Monash University is facing allegations it underpaid casual staff up to $9m. Picture: NCA Newswire/Andrew Henshaw
Monash University is facing fresh wage theft claims from casual academics, which could force the tertiary institution to pay back millions of dollars.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
This is a popular post each year with high school and independent counselors working with students who are already thinking about a doctorate. It shows the undergraduate institutions of doctoral recipients from 1958 to 2023. (It does not show where the doctorate was earned, to be clear.)
It’s based on data I downloaded from the National Science Foundation using their custom tool. It’s a little clunky, and–this is important–it classifies academic areas differently before 2020 and after, but with a little (OK, a lot) of data wrangling over the long weekend, we have something for the data junkies out there.
This is for fun and entertainment only, because, as I indicated, the categories are not quite the same, and for the sake of clarity, I had to combine similar (but not identical) disciplines.
There are two views, using the tabs across the top. The “All Data” view allows you to filter to your heart’s content. The purple boxes allow you to limit the type of institution of the bachelor’s degree recipients: You may want to look at Public Universities in the Southeast, for instance, or all Catholic colleges (listed as “Roman Catholic” in the filter, by the way). The tan boxes allow you to specify the doctoral degree area (Chemistry, or Political Science, for instance), and to limit the years. You might want to look at 2017 to 2023, or you might want to get nostalgic and look at 1958 to 1965, for instance.
The bars, which are colored by Broad Carnegie type, display the counts. Us the scroll function at the right to see more data.
The “Top 30” view limits to those places that produce the most students earning doctorates. The labels show you the Rank (in orange), the counts (in blue) and the percent of total (in purple). The percents are only calculated on the group you’ve selected, not the grand totals.
This always generates four questions:
Can you show these as a percentage of the graduates of this institution? No, because not everyone who graduates with a doctorate does it in the same time. I’d have to take lots of data and make some wild guesses.
Can you show what these students majored in at the undergraduate level? No, that’s not available in the public sets, and I don’t want to apply for the restricted use license. If you do, and you want me to work on this, let me know.
Can you crosstab this data to show, for instance, where the Stanvard graduates earned their doctorate? Again, it’s not in the public data set, so no.
What about other doctorates, like MD or Pharm.D or DDS? It’s not included: These are research doctorates only.
If you use this in your business and want to support my time and software and hosting costs, you can do so here. If you’re a high school counselor or a student or parent, just skip that link.
In today’s digital age, ensuring student safety online is a top priority for both parents and schools. Technology has opened new doors for enhancing student learning and engagement, but it also requires thoughtful strategies to ensure students remain safe.
As schools embrace these technological advancements, both parents and administrators must work together to implement safety measures and address the evolving responsibilities that come with digital education. Experts from the Association for Educational Communications and Technology (AECT) share their insights on how to navigate these opportunities effectively while keeping students safe.
Cathy Leavitt, an instructional technologist and AECT member, explains that schools have increasingly adopted tools to safeguard students on digital platforms. “There are great apps and software that record what children are doing on devices,” Leavitt notes, emphasizing the importance of tools that monitor and restrict access to harmful content. However, technology alone isn’t enough. Leavitt stresses that digital literacy is vital to fostering a safe online environment, teaching students how to navigate the digital world responsibly.
Bruce DuBoff, Ph.D., past president of the NJ Association of School Librarians and nominated Ethics Officer for AECT, identifies a gap between today’s digital skills and the safety practices needed in schools. “We live in a world rocked by Future Shock,” DuBoff says, which describes the rapid technological advancements that have outpaced current educational approaches. He advocates for early education in ethical online behavior, with librarians playing a pivotal role in integrating technologies like podcasting, game design, and web development, which not only enhance learning but also ensure safe online engagement.
Dr. DuBoff argues that the biggest threat isn’t Artificial Intelligence (AI) but the social media algorithms that create information silos, limiting students’ exposure to diverse viewpoints. By educating students on the risks of these algorithms and promoting digital literacy programs like Common Sense Education’s Digital Citizenship curriculum, schools can better equip students to navigate the online world safely.
Parental involvement is essential in maintaining online safety. Leavitt advocates for parents to monitor their children’s digital activities, even if it might feel like an invasion of privacy. She calls for a “unified approach” between schools and parents, with regular communication to ensure parents understand the risks their children face online. Schools play a crucial role by educating parents as much as students and providing ongoing resources to reinforce safe practices at home.
As schools adopt more digital learning platforms, cybersecurity threats such as data breaches and cyberattacks have escalated. Leavitt points out that strong security measures such as two-factor authentication and regular updates are critical to safeguarding student data. However, these measures introduce additional challenges for school administrators, who must balance tight budgets and manage the growing costs of technology maintenance and staff training. Schools need to allocate resources strategically, ensuring that cybersecurity is prioritized without unnecessary overspending.
Keeping students safe in the digital world increasingly requires collaboration and a unified approach between parents, teachers, and administrators at schools. Open communication between all three groups from a common framework of understanding provided in comprehensive digital literacy programs combined with strong cybersecurity measures are essential to creating safer online environments for our loved ones while managing the administrative challenges that come with these advancements.
I spent all last week in Asia, at events put on by the International Association of Universities (IAU) in Tokyo and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in Jakarta. As usual, these meetings were interesting for me not so much because I can discover secrets of “how they do things better elsewhere” (they don’t, by and large, we’re all screwed for roughly the same reasons, which is that the public does not want to pay for the kind of institutions that academics want to work in), but simply because they help me get a wider take on the direction that global academia is heading.
And here’s the thing: having sat through five days of meetings, I am more convinced than ever that universities are, globally, caught in a conflict of their basic institutional logics. And also, that for some reason, no one wants to talk about this openly even though it is self-evidently a pretty big deal. Let me explain.
Over the course of the 19th and 20th centuries, at different paces in different parts of the world, universities went from being purely institutions of instruction to institutions that also engaged in advanced research. In the United States, where this process went the furthest, the fastest, it was shaped substantially by one man: Vannevar Bush, President of MIT and special scientific advisor to President Roosevelt during WWII. Bush was appropriately excited by the strides made by American science during the war, and wanted the party to continue after the war was over only with one difference: instead of giving scientists untold billions and placing them under military control as was the case for the Manhattan Project, Bush thought the correct path forward was for the government to give scientists untold billions and then leave them alone to make their own decisions about how the money should be spent. That’s not quite how things panned out, but there is no question that the system of curiosity-driven research that emerged gave an awful lot of power to individual researchers and left universities as mere intermediaries for funding. Or, as a colleague sometimes puts it, with respect to research missions, universities are simply holding companies for the research agendas of individual professors.
