Category: leadership

  • Higher education leadership requires multiple versions of yourself

    Higher education leadership requires multiple versions of yourself

    To lead in higher education feels much like inhabiting a shifting identify.

    One moment you are a strategist expected to speak in spreadsheets and scenario plans. The next, you are a listener, empathetic, calm, human, supporting a student in distress. You leave that conversation only to enter a room full of staff in which morale is flatlining and you are now a motivational figure, expected to energise and inspire. Finish all these, and it’s not even 10am! Before the day is over, you are potentially answering questions from university leaders who want metrics, mitigations and certainty.

    If it feels like you’re performing multiple, sometimes conflicting roles across a single day, it is really because you are. And the deeper truth is that it is not a flaw – it is simply the job.

    Increasingly, leadership in universities demands what feels like a professionally sanctioned form of adaptive multiplicity. I use the phrase carefully to name a reality that many senior leaders know intimately but rarely articulate. The constant emotional and intellectual switching, the need to adjust tone, style, even the way you put your values in practice depending on the room you are in, creates a kind of managed fragmentation. Over time, this potentially leaves many leaders with a nagging internal question: who am I really in this job, and how many versions of me are left?

    Flex and strain

    This phenomenon has intensified as the sector has grown more complex, even in the short period of time of the last 15 years since I joined academia.

    Universities are now sites of competing expectations. Students see themselves as clients, citizens and many times co-creators of their learning – most of the time, all at once – and they rightfully expect to be treated accordingly. Staff expect authentic leadership that values their autonomy, but also want decisive action when systems stumble. Senior teams expect accountability, agility and strategic execution, while external bodies, in their usual “supportive approach”, demand ever increasing levels of compliance, assurance and visible grip.

    Each of these communities needs something different from their leaders. They do not all speak the same language, and thus leaders become translators, switchboards and even shape-shifters. It is not performance in the sense of fakery but it is code-switching as a leadership survival strategy.

    But even though this capacity to flex and adapt is a strength and should be firmly encouraged, it is also a source of strain. You learn to adapt so well, so naturally, that you risk forgetting what it feels to be still. You begin to filter your words so frequently that spontaneous speech starts to feel dangerous. You work hard to be authentic in different spaces but wonder whether your authenticity looks different depending on who is watching. And while you may pride yourself on being emotionally intelligent, you notice that your own emotional reserves deplete faster than they can replenish.

    This kind of labour (emotional, relational, cognitive) is almost entirely invisible in institutional language. It doesn’t appear on strategic plans or in KPIs and metrics. It is not listed in job descriptions or annual reviews. How could it even be? It is not something that can be easily defined.

    But, somehow, it is the glue that holds teams, cultures and people together. When a leader gets the tone wrong in a difficult moment, it can take weeks to rebuild trust. When they get it right, there is often no visible outcome because good leadership so often manifests as the evident absence of crisis. This is a key leadership paradox: when you do this work well, very few notice. When you falter, everyone does.

    Shifting registers

    The multiple selves of leadership are, in many ways, shaped by the multiple identities of the university itself. Higher education is a place of intellectual freedom, but also of bureaucratic machinery. It is a workplace, a community, a brand and a battleground for values. In this context, leaders are asked to be both deeply human and relentlessly strategic. You must lead with your heart while justifying decisions with data. You must be decisive without being authoritarian, empathetic without appearing weak and consistent without being rigid. All leaders will tell you it is a delicate calibration and no two days are the same.

    The benefits of this kind of psychological pluralism are real though. Leaders who are able to shift between registers can build bridges between otherwise disconnected parts of the institution. They are more likely to hear what’s not being said and they are better equipped to hold space for complexity, to manage contradictions without defaulting to simplistic solutions. In short, they are able to lead courses, curriculum areas, departments, schools, faculties, campuses or universities that are themselves fractured, plural and dynamic. But none of this is possible without deep self-awareness. Without a strong internal compass, an anchoring sense of purpose and principle, adaptive leadership risks becoming reactive or hollow.

    In my own leadership journey, across multiple roles, I have come to both respect and rely on this kind of multiplicity. It has certainly challenged me; it can be uncomfortable and exhausting to change shape so often. But it has also been one of the most professionally rewarding experiences of my life. I have learned more about people, influence, systems and purpose than I could have ever imagined. The act of switching roles deepened my empathy, sharpened my judgement and forced me to become a more deliberate values-led leader. The very difficulty of the work is in many ways what makes it so meaningful.

    What leadership in higher education increasingly requires is not just charisma, but presence. The ability to think carefully before acting, to sit with ambiguity rather than force resolution, and to adapt without losing coherence are not signs of weakness but more a mark of maturity. These are not qualities that always show up in leadership frameworks but they are often what hold institutions together when pressure mounts. In a sector where trust is easily lost and change rarely pauses, the capacity to lead with both flexibility and integrity has become more essential than ever.

    Don’t panic

    For anyone stepping into, or considering, a formal leadership role in higher education (at whatever level!) I would suggest this: know that the title does not prepare you for the internal work.

    You will be stretched in ways no leadership framework fully captures. You will need to hold contradiction, manage ambiguity and shift gears constantly. And this will be not just between meetings and conversations, but sometimes within the same sentence. It is demanding, to put it lightly, often invisible work and it can be lonely.

    But it is also deeply rewarding, transformative and full of purpose. Especially if you approach your leadership role with humility, clarity of values and a willingness to learn, unlearn, and then adapt some more. And while I believe everyone in HE is already a leader, whether they hold a title or not, those who accept formal leadership positions, regardless of the level, carry a particular responsibility – not to have all answers but to cultivate the space in which people can thrive. It is not about becoming someone else but about learning how to show up differently without ever losing who you are, what values define you.

    There is also a deeper cultural discomfort at play. History, and most frameworks, tend to favour the idea of singular leadership identity. But in a sector where the demands are multiple and shifting, I feel consistency is rarely a strength. True leadership authenticity in our sector lies not in being the same person in every room, but in being consistent in your values even as you adapt your delivery. It means having a clear sense of what matters, educationally, ethically, institutionally, and allowing that to shape the different selves you need to inhabit.

