by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report January 19, 2026
Lynette Duncan didn’t expect to spend 20 hours over the past two weeks digging through a mothballed computer system, trying to retrieve admissions data from 2019.
Duncan is the director of institutional research at John Brown University, a small Christian university in northwest Arkansas, an hour’s drive from Walmart’s headquarters. She runs a one-person office that handles university data collections and analyses, both for internal use and to meet government mandates. Just last year, she spent months collecting and crunching new data to comply with a new federal rule requiring that colleges show that their graduates are prepared for good jobs.
Then, in mid-December, another mandate abruptly arrived — this one at the request of President Donald Trump. Colleges were ordered to compile seven years of admissions data, broken down by race, sex, grades, SAT or ACT scores, and family income.
“It’s like one more weight on our backs,” Duncan said. “The workload – it’s not fun.”
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
John Brown University is one of almost 2,200 colleges and universities nationwide now scrambling to comply by March 18 with the new federal reporting requirement, formally known as the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement, or ACTS. By all accounts, it’s a ton of work, and at small institutions, the task falls largely on a single administrator or even the registrar. Failure to submit the data can bring steep fines and, ultimately, the loss of access to federal aid for students.
After the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning affirmative action in college admissions, the Trump administration suspected that colleges might covertly continue to give racial preferences. To police compliance, the White House directed the Department of Education to collect detailed admissions data from colleges nationwide.
The data collection was unusual not only in its scope, but also in its speed. Federal education data collections typically take years to design, with multiple rounds of analysis, technical review panels, and revisions. This one moved from announcement to launch in a matter of months.
A rush job
One tiny indication that this was a rush job is in the Federal Register notice. Both enforce and admissions are misspelled in a proposal that’s all about admissions enforcement. Those words are spelled “admssions” and “enforece.”
A December filing with the Office of Management and Budget incorrectly lists the number of institutions that are subject to the new data collection. It is nearly 2,200, not 1,660, according to the Association for Institutional Research, which is advising colleges on how to properly report the data. Community colleges are exempt, but four-year institutions with selective admissions or those that give out their own financial aid must comply. Graduate programs are included as well. That adds up to about 2,200 institutions.
In another filing with the Office of Management and Budget, the administration disclosed that none of the five remaining career Education Department officials with statistical experience had reviewed the proposal, including Matt Soldner, the acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. Most of the department’s statistical staff were fired earlier this year as a first step to eliminating the Education Department, one of Trump’s campaign promises. RTI International, the federal contractor in North Carolina that already manages other higher education data collections for the Education Department, is also handling the day-to-day work of this new college admissions collection.
During two public comment periods, colleges and higher-education trade groups raised concerns about data quality and missing records, but there is little evidence those concerns substantially altered the final design. One change expanded the retrospective data requirement from five to six years so that at least one cohort of students would have a measurable six-year graduation rate. A second relieved colleges of the burden of making hundreds of complex statistical calculations themselves, instead instructing them to upload raw student data to an “aggregator tool” that would do all the math for them.
The Trump administration’s goal is to generate comparisons across race and sex categories, with large gaps potentially triggering further scrutiny.
Missing data
The results are unlikely to be reliable, experts told me, given how much of the underlying data is missing or incomplete. In a public comment letter, Melanie Gottlieb, executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, warned that entire years of applicant data may not exist at many institutions. Some states advise colleges to delete records for applicants who never enrolled after a year. “If institutions are remaining compliant with their state policies, they will not have five years of data,” Gottlieb wrote.
The organization’s own guidance recommends that four-year colleges retain admissions records for just one year after an application cycle. One reason is privacy. Applicant files contain sensitive personal information, and purging unneeded records reduces the risk of exposing this data in breaches.
In other cases, especially at smaller institutions, admissions offices may offload applicant data simply to make room for new student records. Duncan said John Brown University has all seven years of required data, but a switch to a new computer system in 2019 has made it difficult to retrieve the first year.
Even when historical records are available, key details may be missing or incompatible with federal requirements, said Christine Keller, executive director of the Association for Institutional Research, which previously received a federal contract to train college administrators on accurate data collection until DOGE eliminated it. (The organization now receives some private funds for a reduced amount of training.)
Standardized test scores are unavailable for many students admitted under test-optional policies. The department is asking colleges to report an unweighted grade-point average on a four-point scale, even though many applicants submit only weighted GPAs on a five-point scale. In those cases, and there may be many of them, colleges are instructed to report the GPA as “unknown.”
Some students decline to report their race. Many holes are expected for family income. Colleges generally have income data only for students who completed federal financial-aid forms, which many applicants never file.
Ellen Keast, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, said in an email, “Schools are not expected to provide data they don’t have.” She added, “We know that some schools may have missing data for some data elements. We’ll review the extent of missing data before doing further calculations or analyses.”
Male or female
Even the category of sex poses problems. The Education Department’s spreadsheet allows only two options: male or female. Colleges, however, may collect sex or gender information using additional categories, such as nonbinary.
“That data is going to be, in my estimation, pretty worthless when it comes to really showing the different experiences of men and women,” Keller said. She is urging the department to add a “missing” option to avoid misleading results. “I think some people in the department may be misunderstanding that what’s needed is a missing-data option, not another sex category.”
The new “aggregator tool” itself is another source of anxiety. Designed to spare colleges from calculating quintile buckets for grades and test scores by race and sex, it can feel like a black box. Colleges are supposed to fill rows and rows of detailed student data into spreadsheets and then upload the spreadsheets into the tool. The tool generates pooled summary statistics, such as the number of Black female applicants and admitted students who score in the top 20 percent at the college. Only the aggregated data will be reported to the federal government.
At John Brown University, Duncan worries about what those summaries might imply. Her institution is predominantly white and has never practiced affirmative action. But if high school grades or test scores differ by race — as they often do nationwide — the aggregated results could suggest bias where none was intended.
“That’s a concern,” Duncan said. “I’m hopeful that looking across multiple years of data, it won’t show that. You could have an anomaly in one year.”
The problem is that disparities are not anomalies. Standardized test scores and academic records routinely vary by race and sex, making it difficult for almost any institution to avoid showing gaps.
A catch-22 for colleges
The stakes are high. In an emailed response to my questions, the Education Department pointed to Trump’s Aug. 7 memorandum, which directs the agency to take “remedial action” if colleges fail to submit the data on time or submit incomplete or inaccurate information.
Under federal law, each violation of these education data-reporting requirements can carry a fine of up to $71,545. Repeated noncompliance can ultimately lead to the loss of access to federal student aid, meaning students could no longer use Pell Grants or federal loans to pay tuition.
That leaves colleges in a bind. Failing to comply is costly. Complying, meanwhile, could produce flawed data that suggests bias and invites further scrutiny.
The order itself contradicts another administration goal. President Trump campaigned on reducing federal red tape and bureaucratic burden. Yet ACTS represents a significant expansion of paperwork for colleges. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that each institution will spend roughly 200 hours completing the survey this year — a figure that higher-education officials say may be an understatement.
Duncan is hoping she can finish the reporting in less than 200 hours, if there are no setbacks when she uploads the data. “If I get errors, it could take double the time,” she said.
For now, she is still gathering and cleaning old student records and waiting to see the results… all before the March 18 deadline.
This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-admissions-data-collection-strains-colleges/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
In 2025, K-12 Dive’s conversations with school and district leaders covered best practices, challenges overcome and lessons learned on a variety of topics, from providing remediation to students to engaging with school communities. As 2026 gets underway, we’re taking a look back at those conversations to spotlight five key takeaways that offer guidance and insight as you enter the second half of the school year.