And let’s face it, this worked well for many decades. The scientific output of universities working under this model has been amazing (see my interview with David Baker on global science from a few weeks ago). And it didn’t require universities to take on a particularly dirigiste role with respect to the faculty. In some ways, quite the opposite. It was during this period after all that a professor challenged then-Columbia President Eisenhower with the immortal words: “we faculty are not employees of the university…we are the university.” So as far as anyone could tell, the public could just dump money on scholars working in hubs and good things would happen.
Somewhere over the past few decades, though, the mission of universities changed. Instead of being asked to provide research, they were asked to promote local economic growth, or provide solutions to “grand challenges” or sustainable development goals. And these were challenges that universities took on—gladly for the most part. “Look!” they said to themselves, “Society wants our knowledge/help/advice, we get to show how useful we are, and then people will love us and give us even more money.” And trust me, this is happening All. Over. The. World. Oh sure, the details vary a bit by place in terms of whether the push is more on institutions to push local economic growth or to help deliver social progress, and the extent to which this obligation is imposed on institutions and to what extent they embrace it on their own…but the trend is universal, unmistakable.
Except (how can I put this?) I am fairly sure that the lessons institutions learned with respect to growing research outputs do not translate well into these new missions. Research is something that can be done within academia; these new tasks require partnerships and relationships. Things which institutions are a lot more capable of delivering reliably than individual professors, whose commitment to particular endeavors may be more transitory, shaped as they often are by the availability of funding streams, changing research interests, the occasional switch of institutions, etc.
It has taken universities awhile to work this out. The initial assumption that universities could take on all these missions could be met in much the same way that the research mission was: just assemble a lot of smart people in one place, and wonderfully imaginative solutions will naturally emerge. No central coordination necessary, and great universities could continue working as they had always done: like a great jazz band, where the anarchy is the point.
But if these new missions actually imply a need for more durable structures to bring stability to partnerships and relationships, then a jazz band approach is probably not such a hot idea. If these missions require institutions to be able to act corporately, strategically, then jazz doesn’t cut it anymore. Neither does Big Band. You need something closer to a symphony orchestra. And boy, the implication of that change is significant. The locus of control and responsibility shifts upwards from professors to the larger institution. Professors, increasingly, would need to be treated as if they are second cello—that is, as parts of a larger musical enterprise—instead of as Thelonius Monk or John Coltrane. It would be a fundamental re-think of what it means to be an academic.
There you have it: an old version of a university in which great things happen just because you put a bunch of smart people in close proximity to one another, and another which requires substantially more organization and (in a Weberian sense) bureaucracy. And it’s not that universities are being asked to choose—they aren’t. It’s worse than that: because these new missions are meant to be in addition to the older ones of teaching and research, universities are being asked to be both of these things at the same time. And that’s a recipe not only for unhappiness, but also for incoherence. Universities are simply becoming less effective as their missions multiply.
None of this has escaped the notice of governments. They were mostly quite enthusiastic about the idea of universities as community resources, places that in effect apply brain power on-demand to various types of social and economic problems and are getting frustrated that jazz-based universities can’t deliver. Despite promises to the contrary, old-style universities simply aren’t set up to deliver the promised results, leaving an expectations gap that is souring relations with that subset of governments that don’t view higher education as the enemy in the first place.
And this, in turn, is contributing to a widespread recession in vibes around universities: simply put, they are not liked and admired the way they used to be. But more on that tomorrow.
When I became president of the University of La Verne in 2011, I often shared the story of why I was drawn to this role—and why it resonated so deeply with my family’s values. My husband and I were committed to raising our daughters in a community that embraced inclusivity, service, and the transformative power of education. These were not just abstract ideals; they were principles we wanted to live by and instill in our children. And sharing this connection wasn’t just about explaining my leadership—it was about building trust and fostering relationships across campus.
Today, as higher education leaders face unprecedented scrutiny—from political attacks on academic freedom and diversity efforts to growing public skepticism about the value of a college degree—this kind of authenticity and connection is more critical than ever. Our institutions are being challenged to prove their relevance and align their missions with the needs of diverse and sometimes skeptical communities. In this climate, personal storytelling offers a powerful way to build bridges, humanize our roles, and reaffirm the values that define higher education. In navigating the complexities of our current environment, storytelling is not just a leadership tool—it’s a leadership imperative.
Building authentic relationships: Personal stories bridge the gap between leaders and campus communities. Sharing your experiences, challenges, and successes makes your role more relatable and human. When leaders share stories authentically, we foster trust and encourage deeper connections with our students, faculty, alumni, donors, and other stakeholders. A compelling story has a way of bringing people together, sparking that feeling of connection through common experiences.
Inspiring action and change: Stories are powerful motivators. They show how education can transform lives, encouraging students to pursue their dreams, sparking innovation among faculty, and connecting with alumni and donors. At the University of La Verne’s annual Scholarship Gala, I used to share my mother’s story—how, as an immigrant, she stayed committed to education despite countless challenges. When she, her two older sisters, and their parents first immigrated to the United States from Czechoslovakia, they had to build a new life, learn a new language, and adapt to new customs. My grandfather would bring used tires to their home, where the family would cut them into small squares and sew them together to create doormats. He sold these mats door-to-door, and the money they earned not only supported their daily life but was also saved so that my mother could attend nursing school.
Each year following my story, students would respond with their own incredible stories of resilience. Those moments didn’t just inspire greater scholarship donations—they raised awareness about the challenges that so many students face, underscoring just how vital access to education really is.
Shaping institutional culture: Personal stories are a big part of what shapes a university’s identity, creating a sense of inclusion, resilience, and shared values. Early on in my time at the University of La Verne, a board member told me why the university—her alma mater—meant so much to her and why she chose to give back as a donor and leader. She often spoke about how she and her husband met while attending La Verne, and that they both loved the supportive and inclusive environment at the university. Then one of her children enrolled, and a particular professor took him under his wing and helped him with his academic career. She felt La Verne was always there when she and her family needed support.
Her story stuck with me, and I shared it often as an example of how personal connections can inspire others to support the university’s mission. By encouraging storytelling like this, we brought our community closer together and reinforced our shared purpose.
Engaging with diversity: Every story brings something unique to a campus community. When we make room for diverse voices, we naturally build stronger connections and a sense of belonging. Serving on the board of Antioch University, I’ve had the privilege of hearing a wide range of students and faculty share their experiences—some inspiring, some challenging, all meaningful. These moments are a great reminder of how much we gain when we listen to and learn from each other.