    And this is not about abandoning coherence – it is about redefining it. Leadership in HE is not a single performance, repeated daily; it is a catalogue of performances. Those who do well – again, regardless of the level which they are at – understand that they will be read differently by different audiences, and that this is not only inevitable but highly necessary. The most successful leaders are those who can integrate their different selves into a single, strategic identify, not fixed, but rooted in the same core values that act as a driving force.

    So if you, as a leader in higher education, sometimes feel like you are playing a cast of characters like Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor, do not panic. You are not alone, and you are not doing it wrong. You are doing what the job requires. You are developing a professionally disciplined multiplicity.

    Not a flaw, but a capacity. Not a weakness but a way through huge complexity. It is this ability to hold multiple selves in tension, without losing sight of the core values uniting them, that defines successful leadership in HE today. And that, just maybe, is the most authentic thing of all.

    Source link

  • How the FY25 funding freeze impacts students across America

    How the FY25 funding freeze impacts students across America

    This press release originally appeared online.

    Key points:

    Communities across the nation began the budget process for the 2025-2026 school year after Congress passed the FY25 Continuing Resolution on March 14, 2025. Historically, states receive these funds on July 1, enabling them to allocate resources to local districts at the start of the fiscal year. 

    Even though these funds were approved by Congress, the Administration froze the distribution on June 30. Since that time, AASA, The School Superintendents Association, has advocated for their release, including organizing hundreds of superintendents to meet with offices on the Hill to share information about its impact, the week of July 7.  

    On July 16, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced that Title IV-B or 21st Century funds (afterschool funds) would be released. AASA’s Executive Director issued a statement about the billions of dollars that remain frozen. 

    To gather more information about the real-world effects on students across America, AASA conducted a survey with its members. 

    From July 11th to July 18th, AASA received responses from 628 superintendents in 43 states.

    Eighty-five percent of respondents said they have existing contracts paid with federal funds that are currently being withheld, and now have to cover those costs with local dollars.

    Respondents shared what will be cut to cover this forced cost shift: 

    • Nearly three out of four respondents said they will have to eliminate academic services for students. The programs include targeted literacy and math coaches, before and after school programming, tutoring, credit recovery, CTE and dual enrollment opportunities.
    • Half of respondents reported they will have to lay off teachers and personnel. These personnel include those who work specifically with English-language learners and special education students, as well as staff who provide targeted reading and math interventions to struggling students.
    • Half of respondents said they will have to reduce afterschool and extracurricular offerings for students. These programs provide STEM/STEAM opportunities, performing arts and music programs, and AP coursework. 
    • Four out of five respondents indicated they will be forced to reduce or eliminate professional development offerings for educators. These funds are used to build teachers’ expertise such as training in the science of reading, teaching math, and the use of AI in the classroom. They are also used to ensure new teachers have the mentors and coaching they need to be successful.  

    As federal funding is still being withheld, 23 percent of respondents have been forced to make tough choices about how to reallocate funding, and many districts are rapidly approaching similar inflection points.  

    Notably, 29 percent of districts indicated that they must have access to these funds by August 1 to avoid cutting critical programs and services for students. Twenty-one percent of districts will have to notify parents and educators about the loss of programs and services by August 15.  

    Without timely disbursement of funding, the risk of disruption to essential educational supports for children grows significantly.

    As one superintendent who completed the survey said, “This isn’t a future problem; it’s happening now. Our budget was set with these funds in mind. Their sudden withholding has thrown us into chaos, forcing drastic measures that will negatively impact every student, classroom, and school in our district. We urgently need these funds released to prevent irreparable harm to our educational programs and ensure our students get the quality education they deserve.” 

    Latest posts by staff and wire services reports (see all)

    Source link

  • Navigating back-to-school anxiety: A K-12 success guide

    Navigating back-to-school anxiety: A K-12 success guide

    Key points:

    The anticipation of a new school year brings a complex mix of emotions for both students and teachers in K-12 education. As the 2025-2026 academic year approaches, experiencing anxiety about returning to the classroom is a natural response to change that affects everyone differently.

    From elementary students facing new classroom environments to high school teachers preparing for curriculum changes, these feelings manifest uniquely across age groups. Young children often worry about making new friends or adjusting to new teachers, while older students grapple with academic performance pressures and social dynamics. Teachers face their own challenges, including meeting diverse student needs, implementing new edtech tools and digital resources, and maintaining high academic standards while supporting student well-being.

    Early identification of anxiety symptoms is crucial for both educator and student success. Young children might express anxiety through behavioral changes, such as becoming more clingy or irritable, while older students might demonstrate procrastination or avoidance of school-related topics. Parents and educators should remain vigilant for signs like changes in sleeping patterns and/or eating habits, unusual irritability, or physical complaints. Schools must establish clear protocols for identifying and addressing anxiety-related concerns, including regular check-ins with students and staff and creating established pathways for accessing additional support when needed.

    Building strong support networks within the school community significantly reduces anxiety levels. Schools should foster an environment where students feel comfortable expressing concerns to teachers, counselors, or school psychologists. Regular check-ins, mentor programs, and peer support groups help create a supportive school environment where everyone feels valued and understood. Parent-teacher partnerships are essential for providing consistent support and understanding students’ needs, facilitated through regular communication channels, family engagement events, and resources that help parents support their children’s emotional well-being at home.

    Practical preparation serves as a crucial anxiety-reduction strategy. Teachers can minimize stress by organizing classrooms early, preparing initial lesson plans, and establishing routines before students arrive. Students can ease their transition by visiting the school beforehand, meeting teachers when possible, and organizing supplies. Parents contribute by establishing consistent routines at home, including regular sleep schedules and homework times, several weeks before school starts. Schools support this preparation through orientation events, virtual tours, welcome videos, and sharing detailed information about schedules and procedures well in advance.