Keep an ear out for the voices that aren’t always heard
“I am responsive to the community I’m serving, a true public servant. And in our community here, the historically marginalized populations are sometimes not invited and, in certain cases, are just simply invisible. What I try to do … is not to put them to the side — because that would be inappropriate as well — but I hear them loud and clear.
Alex Marrero
Permission granted by Denver Public Schools
“I’m concerned about the community member who may not be the fifth-generation Coloradan but is in Colorado because they migrated here. I’m concerned about those who have a different way of seeing education. The cultural component plays a major part.
“There’s certain cultures where they don’t feel like they should say what the school system should do, because where they’re from, the school system is usually right and ‘Who are they to impose their thoughts?’ How can I empower them to say, ‘That’s not how we function here?’ That’s the hardest part.”
– Alex Marrero, superintendent of Denver Public Schools in Denver, Colorado
Remediation doesn’t have to feel like ‘baby work’
“Sometimes, people think middle school students will feel embarrassed that they are lacking in some skills. And you do have some students that do feel that way.
Thelma Ramsey-Bryant
Permission granted by Thelma Ramsey-Bryant
“We find that sometimes students have behavior issues, and when you get to the root of what the behavior issues are, it’s because they have difficulty reading, and they don’t want other students to know, so they act out.
“We started talking to students about, ‘We want to help you with your reading, and these are the ways that we’re going to do it.’ I had a teacher here who was able to reach the students in a way that didn’t make it feel like it was baby work. We presented them with things that were on their level, but helped them understand that this was going to make them better readers, and they actually gravitated toward it, and they appreciated it.”
– Thelma Ramsey-Bryant, principal of John L. Costley Middle School in East Orange, New Jersey
When adopting new tech, think first about schools’ needs
“The biggest thing is just not to be scared, but to ask specifically, ‘What is it that we need? What need are we trying to address?’
Scott Langford
Permission granted by Scott Langford
“I think [artificial intelligence] is best suited right now to meet needs that are defined, like individualized or niche needs that a school might have. … If you identify the need, there are plenty of great AI companies out there.
“You also need to talk to not just a sales rep but the CEO or someone fairly high up in the company. In the past, it was just, ‘You can have whatever you want as long as it looks like this, and then you bend what you’re doing to what we produced.’ Now, the best AI companies will almost custom-build a product to meet the needs of your school or district.”
– Scott Langford, superintendent of Sumner County Schools in Gallatin, Tennessee
Some forms of communication cross language barriers
“Graphs and charts are universal. It’s really helpful to show a family the picture of [a student’s] growth trajectory, to show them the growth line of other students in that grade level in that school versus the national average versus their own student.
Heidi Sipe
Permission granted by Heidi Sipe
“It’s really helpful to drive home the point of ‘Look how much they’ve grown’ or ‘Wait a minute. We have real concerns.’ … Especially when we can see those positive growth trajectories, that’s just really comforting to parents to see that their child is on track.
“And even if they’re not where they need to be for achievement yet, if they’re growing at or above their peers, we know they’re going to hit that growth trajectory or that growth target, and they’re on the right trajectory. That’s good for parents to hear.”
– Heidi Sipe, superintendent of Umatilla School District in Umatilla, Oregon
Every role matters in a district turnaround
“I mean, we were growing [academically] before the pandemic, and it kind of gets lost in the mix, because a lot of districts haven’t grown much since the pandemic. Some haven’t even returned to their original scores they had pre-pandemic. We rebounded very fast.
Darin Brawley
Permission granted by Compton Unified School District
“There’s a lot we need to credit to that. First off, we have a fabulous teaching staff, and we also have great administrators and great students who work toward the common goal of continuous improvement. We have a process in place that really is modeled after Malcolm Baldridge’s performance excellence standards, where we’re constantly benchmarking our performance against our surrounding competitors — aka surrounding school districts — and identifying those districts that we want to perform better than.
“When we first started the [improvement] process, almost all of our surrounding districts were performing much better than Compton Unified School District, and we began benchmarking our performance and developing smart goals to get better in ELA and math. Over time, we’ve been able to surpass the vast majority of everyone that we benchmark our performance against.
“It’s a testament to the process that’s in place, the establishment of smart goals, the implementation of interventions in classrooms, and a focus on academic language students need to understand in order to be able to answer questions the right way instead of just marching through the curriculum.”
– Darin Brawley, superintendent of Compton Unified School District in Compton, California
Artificial Intelligence is reshaping how school administrators, from K–12 principals to university registrars, manage operations, make decisions, and communicate with stakeholders. As resources tighten and expectations rise, AI tools for school administrators offer a powerful opportunity to do more with less. In the 2023–24 school year, a growing majority of K–12 staff are now using AI tools in their work. In a recent Ellucian survey, 61% of higher ed respondents said they’re already using AI, and about 80% cited productivity and efficiency as their main reasons for adopting it.
This isn’t just a tech trend. It’s a real shift in how schools function. AI can automate repetitive tasks, surface data-driven insights, and generate personalized communications. For busy administrators, that means less time on paperwork and more time supporting students and staff.
In this article, we’ll break down how AI is transforming educational management. You’ll see practical use cases, benefits like faster decision-making and streamlined workflows, and what to watch out for when it comes to ethics and implementation. Whether you’re running a district office or managing a registrar’s team, this guide will help you lead smarter and work more efficiently, with AI as your partner.
Are you ready to improve visibility, engagement, and enrollment?
Partner with HEM for solutions designed to help your institution stand out.
How AI Enhances Decision-Making for Administrators
How does AI help school administrators make better decisions? AI’s greatest strength in school management lies in transforming raw data into clear, actionable insights. Administrators regularly face overwhelming volumes of information, grades, attendance, budget reports, and surveys that can be difficult to parse manually. AI tools help by quickly identifying patterns that support evidence-based decisions.
Predictive analytics, for example, can forecast enrollment trends or flag early warning signs. A high school principal might spot which student groups are at risk of chronic absenteeism, while a registrar could project staffing needs for upcoming semesters based on historical data.
AI dashboards make this analysis easy to interpret. They can highlight underused programs, suggest reallocating resources, or model different outcomes to support strategic planning. If an extracurricular activity shows consistently low participation, the system might recommend shifting resources to better-performing initiatives.
The result is faster, more informed decision-making. With AI as a planning partner, administrators gain a sharper view of their institution and can act with confidence and precision.
Automating Routine Administrative Tasks with AI
What routine administrative tasks can AI automate in schools? From attendance logs to class schedules, school administrators are buried in repetitive tasks that sap time and focus. AI is stepping in to take care of the busywork, streamlining operations and giving staff space to lead more strategically.
Take attendance tracking. Instead of manual entry, AI-powered systems can log student presence through smart ID cards or facial recognition check-ins. These tools don’t just record absences; they spot trends. A sudden drop in attendance? The system flags it, prompting early intervention. Some schools now pair attendance with performance data to identify at-risk students before grades slip or disengagement deepens.
Scheduling is another pain point. Building a timetable involves balancing staff availability, room assignments, student choices, and course caps. AI algorithms solve this puzzle fast. In Boston, a genetic algorithm optimized school bus routes in under an hour, cutting 50 buses and saving $5 million annually. That same principle applies to class scheduling, resource allocation, and beyond.
Report generation also gets a boost. AI tools for school administrators can pull data and format it into accurate, ready-to-send reports, such as monthly summaries, performance dashboards, and compliance logs, without human input. Even tedious data entry tasks like processing forms or invoices are simplified through OCR-powered automation.
Need to review a long policy or school social media policy? AI tools now scan, summarize, and highlight what matters. Post-meeting? Transcription services like Otter.ai generate action items and summaries within minutes.