Connect stories to the institution’s mission: Personal stories are powerful, but they work best when they connect back to the institution’s goals. I once attended a university event where the president’s stories, while memorable, didn’t really support the message of the institution—they overshadowed it, leaving the audience entertained but not necessarily inspired about the university’s future. It’s a good reminder that storytelling should always reinforce the mission and build confidence in what lies ahead.
Balance sharing with relevance: Finding the right balance between personal and professional storytelling is key. Oversharing can make people uncomfortable or distract from your message. A story might be heartfelt, but if it’s too detailed, the audience might lose track of why it matters. The best approach is to share meaningful anecdotes that highlight your points while keeping your audience and the setting in mind.
Maintain honesty and humility: The best stories come from a place of honesty and humility—they build credibility and trust. Think about great leaders: the ones who acknowledge the contributions of others tend to connect more than those who focus on their own achievements. On the flip side, self-congratulatory stories can feel off-putting and even break trust with the audience. Keep it grounded, which always resonates better.
Avoid unethical exaggeration: Stretching the facts or making up stories can seriously damage trust. And people can usually tell when a story isn’t genuine, whether it’s because of over-the-top details or a lack of authenticity in the delivery. It’s important for leaders to stay honest, sharing meaningful details without straying from reality. In today’s world, where fact-checking is everywhere, even small inconsistencies can hurt your credibility—and by extension, the reputation of your institution. Keep it real, and your message will always carry more weight.
Repetition without redundancy: Repeating key messages can really help drive them home, but it’s all about balance. When you tell the same story to different audiences, it can show consistency and authenticity, which is great. But if you overdo it, people might start to tune out, feeling like they’ve heard it too many times. We all recycle our favorite speeches and stories when we speak often, and that’s fine as long as we’re mindful of keeping it fresh. A thoughtful approach to storytelling means your message stays powerful without losing its impact.
************
Personal storytelling is one of the most powerful tools leaders in higher education have at their disposal. When done right, it builds trust, inspires action, and strengthens the sense of community. Sharing authentic stories helps connect audiences to the mission and values of an institution, creating a shared sense of purpose and vision.
As higher education continues to navigate challenges like public skepticism and political scrutiny, storytelling offers a way to highlight the transformative power of education. It allows us to address concerns with honesty and integrity, while keeping the focus on the positive impact education has on individuals and society. Reaching beyond the academy, these stories help build connections with the wider community—and ideally, around the world—showing how education shapes lives and strengthens society.
This December, ACE will feature a special podcast series, dotEDU Global Voices, which will spotlight personal stories from accomplished international women university presidents. These leaders share their unique challenges, insights, and strategies, offering authentic and inspiring perspectives on leadership.
The series builds on my book, Spotlighting Female Leadership: Strategies, Stories, Perspectives, which highlights the journeys of ten accomplished university presidents. To learn more, download the book here and tune into the podcast for further inspiration.
Episode 1: Trailblazing Leadership in Turkey: Gülsün Sağlamer
Episode 2: Discovering Your Leadership Path: Sue Cunningham
Episode 3: Changing History at Colegio de México: Silvia Giorguli
If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.
Remember the spring budget, when the Federal government announced a heavily back-ended $1.8 billion (spread over five years) boost to research grant funding, as well as the creation of a capstone research organization which might have its own funds to co-ordinate challenge-based research? Well, the federal government has recently been fleshing out these announcements through a series of badly coordinated media releases. And so today, we’re going to go on a quick government press release safari to try to work this out.
The three granting councils have all issued statements about how much new funding they expect to receive over the next five years. SSHRC says that its share of the $1.8 billion will be $316 million. CIHR says it is in line for $540 million over five years. NSERC does not provide a figure over five years, but it does say it what it will receive in years one and five, and since these figures are both pretty close to the numbers CIHR cites, I’m going to go ahead and say that NSERC is set to get something around $540 million as well. Total to the councils is therefore $1.396 Billion over five years.
In addition to this, the government says it is going to give $182 million over five years for the creation of 224 new Canada Research Chairs. It also says it will be providing $452 million to the Research Support Fund (RSF) for things such as establishing digital tools to support research and cybersecurity and supporting inclusive and indigenous research. A separate press release says it will be providing $354 million to support the indirect costs of research.
Now, if you’re counting carefully, you’ll realize that total government announcements total to $2.03 billion. Which, it should be superfluous to add, is not $1.8 billion.
Confused? Me too.
And the government is not done with announcements. Recall from the spring budget that one of the key announced changes was the creation of a “capstone” organization which would sit above the tri-councils without actually directing them. Details on what it would do and how were scarce, mainly because ISED and Finance were at loggerheads over the issue and so the feds did what they always do and punted the question for a few months with the magic words “details to come in the Fall Economic Statement.”
Now, it’s not entirely clear that there actually will be a Fall Economic Statement (Dec. 21st is fast approaching and there’s still no date set), but one key question it was meant to resolve was whether or not the capstone organization would, as recommended by l’Université de Montréal’s estimable Frederic Bouchard and the rest of his Advisory Panel, have funds of its own (beyond those run by each of the tri-councils) for a) multi- and interdisciplinary research that falls through the cracks between the councils and b) mission-driven research. I think the general assBudumption in the research community is that while the capstone organization might not get a ton of money for these activities, the sum would nevertheless be non-zero. So we’re more than likely not just $200 million dollars over the originally-announced budget but probably $300 million or more.
It’s not peculiar that this government might go over budget on something. What is peculiar is that the current government, famous for believing (or at least giving every evidence of doing so) that spending money is in and of itself evidence of program effectiveness, wouldn’t take credit for it. If they were actually bumping up their overall spend, past form suggests they’d be shouting it from the rooftops instead of letting some random higher education blogger work it out on his own and then share it with a few thousand of his closest followers.
A mystery to be cleared up soon I guess.
One other point of note here is a wrinkle in how the additional indirect support grants will work. Overall, indirect support has been equal to about 22% of “direct” funding: that is, for every dollar of tri-council grant that goes out, 22 cents accompanies it to cover overhead (most informed observers think actual overhead is closer to 50 cents, but this is another story). The sum being allocated in these announcements—$354 million to accompany a $1.4 billion increase in council grants—is more or less in line with this figure.
BUT—and this will be a big but for some people—the money is only going to be given to institutions which receive more than $7M/year in tri-council grants, which basically means the U15 plus a half-dozen others. Why? Well, because that 22% average is just that: an average. The biggest tri-council grant recipients (i.e. the U15) only get indirect funding equal to about 18% of their tri-council grant haul. At some of the smallest institutions, the figure can be as high as 80%. This equalization formula has, as you can imagine, driven the U15 absolutely spare over the two decades it has been in force, and so you can read this part of the announcement as a victory for the Big Rich Universities.