    The importance of physical and emotional well-being cannot be overstated in managing school-related anxiety. Schools should prioritize regular physical activity through structured PE classes, recess, or movement breaks during lessons. Teaching age-appropriate stress-management techniques, such as deep breathing exercises for younger students or mindfulness practices for older ones, provides valuable tools for managing anxiety. Schools should implement comprehensive wellness programs addressing nutrition, sleep hygiene, and emotional regulation, while ensuring ready access to counselors and mental health professionals.

    Creating a positive classroom environment proves essential for reducing anxiety levels. Teachers can establish predictable routines, clear expectations, and open communication channels with students and parents. Regular class meetings or discussion times allow students to express concerns and help build community within the classroom. The physical space should consider lighting, noise levels, and seating arrangements that promote comfort and focus. Implementing classroom management strategies that emphasize positive reinforcement and restorative practices rather than punitive measures helps create a safe space where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities.

    Technology integration requires careful consideration to prevent additional anxiety. Schools should provide adequate training and support for new educational technologies, introducing digital tools gradually while ensuring equitable access and understanding. Regular assessment of technology needs and challenges helps schools address barriers to effective use. Training should encompass basic operational skills, digital citizenship, online safety, and responsible social media use. Clear protocols for technology use and troubleshooting ensure that both students and teachers know where to turn for support when technical issues arise.

    Professional development for teachers should focus on managing both personal and student anxiety through trauma-informed teaching practices and social-emotional learning techniques. Schools must provide regular opportunities for skill enhancement throughout the year, incorporating both formal training sessions and informal peer learning opportunities. Creating professional learning communities allows teachers to share experiences, strategies, and support, while regular supervision and mentoring provide additional support layers.

    Long-term success requires commitment from all stakeholders–including administrators, teachers, support staff, students, and families–working together to create a supportive educational environment where everyone can thrive in the upcoming 2025-2026 school year.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Am I the Weakest Link?

    Am I the Weakest Link?

    by Paul Temple

    Call me a sad old geezer, but I’m finding the never-ending positivity that characterises LinkedIn’s sunshine world rather wearing. To take one example, the “comment” options you’re offered after each post might run from “awesome“, through “love this,” to merely “impressive”: where is “misleading”, “time-wasting”, or “plain wrong”? Anyway, turning this negativity (my “inner snark” as a kindly colleague once put it) into a business proposition, in a way that LinkedIn’s owners (Microsoft paid $26 billion for it back in 2016) would surely understand, I’m about to pitch a rival version,  provisionally titled PissedOff – though the investors might want to focus-group that first. (Warning: if this title offends you, please stop reading at this point.) It will instead tap into the deep wells of pessimism that characterise so much of British life (though the French surely are just as good at it). The sociologists refer to this kind of thinking as “narratives of decline”, supported by Britain’s unofficial national motto, “Could be worse”.

    So a typical post on my new site might be: “Dave has just been fired from the University of Hounslow – ‘I always hated the place anyway, and the VC was a complete ****er,’ he said.” “Dave, absolutely with you, mate, the place is beyond awful, surprised you stuck it as long as you did”. “Dave, you speak for all of us who have suffered at Hounslow – I got out as soon as I could. Nobody who values their integrity should think of working there”. I’m confident that the latest from PissedOff will be the first email that everyone working in higher education will open in the morning, to see who/where is getting the flak. An absolute rule of the site will be that references to “seeking new challenges” or similar euphemisms are banned: if you’ve been fired, let’s hear about it, it’s (usually) nothing to be ashamed of – be loud and proud. What you’re now going to do is make them very, very sorry…

    What will then happen is that everyone with a grudge about Hounslow (and which university doesn’t have an army of grudge-bearers?) will pile in, Four Yorkshiremen-style: “You think you had a bad time, let me tell you about what happened to me…”, and pretty soon the place will be a national laughing-stock. After the VC has had a torrid meeting with the governing body, and the HR Director has been fired as a pointless gesture, there might possibly be some improvements. I’d be surprised to learn of any institutional changes as a result of another glowing LinkedIn endorsement.

    LinkedIn’s Californian roots are its problem. Up to a point, and having seen it working first-hand, I am actually in favour of American-style positivity in organisations: there is a sense that if the people around you are saying “Yes, we can do this!”, then maybe the difficulties can, actually, be overcome – what the Navy calls the “Nelson Touch”. But equally, some of those difficulties may be intractable, and pretending they don’t exist won’t make them go away. If you want some actual American examples of difficulties being overcome, or not, look at George Keller’s still-excellent Academic Strategy (1983), or my own more recent reflections on it (Temple, 2018). Or my review of some honest American case studies of university leadership and – the book’s best bits – of its failures (Temple, 2020).

    What these studies show is how real problems are identified and how they then might be overcome. One of the weaknesses found in too many university strategy documents is the inability to face up to problems and creating instead a make-believe world (call it LinkedIn World) where everything always goes well and everyone is enjoying themselves. The danger, of course, is that strategy documents like that will make everyone pissed off even if they hadn’t been before. I once got into trouble with the VC of a post-92 university by asking, quite innocently (no, really), about the basis of a claim in a staff recruitment ad that they were a top-ten research university (something like that, anyway: as my then-colleague David Watson drily remarked, “Another fine mess you’ve got us into”.). This was a perfectly good university, doing a fine job in supporting regional development goals, doing next-to-no research (as measured by research income), but feeling it necessary to buy into the apex research university model. They were assuming that they had to live in LinkedIn World, rather than the world they were actually in. (I’m glad to say that the VC and I eventually parted on good terms – he even bought me a beer.)

    Anyway, once the IPO for PissedOff goes through, do join me for a cocktail on the deck of my yacht in Monte Carlo. But leave any whingeing about your job back in the office – I don’t want the real world intruding on my Riviera idyll, thank you very much.

    Dr Paul Temple is Honorary Associate Professor in the Centre for Higher Education Studies, UCL Institute of Education.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • The case for playful leadership

    The case for playful leadership

    Of course: UK higher education is in a perilous state, with ever-tightening institutional budgets, thousands of staff at risk of redundancy, institutions on the verge of closure, and the threat of AI causing a rush back to closed-book exams.