The impact is clear: by automating the everyday, AI frees up time for what truly matters, strategic thinking, collaboration, and student support.
AI for Communication and Writing in School Administration
Strong communication is central to effective school leadership. Yet writing everything from newsletters to policy updates can eat up an administrator’s already busy schedule. That’s where AI can step in, not to replace the human voice, but to support it.
Generative AI tools like Grammarly, ChatGPT, and Jasper are helping school leaders draft clearer, more consistent communications. Do you need to send a monthly update to parents? AI can suggest section headers, polish grammar, and help set the right tone. Drafting a memo to staff? AI can create a first version that administrators can refine for local context. These tools are especially helpful when writing in a non-native language or tailoring content to a specific reading level.
They also save time on summarizing. AI can distill a lengthy school board report into a concise briefing in seconds, or help craft sensitive messages with more precision. One district principal used AI to write a winter holiday letter. The tone was spot on, but the AI mistakenly referenced sledding, forgetting the school was in a warm climate. The principal simply edited it. This type of human oversight ensures accuracy while significantly reducing drafting time.
AI’s reach extends beyond written documents. Many schools and universities now use chatbots to handle FAQs around enrollment, deadlines, and policies. Georgia State’s “Pounce” chatbot reduced summer melt by 21 percent by keeping students engaged. CSUN’s “CSUNny” improved retention by providing 24/7 support. In K–12, chatbots answer parent questions or send automated reminders, freeing staff from phone call overload.
In short, AI acts as a communication partner, speeding up writing, strengthening clarity, and helping administrators stay connected without burning out.
Key Benefits of AI in School Management
When thoughtfully implemented, AI can significantly improve how schools are run, especially for administrators balancing limited resources, increasing demands, and time-sensitive responsibilities. Here are five key advantages that AI brings to school management.
Greater Efficiency and Time Savings AI handles repetitive, time-consuming tasks such as data entry, attendance tracking, report generation, and scheduling. Automating these processes minimizes errors and frees up valuable hours for principals and support staff to focus on more impactful activities, like supporting teachers, engaging with parents, and driving instructional improvements. According to the McKinsey report, AI tools can help educators and administrators reclaim 20 to 40 percent of their time previously spent on routine tasks.
Cost Savings and Better Use of Resources Schools often operate on tight budgets. AI helps by identifying operational inefficiencies and suggesting cost-saving alternatives. AI also helps in allocating resources more wisely, whether adjusting staffing based on predicted needs or identifying underutilized facilities to repurpose. These efficiencies help schools manage tight budgets. Schools can avoid unnecessary expenditures by relying on AI analysis to guide decisions.
Smarter, Data-Driven Decisions AI systems analyze student performance, behaviour trends, and resource utilization far more quickly than a human could. For instance, if data shows that a particular grade level is struggling in math, school leaders can intervene early with targeted support. Having these insights readily available leads to stronger decisions grounded in real evidence.
Stronger, Personalized Communication AI-powered tools like chatbots and automated messaging platforms allow schools to provide timely, personalized updates to parents and students. From attendance alerts to event reminders, these systems ensure important information gets delivered and acted on, without staff needing to make dozens of phone calls or send multiple emails.
Strategic Focus and Innovation By handling operational tasks in the background, AI gives administrators more bandwidth to focus on long-term priorities. Whether that’s improving school culture, mentoring educators, or piloting new programs, leaders can spend less time buried in paperwork and more time driving change.
Challenges of Implementing AI for School Administrators
What challenges do schools face when implementing AI tools? The potential of AI in education is vast, but unlocking it requires more than just installing a new tool. For school administrators, adopting AI often brings a mix of excitement and logistical complexity. Here are the key implementation challenges leaders should be prepared to navigate.
Upfront Costs and Infrastructure Needs Launching AI systems can involve steep initial costs. Schools may need to purchase licenses, upgrade hardware, or improve network connectivity. Basic requirements like reliable internet and compatible devices can be hurdles, especially in underfunded or rural districts. While grants or partnerships may offset expenses, planning for these investments is essential.
Staff Training and Resistance to Change AI adoption means changes in workflows. Teachers, clerical staff, and leadership teams must learn how to use new tools effectively. Resistance often stems from fear of job displacement or lack of familiarity. Providing professional development, starting with small pilots, and showing quick wins are all important steps in gaining staff buy-in.
Data Integration and Quality Issues AI is only as good as the data it works with. Many schools operate with siloed or inconsistent data systems. AI needs clean, well-integrated data to function properly. If attendance, grades, or behaviour logs aren’t standardized, outputs can be skewed or misleading. Administrators may need to revamp data practices and work closely with IT teams to ensure accuracy and consistency.
Ongoing Maintenance and Oversight AI tools aren’t set-it-and-forget-it. They require regular updates, monitoring, and occasional recalibration. Schools without dedicated IT support may struggle to sustain them. Assigning responsibility for AI upkeep and budgeting for long-term maintenance are key to success.
Human Trust and Role Clarity Some staff may worry that automation threatens their jobs. Others may be skeptical of the AI’s accuracy. Administrators should communicate clearly that AI augments human work, not replaces it, and maintain human oversight to ensure outputs are reviewed and contextualized.
Addressing these challenges proactively can turn early hurdles into long-term advantages.
Ethical and Privacy Considerations with AI in Schools
Alongside technical and logistical challenges, school administrators must carefully consider the ethical implications of using AI. Because education involves minors and sensitive data, ethical missteps can have lasting consequences. From student privacy to algorithmic bias, it’s essential to put safeguards in place that prioritize safety, equity, and transparency.
Data Privacy and Security AI systems often require access to student records, health information, and sometimes even biometric data. Feeding this information into cloud-based tools or algorithms increases the risk of misuse or breaches. Administrators must ensure that all systems meet rigorous data protection standards, and that families are informed about what data is collected and how it’s used. Best practices include strong encryption, regular audits, transparent data policies, and opt-out or deletion options when appropriate. Over-surveillance, like constant monitoring or facial recognition, can also undermine trust. Schools must strike a balance between data-driven insights and preserving a respectful learning environment.
Bias and Fairness AI systems trained on historical data can unintentionally reinforce existing inequalities. Predictive models used to identify at-risk students, allocate resources, or evaluate staff must be tested for fairness across race, gender, and socioeconomic status. If unchecked, biased outputs could deepen disparities instead of correcting them. Administrators should work with vendors to ensure diverse training data and conduct regular audits of AI decisions. Involving stakeholders, teachers, parents, and even students in reviewing AI use helps bring community accountability into the process.
Transparency and Accountability Schools should avoid “black box” tools that make recommendations without clear reasoning. Any AI system used to inform decisions, like admissions or discipline, should offer interpretable outputs and allow for human oversight. Clear policies must be in place to define who is responsible if the AI makes a mistake. Human judgment should always remain central.
Academic Integrity and Human Development Generative AI tools raise new questions about cheating, originality, and learning. Administrators must set clear guidelines on acceptable and unacceptable use, emphasizing that AI should support learning, not replace it. Over-reliance on AI for writing or problem-solving can weaken essential student skills. Responsible use requires balancing innovation with the core educational mission of developing thinkers and communicators.
Equity of Access AI should not become a new driver of inequality. If only well-funded schools can afford effective AI tools, achievement gaps will widen. Public institutions, nonprofits, and policymakers must work together to promote equitable access through shared resources, training, and support. Every student deserves the benefits of smart technology, not just those in the most resourced districts.
In short, the power of AI for school management must be matched with principled leadership. Ethical implementation demands vigilance, humility, and transparency, qualities that define the best
How to Implement AI in School Administration
Bringing AI into school administration is a strategic process, not a quick plug-and-play solution. To maximize its benefits and minimize disruption, education leaders need to approach AI adoption methodically. Here’s a roadmap for successfully implementing AI in school operations.