More when we get a Fall—or possible a Winter—Economic Statement. See you then.
Good evening,
In my last AI blog, I wrote about the recent launch of the Canadian AI Safety Institute, and other AISIs around the world. I also mentioned that I was looking forward to learn more about what would be discussed during the International Network for AI Safety meeting that would take place on November 20th-21st.
Well, here’s the gist of it. Representatives from Australia, Canada, the European Commission, France, Japan, Kenya, the Republic of Korea, Singapore, the UK and the US gathered last week in San Francisco to “help drive technical alignment on AI safety research, testing and guidance”. They identified their first four areas of priority:
Cool. I mean, of course these priority areas are all key to the work that needs to be done… But the network does not provide concrete details on how it actuallyplans to fulfill these priority areas. I guess now we’ll just have to wait and see what actually comes out of it all.
On another note – earlier in the Fall, one of our readers asked us if we had any thoughts about how a win from the Conservatives in the next federal election could impact the future of AI in the country. While I unfortunately do not own a crystal ball, let me share a few preliminary thoughts.
In May 2024, the House of Commons released the Report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities regarding the Implications of Artificial Intelligence Technologies for the Canadian Labour Force.
TL;DR, the recommendations of the Standing Committee notably include: to review federal labour legislation to protect diverse workers’ rights and privacy; to collaborate with provinces, territories and labour representatives to develop a framework to support ethical adoption of AI in workplaces; to invest in AI skills training; to offer financial support to SMEs and non-profits for AI adoption; to investigate ways to utilize AI to increase operational efficiency and productivity; and for Statistics Canada to monitor labour market impacts of AI over time.
Honestly – these are quite respectable recommendations, that could lead to significant improvements around AI implementation if they were to be followed through.
Going back to the question about the Conservatives, then… The Standing Committee report includes a Dissenting Report from the Conservative Party, which states that the report “does not go sufficiently in depth in how the lack of action concerning these topics [regulations around privacy, the poor state of productivity and innovation and how AI can be used to boost efficiencies, etc.] creates challenges to our ability to manage AI’s impact on the Canadian workforce”. In short, it says do more – without giving any recommendation whatsoever about what that more should be.
On the other side, we know that one of the reasons why Bill C-27 is stagnating is because of oppositions. The Conservatives notably accused the Liberal government of seeking to “censor the Internet” – the Conservatives are opposed to governmental influence (i.e., regulation) on what can or can’t be posted online. But we also know that one significant risk of the rise of AI is the growth of disinformation, deepfakes, and more. So… maybe a certain level of “quality control” or fact-checking would be a good thing?
All in all, it seems like Conservatives would in theory support a growing use of AI to fight against Canada’s productivity crisis and reduce red tape. In another post previously this year, Alex has also already talked about what a Poilievre Government science policy could look like, and we both agree that the Conservatives at least appear to be committed to investing in technology. However, how they would plan to regulate the tech to ensure ethical use remains to be seen. If you have any more thoughts on that, though, I’d love to hear them. Leave a comment or send me a quick email!
And if you want to continue discussing Canada’s role in the future of AI, make sure to register to HESA’s AI-CADEMY so you do not miss our panel “Canada’s Policy Response to AI”, where we’ll have the pleasure of welcoming Rajan Sawhney, Minister of Advanced Education (Government of Alberta), Mark Schaan, Deputy Secretary to the Cabinet on AI (Government of Canada), and Elissa Strome, Executive Director of the Pan-Canadian AI Strategy (CIFAR), and where we’ll discuss all things along the lines of what should governments’ role be in shaping the development of AI?.
Enjoy the rest of your week-end, all!
– Sandrine Desforges, Research Associate
by Kai Syng Tan
A loveless storm and a love-filled symposium
On 18 November I was ill. I recovered in time to travel to Helsinki for a symposium two days later, but winter storms shut down the airport, delayed flights and lost luggage, including mine. The symposium director Dr Timothy Smith (image 2 below, to the left) had to step in to act as my wardrobe assistant. Like many neurodivergent academics, Tim works across an astonishing range of knowledges, including political science, fine art, public policy and pedagogy. But I’m quite certain that sourcing for clothes to fit 155cm grumpy people isn’t part of their typical repertoire.
Image 2: A symposium with person standing to the left holding a microphone; another in the middle, seated, in front of a projection with book cover and QR codes and next to a screen showing live captioning; more people in the foreground on different forms of seating and being
Image 3: Fidget toys placed on top of a paper file that reads ‘UNIARTS HELSINKI’, with a name tag with a lime green strap and name ‘KAI’.
Tim’s Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium, which took two years of advocacy and planning, and draws on several more of research across neurodiversity and art education, took place at the University of the Arts Helsinki, modelling best practices for inclusivity, not just for neurodivergent folx. Universities, watch and learn. Yes it can be done. So, what does a symposium led by love look like in action? Let’s spell out a few ways how:
Image 4: Sensory room, with low blue-green lighting, soft furnishings and soft toys
Image 5a: shy*play’s Antje Nestel and Aion Arribas, both holding microphones and reading from papers strewn on a long table
Image 5b: people ‘doing neurodiversity’ in different ways, including by displaying their creations on a wall that acts as a shared canvas
Image 6: Estonian-UK PhD candidate Iris Sirendi at a long desk speaking to a projection with a slide with the heading ‘What’s Next?’ and a logo that reads ‘The Neurodiverse Museum’
The above are just a few of the highlights from the in-person session on 22 November 2024, which complements an online symposium with a different programme a week prior on 15 November 2024 for those who prefer the digital interface, both of which are recorded with transcripts which all participants can freely access.
I’m not singing the praises of the Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium because I was the keynote speaker.
I’m saying the above as I’ve been a keynote as well as participant in more than 100 conferences – and I’m still allergic to them, not least as someone who is hyperactive and literally cannot sit still. I’m also saying this as someone who’s curated several, including one on running as an arts and humanities discourse that a 2014 Guardian article said ‘other conferences could take a leaf out of’, for its 8-minute sprint formats and multi-modal approaches including film screening, meditation sessions and run-chats.
But Tim’s conference was way better. The symposium is prioritising not just neurodivergent and queer – neuroqueer (Walker 2021) – perspectives. Following the positionality of multiply-minoritised researchers in higher education Angel L. Miles, Akemi Nishida and Anjali J. Forber-Pratt at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Vanderbilt University as expressed in their powerful open letter to White disability studies and ableist institutions of higher education (2017), the symposium focuses on research that counter ‘white supremacy and racism; colonialism and xenophobia; ageism; sexism and misogyny; cisnormativity and transphobia; and heteronormativity and heterosexism’.