    In this context, a call to play might seem mis-timed and perhaps a little tone-deaf.

    Please bear with us. Play is about more than games and goofiness and is far from frivolous. It endorses a philosophy that supports openness, creativity, and bravery: qualities that the sector really needs from its leaders right now.

    Risk aversion

    In times of difficulty there is a temptation for institutions to revert to traditional values and avoid risks. This might manifest in removing small, specialist, or contentious courses in favour of large popular subjects, in stifling academic freedom and discussion, or in a reluctance to explore new ideas or research. As pressures grow from government and popular media, leaders may become increasingly leery of making decisions that make their institution stand out.

    This culture of inertia, pressure, and performativity sucks the joy and creativity from academia, hampers change and makes it difficult for institutions to make the efficiencies necessary to be financially sustainable without shedding staff and closing courses on an endless repeat cycle.

    And this environment is exhausting and unsustainable. In a world where change is the only constant, we need to embrace new possibilities and prepare staff and students to manage and embrace uncertainty. We must all be resilient, creative, and engaged, and play can facilitate this at all levels.

    Playful learning

    The use of playful learning approaches across the sector has increased in the last decade. Play pedagogies are finally being taken seriously: membership of the Playful Learning Association has grown to over 600 over the last fifteen years and the annual conference regularly sells out.

    In research too, play is often the key that unlocks the greatest discoveries (Nobel prize physicists attest to it): having space to experiment, be creative and mess around with ideas, data or materials is essential for ground-breaking contributions to knowledge. The ESRC has recently funded a significant three-year multi-institution research project led by Northumbria university that will evidence what forms of playful learning work and why.

    But it is past time for play to be taken seriously by leadership. Higher education leaders could benefit from a philosophy of play: being willing to change and try new ideas, embracing open leadership, and being brave enough to endorse new approaches that set them apart for the sector. The ability to fail well is crucial and having the vulnerability to publicly accept that leaders do not always know the answers allows institutions to learn from mistakes openly and collegiately.

    Vulnerability and humanity

    There are examples of sector leaders who demonstrate these values. It has been refreshing to see vice chancellors show their humanity and honest vulnerability on social media and platforms like Wonkhe. For example, recently vice chancellors at Middlesex University, Buckinghamshire New University, and Plymouth Marjon University have offered honest reflections on what it means to be the leader of a modern university, giving very different, more personal and playful lenses on senior leadership than the usual corporate statements and press releases.

    At Northumbria University, leadership has driven a strategic push for experiential learning across all programmes, embracing active and authentic learning to provide students with the real-life skills and experiences they will need to thrive beyond university. This has been achieved through open discussion with staff communities of practice and led from the bottom up as well as the top down; staff are encouraged to be creative and experiment. It is not a cheap or easy option, but it differentiates the university and comes from a belief that this approach is best for our students.

    At Anglia Ruskin University, open and empathetic leadership has been key to navigating the institution through challenging times, with senior leaders holding honest community events and talking openly about vulnerability. When trying to understand institutional belonging, leaders facilitated playful thinking through Lego workshops to develop shared principles. Play also influenced a strategic development for student experience, using techniques from video games to create an engaging introduction to the university for all incoming students.

    Open to possibilities

    There are already examples of successful playful leadership in the sector, and we believe that it is those leaders who are not afraid to be open – both to new ideas and to making mistakes – that will have the best chance for success in our increasingly hostile and uncertain climate. Institutions face difficult choices on how to differentiate and survive; higher education cannot continue as it is.

    The next few years will be challenging, and leaders will need to be more open to possibilities, creative in their approaches, and willing to embrace and learn from their mistakes as the sector reshapes into something sustainable – built with and for our current and future staff and students. Now more than ever, play really matters.

    Source link

  • Ryan Lufkin, Vice President of Global Academic Strategy, Brings the Skinny

    Ryan Lufkin, Vice President of Global Academic Strategy, Brings the Skinny

    When the developers of Canvas, the world’s leading web-based learning management system (LMS) software, invite you to a party—July 22-24 this year in Spokane, WA—you might consider the offer. Expected to draw 3,000 attendees across various roles from individual educators to IT leadership, the event promises product reveals, professional development, and collaborative opportunities like Hack Night, designed to help educators and administrators demonstrate tangible value when they return to their institutions. I was able to grab Ryan Lufkin, Vice President of Global Academic Strategy at Instructure, for some pre-show scuttle butt. Have a listen and scroll down for some highlights:

    ➜InstructureCon 2025 is evolving its AI strategy beyond basic features to an “agentic approach,” leveraging partnerships with Anthropic, Microsoft, and Google to create integrated AI experiences across campus environments. Says Ryan: “That’s because our open architecture is the most well-positioned learning platform in the world to really pull in, not just those AI-powered features that we’ve developed, but we also leverage those from our partners.”

    ➜Instructure is responding to educational institutions’ budget constraints by focusing on helping customers maximize their technology investments through better data usage, adoption metrics, and optimization strategies. Says Ryan: “We really want educators and administrators to walk away with just a toolkit of how to use these products better, how to use them more deeply and tangibly show that value because we know the budgets are tight.”

    A few session highlights:  

    Transforming Student Success with Mastery Connect: A Proven Approach to Data-Driven Instruction in Richland One School District

    Get ready to discover how Richland One (R1) School District in South Carolina has been transforming student success with Mastery Connect since 2015! This digital assessment platform has empowered R1 teachers to seamlessly administer standards-based formative and summative assessments, dive into score reports, and collaborate with colleagues. MC has unlocked deeper insights into student mastery, giving teachers and teams the tools they need to drive data-driven instruction. Join us for an exciting session where R1 will share its curriculum map structure and district approach to formative assessments. Discover how to save time on data collection and analysis—whether you’re a teacher or an admin. Learn how newer features like Quick Reassess and Assessment Compare can help you work smarter, not harder! You’ll also explore how to harness real-time data to fuel impactful discussions in your Professional Learning Communities (PLCs), driving focused, results-oriented collaboration.