Assess Needs and Define Goals Start with a clear-eyed look at current workflows. What drains staff time? Where are inefficiencies or bottlenecks? Pinpoint specific areas where AI could make a meaningful difference, such as automating repetitive data entry or improving enrollment forecasting. From there, define measurable goals, like reducing schedule conflicts or increasing the speed of report generation. These targets will shape your entire implementation and help evaluate success.
Example: Katy Independent School District (Texas, USA): Facing a growing administrative burden, Katy ISD recognized that its support staff were “outnumbered” by high volumes of repetitive tasks (answering routine inquiries, data entry, etc.). District leaders set a concrete goal for their AI initiative: have AI handle roughly 30% of routine administrative inquiries – with 24/7, bilingual support – so that human staff can focus on high-value interactions. This target was born from a needs assessment of where staff time was being drained. By defining this goal (30% automation of inquiries), Katy ISD created a clear metric for success and a focused vision: use AI as a virtual assistant to improve responsiveness to families while freeing staff for more complex student and parent needs.
Research and Select the Right Tools Not all AI tools are created equal. Once you’ve identified priorities, explore tools designed for education. Look for platforms that integrate easily with your existing systems (SIS, LMS, HR) and are user-friendly for staff. Prioritize solutions with strong vendor support and a track record in the education sector. Talking to peer institutions or reviewing relevant case studies can offer valuable insights.
Example: University of Richmond (Virginia, USA): In higher education, institutions are also methodical in choosing AI for administrative use. The University of Richmond explicitly notes the “transformative potential of generative AI…in enhancing administrative efficiencies”, but pairs that excitement with careful evaluation criteria. In official staff guidelines, the university directs its administrative teams to critically vet AI tools for technical fit, security, and ethical considerations. Staff are encouraged to pilot new AI-based services (from chatbots to transcription tools) in a controlled manner – checking that any chosen tool aligns with data privacy policies and the university’s values.
Start with a Pilot Choose a small-scale pilot to test your chosen tool. This might mean introducing a scheduling AI in one department or using a chatbot for financial aid inquiries. Track outcomes closely—are tasks being completed faster? Are users more satisfied? Gather feedback and refine the approach before expanding. A strong pilot builds confidence and creates internal champions.
Example: Indianapolis Public Schools (Indiana, USA): IPS illustrates the wisdom of beginning AI adoption on a small scale. In the first year of its AI initiative, the district ran a pilot with just 20 staff members using a district-approved AI tool to handle some of their tasks. This limited pilot let IPS observe real-world uses and challenges (e.g., how an AI writing assistant might help draft reports) without impacting all schools. District leaders gathered feedback and saw improvements, which informed an official AI policy in development. This phased pilot approach gave IPS the chance to refine guidelines and train users in between phases.
Train Staff and Build Buy-In Training is critical. Provide hands-on sessions, user guides, and a forum for questions. Explain how the AI will support, not replace, staff, and share early successes. Framing AI as a helpful assistant rather than a threat makes adoption smoother. Emphasize the time-saving potential and how it frees up staff for more meaningful work.
Example: School District of Philadelphia (Pennsylvania, USA): Philadelphia’s public school system, in partnership with the University of Pennsylvania, launched a first-of-its-kind AI training pilot to ensure educators and administrators were on board and prepared. The program, called PASS (Pioneering AI in School Systems), was announced in late 2024 and offers multi-tiered professional development free to a pilot group of district staff. Crucially, PASS explicitly targets mindset and skill-building: it trains district administrators on strategic planning for AI, guides school leaders on implementing AI tools in their schools, and coaches teachers on using AI to enhance (not replace) instruction.
Scale Gradually and Integrate Thoughtfully With a successful pilot in hand, plan for phased implementation. Avoid overwhelming staff by rolling out AI features in stages: first attendance, then scheduling, then reporting. Make sure each step integrates well with existing workflows. Be prepared to revise outdated processes to accommodate the new tool, and keep communication open throughout the transition.
Example: Indianapolis Public Schools (Indiana, USA): After its initial small-scale pilot, IPS is deliberately not rushing into a district-wide rollout – exemplifying thoughtful integration. The district is entering a second pilot year with more staff and a new tool (Google’s Gemini chatbot), but has held off on immediately procuring a permanent, system-wide AI platform. This restraint is intentional: IPS leaders want to ensure any AI tool is truly effective and fits their needs before integrating it into all schools. They are also developing an AI Advisory Committee (including administrators, teachers, tech, and legal experts) to guide integration and update usage policies as the pilot expands. By scaling usage gradually – first 20 staff, now a larger cohort, still not yet student-facing – IPS can adjust its data integration, security settings, and training materials in parallel.
Monitor, Measure, Improve Implementation doesn’t stop at rollout. Regularly assess whether the AI is meeting your goals. Track KPIs like time saved, error rates, or satisfaction levels. Use this data to fine-tune the system and report outcomes to stakeholders. AI platforms often improve with use, especially those built on machine learning. Feeding back your school’s data will make them more effective over time.
Example: Deakin University (Victoria, Australia): Deakin’s IT and administrative teams exemplify continuous improvement with their AI-powered student services. The university’s digital assistant “Genie” was rolled out in stages and is closely monitored for usage and performance. Since launching across campus, Genie’s user base has more than doubled within a year over 25,000 students having downloaded the app, a metric the university tracks to gauge adoption. Deakin’s Chief Digital Officer noted they analyze conversation data: at peak times, Genie handles up to 12,000 conversations a day, and they review the top categories of student questions (e.g., timetable info, assignment deadlines). By identifying the most common inquiries, the team continuously updates Genie’s responses and adds new features. This ongoing measurement extends to quality checks – the university monitors whether Genie’s answers resolved students’ issues or if human staff had to follow up, informing further training of the AI.
Foster a Culture of Innovation Successful AI integration requires a mindset shift. Leaders should create an environment where staff feel empowered to try new approaches and share feedback. Celebrate wins, learn from setbacks, and reinforce that AI is a tool to enhance human capacity, not replace it.
Example: Cottesmore School (West Sussex, UK): This independent boarding school has embraced an innovation-first culture in its administration, particularly with AI. Headmaster Tom Rogerson gained international attention in 2023 for appointing an AI chatbot as an “assistant headteacher” – named “Abigail Bailey” – to support strategic decision-making. The move was less about the tech itself and more about signaling to staff and students that experimenting with new ideas is welcome. Rogerson frames the project as a well-being and innovation initiative: the AI assistant serves as a “strategic leadership mentor,” providing impartial insights, while human leaders remain in charge. In addition to this high-profile experiment, Cottesmore has hosted free AI conferences and masterclasses for educators. For example, the school ran an “AI Festival” where staff from Cottesmore and other schools tried out AI tools and shared ideas in a collaborative environment. By openly discussing both the opportunities and challenges of AI, and even inviting outside experts to weigh in, the headmaster created a safe space for his team to be curious and creative.
Implementing AI in school administration is an ongoing journey, but with a clear strategy and commitment to collaboration, schools can unlock new levels of efficiency, insight, and impact. The result is a smarter, more responsive administrative operation that supports the broader mission of education.
Final Thoughts
AI is transforming education management by enhancing, not replacing, the work of school administrators. It takes on time-consuming tasks, delivers faster insights from data, and strengthens communication with students, families, and staff. The result is more time for leaders to focus on strategy, mentorship, and school culture.
At HEM, we view AI as a vital part of a modern, responsive education strategy. Schools that adopt AI thoughtfully are better prepared to navigate enrollment shifts, budget pressures, and rising expectations. The key is clear planning, ethical use, and keeping people at the centre.
