find out that it’s not that easy. If advisors wait until senior year to address match, students and families may already have unrealistic expectations, leading to difficult conversations when options are limited.

On the other hand, we would stress that although GPA is the factor given the most weight by admissions offices, there are ways to overcome match deficits with other elements of a college application. For instance, if a student worked part-time to support their family or participated in co-curricular activities, colleges using holistic review may see this as part of the student’s story, helping to balance a GPA that falls outside the typical range. These experiences highlight a student’s passions and potential contributions to their chosen major and campus community. We don’t want students to have unrealistic expectations, but we also shouldn’t limit them based on numbers alone.

In any case, advisors should introduce both match and fit concepts as early as 9th grade. If students have a specific college in mind, they need to be aware of the match requirements from the first day of freshman year of high school. This allows students to plan and track academic progress against requirements and lets families begin exploring what kind of environment, resources, and financial realities would make for the right fit.

Fit: A personal process

Once match is established, the next step is making sure students ask: “What do I want in my college experience?” The answers will involve a wide range of factors:

Institutional type: Public or private? Small liberal arts college or large research university?

Academic considerations: What majors are offered? Are there study abroad programs? Internship opportunities?

Student life: What is the student body like? What kind of extracurriculars, sports, and support services are offered? Are there fraternities and sororities? What is the campus culture?

Affordability: What financial aid or scholarships can I expect? What is the true net cost of attendance?

Outcomes: What a student hopes to gain from their postsecondary experience, including specific degrees or credentials, career preparation, financial benefits, personal growth, and skill development.

Fit also requires conversations within families. I’ve found that open communication can reveal misunderstandings that would otherwise falsely limit students’ options. Sometimes students assume their parents want them close to home, when in fact, parents just want them to find the right environment. Other times, families discover affordability looks very different once they use tools like free cost calculators. Ongoing dialogue about these topics between advisors, students, and families during the high school years helps prepare for better decisions in the end.

Bringing it all together

With more than 4,000 colleges and universities in the U.S. alone, every student can find a college or university that aligns with their goals and abilities. Doing so, however, is both an art and a science. Advisors who help families focus on both dimensions, and start the conversation early, set students up to receive those treasured acceptance letters and to thrive once they arrive on campus.

For school districts developing their proficiency in postsecondary readiness factors, like advising, there is an increasing amount of support available. For one, TexasCCMR.org, has free guidance resources to strengthen advising programs and other aspects of college and career readiness. While Texas-focused, many of the insights and tools on the site can be helpful for districts across the country in building their teams’ capabilities.

Donald Kamentz, Contigo Ed

Donald Kamentz is a skilled facilitator and education consultant utilizing his diverse experiences in both non-profit management and K-12 education to help organizations best serve all student populations. As the Founder and CEO of Contigo Ed, Donald Kamentz brings his over 30+ years of diverse experiences and passion for working in the postsecondary access and success arenas. He has been a member of both the National Association of College Admission Counseling (NACAC) and the Texas Association for College Admission Counseling (TACAC) since 1999.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

October 27, 2025
Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

Key points:

Recent policy shifts have caused significant uncertainty in K-12 education funding, especially for technology initiatives. It’s no longer business as usual. Schools can’t rely on the same federal operating funds they’ve traditionally used to purchase technology or support innovation. This unpredictability has pushed school districts to explore creative, nontraditional ways to fund technology initiatives. To succeed, it’s important to understand how to approach these funding opportunities strategically.

How to find funding

Despite the challenges, there are still many grants available to support education initiatives and technology projects. Start with an online search using key terms related to your project–for example, “virtual reality,” “virtual field trips,” or “career and technical education.”

Explore national organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or Project Tomorrow and consider potential local funding sources. Local organizations such as Rotary or Kiwanis clubs can be powerful allies in helping to fund projects. The local library and city or county government may also offer grants or partnership opportunities. Schools should also reach out to locally-headquartered businesses, many of which have community outreach or corporate social responsibility goals that align with supporting local education.

Colleges and universities are another valuable resource. They may be conducting research that aligns with your school’s technology project. Building relationships with these institutions and organizations can put your school “in the right place at the right time” when new funding opportunities arise.

Strategies to win the grant

Once potential funding sources are identified, the next step is crafting a compelling proposal. Consider the following strategies to strengthen your application.

1. Focus on the “how and why,” not just the “what.” If your school is seeking funds to buy hardware, don’t simply say, “Here’s what we want to buy.” Instead, frame it as, “Here’s how this project will improve student learning and why it matters.” Funders want to see the impact their support will have on outcomes. The more clearly a proposal connects technology to learning gains, the stronger it will be.