    Cracking the Code: Turning Data into Action with Mastery Connect

    Drowning in data but struggling to make it meaningful? Join us on a journey to transform numbers into actionable insights using Mastery Connect! In this session, we’ll share how we built educator buy-in, shifted mindsets, and empowered teachers to use data in meaningful ways. Discover practical strategies for making data analysis approachable, actionable, and impactful—without overwhelming teachers. We’ll explore real-world examples, time-saving tips, and effective ways to connect assessment data to instructional decisions. Whether you’re just getting started or looking to refine your approach, this session will equip you with insights and strategies to turn data into a catalyst for student success.

    Beyond the Classroom: Maximizing Canvas for Non-Academic Programs in Resource-Limited Environments.

    As institutions face financial and regulatory challenges, maximizing existing technology investments is essential. While Canvas is primarily used for academic courses, its capabilities extend beyond the classroom. This session explores how a small liberal arts institution has successfully repurposed Canvas for faculty onboarding, professional development, syllabus archiving, student organizations, and institutional assessment—all without additional costs. A key focus will be the development of a syllabus submission portal designed to streamline syllabus collection, ensure compliance with learning outcomes, and create a structured faculty repository. Attendees will gain practical insights into overcoming adoption challenges, achieving measurable ROI, and applying these strategies to institutions of varying sizes.

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • Kenneth C. Griffin Donates $2 Million to Nonprofit Achieve Miami’s Teacher Accelerator Program to Strengthen South Florida’s Teacher Pipeline

    Kenneth C. Griffin Donates $2 Million to Nonprofit Achieve Miami’s Teacher Accelerator Program to Strengthen South Florida’s Teacher Pipeline

    Miami – Achieve Miami, a nonprofit dedicated to equalizing educational opportunities for students throughout Miami-Dade County, has received $2.4 million from multiple philanthropic organizations and leaders, including a leadership gift of $2 million from Kenneth C. Griffin, founder and CEO of Citadel and founder of Griffin Catalyst. The funding, awarded over the past year, will further expand Achieve Miami’s transformative programs, reaching thousands of K-12 students through initiatives including Achieve Scholars, which prepares high schoolers for college success; Achieve Summer, a dynamic program combating learning loss through hands-on academics and enrichment; and the Teacher Accelerator Program (TAP), a groundbreaking effort to address Miami-Dade’s urgent teacher shortage.

    Kenneth C. Griffin’s $2 million leadership gift is specifically focused on supporting TAP in creating a pipeline of talent for the teaching profession through recruiting, preparing, and mentoring aspiring educators, including those who had not previously considered a career in education. This gift builds on Griffin’s $3.5 million gift to TAP in 2022, further strengthening Achieve Miami’s efforts to recruit and train qualified educators to teach in public, private and charter schools across Miami-Dade and close learning gaps in the city’s schools. Griffin has a longstanding commitment to improving education and has contributed more than $900 million to providing greater access to a high-quality education and pathways to success for students in Florida and across the country.

    Additional grants include:

    • $200,000 from the Bezos Family Foundation, which is a director’s gift supporting early and adolescent learning through grants and programs that advance the science of learning.
    • $100,000 from the Panera Bread Foundation, as part of its national initiative to support nonprofits that provide educational access to underserved youth.
    • $65,000 from Morgan Stanley, in support of Achieve Miami’s financial literacy and career readiness programs, which equip students in the organization’s Achieve Scholars program with essential money management skills for financial independence and future success. As part of its commitment, a team of Morgan Stanley employees guide students through financial literacy sessions across ten Miami-Dade County public schools, providing essential lessons on topics like budgeting, investing, entrepreneurship, savings, and credit.
    • $50,000 from City National Bank of Florida, as part of its long-term partnership with Achieve Miami in support of the Achieve Scholars program. City National Bank is planning financial literacy programming for students over the summer.

    “Every student deserves access to resources, mentors, and opportunities that can set them up for success,” said Leslie Miller Saiontz, Founder of Achieve Miami. “These generous grants, led by Ken Griffin, will enable us to expand our reach, empower more educators, and bridge opportunity gaps that are prevalent in Miami. By investing in students and teachers, we are building a stronger future for our community.”

    “Each of us has a story of how a teacher has changed our lives,” said Ken Griffin in February 2023 alongside his initial gift to Achieve Miami. “I care deeply about bringing more high-quality educators into Miami classrooms to help ensure the children of Miami will continue to enjoy the impact of life-changing teachers.”

    Despite being one of the fastest-growing states with the nation’s fourth-largest economy, Florida ranks #21 in per capita education funding. Achieve Miami’s initiatives aim to eliminate educational disparities by equipping students with the tools and support needed for success with a variety of diverse enrichment programs such as Achieve Scholars, Achieve Saturdays, and Achieve Music.

    Achieve Miami’s impact to-date includes support for over 10,000 Miami-Dade County students, college and career readiness programming for Achieve Scholars across ten high school sites, providing internet access to over 106,000 homes through Miami Connected, and the recruitment and training of nearly 200 new teachers through the Teacher Accelerator Program (TAP) since the initiative’s launch in 2023.

    ABOUT ACHIEVE MIAMI

    Achieve Miami is a nonprofit organization that is dedicated to fostering a transformational education ecosystem in Miami. Since its founding in 2015, the organization has supported over 10,000 K-12 students, bolstered programming for 60+ local schools, and engaged thousands of volunteers. Together with partners from the public and private sector, Achieve Miami designs and manages programs that bring together members from various parts of the community to extend learning opportunities for students, teachers, and community leaders. Learn more at www.achievemiami.org.

    ABOUT THE TEACHER ACCELERATOR PROGRAM

    Teacher Accelerator Program (TAP) is a non-profit organization creating a pipeline of talent for the teaching profession through recruiting, preparing, and mentoring aspiring educators. TAP’s comprehensive and streamlined program equips college students and career changers with the skills, knowledge, and certification necessary to excel in the classroom. TAP addresses the nationwide teacher shortage crisis by providing a built-in path to teaching, inspiring a new generation of educators.