AI gives administrators the support they need to lead more effectively. With the right approach, it can elevate the quality and impact of school leadership.
Are you ready to improve visibility, engagement, and enrollment?
Partner with HEM for solutions designed to help your institution stand out.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: How does AI help school administrators make better decisions?
Answer: AI’s greatest strength in school management lies in transforming raw data into clear, actionable insights. Administrators regularly face overwhelming volumes of information, grades, attendance, budget reports, and surveys that can be difficult to parse manually. AI tools help by quickly identifying patterns that support evidence-based decisions.
Question: What routine administrative tasks can AI automate in schools?
Answer: From attendance logs to class schedules, school administrators are buried in repetitive tasks that sap time and focus. AI is stepping in to take care of the busywork, streamlining operations and giving staff space to lead more strategically.
Question: What challenges do schools face when implementing AI tools?
Answer: The potential of AI in education is vast, but unlocking it requires more than just installing a new tool. For school administrators, adopting AI often brings a mix of excitement and logistical complexity.
Although the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) were released more than a decade ago, adoption of them varies widely in California. I have been to districts that have taken the standards and run with them, but others have been slow to get off the ground with NGSS–even 12 years after their release. In some cases, this is due to a lack of funding, a lack of staffing, or even administrators’ lack of understanding of the active, student-driven pedagogies championed by the NGSS.
Another potential challenge to implementing NGSS with fidelity comes from teachers’ and administrators’ epistemological beliefs–simply put, their beliefs about how people learn. Teachers bring so much of themselves to the classroom, and that means teaching in a way they think is going to help their students learn. So, it’s understandable that teachers who have found success with traditional lecture-based methods may be reluctant to embrace an inquiry-based approach. It also makes sense that administrators who are former teachers will expect classrooms to look the same as when they were teaching, which may mean students sitting in rows, facing the front, writing down notes.
Based on my experience as both a science educator and an administrator, here are some strategies for encouraging both teachers and administrators to embrace the NGSS.
For teachers: Shift expectations and embrace ‘organized chaos’
A helpful first step is to approach the NGSS not as a set of standards, but rather a set of performance expectations. Those expectations include all three dimensions of science learning: disciplinary core ideas (DCIs), science and engineering practices (SEPs), and cross-cutting concepts (CCCs). The DCIs reflect the things that students know, the SEPs reflect what students are doing, and the CCCs reflect how students think. This three-dimensional approach sets the stage for a more active, engaged learning environment where students construct their own understanding of science content knowledge.
To meet expectations laid out in the NGSS, teachers can start by modifying existing “recipe labs” to a more inquiry-based model that emphasizes student construction of knowledge. Resources like the NGSS-aligned digital curriculum from Kognity can simplify classroom implementation by providing a digital curriculum that empowers teachers with options for personalized instruction. Additionally, the Wonder of Science can help teachers integrate real-life phenomena into their NGSS-aligned labs to help provide students with real-life contexts to help build an understanding of scientific concepts related to. Lastly, Inquiry Hub offers open-source full-year curricula that can also aid teachers with refining their labs, classroom activities, and assessments.
For these updated labs to serve their purpose, teachers will need to reframe classroom management expectations to focus on student engagement and discussion. This may mean embracing what I call “organized chaos.” Over time, teachers will build a sense of efficacy through small successes, whether that’s spotting a studentconstructing their own knowledge or documenting an increased depth of knowledge in an entire class. The objective is to build on student understanding across the entire classroom, which teachers can do with much more confidence if they know that their administrators support them.
For administrators: Rethink evaluations and offer support
Arecent survey found that 59 percent of administrators in California, where I work, understood how to support teachers with implementing the NGSS. Despite this, some administrators may need to recalibrate their expectations of what they’ll see when they observe classrooms. What they might see is organized chaos happening: students out of their seats, students talking, students engaged in all different sorts of activities. This is what NGSS-aligned learning looks like.
To provide a clear focus on student-centered learning indicators, they can revise observation rubrics to align with NGSS, or make their lives easier and use this one. As administrators track their teachers’ NGSS implementation, it helps to monitor their confidence levels. There will always be early implementers who take something new and run with it, and these educators can be inspiring models for those who are less eager to change.
The overall goal for administrators is to make classrooms safe spaces for experimentation and growth. The more administrators understand about the NGSS, the better they can support teachers in implementing it. They may not know all the details of the DCIs, SEPs, and CCCs, but they must accept that the NGSS require students to be more active, with the teacher acting as more of a facilitator and guide, rather than the keeper of all the knowledge.
Based on my experience in both teaching and administration roles, I can say that constructivist science classrooms may look and sound different–with more student talk, more questioning, and more chaos. By understanding these differences and supporting teachers through this transition, administrators ensure that all California students develop the deeper scientific thinking that NGSS was designed to foster.
Nancy Nasr, Ed.D., Santa Paula Unified School District
Nancy Nasr is a science educator and administrator at Santa Paula Unified School District. She can be reached at [email protected].
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
The higher education sector is navigating an era of rapid change. Shifting demographics, declining traditional enrollment and evolving workforce needs are redefining the value proposition for universities. Coupled with budget and staffing pressures, it can seem daunting to university leaders to understand how to begin the transformation that universities are being asked to undertake.
Workforce-relevant credentials, such as microcredentials, certificates and industry-aligned badges, are emerging as strategic tools to expand institutional reach, respond to employer demand and deliver measurable career impact for learners. These can be delivered separately from your degree curriculum, embedded within the degree pathway or both.
Universities face stagnant enrollments, skepticism about ROI and mounting pressure to innovate. Traditional degree pathways alone are no longer enough to address these headwinds. This blueprint provides university leaders with a road map to implement credentialing initiatives that align with market demand, institutional mission and long-term sustainability.
The Why: Building the Case Internally
Building the internal case to expend the time and energy to realign curricular offerings can be daunting at times of resource scarcity. But the reality is that from an enrollment perspective, it’s simply good planning to be looking ahead and identifying new markets for your institution. And the population that holds the most promise of growth for higher education today is the adult learner—a segment that is growing fast.
These students are often midcareer professionals, job changers or individuals seeking rapid upskilling. They may already have a bachelor’s degree or a workforce credential, or they may be a part of the 43.1 million learners with some credit but no degree. Of those, 37.6 million represent working-age adults under the age of 65. These learners will value short, targeted, career-aligned learning experiences that fit into busy lives. How are you identifying and connecting with these learners and who are the employer partners that you can engage with?
By integrating stackable, workforce-relevant credentials into academic offerings, institutions can diversify revenue, attract new learners and showcase agility in meeting labor market needs. Graduates gain targeted skills, boosting employability and alumni engagement. Their success positions the university as a trusted partner for every career stage.
How to Start
Exploring innovative credentialing is a great tool in your strategic enrollment management planning toolbox. Such initiatives can be supportive of your enrollment goals and also provide some answers to the public questions around the ROI for their tuition dollars. You might be well on your way on the journey to strengthening the connection between learning and the workforce, or you might be just beginning. The reality is that educational institutions may already have some of the building blocks in place, and a slight shift in how you package and document your educational programs could put you on the right path.
While any credential could be industry-aligned, it might be easiest to begin with smaller, incremental credentials, either independently or aligned to current degree programs. For adult learners, short, skill-based and industry-aligned programs offer an immediate career payoff while potentially stacking toward degrees.