And I’m sure that Tim, like me, wants other conferences to come, to even better ours.
So, take our baton. Run with it.
Why neurodiversity? Why now?
‘Neurodiversity’ – broadly the coexistence of different ways of processing information, learning and being – has exploded as a buzzword in the past few years. If you didn’t know that 15-20% (Doyle 2020) of humans are autistic, with dyslexia, Tourettes, ADHD and other forms of neurodevelopmental processes, you will have run into the extensive media coverage, or seen your Gen-Z students or kids declaring their ‘neuro-spiciness’ on Tik Tok.
It is well-established that neurocognitive variants like dyslexia, ADHD and autism are over-represented in the arts and culture (above 30%, eg RCA 2001; Bacon and Bennett (2013); Universal Music (2020)). This is unsurprising, given how neurodiversity, innovation and change-making are powerfully entangled, being essential for human’s evolution, inventiveness, creativity and more. Networks, academic publications, research centres, educational research centres and conferences by/with/for neurodivergent creative researchers have been emerging in the last years too.
This year alone, I was external examiner for two creative PhDs by/for/with neurodivergence, and helped deliver one PhD candidate to the finish line and whom, since 28 November, can now add ‘Dr’ to their name, likely to the chagrin of those who think that only clinicians are ‘real’ doctors and experts. Collectively, these efforts are countering medicalised and deficit approaches to cognitive difference. By 2050, 1.94 billion of the 9.4 billion population will be neurodivergent – making neurodivergence far from a ‘niche’ phenomena or area of research, but one with substantive critical mass.
Those with social capital wear their difference as proud badges of honour. So far so ‘authentic’.
But surprise, surprise – for the multiply-minoritised, their difference continues to be demonised, pathologised, infantilised, and/or policed. This includes teachers and researchers who draw on their neurodivergence in their teaching and research. That’s also why many aren’t out – or have/want access to diagnosis (which themselves have long waiting lists, are costly and more), etc, and often aren’t reflected in the official figures and studies. It’s also only recently been understood in leadership studies that when a white heterosexual cis-man expresses his ‘true self’, it’s just not acceptable, or even laudable. For those who are not straight, not white, not of the right class, or the right skin tone etc – authenticity comes at a high cost – including literally so. Being dyslexic, I struggle with normative approaches to reading and writing – but reading and writing are literally bread and butter for an academic! Disclosing that you cannot read or write would be tantamount to career-suicide, especially if you are on a fixed-term contract – if you have been able to survive the ableist, racist and sexist HE system at all, that is.
Harvard, World Economic Forum, NESTA and other global bodies have been selling neurodivergence as the ‘next talent opportunity in the workplace’, ‘competitive advantage’ and a ‘neuroleadership’ antidote to in tackling wicked challenges for the Fourth Industrial Revolution — but without neurodivergent voices in this discussion, isn’t this objectifying and othering?
Then, there’s a certain cartoon-tycoon who has been dominating the headlines. When not firing their critics from their factories and firms, or firing rockets to colonise the moon and Mars, this person is firing spats on social media — before buying up the site to make it their temple for ‘unmoderated toxicity’. After firing pot-shots at child-free cat ladies, they’re asking ‘high-IQ revolutionaries’ to work for no pay for an incumbent government. The latter call is interesting because this person had announced that they are ‘with Aspergers’, using the outdated terminology still instrumentalised by certain ‘high-functioning’ autistic people, to denote that they are a genius — ie a high-IQ revolutionary themselves!
Why neurodiversity, love and HE art and design?
As an autistic child-free cat lady, it’s my duty to ask other neurodivergent artists, academics, activists and allies within Higher Education (HE) to do more and do better, to call out on dangerous neurodivergent figures and approaches, and to counter that with love. If Machiavellian misfits and messiahs weaponise their neurodivergence, so must neurodivergent movers and shakers dis-arm them.
Caption: Love-led guidelines for to make spaces more inclusive, in diagram form with 8 blocks of texts. From Tan, Kai Syng. Neurodiversity In/& Creative Research Network shared, LIVE, CO-CREATED Community Guidelines since 2022
For several years, I’ve researched into and discussed the need to dismantle harmful narratives of neurodiversity. Through an art-psychiatry project, founding of a global 435-member network for neurodivergent innovators, I’ve urged for a decolonial — ie shift of focus away from knowledge and practices in the West and global north — and intersectional — ie consideration of a how multiple, complex contexts interact and intersect — approach. We’ve come up with love-led guidelines for activities (image 7). I’m editing a publication with a major academic publisher, which is possibly the first book with openly neurodivergent academics ranging from early career researchers to established, newly-‘out’ professors, to discuss our research through the prisms of neurodivergence and creativity (c2027). Along the way, we are introducing and foregrounding neurodivergent approaches to knowledge, creative research and writing with play, lived experience and more, thus challenging the dominant, normative habits demanded by the academic publishing industrial complex that emphasise the linear, causal, and ‘neutral’.
On this SRHE platform, I’ve previously discussed a neurodivergence-inspired pedagogical approach to transform HE culture, illustrating how this isn’t just an armchair exercise or a theoretical pontification from the ivory tower, with examples I have led, such as a four-day festival for Black History Month 2020 in Manchester. To mark Valentines’ day this year, I discussed the need to build love into HE curricula – standing on the shoulders of great artists, activists and teachers before us, like bell hooks, Paulo Friere and James Baldwin.
My keynote at the Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium was entitled ‘Neuro-Futurism and Reimagining Leadership’. My performance-lecture was based on my book of the same title, subtitled ‘An A-Z Towards Collective Liberation’. Grasping how systemic oppressions are interconnected and how liberatory approaches to education must be joined up is vital in this discussion. I postulate a new intellectual agenda and action plan for ‘leadership’ as discourse and practice anchored in visual arts and arts education. Re-claiming the subject from business or arts management, and away from a trait/talent hinged on individualism, hierarchy, genes or luck, the book – and my performance – entangles critical leadership studies with socially-engaged art and relational aesthetics, embedding neuro-queering, futurity, and Chinese Daoist cosmology for the first time, to introduce ‘neuro-futurism’ as a beyond-colonial, (co-)creative change-making framework.