    TAP participants take a one-semester course, followed by a six-week paid summer internship, earn a certificate to teach, and begin instructing in a Miami-Dade County public, private, or charter school classroom. TAP is an initiative of Achieve Miami, supported by Teach for America Miami-Dade, and is offered by the University of Miami, Florida International University and Miami-Dade College. Learn more at www.teacheraccelerator.org.

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

    Source link

  • Private international foundation courses, and what they say about university leadership

    Private international foundation courses, and what they say about university leadership

    by Morten Hansen

    My research on the history of private international pathway providers and their public alternatives shows how some universities have stopped believing in themselves. Reversing this trend requires investment in their capabilities and leadership.

    The idea that universities have stopped believing in themselves as institutions that can take on the challenges of the day and find solutions that are better than those developed by private rivals echoes a point recently revived by Mariana Mazzucato. Mazzucato explains how private firms often are portrayed like lions. Bold animals that make things happen. The public sector and third-sector organisations, on the contrary, are too often seen as gerbils. Timid animals that are no good at developing new and innovative solutions.

    Skilled salesmen convinced some universities that private companies are better than universities at teaching and recruiting for university preparatory programmes. The inbuilt premise of this pitch is that universities are gerbils and private providers are lions. One university staff member explained what it felt like meeting such salesmen:

    “The thing that sticks most in my mind is the dress. And how these people sat differently, looked differently, spoke differently, and we felt parochial. We felt like a bunch of country bumpkins against some big suits.” (University staff)

    The lion-gerbil pitch worked in institutions across England because universities were stifled by three interlocking practices of inaction: outsourcing capability development; taking ambiguous stands on international tuition fees; and refusing to cooperate with other universities.

    Outsourcing capability

    Universities are increasingly outsourcing core aspects of their operations, such as recruiting international students. While university leadership is often characterised as conservative, my research suggest that this trope misses something critical about contemporary university leadership in English higher education. The problem with the term ‘conservative’ is that it implies that leadership is risk-averse, and comfortable projecting past power structures, practices and norms into the future. This does not correspond to historical developments and practices in the sector for international pathways.

    The University of Exeter, for example, submitted incorporation documents for their limited liability partnership with INTO University Partnerships only six years after the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 was passed, which marked the first time in England’s history that this legal setup was possible. They took a big leap of faith in the private sector’s ability to recruit students for them, and after doing so invested time and resources helping INTO to further develop its capability. They even invited them onto their campuses. It is hard to overstate how much these actions diverged from historical practice and thus ‘conservative’ leadership.

    What was once a highly unusual thing to do, has over the last two decades thoroughly normalised—to the extent that partnering with pathways now seems unavoidable. One respondent from the private sector explained this change in the following way:

    “In 2006, ‘07, ‘08, ‘09, ‘10, the pathway providers were, if you like, the unwelcome tenants in the stately home of the university. We had to be suffered because we did something for them. Now, the relationship has totally moved. It’s almost as if they roll out the red carpet for the pathway providers” (C-suite)

    The far more conservative strategy would have been to lean into the university’s core capabilities – teaching and admissions – and scale this up over time. Yet that is precisely what my respondents said ‘conservative’ university leaders were unwilling to do: they did not believe the university could manage overseas recruitment by themselves. As argued by former Warwick VC Nigel Thrift, this timidity is not unique to the recruitment of international students, but also extends to their engagement with government agencies. University management by and large “has done as it has been told. It hasn’t exactly rolled over and played dead, but sometimes it can feel as though it is dangerously close to Stockholm Syndrome” (Thrift, 2025, p3).

    Ambiguous stands on international fees have deepened the current crises

    There is no law in England that compels universities to charge high international students fees. By setting them as high as possible and rapidly increasing the intake of international students, universities de facto offset and thus obfuscated the havoc that changing funding regimes wreaked on university finances. This has contributed to what Kings’ Vice Chancellor Shitij Kapur calls the ‘triangle of sadness’ between domestic students, universities, and the government.

    Had universities chosen to stand in solidarity with their international students by aligning their fees more closely to the fees of home students, then the subsequent crises in funding would have forced universities to either spend less money, or make it clearer to the wider public that more funding was needed, before building up the dependencies and subsequent vulnerabilities to intake fluctuations that are currently on full display. These vulnerabilities were exacerbated by overoptimistic growth plans, and university leadership not always fully understanding the added costs that came with such growth. In an example of this delayed realisation, one Pro-Vice-Chancellor explained to me what it felt like to partner with a private foundation pathway:

    “At the time you are signing up for these things, there is euphoria around because they are going to deliver against this business plan, which is showing hundreds of students coming in. International student is very buoyant, you sign up for a 35-year deal. So, everything is rosy. If you then just take a step back and think ‘so what am I exposing the university to?’  …  because in year seven, eight, ten, fifteen whatever, it can all go pear-shaped, and you are left then with the legacy building.” (Pro-Vice-Chancellor)

    By seeing fee setting as a practice, that is, something universities do to their own students rather than something that is inflicted by external (market or government) powers, we make visible its ideological nature and implications. The longer history of international fees in Brittan was thus an important site of ideological co-option; it was a critical juncture at which universities could have related in a more solidaric manner towards their students.

    Unwillingness to cooperate on increased student acquisition costs

    You might, at this stage, be wondering: what was the alternative? The answer is in recognising the structure of the market for what it is: efficiently recruiting and training a large number of international students requires some degree of cooperation between universities. My research, however, suggests that universities have often been unwilling to cooperate because they see each other chiefly as competitors. This competition is highly unequal given the advantage conferred to prestigious universities located in internationally well-known cities.