A well-designed workforce offering needs to be aligned with industry-trusted credentials and certifications and should ultimately layer with your traditional academic programs and offer a clear connection to employment-relevant skills. Investing in this work today will create short-term enrollment gains and help you to build long-term relationships with learners and employers who will turn to you again and again to meet their upskilling needs. These will also speak to your undergraduate degree learners (and their parents) by creating a direct link to return on investment.
Defining Workforce-Relevant Credentials
Degree: Academic credential or qualifications awarded to a learner who has successfully completed a specified course of study in a particular field or discipline.
Certificate: Official documentation indicating completion of purposefully collected coursework to signify understanding of a narrow subject or topic. May also confirm acquisition of specific skills.
Microcredential: Competency or skills-based recognition that allows a learner to demonstrate mastery and learning in a particular area. Less than a full degree or certificate; it is a segment of learning achievement or outcome. Should be certified by a recognized authority.
Badge: Digital visual representation that recognizes skills, achievements, membership affiliation and participation.
Build a Cross-Campus Team
To successfully build new innovative credentials requires a collaborative approach, the creation of a planning team that aligns academic, enrollment, tech, marketing and employer-engagement strategies holistically. At a minimum, this includes faculty, the registrar’s office, enrollment management, your continuing-education division, education technology and your finance officer.
A second layer to support learner success should also include advising, student services and career services. Chosen well, this team will be key to help ensure that you maintain compliance with accreditation or governance requirements in addition to designing an attractive and relevant program. Building the internal case across the campus with these leaders will help you to create the buy-in required to balance innovation and agility with compliance.
Aligning Credentials With Institutional Mission
Any workforce credentials offered by an institution should support and complement, not compete with, existing degree pathways. To ensure this alignment, consider embedding programs within academic departments and continuing education units. Be sure to involve faculty early to ensure rigor, buy-in and shared governance.
And don’t forget to map credentials to degree pathways for seamless learner progression. Make it easy for an adult learner to become a lifelong learner. Innovative credentials can serve as entry ramps to degree programs, be embedded into degrees or stand alone. Start with pilots and focus on high-demand, high-return fields.
Consider Technology
Ultimately, when making learning and credential platform decisions, you should seek to prioritize interoperable, learner-centered technologies that enhance the portability of records and improve coordination across institutions. Digital solutions that prioritize transparency, accuracy and accessibility help to create a more connected and responsive learning ecosystem, ensuring that learners can move seamlessly through their educational and career pathways, with their achievements recognized and understood wherever they go.
Building the Adult Learner Pipeline
As in any new program, you must do your research. Review your institution’s most recent environmental scan to support prioritization of your best opportunities. If that scan is not current or doesn’t include market intelligence that leverages labor market analytics and employer feedback, you will need to collect that information to ensure offerings are demand-driven.
Outreach and messaging. Frequently, the effectiveness of the institution’s communications with prospective and current students comes under scrutiny: the quality of technology, the delivery modes, timing, the content and the coordination. Prepare for these concerns by outlining what the college is currently doing and who the stakeholders are. Messaging for innovative credentials will be inherently different than messaging for a degree. Promote credentials as high-value, low-barrier entry points for upskilling or career change.
Leveraging partnerships. Consider your service area and inventory your partnerships. Collaborate with employers, workforce boards and government agencies to co-design, fund or endorse programs. Convene regional advisory councils to keep offerings aligned with workforce trends. It is important that these relationships are current and agile so that credentials can respond to shifting workforce needs in real time. Explore grants, workforce investment funds and employer cost-sharing opportunities that may help defray your costs and those of your learners.
Developing support structures. All learners need support, which might need to look somewhat different for adult learners than your traditional degree support. Offer advising, prior learning assessment and flexible credit pathways to maximize learner success.
Considering assessment and data collection. Nationally, there is a call for more transparency and more data that proves ROI. This means that more data collection from learners up front and better tracking of outcomes will be required. Data collection in the workforce credential space will give you valuable experience that you can apply to your degree programs as federal student aid requirements shift toward proving workforce outcomes.
A Call to Action for Institutional Leaders
Universities that strategically embrace workforce-relevant credentials will not only meet the needs of today’s learners but also strengthen employer partnerships and stand out in a crowded market. It’s more than launching new programs. It’s about reimagining the university as a future-facing institution that delivers lifelong value. The time to act is now: Start small, scale smart and lead with vision.
A large majority of financial aid administrators, 72%, say they’ve experienced “noticeable changes” in the Federal Student Aid office’s communications, responsiveness and processing timelines since the U.S. Department of Education’s mass layoffs in March.
That’s according to a July survey conducted by the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. The results also show that “federal support channels for students are breaking down,” including through issues with call centers, NASFAA said.
These disruptions are hampering colleges’ ability to assist students, it said. “Unless federal service channels stabilize, the aid system risks becoming less accessible, less predictable, and less trusted by the very students it is intended to serve,” it added.
Dive Insight:
When the Education Department moved to lay off roughly half its staff in March, student advocates voiced concerns that the agency wouldn’t have enough workers to carry out core functions, including financial aid services.
NASFAA’s survey builds on those concerns. The survey found that higher shares of financial aid administrators surveyed in July said they are experiencing delays and a lack of communication from the Education Department than those polled just two months before.
For instance, 59% of officials surveyed in May said they had experienced disruptions in the Federal Student Aid office’s responsiveness, communication and processing timelines — a number that has since jumped to 72%.
Ellen Keast, deputy press secretary at the Education Department, sharply rebuked the survey.
“It is an embarrassment for NASFAA to release a ‘survey’ that blatantly parrots falsehoods and is not representative of the higher education community nor the American people’s overwhelming charge for change,” Keast said in an emailed statement Wednesday. “Clearly, NASFAA is peddling a false narrative to preserve the status quo.”
An Education Department official accused the survey of having methodological shortcomings. The official pointed to the survey’s response rate — completed by over 549 institutions — saying that represents less than 10% of the roughly 5,800 colleges that work with Federal Student Aid.
The official also said questions spurred respondents to report negative experiences and that those polled were overrepresented by administrators working at nonprofit and public four-year colleges, which the agency accused as being the most likely to oppose the Trump administration.
Additionally, the official said the mass layoffs did not impact FAFSA staff or Federal Student Aid’s ability to serve customers.
Melanie Storey, president and CEO of NASFAA, said in a statement that the survey reflects “the real, everyday experiences of financial aid professionals.”
“To dismiss these concerns as fabricated or political undermines the expertise of those working directly with students every day, eager to deliver on the promise of postsecondary education, and shows that the administration is not interested in working with experts in the field to achieve the best results for students; instead, it is focused on advancing its own agenda,” Storey said.
In the survey, 32% of respondents said they’ve experienced processing delays for the Free Application for Federal Student Aid since May.
Earlier this month, the Education Department began beta-testing for the 2026-27 FAFSA form. So far, more than 1,000 students have completed the form, according to a department official.
Meanwhile, 49% of financial aid administrators have experienced processing delays with the e-App, the application colleges submit to the Education Department to participate in federal financial aid programs. Among colleges that submitted the e-App, 63% said in July that it still had not been processed.
More students are reaching out to their financial aid offices, according to the survey. Sixty percent of administrators said they’ve seen spikes in student questions about the Education Department’s services in the July poll, compared with 45% who said the same in May.
While several respondents said students were confused about the FAFSA process or federal aid, not all officials specified whether the inquiries were related to the Education Department’s mass layoffs or other recent federal changes.
Republicans recently made sweeping changes to the student loan system through their massive domestic policy bill signed into law in July. That includes consolidating the student loan repayment programs into just two options and phasing out Grad PLUS loans, which allow graduate and professional students to borrow up to the cost of attendance.