The participants of the symposium grasped this, responding by describing the performance-lecture as ‘phenomenal’. Brazilian artist-researcher Fran Trento, a postdoctoral researcher at the Department of Geosciences and Geography at the University of Helsinki, even took live notes and pictures to add to their mobile participatory art installation, and wheeled it around, further spreading love in HE – literally (Image 8). If it hadn’t been snowing so heavily, Fran would have wheeled their installation outside, beyond the ivory tower, to make visible what the abstract yet very simple four-letter word – love – can look like.
Image 8: Dr Fran Trento standing next to their mobile installation that comprises a jacket onto which participants can make marks onto, scrolls of film, and a pail with cameras and other creative and critical tools to dismantle harmful narratives and approaches
Image 9: A signboard ‘Neurodiversity in the Arts Symposium’ covered in snow, in a street raging with a snow-storm with cars passing by in front of a building across the road
And love is critical if we want to dis-arm and dismantle violent master (sic) narratives and approaches of neurodivergence. If neurodivergence is a superpower — a trope I have also critiqued as, while useful, it can be reductive/fetishistic, and capitalised by the ‘high-functioning’ to self-select into an elitist club that excludes others — then there are also villains and Machiavellian messiahs who abuse their (super)power. The irony is — and yes, autistic people can grasp irony — is that these self-proclaimed ‘anti-establishment’ ‘outsiders’ are often the very personification and product of the system,as poster boys of capitalism and more. Remember the call for ‘weirdos and misfits’ outside the Oxbridge set to join Number 10 – by figures whose pedigrees were archetypal of the ruling class — private education, Oxford degree, political strategist to a prime minister similarly outfitted?
Now that’s weird!
Braving storms ahead
My luggage got lost – again – on my way back to the UK, but academic and arts and cultural workers must lose neither our focus or hope. As hatred becomes even more mainstreamed and normalised, minoritised body-minds and approaches will remain hardest hit. There will be storms ahead (image 9). We – and that includes you – must step forward and step up. As US author Octavia E Butler (1947–2006) warns, unless we build ‘different leadership’ by ‘people with more courage and vision’, we’ll ‘all go down the toilet’. That’s why the Black science-fiction bestseller, who was also dyslexic, wrote story after story that reimagined different, better realities.
To not go down the toilet, we must disarm those who weaponise their neurodivergence. Here are some of the things that neurodivergent academics, artists, activists and allies can do:
On that latter note, I’m seeking to curate a 3-day international summit in 2026 that re-imagines HE art and design as a change-making and future-making force through neuroqueer, social justice and leadership prisms. This welcomes anyone with a stake in the arts and culture, higher education, social change and inclusive futures, to get together to explore the coexistence of different ways to (un-)learning and being in the world, to share best practices about inclusion, and to collectivise and co-create action plans for more inclusive futures within and beyond the art school and HE. Through quickfire provocations, transdisciplinary speed-dating, reverse-mentoring, co-creation of toolkits, skateboarding tours, running-discourses and other embodied forms of engagement, we will not just learn about ways to make ‘reasonable’ adjustments for neuro-divergent students and staff, but to learn about their innovative approaches, and thus reimagine ways to understand and do ‘leadership’, so as to make positive changes, within and beyond art and design and HE. This shift in paradigm to position art and design higher education is aligned with – and can amplify – other ongoing efforts in the sector, such as the Creative Education Manifesto. Get in touch if you’re keen to help do the work.
All that said, clearly, neither Tim’s symposium or my proposed summit are the only or last word in this matter. You, too, can lead with love, if you don’t already. Prioritise an intersectional approach to neuroqueer the curricula, towards dis-arming stories and approaches that are white supremacist, racist, colonialist, xenophobic, ageist, sexist, misogynistic, classcist, transphobic and heteronormative.
CREDITS: Photographs by Kai. Photograph of Kai by neurodivergent artist-curator-activist-PhD-candidate Aidan Moseby
Kai Syng Tan is an artist, academic, author, and agitator who adores cats and alliteration. Their book Neuro-Futurism and Re-Imagining Leadership: An A-Z Towards Collective Liberation re-imagines leadership as a co-creative, neuro-queered practice centring anti-oppression and futurity: it was published in Summer 2024. See here to join the book tour. Sign up here to participate in the CHEAD Leadership Programme taster entitled What’s love got to do with leadership? led by Kai as a new CHEAD Trustee, which will feature a response by Pascal Matthias, Associate Vice President EDI and Social Justice, University of Southampton and Co-Founder at FACE (Fashion Academics Creating Equality). Kai is Associate Professor in Arts and Cultural Leadership, University of Southampton, UK. All views here are their own.
Why do some institutional digital transformations fail while others completely change whole institutions? The hook lies in one critical thing: the project committee. Institutional digital transformation is no longer just a choice for higher education; it’s now essential to the success of modern institutions.
Without the right team leading the way, even the best plans can fail. The chances of an institution reaching its digital goals are 2.5 times higher if its project groups are well organized, according to research! There’s a bigger picture here than just managing a project. Your committee is shaping the future of your institute.
Partially deciding who does what is not the only thing that matters. A strong group of thinkers, problem-solvers, and decision-makers can make goals come true. The question is, what makes a dream team, and how can your institution put together one? Now, let’s get into the nitty-gritty.
Embracing new technology implementation in institutions is just one part of institutional digital transformation in higher education; the process also involves changing the culture and practices of institutions. Still, there will be problems along the way, like how hard it is to update systems, get people from different groups to work together, and get people to accept and gain from change.
In this case, the digital transformation project group must be well organized. Committees create goals and monitor progress to help change efforts succeed. Since they may adjust their plans, they can face issues head-on.
Maintaining a sense of responsibility is essential. If there is a digital transformation project committee, then everyone on the team will be responsible for their part of the change. Committees bring multiple viewpoints to address the full gamut of challenges: experience from information technology (IT), administration, faculty, and other departments. Together, they create the kind of innovative solutions that pave the way for positive digital transformation.
Digital transformation demands clear roles and responsibilities and more than a group. Clear project committee roles improve transformation efficiency. In it, everyone knows their roles, so responses are faster. Here are the essential roles of the higher education digital transformation project committee:
Now that you have your essential players, make sure everyone knows their roles. The committee must have clear duties and responsibilities to work well and achieve its goals. Here are typical duties for each role:
Executive Sponsor
Executive Sponsors are your project’s top supporters. They acquire funding, top leadership support, and project alignment with the institution’s vision. Their role is to move the project forward and remove obstacles. Without them, the project may lack top-level direction and support.
A Project Manager
This individual manages the project daily. They organize, manage, and track deadlines. They oversee project timelines and budgets. Strong project managers pay attention to every detail and finish on time.