2. Highlight the research. Use evidence to validate your project’s value. For example, if a school plans to purchase virtual reality headsets, cite studies showing that VR improves knowledge retention, engagement, and comprehension compared to traditional instruction. Demonstrating that the technology is research-backed helps funders feel confident in their investment.

3. Paint a picture. Bring the project to life. Describe what students will experience and how they’ll benefit. For example: “When students put on the headset, they aren’t just reading about ancient civilizations, they’re walking through them.” Vivid descriptions help reviewers visualize the impact and believe in your vision.

Eight questions to consider when applying for a grant

Use these guiding questions to sharpen your proposal and ensure a strong foundation for implementation and long-term success.

What is the goal? Clearly define what students will be able to do as a result of the project. Use action-orientated language: “Students will be able to…”

Is the technology effective? Support your proposal with evidence such as whitepapers, case studies, or research that can demonstrate proven impact.

How will the technology impact these specific students? Emphasize what makes your school or district unique, whether it’s serving a rural, urban, or high-poverty community and how this technology addresses those specific needs.

What is the scope of the application? Specify whether the project involves elementary school, secondary school, or a specific subject or program like a STEM lab.

How will success be measured? Too often schools reach the end of a project without a plan to track results. Plan your evaluation from the start. Track key metrics such as attendance, disciplinary data, academic performance, or engagement surveys, both before and after implementation to demonstrate results.

What are your budgetary needs? Include all associated costs, including professional development and substitute coverage for teacher training.

What happens after the grant is over? If you plan to use the technology for multiple years, apply for a multi-year grant rather than assuming future funding will appear. Sustainability is key.

How will success be celebrated and communicated to stakeholders? Share results with the community and stakeholders. Host events recognizing teachers, students, and partners. Invite local media and highlight your funding partners–they’re not just donors, but partners in student success.

Moving forward with confidence

Education funding will likely remain uncertain in the years ahead. However, by being intentional about where to look for funds, how to frame proposals, and how to measure and share impact, schools can continue to implement innovative technology initiatives that elevate teaching and learning.

Gillian Rhodes, Avantis Education

Gillian Rhodes is Chief Marketing Officer at Avantis Education, creators of ClassVR. With morethan 20 years of experience in education marketing and leadership, he is passionate about helping schools use the latest technology to engage students and improve learning outcomes.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

October 24, 2025
Transparency and truth in communications

Key points:

Dear Superintendent,

Your job now requires a new level of transparency that you are reluctant to provide. This media crisis will burn for several more days if we sit silent. We are in a true leadership moment and I need you to listen to your communications expert. I can make your job easier and more successful.

Signed,

Your Communications Director

As superintendents come under more political fire and frequent negative news stories about their school districts circulate, it is easy to see where the instinct to not comment and just focus on the work might kick in. However, the path forward requires a new level of transparency and truth-telling in communications. In fact, the work requires you to get out in front so that your teachers and staff can focus on their work.

I recently spoke with a school district facing multiple PR crises. The superintendent was reluctant to address the issues publicly, preferring one-on-one meetings with parents over engaging with the media or holding town hall-style parent meetings. But when serious allegations of employee misconduct and the resulting community concerns arise, it’s crucial for superintendents to step forward and take control of the narrative.

While the details of ongoing human resources or police investigations cannot be discussed, it’s vital to inform the community about actions being taken to prevent future incidents, the safeguards being implemented, and your unwavering commitment to student and staff safety. All of that is far more reassuring than the media reporting, “The district was not available for comment,” “The district cannot comment due to an ongoing investigation,” or even worse, the dreaded, “The school district said it has no comment.”

Building trust with proactive communication

A district statement or email doesn’t carry the same weight as a media interview or an in-house video message sent directly to community members. True leadership means standing up and accepting the difficult interviews, answering the tough questions, and conveying with authentic emotion that these incidents are unacceptable. What a community needs to hear is the “why” behind a decision so that trust is built, even if that decision is to hold back on key information. A lack of public statement can be perceived as indifference or a leadership void, which can quickly threaten a superintendent’s career.

Superintendents should always engage with the media during true leadership moments, such as district-wide safety issues, school board meetings, or when the public needs reassurance. “Who Speaks For Your Brand?” looks at a survey of 1,600 school staff who resoundingly stated that the superintendent is the primary person responsible for promoting and defending a school district’s brand. A majority of the superintendents surveyed agreed as well. Promoting and defending the district’s brand includes the negative–but also the positive–opportunities like the first day of school, graduation, school and district grade releases, and district awards.