Critics have noted that the Education Department will have to carry out the vast policy changes mandated by the bill with about half the workforce it had before President Donald Trump retook office.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has framed the layoffs as the first step to Trump’s goal of eliminating the Education Department and shifting its duties elsewhere — a change that would require congressional approval.
A federal judge initially blocked the Education Department’s mass layoffs, but the U.S. Supreme Court lifted that order in July while litigation challenging their legality proceeds.
In American higher education, teaching is our business, research our currency and service our obligation. It has always perplexed me that the pursuit of higher education administration has traditionally compelled individuals to move away from a continued practice of two of these core faculty functions. The path of a faculty administrator is typically marked by a shift away from teaching and research, an evolution that makes returning to the faculty for some almost an impossibility, after years of being disconnected from the disciplinary practices that propelled their trajectory through the faculty ranks to secure an administrative role in the first place.
At Kennesaw State University, we are exploring a new approach to academic leadership that reverses this traditional model of administrative disconnect. Starting this past academic year, every senior academic administrator serving on the provost’s leadership team (including all deans) joined me (serving as provost) in a commitment to teaching or researching annually, with the goal of helping us better understand and serve our university community. For some, the move to formally carve out approximately 10 percent of their time for either teaching or research validates ongoing teaching and research practices, while for others, it provides administrative latitude to reignite their passion for teaching and/or research.
KSU’s president, Kathy Stewart Schwaig, co-taught an honors course with me this past spring, leading this strategy by example. President Schwaig, who holds a Ph.D. in information systems and whose leadership trajectory has evolved through faculty ranks across two Georgia institutions, takes this philosophical commitment to staying connected to the business of higher education even a step further, as she is currently enrolled as a graduate student at Dallas Theological Seminary pursuing a master’s in biblical and theological studies.
As Kennesaw State, a Carnegie-designated R-2 institution that serves a population of more than 47,800 students, some could see this strategy as a pragmatic way of extending the capacities of the senior academic administrators to serve the institution’s growing needs in research and teaching. At a time when the capacities of faculty colleagues are being optimized to serve one of the nation’s largest and fastest-growing public institutions, the members of the senior academic administrative team are committing to optimize their own collective capacities to serve the mission of the university.
The consequences will be more than just pragmatic, however. The annual commitment to serve as a higher education practitioner in addition to a higher education administrator could help us pursue administrative approaches that are rooted in a pragmatic understanding of both the shifting needs of industry and the changing needs of students entering higher education today. And it can also help build goodwill among faculty colleagues, who sometimes feel university administrators fail to fully comprehend the growing challenges of the classroom and pressures of research productivity.
Serving as provost, I have found my annual commitment to teaching an opportunity to inform administrative priorities. In fall 2020, when we struggled to comprehend how best to reopen and calibrate to the safety needs of the COVID pandemic, I was scheduled to teach a senior seminar course in the Department of Dance, while I served as dean of the College of the Arts at KSU. For a moment, I thought I should excuse myself from the added responsibilities of teaching a course at a time when my administrative capacities were being tested in rather unconventional ways. Better judgment prevailed, however, as I realized that out of every year that I continued to teach in my higher education career, this would be the semester when being in the classroom and experiencing the challenge alongside my faculty colleagues was most critical.
I would be lying if I said the experience was transformative. The challenges of lecturing with a face mask to socially distant students, split into two groups and separated by technology and physical space, was an experience that most faculty would likely agree was frustrating. But serving as dean and being in the classroom all semester allowed me to skip past several steps to serve the needs of my faculty colleagues with an understanding and empathy that was experientially relevant.
I am hoping that the impact of KSU’s administrative re-engagement strategy will be similarly impactful, ensuring that all senior academic administrators reignite their capacities to contribute to the teaching and research mission of the university. The idea seems to have been embraced at the outset by most; its sustainability, however, will require a continued institutional commitment and individual prioritization. While the true outcomes are yet to be empirically assessed, my hope is that this move will convert administrative faculty into faculty administrators, building their capacities to more effectively serve the growth of our institution with relevant, ongoing experiences in teaching and research.
Ivan Pulinkala is the provost and executive vice president for academic affairs at Kennesaw State University.
I read articles constantly in various journals, including this one, on how to be successful in various administrative roles—department chair, dean, provost, president, etc. Most of these are addressed to institutions not at all like mine, and many of the pieces are facile.
I am a senior faculty member bordering 50 years at a small private university of fewer than 900 undergrads and fewer than 500 graduate enrollments. I have held most leadership roles, won just about all the available honors and have had offers from other institutions as dean and vice president, among other roles. I have declined them all because I am at heart a classroom teacher and my dedication to my institution is inviolate.
In my long tenure, I have seen many senior administrators come and go, and I have kept notes on the bad ones. Some left significant damage not easily repaired. Reflecting on a recently departed senior administrator inspired me to articulate some advice and a few rules for success or failure at institutions such as mine.
Know the institution that you come to serve. This requires far more than a general overview; it necessitates a deep dive into the culture and nature of the place. Do not invoke the platitude “from my experience at other places, I have concluded …” Very large universities may reflect somewhat similar characteristics, but even that is questionable. However, institutions such as mine differ distinctively in their culture, including history, experiences, individuals and makeup. Learn all that you can about this before arriving, and once on campus devote the necessary time to knowing the individuals who are key players, especially those who through long service have shaped the character of the place. New administrators often privilege new members of the community, who, like them, are novices, in hopes that they will be more amenable to reshaping the environment. However, it is those with long history who are embedded in the culture and who have deep connections with many important constituencies, including peers, the Board of Trustees and alumni. A new administrator may believe that they have a mandate to change the culture. But traditions are the lifeblood of small institutions, and they don’t die readily. Supposed mandates can dissipate quickly. First gain trust before venturing into this potential minefield.
If the institution is in such despair that immediate drastic action is imperative, ask yourself honestly if you can handle the responsibility of the challenge. Success may be ephemeral, and even if you achieve short-term goals, you may burn bridges that can continue to haunt you. My institution has not experienced existential travail, but some leaders during my tenure have exploited unease and trepidation, taking advantage of fears about salary stagnation, job reductions, benefits suspensions or even, in extreme cases, mentioning other college closings to promote their agendas. Academia today is precarious, and honesty is necessary, but fear is a poor leadership strategy.
Put the institution above yourself. When you lose the trust of the community, it is merely a matter of time. No action is more damning for an administrator than résumé-building for the next position. Every action must be in the interests of the institution rather than one’s own benefit. Over 50 years, I have witnessed several leaders whose actions were so patently self-serving that I wished only that they would move away—whether up or down, I didn’t care. This is a character flaw. What one may consider as career enhancement can come at the expense and livelihood of my peers and colleagues. In my early days as an ambitious potential climber, my president counseled me, to privilege my personal career as I pursued the next step might be successful or not. But to privilege my institution with all my energy, talent and commitment would lead to a more fulfilling life. I didn’t appreciate the admonishment at the time, but I came to internalize it. I won’t impose this mindset on others, and personally I would be a wealthier man if I had acted differently, but it has provided a personal career satisfaction that far exceeds any material or ego considerations. My mantra is to “devote heart and soul to the institution to the day of departure, and even beyond.”
Be honest, transparent, ethical and kind. Administrators often have to make hard decisions that drastically affect individual lives. You must act, but do so with integrity, empathy and kindness. Take responsibility for the decisions that you make; do not blame others or the situation for actions that you administer. Eschew pronouncements (which I have heard more than once) that “these actions are for better positioning the institution for long-term success.” That may be true, but tone-deaf remarks do not offer solace to individuals losing their careers for the institution’s “future well-being,” nor do they generally resonate well for institutional morale.