Subject Matter Masters
SMEs offer digital transformation competence (admissions, student services, tech). They suggest solutions that meet the institution’s needs and offer design and implementation help. SMEs connect tech solutions to institutional needs.
IT Leads
The IT Lead ensures smooth technical operations. They integrate new technology, maintain security and compliance, and resolve technical concerns. They must oversee infrastructure and data security.
Swap Champions
These people manage grassroots transformation. They handle resistance, promote adoption, and motivate staff and faculty. Unless people are onboarded and trained, even the best technology can fail without Change Champions.
A Faculty Rep
Faculty represent teachers’ needs and viewpoints. They ensure institutional digital transformation doesn’t disrupt learning and faculty demands are considered. Faculty input is crucial to campus development and developing a system that works for everyone.
Students’ Representative
Improved student experiences depend on their voices. This individual ensures improvements satisfy student learning, communication, and accessibility needs. Many of the systems being altered are used by students, so their feedback is vital.
Finance Officer
The Financial Officer manages the budget. They manage spending, finance, and project budget. They ensure project budget and resource efficiency.
Law and Compliance Advisor
This person ensures the project respects all laws, policies, and regulations, notably data privacy and security. Avoiding legal issues requires a dedicated person.
External consultant if needed
If needed, external experts provide project expertise. They can offer best practices and cover team knowledge gaps. A third party may provide fresh perspectives to help the team avoid surprises.
Step 1: First, figure out what the organization needs.
Look at the goals and problems of your organization. Find the places where going digital can make the biggest difference.
Step 2: Align with the institution’s goals
Make sure that the committee’s goals are in line with the institution’s long-term mission and plan. This will help the transformation program support the institution’s goals.
Step 3: Find important people
Find out who will benefit or be affected by the move to digital, such as students, staff, teachers, and administration. This group’s needs should guide the group’s goals.
Step 4: Make your goals clear
SMART goals should be used to make changes, like running the business or making the school experience better for students.
Step 5: Put together a group
Write down what each person in the group does to help the group reach its goal. This covers everything that’s important and makes sure that everyone is responsible.
Step 6: Write down your goals
Put your goals in order of how important they are and how doable they are. Think about what makes things useful now and in the future.
Step 7: Set goals to reach them
Things can be judged by how involved the students are, how well the business runs, how much money it has, how many people accept it, or how it’s planned.
Step 8: Get together
As new information comes in, the committee’s goals should be changed to meet the needs of higher education.
Institutional digital transformation project committees supervise daily operations and strategize long-term success in this way:
Vision Alignment
The committee makes sure the digital transformation project fits the institution’s aim. By understanding institutional priorities, the committee steers the initiative in the appropriate direction and ensures it contributes to the institution’s vision.
Risk Management
Financial, operational, and reputational risks come with digital transformation. Early risk identification and mitigation by a strong committee reduces setbacks. The committee can foresee and mitigate project issues with different skills.
Stakeholder Engagement
Leadership, faculty, staff, and students must communicate well to succeed. Communication is key, and the project committee ensures everyone is informed and engaged. The committee ensures buy-in from all groups by addressing issues and receiving feedback, smoothing the transition.
Resource Allocation
The committee prioritizes resources! The committee carefully manages funding, staffing, and technical investments to maximize ROI. Allocation ensures the organization benefits from transformation by implementing the best options.
Digitization needs a good governance structure! It ensures order and transparent decision-making. Setup:
Use Decision-Making
Regulate committee decision-making. Most votes, consensus, or executive sponsor approval? Avoiding misunderstanding and delays with a clear decision-making process helps the committee act quickly.
Determine Reporting Hierarchies
Who reports to whom? Early clarification ensures everyone knows their direct channel of communication. The project manager may report to the executive sponsor, while committee members may report to IT or faculty leaders. The organization is maintained by hierarchy.
Set Objectives
Determine project milestones and outputs. These project milestones will be monitored. Goals-based timelines keep everyone focused.
Crisis and Risk Planning
Campus digitalization governance involves risk management and decision-making. Risk planning is necessary for risk management. After an unforeseen event, the committee can quickly adjust and minimize disruption.
Honesty and Duty
Establish transparency and accountability. Progress reporting, decision documentation, and stakeholder communication are required. Unanimity eliminates misunderstandings and missing chances.
Hold Review Sessions
Discuss achievements, challenges, and plan modifications with the committee periodically. The meetings coordinate and allow course modifications.
Communication Setup
Communicate clearly using email, project management software, or meetings. Communicating with the committee is crucial.
Forming and leading a digital transformation committee is exciting but difficult. These obstacles can make it hard to guide the committee toward the institution’s aims. Examples of frequent challenges and ways to overcome them:
Misaligned Goals
One of the major problems is aligning all committee members with digital transformation goals. Committee members may have diverse opinions based on their duties, and without a clear goal, it might be simple to stray. Smooth functioning requires everyone to understand and support the same goals from the start.
Change Resistance
Change management in education is common in digital transformation. With new technologies and processes, faculty, staff, and stakeholders may feel intimidated or uncomfortable. Resolving this opposition requires clear communication, stakeholder engagement, and committee change champions who can promote the shift.
Poor Expertise
While a project committee can bring together stakeholders, technical or digital tool skills may be lacking. Without the right SMEs, the committee may struggle to make judgments. Include members who understand the institution’s needs and the technologies involved to address this.
Balanced Goals
Numerous committee members balance different tasks and priorities. Other roles may tug committee members in different ways, causing time and attention issues. The committee must prioritize its work and give members appropriate time for the assignment.
Trouble Communicating
Diverse teams can have communication issues if duties aren’t clear or updates aren’t communicated. To keep everyone in sync and provide information quickly, effective communication is essential. Without effective communication, the committee may miss opportunities or delay matters.
Uncertain Decisions
Decision-making confusion can cause delays and frustration. Members may disagree or be unsure of how to proceed without a clear decision-making framework. Avoid decision deadlock by setting clear guidelines for decision-making and who has the final say.
Insufficient Budget and Resources
Technological, training, and support investments are common in digital transformation projects. The committee might stall development if it lacks resources and funds. Leadership support and early funding are crucial to the committee’s success.
Scope Creep
It’s tempting to add features or adjust the scope as projects progress. Scope creep can cause delays, higher costs, and less concentration. Keep the group focused on the agreed-upon goals and plan and approve any amendments to avoid scope creep.
A digital transformation committee can be difficult to organize and manage, but there are simple solutions. Let’s simplify:
Communicate clearly. Be clear about expectations from the start. Establish roles, goals, and duties and communicate regularly. It aligns everyone.