However, not every media request requires the superintendent’s direct involvement. If it doesn’t rise to the severity level worthy of the superintendent’s office, an interview with a department head or communications chief is a better option. The superintendent interview is reserved for the stories we decide require it, not just because a reporter asks for it. Reporters ask for you far more than your communications chief ever tells you.

It is essential to communicate directly and regularly with parents through video and email using your district’s mass communication tools. You control the message you want to deliver, and you don’t have to rely on the media getting it right. This is an amazing opportunity to humanize the office. Infuse your video scripts with more personality and emotion to connect on a personal level with your community. It is far harder to attack the person than the office. Proactive communications help build trust for when you need it later.

I have had superintendents tell me that they prefer to make their comments at school board meetings. School board meeting comments are often insufficient, as analytics often indicate low viewership for school board meeting live streams or recordings. In my experience, a message sent to parents through district alert channels far outperforms the YouTube views of school board meetings.

Humanizing the superintendent’s role

Superintendents should maintain a consistent communications presence via social media, newsletters, the website, and so on to demonstrate their engagement within schools. Short videos featuring interactions with staff and students create powerful engagement opportunities. Develop content to create touch points that celebrate the contributions of nurses, teachers, and bus drivers, especially on their national days of recognition. These proactive moments of engagement show the community that positive moments happen hourly, daily, and weekly within your schools.

If you are not comfortable posting your own content, have your communications team ghostwrite posts for you. You never want a community member asking, “What does the superintendent do all day? We never see them.” If you are posting content from all of the school visits and community meetings you attend, that accusation can never be made again. You now have social proof of your engagement efforts and evidence for your annual contract review.

Effective communication is a superintendent’s superpower. Those who can connect authentically and show their personality can truly shine. Many superintendents mistakenly believe that hard work alone will speak for itself, but in today’s politically charged landscape, a certain amount of “campaigning” is necessary while in office. We all know the job of the superintendent has never been harder, tenure has never been shorter, and the chance of being fired is higher than ever.

Embrace the opportunity to engage and showcase the great things happening in your district. It’s worth promoting positive and proactive communications so that you’re a seasoned pro when the challenging moments come. There might just be less of them if you get ahead.

Greg Turchetta, Apptegy

Greg Turchetta is the Strategic Communications Advisor at Apptegy and was the Senior Chief Communications Officer for the Richland School District in Columbia, South Carolina.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

October 16, 2025
Next gen learning spaces: UDL in action

Key points:

By embracing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles in purchasing decisions, school leaders can create learning spaces that not only accommodate students with disabilities but enhance the educational experience for all learners while delivering exceptional returns on investment (ROI).

Strangely enough, the concept of UDL all started with curb cuts. Disability activists in the 1960s were advocating for adding curb cuts at intersections so that users of wheelchairs could cross streets independently. Once curb cuts became commonplace, there was a surprising secondary effect: Curb cuts did not just benefit the lives of those in wheelchairs, they benefited parents with strollers, kids on bikes, older adults using canes, delivery workers with carts, and travelers using rolling suitcases. What had been designed for one specific group ended up accidentally benefiting many others.

UDL is founded on this idea of the “curb-cut effect.” UDL focuses on designing classrooms and schools to provide multiple ways for students to learn. While the original focus was making the curriculum accessible to multiple types of learners, UDL also informs the physical design of classrooms and schools. Procurement professionals are focusing on furniture and technology purchases that provide flexible, accessible, and supportive environments so that all learners can benefit. Today entire conferences, such as EDspaces, focus on classroom and school design to improve learning outcomes.

There is now a solid research base indicating that the design of learning spaces is a critical factor in educational success: Learning space design changes can significantly influence student engagement, well-being, and academic achievement. While we focus on obvious benefits for specific types of learners, we often find unexpected ways that all students benefit. Adjustable desks designed for wheelchair users can improve focus and reduce fatigue in many students, especially those with ADHD. Providing captions on videos, first made available for deaf students, benefit ELL and other students struggling to learn to read.

Applying UDL to school purchasing decisions

UDL represents a paradigm shift from retrofitting solutions for individual students to proactively designing inclusive environments from the ground up. Strategic purchasing focuses on choosing furniture and tech tools that provide multiple means of engagement that can motivate and support all types of learners.