    The irony is that many universities nevertheless end up – perhaps unwittingly – cooperating by partnering with one of the few private companies that offer international foundation programmes. These private providers can only reach economies of scale because they partner with multiple universities at the same time. One executive explains how carrying a portfolio of universities for agents to offer their clients is precisely what gives them a competitive advantage:

    “The importance of the pathways to the agents is that they carry a portfolio of universities, and the ambition is that you have some which are very well-ranked and academically quite difficult to get into. And, you try and have a bottom-feeder or two, which is relatively easy to get into academically. The agent is then able to talk to its clients and say, look, I can get offers into these universities. Some of them are at the very top. If you are not good enough there, then you might get one in the middle and I’ve always got my insurance offer for you. […] what the pathways do is that they provide a portfolio that makes that easier.” (Private Executive)

    A public consortium with pooled resources and that isn’t shy about strategically coordinating student flows would have functioned just as well, and the Northern Consortium is living proof of this. The consortium in fact inspired Study Group to get into the pathway business themselves. The limited growth of the Consortium, relative to its private rivals, is equally proof of missed chances and wasted opportunities.

    Could the gerbil eat the lion?

    Private providers can use and have used these practices of inaction to pit universities against each other, over time resulting in lower entry requirements and higher recruitment costs. In this climate, public alternatives such as in-house programmes struggle to survive. Once invited in, pathway companies are also well positioned to expand their business with their partner universities in other ways, deepening their dependence. As one senior executive told me:

    “Our aspiration is to say that the heart of what we are is a good partner to universities. They trust us. […] for some of our core partners, we bring in a lot of revenue. And, that then puts us in a really good position to think about the other services that we can add of value.” (Private Executive)

    The economic downside of relying on these ‘good’ partners is the expensive and volatile market dynamics that follow. As long as universities are trapped by the notion that they are chiefly competitors best served by outsourcing capabilities to sales-oriented firms and leaving international students to pick up the bill, there is limited hope for any genuine inter-university collaboration and innovation. This limits the public potential for scaling an economically viable and resilient market in the long-run.  As a sector, HE has the know-how, experience, capital, and repute to do this. It’s just about getting on with it!

    Morten Hansen is a Lecturer in Digital Economy and Innovation Education at the Department of Digital Humanities, King’s College London.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Navigating Anti-DEI in Higher Education

    Navigating Anti-DEI in Higher Education

    Title: Critical Leadership for Civil Rights in Higher Education: The Experiences of Chief Diversity Officers Navigating Anti-DEI Action

    Authors: Jeffrey K. Grim, Arissa Koines, Raúl Gámez, Erick R. Aguinaldo, and Jada Crocker

    Source: National Center for Institutional Diversity, University of Michigan

    Chief diversity officers (CDOs) in higher education play a critical role in ensuring civil rights and facilitating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) on campuses. In a qualitative study of 40 CDOs by the National Center for Institutional Diversity, authors found that CDOs tend to take one of three approaches.

    The first approach, strategic inaction, involves not changing any current practices and watching how political trends change. Proaction involves “responding to foreseen anti-DEI actions to ensure they could successfully support all students, faculty, and staff without the disruption of political attacks on specific naming conventions or activities” (p. 4). The third strategy is reaction, in which CDOs eliminate DEI measures to comply with laws and regulations.

    Based on their findings, the authors offer the following seven recommendations for current CDOs in higher education.

    1. Resist anti-DEI intimidation tactics: Higher education leaders should remember that these tactics are exactly that: tactics. As such, do not preemptively comply with threats or potential anti-DEI actions.
    2. Partner with other institutional leaders: Create a cohesive plan of action and message for DEI. Consider Shared Equity Leadership as a frame for doing collective work.
    3. Develop coalitions with external stakeholders: Establish relationships with key higher education stakeholders (alumni, policymakers, nonprofits, etc.). Work together to advocate for DEI in higher education and its role in diversifying the workforce.
    4. Make research-informed decisions: Anti-DEI actions tend to be ideologically, rather than empirically, based. Consistently evaluate and track data so that there is justification for DEI work.
    5. Maintain organizational accountability: Diversity officers should be regularly assessed and evaluated, with data being used to highlight the impact of their work. Criteria for evaluation should be comparable to metrics for evaluating employees in other offices.
    6. Utilize professional development and network: CDOs should harness resources and connect with other CDOs to build a network of support, opportunity, and mentorship.
    7. Support health and well-being of DEI professionals: Leaders should be flexible and aware of the physical and mental toll of DEI work right now. Offer CDOs supports that work for them (e.g., compensatory time for after-hours meetings, professional development, etc.).

    Read the full report here.

    —Kara Seidel

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Do we really empower sabbatical offices to be the voice of students?

    Do we really empower sabbatical offices to be the voice of students?

    by Rebecca Turner, Jennie Winter & Nadine Schaefer

    Student voice is firmly embedded within the architecture of universities, with multiple mechanisms existing through which we (as educators) can ‘hear’, and students can ‘leverage’ their voice.  The notion of student voice is widely debated (and critiqued – see Mendes & Hammett, 2023), and whilst relevant to this blog post, it is not what we seek to focus on here. Rather we focus on one of the primary figureheads of student voice within universities – the sabbatical officer – and consider how they are empowered to represent the ‘voice’ of their peers to their university.

    Sabbatical officers are elected by the student body to represent their interests to the wider university community. They are leaders and trustees of their student union – semi autonomous organisations that operate alongside universities to advocate for the student body (Brooks, Byford & Sela 2016).  As elected student representatives, sabbatical officers sit on high-level university committees where student voice is ‘required,’ making the rapid transition from a student in a lecture hall, to a voice for all. Though this is an anticipated move, it is potentially challenging. Becoming a sabbatical officer is the accumulation of a hard-fought election campaign, which commonly builds on several years of working with their students’ union alongside their undergraduate studies (Turner & Winter, 2023).

    In collaboration with the NUS, and with the support of a small grant from the Staff and Educational Development Association (SEDA), we undertook a national survey to develop contemporary insights into the work of elected sabbatical officers. Sabbatical officers were clearly keen to share their experiences as we achieved responses from 59% of student unions affiliated to the NUS. We also undertook interviews with a sample of sabbatical officers (n=4) and permanent student union staff (n=6) who supported them during their time in office. Here we reflect on headlines emerging from this study, to place a brief spotlight on the work of sabbatical officers. 