Digital transformation requires teamwork. Encourage open dialogue and collaboration. Higher input is preferable. This guarantees everyone is heard.
Be flexible. Digital transformation changes quickly. Adjust your plans and strategies as needed. Monitor progress and adjust. Flexibility maintains momentum.
Keep learning. Not everyone is an expert straight immediately. Give your crew training and resources to stay organized. Knowledge is power and simplifies decision-making.
You may need outside help. Use transformation-experienced experts. They can identify issues early and suggest novel solutions.
Grab smart tools. Track progress and goals with strategic planning tools. It streamlines tasks, deadlines, and KPI management. If plans go awry, you can change them.
After launching, your digital transformation committee must track its goals and progress. Track the committee’s progress to improve and stay on track. Monitor committee performance:
Establish KPIs: Define success to track it. Scheduled milestones, budgets, and stakeholder participation are examples. Set KPIs to track progress and ensure the committee meets digital transformation goals.
Status updates regularly: Communication matters. Monitor committee progress with regular updates. Meet to review progress, handle obstacles, and keep the project on track. You can notice issues before they escalate using updates.
Reverberations: Important to gather committee and stakeholder input. Feedback reveals issues and growth opportunities. Be transparent and use feedback to improve processes and results.
Examine Resource Distribution: Track budget, time, and personnel to see if the committee is staying under budget. If resources are abused or underused, project changes may be needed.
Monitor Stakeholder Satisfaction: Faculty, staff, and students must be satisfied for the digital shift to succeed. Poll these groups often to measure how well the transformation is accepted and how well the committee is addressing their concerns. Dissatisfaction should encourage the committee to improve results.
Institutional Goal Impact: Assess your institution’s digital transformation project’s success. Does it improve education? Do administrative processes work better? Improves student engagement? The committee prioritizes what matters by aligning progress with institutional goals.
Enjoy successes, learn from losses: Recognize small achievements. Celebrate wins to foster teamwork. Analyze setbacks and improve future efforts. Successful and unsuccessful people learn and evolve.
As digital transformation reshapes higher education, a strong project committee becomes more essential. These committees serve as the backbone of successful initiatives by offering governance, guidance, and collaboration to navigate challenges and meet institutional goals.
Strategic planning and a clear structure lay the foundation for success. By assembling the right team, assigning clear responsibilities, and monitoring progress, institutions can drive meaningful change, improving operations, and student experiences, and fostering innovation.
For institutions to thrive during this transition, the right tools and systems are key. By focusing on the right approach, higher education can effectively embrace transformation and build a brighter future for both staff and students.
Let’s improve higher education together. Get in touch with the right committee for higher education technology projects! Connect with Team Creatrix Campus.
High education institutions and colleges are trying hard to suppress student skipping rates to boost performance and improve education standards. Management is trying hard to tackle truancy by imposing strict penalties on students skipping classes. Suspensions can only count as time missed from classroom instructions. Parents also face a blitz on attendance, and they are trying to keep students in higher education.
With nearly 25% of students admitting to skipping classes, we have churned out 10 sure-fire ways to tackle the issue behind students skipping classes. Easy to adopt, try these out for a result in a split-second.
Monitor Attendance
This is practically the first and foremost way when trying to clock in to stop students from skipping classes. Monitoring attendance at high education is not new. Forget the days when faculty used to pass a piece of paper around the classroom to check attendance. It was ideally to support students who silently disengage. But trust us, of the hundreds of students attending lectures, 10-20% can even be missing without the lecturer realizing. Do not think of suspensions – for even they count as time missed from classroom instructions. Having an attendance policy in place works better! With electronic registrations, there can be a more structured attendance pattern. RFID-based attendance management system tracks unauthorized absence or lateness of higher education students in real-time. This will reduce the scenario of students skipping classes keep up-to-date records for all courses and improve student outcomes.
Track Discipline
When it comes to tackling the problem of chronic absenteeism, students who already have a track record of skipping class can be a particularly tough crowd to sway. So infectious they could be! The overall strategy for tackling such high education absenteeism should be to prioritize discipline. Getting into a friendly discussion helps. Figure out ways to help such students. Pool in mentors! Take complete ownership. Alternatively, manage and track behavior incidents of students using discipline software and generate automated reports for quicker decision-making.
Parent Communication
Get parents involved! This can be a way to reduce tardiness amidst such irregular students. Increased communication with parents will curb the notion of students skipping classes. Today, there are many parents connect software that provides real-time access to student’s academic information.
Manage Assessments
Another reason for students to skip classes could be their exam anxiety. If these classic signs of test uneasiness fill your classroom, attendance muddles will be there. Make assessments tension-free by creating online tests and assignments and sharing results with students and parents often. This will reduce the rising numbers of withdrawals from assessments and remove fears and inhibitions from students and parents.
Review of Curriculum
Hard to believe, but yes attendance truancy could be a result of the ill-fitting curriculum too. Teachers can review the curriculum and align the portfolio of courses to deliver quality learning for the institution. The curriculum management system provides student access to all the relevant course and curriculum data.
Smart Classrooms
Students feel aloof when teachers do not spend little or quality time with them. With smart classrooms paperwork gets eliminated, enabling teachers to spend quality time to improve teaching and learning.
Teacher Evaluations
Never neglect students who are chronically absent themselves – be all ears and resolve it at the earliest. This strategy works better! Analyze the teacher’s effectiveness in classrooms with a strong evaluation system and set performance goals to improve their skills. An ineffective faculty is but a drabby asset to the class. After all, it is they who matter the most in the classroom.
Role-based Security
The high education management system provides role-based authorization which facilitates discipline and eliminates privacy concerns of students. This information is protected and will be visible only to the targeted students or groups. Parents will be able to access and see the information about his or her children.
Event Management
Turn mundane days into gripping ones by scheduling events and announcements! With many departments and units, scheduling an event might seem like a task. Using an online calendar can be a lifesaver here. With such a calendar in place, make instant academic information available to students, teachers, parents, and alumni for specific purposes.
Automated Notifications
Don’t wait for the students to turn up the next day to notify them. Sending mass notifications with pre-built templates helps! Dish it out to students, teachers, staff, and parents via email, SMS alerts, and push notifications.
Here’s a tip: Cloud and mobile technology can tackle regular and chronic absenteeism and benefit in many ways. They drastically result in increased attendance rate, improved student performance, reduced staff workload, and improved efficiencies of the institution.
Creatrix Campus offers the most advanced cloud and mobile-based cloud suite of solutions designed for higher education institutes. Adaptable, it easily integrates with other modules and provides secure access to track all your information in a single unified system.