Furniture that works for everyone

Modern classroom furniture has evolved far beyond the traditional one-size-fits-all model. Flexible seating options such as stability balls, wobble cushions, and standing desks can transform classroom dynamics. While these options support students with ADHD or sensory processing needs, they also provide choice and movement opportunities that enhance engagement for neurotypical students. Research consistently shows that physical comfort directly correlates with cognitive performance and attention span.

Modular furniture systems offer exceptional value by adapting to changing needs throughout the school year. Tables and desks that can be easily reconfigured support collaborative learning, individual work, and various teaching methodologies. Storage solutions with clear labeling systems and accessible heights benefit students with visual impairments and executive functioning challenges while helping all students maintain organization and independence.

Technology that opens doors for all learners

Assistive technology has evolved from specialized, expensive solutions to mainstream tools that benefit diverse learners. Screen readers like NVDA and JAWS remain essential for students with visual impairments, but their availability also supports students with dyslexia who benefit from auditory reinforcement of text. When procuring software licenses, prioritize platforms with built-in accessibility features rather than purchasing separate assistive tools.

Voice-to-text technology exemplifies the UDL principle perfectly. While crucial for students with fine motor challenges or dysgraphia, these tools also benefit students who process information verbally, ELL learners practicing pronunciation, and any student working through complex ideas more efficiently through speech than typing.

Adaptive keyboards and alternative input devices address various physical needs while offering all students options for comfortable, efficient interaction with technology. Consider keyboards with larger keys, customizable layouts, or touchscreen interfaces that can serve multiple purposes across your student population.

Interactive displays and tablets with built-in accessibility features provide multiple means of engagement and expression. Touch interfaces support students with motor difficulties while offering kinesthetic learning opportunities for all students. When evaluating these technologies, prioritize devices with robust accessibility settings including font size adjustment, color contrast options, and alternative navigation methods.

Maximizing your procurement impact

Strategic procurement for UDL requires thinking beyond individual products to consider system-wide compatibility and scalability. Prioritize vendors who demonstrate commitment to accessibility standards and provide comprehensive training on using accessibility features. The most advanced assistive technology becomes worthless without proper implementation and support.

Conduct needs assessments that go beyond compliance requirements to understand your learning community’s diverse needs. Engage with special education teams, occupational therapists, and technology specialists during the procurement process. Their insights can prevent costly mistakes and identify opportunities for solutions that serve multiple populations.

Consider total cost of ownership when evaluating options. Adjustable-height desks may cost more initially but can eliminate the need for specialized furniture for individual students. Similarly, mainstream technology with robust accessibility features often costs less than specialized assistive devices while serving broader populations.

Pilot programs prove invaluable for testing solutions before large-scale implementation. Start with small purchases to evaluate effectiveness, durability, and user satisfaction across diverse learners. Document outcomes to build compelling cases for broader adoption.

The business case for UDL

Procurement decisions guided by UDL principles deliver measurable returns on investment. Reduced need for individualized accommodations decreases administrative overhead while improving response times for student needs. Universal solutions eliminate the stigma associated with specialized equipment, promoting inclusive classroom cultures that benefit all learners.

Leslie Stebbins, Research4Ed

Leslie Stebbins is the director of Research4Ed. She has more than twenty-five years of experience in higher education and K-12 learning and design. She has an M.Ed. from the Technology Innovation & Education Program at the Harvard Graduate School of Education and a Master’s in Library and Information Science from Simmons College.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

October 13, 2025
Are we outsourcing our thinking to AI?

Key points:

I’ll admit that I use AI. I’ve asked it to help me figure out challenging Excel formulas that otherwise would have taken me 45 minutes and a few tutorials to troubleshoot. I’ve used it to help me analyze or organize massive amounts of information. I’ve even asked it to help me devise a running training program aligning with my goals and fitting within my schedule. AI is a fantastic tool–and that’s the point. It’s a tool, not a replacement for thinking.

As AI tools become more capable, more intuitive, and more integrated into our daily lives, I’ve found myself wondering: Are we growing too dependent on AI to do our thinking for us?

This question isn’t just philosophical. It has real consequences, especially for students and young learners. A recent study published in the journal Societies reports that people who used AI tools consistently showed a decline in critical thinking performance. In fact, “whether someone used AI tools was a bigger predictor of a person’s thinking skills than any other factor, including educational attainment.” That’s a staggering finding because it suggests that using AI might not just be a shortcut. It could be a cognitive detour.

The atrophy of the mind

The term “digital dementia” has been used to describe the deterioration of cognitive abilities as a result of over-reliance on digital devices. It’s a phrase originally associated with excessive screen time and memory decline, but it’s found new relevance in the era of generative AI. When we depend on a machine to generate our thoughts, answer our questions, or write our essays, what happens to the neural pathways that govern our own critical thinking? And will the upcoming era of agentic AI expedite this decline?