Faculty and staff morale is fragile, particularly at small institutions such as mine. Compromising it is hazardous. Keep steadfast: Sincerity and trust should be your guiding principles. If people trust you, they will bear considerable pain. If they do not trust you, then you will fail no matter what your motives.
The responsibility of leadership in the contemporary environment is a daunting undertaking. It demands skill, fortitude, courage, principles and character. From my long years of observations, many who carry significant titles do not demonstrate the requisite capabilities. One hopes that the few best practices expressed above may point toward some standards.
Joe P. Dunn is the Charles A. Dana Professor and chair of the Department of History and Philosophy at Converse University.
Administrators at the University of Wyoming have agreed to cut student media funding by only 8.5%, repudiating a censorial student government proposal to punish student media by cutting the funding by 75% because students “don’t like” student newspaper the Branding Iron’s editorial choices. The change came after FIRE wrote to the university, explaining that the proposed funding cut was based on the content of the student newspaper, flagrantly violating the First Amendment.
On Nov. 19, the Associated Students of the University of Wyoming passed a resolution recommending a drastic 75% cut to the fee that funds student media, including the student newspaper Branding Iron. The resolution, drafted by the Tuition Allocation and Student Fee Review Committee, cited staffing challenges, the quantity of advertising, and supposed “errors” in content as reasons for the cut. During the debate, several senators made their true motivations plain, tying their votes to personal distaste for the Branding Iron’s editorial choices, writing quality, and student opinions.
When they distribute student fee funding, student government members exercise state power. The First Amendment bars the government, and the students to whom it delegates its power, from taking away resources based on the content of a media outlet’s expression. For good reason.
Student media often have to write critical stories about their peers, administrators, and student government officials. So it goes when serving as a check on power, but that work would be nigh impossible without the First Amendment’s guarantee that citizens cannot be retaliated against for what they say. Cutting funding based on content impairs student journalists’ ability to confidently report on the world around them, and FIRE has beat backsimilarefforts across the country.
Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.
Though several student senators argued they had no “vendetta” against the student paper, their reliance upon opinions about the content of student media was enough to render their decision content-based. And any content-based restriction, however innocuous the stated motivation, must be regarded with a jaundiced eye lest those in power go unchecked.
Thanks to FIRE’s efforts, student journalists at UW are back to covering events in their community and beyond.
Having such dedicated staff on the local beat is especially important in places like Wyoming, where there are fewer outlets to cover local issues.
“When we look at the University of Wyoming, and we consider that it is the only four year university in our entire state, our student media’s impact is so much more important,” said Branding Iron editor-in-chief Ven Meester. “We are a college campus in one of the reddest states in the nation. From student organizations, to speakers, to community events, we have an exceptional amount of political diversity.”
Student media is the microphone that makes sure all these voices are heard. And FIRE is here to make sure that mic is never cut off.
FIRE defends the rights of students and faculty members — no matter their views — at public and private universities and colleges in the United States. If you are a student or a faculty member facing investigation or punishment for your speech, submit your case to FIRE today. If you’re a faculty member at a public college or university, call the Faculty Legal Defense Fund 24-hour hotline at 254-500-FLDF (3533). If you’re a college journalist facing censorship or a media law question, call the Student Press Freedom Initiative 24-hour hotline at 717-734-SPFI (7734).
School administrators provided mostly positive feedback to lawmakers curious about implementation of a 2023 law prohibiting students from using their phones.
School officials provided the House Student Academic Success subcommittee feedback last week on HB 379, a 2023 law that prohibits phone use during instructional time, prohibits access to certain websites on school networks, and requires instruction to students to responsibly use social media.
“It’s gone very very well in many of our classrooms, especially I would say it goes really well in our classrooms with struggling learners. The teachers have seen the benefit of that increased interaction with each other, the increased focus,” said Toni Zetzsche, principal of River Ridge High School in Pasco County.
The law, introduced by Rep. Brad Yeager, a Republican representing part of Pasco County, received unanimous support before serving as a sort of model legislation across the nation.
“The first step of this process: remove phones from the classroom, focus on learning, take the distraction out. Number two was, social media, without just yanking it from them, try to educate them on the dangers. Try to help to learn and understand how social media works for them and against them,” Yeager said during the subcommittee meeting.
An EducationWeek analysis shows Florida was the first state to ban or restrict phones when the law passed, with several other states following suit in 2024.
Florida schools have discretion as to how they enforce the law, with some prohibiting cellphones from the beginning until the end of the day, while others allow students to use their phones during down times like lunch and between classes.
Some teachers have taken it upon themselves to purchase hanging shoe organizers for students to bank their phones in during class, Yeager said.
Since the law took effect in the middle of 2023, Zetzsche said, students in higher level college preparatory classes have partially struggled because of the self-regulating nature of the courses and the expectation that teachers give them more freedom.
But for younger and lower-performing students, the law has been effective, according to Zetzsche and research Yeager used to gain support for the bill.
“In some of our ninth and tenth grade classrooms, where the kids need a little more support, those teachers are definitely seeing the benefit,” Zetzsche said.
Orange County Schools Superintendent Maria Vazquez said schools have combatted student complaints about not having their phones by filling down time, like lunch periods, with games or club activities.
Zetzsche said she has seen herself and others use the phoneless time as an opportunity to get to know more students.
“I know I’ve spoken with teachers, elementary teachers, middle school teachers, and high school teachers that have said, ‘I’ve had to teach students to reconnect and get involved or talk to people.’ They are doing a better job of focusing on that replacement behavior now, I think. I think we all are,” Zetzsche said.
“I think, as a high school principal now, when I see a student sitting in the cafeteria and they’re on their cellphone watching a movie, I immediately want to strike up a conversation and say, ‘Hey, are you on the weightlifting team? Do you play a sport?’” Zetzsche said.
Bell to bell
Orange County schools decided not to allow phones all day, while Pasco County chose to keep phones away from students during instructional time, the extent the law requires.
“It was surprisingly, and shockingly, pretty easy to implement,” Marc Wasko, principal at Timber Creek High School in Orange County, told the subcommittee.
Rep. Fiona McFarland, a Republican representing part of Sarasota County and the chair of the subcommittee, encouraged further planning to better enforce the law.
“I will tell you, because not everything we do up here is perfect, there are some schools that I’ve heard of where, even if the teacher has a bag, kids are bringing a dummy phone, like mom’s old iPhone, and flipping that into the pouch where they’ve got their device in their pocket or if you’ve got long hair, maybe you can hide earbuds,” McFarland said.
“I mean, this is the reality of being policymakers, folks,” McFarland continued. “We make a law, we can make the greatest law in the world, which is meaningless if it’s not executed and enforced properly. We could pass a law tomorrow to end world hunger and global peace, but it means nothing if it’s not operationalized well and planned for well.”
Yeager told the committee he does not plan to seek to ban phones outside of instructional time, although other lawmakers could push for further phone prohibitions.
Department of Education obligation
The law requires the Department of Education to make instructional material available on the effects of social media, required for students to learn under the law.
“Finding the time to be able to embed that into the curriculum is really difficult. We are struggling with instructional minutes as it is, when we have things like hurricanes impact learnings,” Zetzsche said.
“We are struggling to get through the content, so it would be nice to have something from the Department of Education that is premade that we can share with students, but maybe through elective courses or some guidance on how they would expect high schools, how they would feed that information to students.”
Administrators said parental pushback has been limited, and Zetzsche added that parents have sought advice from schools about how to detach their kids from their phones.
“When we struggle with the student who’s attached to their cellphone, the parents want to put things in place. They just don’t know what to do,” Zetzsche said, calling for the department to provide additional information to parents.
Florida Phoenix is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Florida Phoenix maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Michael Moline for questions: [email protected].