    What a busy year (or two!)

    Sabbatical officers were often negotiating multiple, potentially competing, demands – as this survey respondent reflected when invited to comment on the main challenges they faced:

    ‘Getting up to speed with the fast-moving world of [being] a sabbatical officer and the many roles I had (sabb, trustee, leader, admin and campaigner)’.

    Sabbatical officers had a long list of responsibilities, including jobs inherited from their predecessor, union and university commitments, as well as the commitments they made through their own manifestos.  Attending university committees to give the student voice took considerable time, with many questioning the value of the time spent in meetings:

    ‘It’s very much the case that you are in a room for two hours where you will be speaking for, I don’t know, two minutes. So sometimes it seems very boring to get involved with those random conversations which have very little to do directly with student experience.’ SO1

    It was a common theme that sabbatical officers were silent during these meetings, waiting for the brief interlude when they were invited to speak. Leading us to question both where their agency as student representatives lay in these committees, and how they could effect change in this space, when their engagement was limited. A concern shared across survey respondents, for example:

    ‘I’m in a huge number of meetings which significantly reduces the amount of time I have to work on manifesto objectives.’

    With a jobs list (and a diary) that echoed that of many Vice Chancellors (though with considerably less experience in HE), sabbatical officers reported engaging in trade-offs for who they worked with, whose voice was heard and opinions sought, to balance the demands of their role.  As this sabbatical officer reflected, this could leave the wider student body questioning their actions:

    ‘[Students] want to see the battle happening.  What they don’t want to see, is me sit for three hours and hash out the middle ground with some members of staff who probably aren’t going to change their mind.’ SO2

    Finding their voice

    Though given a seat at high level tables, respondents did not always feel at ease speaking up, the sentiments of this respondent were repeated many times in our data:

    ‘I think the hardest part is, we are sitting on committees with individuals who have worked here for years.  We’re never going to have that same knowledge, so that makes it quite a challenge um to be able to understand the ins and outs of the university and the institution, and the politics.’ SO3

    We did question whether the expectation to engage in these spaces may further reinforce the inequalities in student leadership highlighted by Brooks et al (2015).  However, sabbatical officers were not working alone. Permanent officers played an important role, helping them, for example, to decode paperwork and plan their contributions. Leadership allies, who may, for example, provide early access to meeting paperwork to aide preparation, or coach sabbatical officers in advance of meetings, assisted sabbatical officers to find their voice:

    ‘I think the university has been really accommodating giving me the heads up on things that I could then have a bit more time to read up on things and to improve my knowledge.’ SO4

    Developing effective support networks was essential; through these networks they gained the knowledge needed to contribute confidently in ‘university’ spaces. However, this took considerable time and resulted in many reprioritising their work. They focused on activities deemed essential (which were many!) with other areas of the work being streamlined to ensure promised commitments could be fulfilled (Turner & Winter, 2023). 

    The time taken for sabbatical officers to get up to speed was discussed at length by those serving a second term, which as this respondent noted, was ‘when the real work got done.’   They had learnt the ropes, and as another Sabbatical Officer (SO) reflected:

    ‘There’s a lot of stuff [to learn] when you come into this role.  I think sabbatical officers do well if they are re-elected because they’ve had to learn a lot.’ SO2

    ‘Knowing the route to achieve my goals’

    Our data captured the committed and driven nature of this (overlooked and overworked) constituent of the HE community. Though working in challenging circumstances, they embraced opportunities to influence policy and practice. Successes were based on the support they received and the strategies they developed to undertake their work. The value of an effective handover from their predecessor cannot be overlooked and permanent student union staff provided much needed continuity and support. Sabbatical officers drew on their student representatives to provide the eyes on the ground and engaged with senior leaders to develop their understanding of how universities work and through these individuals they grew in confidence to speak in front of diverse audiences.  As individuals, many respondents performed their roles with tenacity, approaching their work both pragmatically and innovatively. Yet the time limited nature of this role added pressure and delineated what could be achieved:

    ‘Knowing the route to achieve my goals was difficult because it requires knowing what exactly you want before you’ve even started the job [so that you can] achieve what you want in year.’

    This prompted us to question the sustainability of the sabbatical officer role; realistically who can manage, at this early stage in their career, the breadth of demands placed on them for more than a short period of time?

    Promoting the voice of sabbatical officers?

    As pedagogic researchers, we have a final, curious observation to make regarding the dearth of systematic research into this field of HE. Student unions have a long history; reference is still made to the activism and uprise of the 1960s (Klemenčič 2014). As a community we lament how student voice activities have become the realm of quality assurance, and question whether students have become politically apathetic (Raaper, 2020). The re-positioning of student unions has increased accountability and encouraged partnership working with their affiliated university (Brooks et al, 2016; Squire 2020). This leads us to question how relevant it is to continue to look backwards and talk of how students’ unions used to operate in the past. As the sector becomes increasingly diverse and how students engage with HE becomes more fragmented, we need to play closer attention to students’ unions to ensure they are supported to function effectively and represent the interest of students. 

    Dr Rebecca Turner is an Associate Professor in Educational Development at the University of Plymouth, UK.  Alongside her interest in student voice and representation, Rebecca’s research addresses themes relating to inclusivity, student success and widening participation. 

    Professor Jennie Winter is Dean of Teaching and Learning and Professor of Academic Development at Plymouth Marjon University, a National Teaching Fellow, and a Principal Fellow of the UK Higher Education Academy. She holds numerous external roles, contributes to international pedagogic research, and her work has been utilised by the European Commission and presented globally.

    Dr Nadine Schaefer is an Educational Developer at the University of Plymouth. Her research interests include student voice, student engagement and wider quality assurance issues in HE. Nadine is a Senior Advance HE Fellow (SFHEA).

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link