Cognitive function, like physical fitness, follows the rule of “use it or lose it.” Just as muscles weaken without regular use, the brain’s ability to evaluate, synthesize, and critique information can atrophy when not exercised. This is especially concerning in the context of education, where young learners are still building those critical neural pathways.

In short: Students need to learn how to think before they delegate that thinking to a machine.

Can you still think critically with AI?

Yes, but only if you’re intentional about it.

AI doesn’t relieve you of the responsibility to think–in many cases, it demands even more critical thinking. AI produces hallucinations, falsifies claims, and can be misleading. If you blindly accept AI’s output, you’re not saving time, you’re surrendering clarity.

Using AI effectively requires discernment. You need to know what you’re asking, evaluate what you’re given, and verify the accuracy of the result. In other words, you need to think before, during, and after using AI.

The “source, please” problem

One of the simplest ways to teach critical thinking is also the most annoying–just ask my teenage daughter. When she presents a fact or claim that she saw online, I respond with some version of: “What’s your source?” It drives her crazy, but it forces her to dig deeper, check assumptions, and distinguish between fact and fiction. It’s an essential habit of mind.

But here’s the thing: AI doesn’t always give you the source. And when it does, sometimes it’s wrong, or the source isn’t reputable. Sometimes it requires a deeper dive (and a few more prompts) to find answers, especially to complicated topics. AI often provides quick, confident answers that fall apart under scrutiny.

So why do we keep relying on it? Why are AI responses allowed to settle arguments, or serve as “truth” for students when the answers may be anything but?

The lure of speed and simplicity

It’s easier. It’s faster. And let’s face it: It feels like thinking. But there’s a difference between getting an answer and understanding it. AI gives us answers. It doesn’t teach us how to ask better questions or how to judge when an answer is incomplete or misleading.

This process of cognitive offloading (where we shift mental effort to a device) can be incredibly efficient. But if we offload too much, too early, we risk weakening the mental muscles needed for sustained critical thinking.

Implications for educators

So, what does this mean for the classroom?

First, educators must be discerning about how they use AI tools. These technologies aren’t going away, and banning them outright is neither realistic nor wise. But they must be introduced with guardrails. Students need explicit instruction on how to think alongside AI, not instead of it.

Second, teachers should emphasize the importance of original thought, iterative questioning, and evidence-based reasoning. Instead of asking students to simply generate answers, ask them to critique AI-generated ones. Challenge them to fact-check, source, revise, and reflect. In doing so, we keep their cognitive skills active and growing.

And finally, for young learners, we may need to draw a harder line. Students who haven’t yet formed the foundational skills of analysis, synthesis, and evaluation shouldn’t be skipping those steps. Just like you wouldn’t hand a calculator to a child who hasn’t yet learned to add, we shouldn’t hand over generative AI tools to students who haven’t learned how to write, question, or reason.

A tool, not a crutch

AI is here to stay. It’s powerful, transformative, and, when used well, can enhance our work and learning. But we must remember that it’s a tool, not a replacement for human thought. The moment we let it think for us is the moment we start to lose the capacity to think for ourselves.

If we want the next generation to be capable, curious, and critically-minded, we must protect and nurture those skills. And that means using AI thoughtfully, sparingly, and always with a healthy dose of skepticism. AI is certainly proving it has staying power, so it’s in all our best interests to learn to adapt. However, let’s adapt with intentionality, and without sacrificing our critical thinking skills or succumbing to any form of digital dementia.

Laura Hakala, Magic EdTech

Laura Hakala is the Director of Online Program Design and Efficacy for Magic EdTech. With nearly two decades of leadership and strategic innovation experience, Laura is a go-to resource for content, problem-solving, and strategic planning. Laura is passionate about DE&I and is a fierce advocate, dedicated to making meaningful changes. When it comes to content management, digital solutions, and forging strategic partnerships, Laura’s expertise shines through. She’s not just shaping the future; she’s paving the way for a more inclusive and impactful tomorrow.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

September 25, 2025

1 2 3
Next Page

blog.college-counseling.com

blog.college-counseling.com

Blog
About
Contact us

Remove Me From Your Mailing List
CCPA Privacy Rights Request Form
Do Not Share or Sell My Personal Information
Privacy Policy

Signup

Please enable JavaScript in your browser to complete this form.
Email

Password Email

Password