Tag: Challenges

  • AI Can Help With Viewpoint Diversity Challenges (opinion)

    AI Can Help With Viewpoint Diversity Challenges (opinion)

    Viewpoint diversity and artificial intelligence are two of the most widely discussed challenges facing higher education today. What if we could address these two simultaneously, employing AI to create productive intellectual friction across different political and philosophical positions?

    Consider taking this approach: Whom do you ardently disagree with, philosophically or morally, but view as smart and rigorous in their analysis and arguments? I can think of one of my high school heroes, Ayn Rand, whose The Fountainhead I initially regarded as a powerful affirmation of creativity and innovation without knowing much about her deeper political ideology. This summer, I decided to read her collection of essays on capitalism, which I suspected I would disagree with at a fundamental level. Then I looked to AI. Could I engage Ayn Rand’s ideas through a large language model that would “disagree” with me, allowing me to experience intellectual friction with less at stake personally?

    I began my conversation with the chatbot Claude 3.5, asking it to play the role of Ayn Rand, by addressing her core argument: Capitalism is the only moral system because it honors the rights and liberty of every person to reap the benefits of their own creativity and effort without being coerced to give up some of what they have produced to “benefit” society. Here is how it went.

    Me: In your version of capitalism, how do humans/societies decide to produce something bigger than anyone could do alone? What if sending someone to the moon could never be coordinated through independent, voluntary contracts and instead requires some larger entity, like a government, to coordinate and incentivize? If democratic citizens vote to have the government organize a mission to the moon, why is that coercive?

    *Adjusting her glasses with a stern expression* (Stage cues provided by the bot)

    Rand bot: Your question reveals the very philosophical premises I reject. You speak of “democratic citizens” voting to achieve something “greater together”—but greater for whom? By what right do these citizens vote to expropriate the wealth of others for their collective fantasy?

    The fact that some men dream of reaching the moon does not give them the moral right to force others to fund their dream. If reaching the moon is truly valuable, let those who see that value risk their own capital, form their own companies and make voluntary contracts. Look at what private enterprises like SpaceX have achieved through voluntary cooperation and the profit motive!

    You present a false dichotomy between individual rights and large-scale achievement. The greatest achievements in human history—from the transcontinental railroad to the electric light—came from private individuals working through voluntary contracts, not government force. Even when multiple parties were involved, they chose to cooperate for mutual benefit.

    The moment you accept that it’s acceptable to violate individual rights for some “greater good,” you’ve accepted the premise of every dictator and looter in history. There is no such thing as a “right” to violate rights. A group’s desire, no matter how noble-sounding, does not trump an individual’s right to the product of their own effort.

    *Takes drag from cigarette* (more stage cues …)

    Would you care to explain why you believe some men have the right to enslave others for their collective goals?

    I was fully engaged at this point, and I wanted to expose her rigid thinking, so I raised the stakes.

    Me: Would you agree that public health might require a “collective response”? Let’s say that individuals acting independently have no incentive to invest in clean water, vaccines or databases that collect public health data. Is it better to allow millions of people to die from the spread of disease in the name of maximum individual freedom, or to have the government coordinate action to provide public health benefits to everyone?

    Rand bot: *Tapping cigarette ash with visible irritation*

    Your premise rests on the most dangerous of all moral fallacies— that the mere existence of a problem justifies the use of force to solve it. You speak of “public health” as if it were some mystical collective entity that supersedes individual rights. There is no such thing as “public health”—there are only individual human beings, each with the right to make their own decisions about their health and well-being.

    This back-and-forth went on for more than an hour, covering topics like innovation, market failures and unequal access to basic resources. I was worn out, so I closed the conversation.

    Me: I am arguing that humans can create mixed economic and political systems and that those systems can muddle along—imperfectly—and people may live with those compromises because they still have freedom while affording greater opportunity to their fellow citizens. You believe in an inevitable slide toward destruction and loss of freedom. I don’t see that slide happening in much of the democratic world. So compromise is possible. So I think we can work with this hybrid system—improve, find the right balance, and continue to advance a more perfect union.

    And then, “Ayn Rand” made her final summation:

    Rand bot: You want me to acknowledge that reality has not matched my darkest predictions. That humans have found ways to maintain significant freedom and progress despite what I see as moral compromise. And you argue that evidence matters—that decades of relative prosperity and innovation under mixed systems deserve consideration.

    I cannot and will not concede the fundamental moral principle: that force is force, whether applied by a dictator or a democratic majority. Your “muddling along” is built on a fundamental contradiction that I believe must eventually resolve itself—either toward freedom or toward force …

    I was impressed that the bot could articulate Rand’s core arguments, impersonate her direct writing and speaking style, question my own logic, provide specific examples, “reason” beyond the time and place of her original writing, and offer creative analogies (when pressed to explain the economic success of today’s welfare capitalism, she responded, “You are celebrating reaching the 2nd floor while I am pointing out that we could have built a skyscraper”). This was one of the most intellectually engaging 90 minutes I have spent in a long time.

    I wanted to check my reactions against the wisdom and judgment of one of our philosophy professors at Hamilton College, so I sent the entire exchange to him. He noted that the AI bot argued like a robot and relied too heavily on rhetoric rather than sound argumentation. Ultimately, the problem, as he sees it, is that “an AI Bot will never be able to genuinely distinguish between debating with the intent of ‘winning’ an argument and debating with the intent of arriving at a deeper understanding of the subject matter at hand.” It is also worth pointing out that debating across a screen, with AI or with friends and strangers, is partly why we are having so much trouble talking to each other in the first place.

    AI is not a substitute for what we learn in our philosophy classes. But there is something powerful about practicing our ideas with people across time and place—debating race with James Baldwin, asking Leonardo da Vinci to think about how we reconcile innovation with destruction.

    One of our faculty members worked with our technology team to create an AI agent based on thousands of documents and writings from our nation’s founders. At the end of this class on the founding of America, the students debated with “Alexander Hamilton” about the role of the central government, inherited wealth and his views on war. Perhaps the answers were a bit robotic, but they were based on Hamilton’s documented thoughts, and as our language models get better, the richness of the discussion and debate will grow exponentially.

    The best classes and teachers maximize learning by bringing opposing ideas into conversation. But we know that college students, faculty and many others in America find it very difficult to engage opposing views, especially those we find fundamentally objectionable. Ultimately, this must happen on a human-to-human level with skilled educators and facilitators. But can we also use AI to help us practice how we engage with difference, better formulate our arguments and ask deeper and more complex questions?

    AI can be part of the solution to our challenge of engaging with ideas we disagree with. If you disagree, try your argument with an AI bot first, and then let’s talk.

    Steven Tepper is president of Hamilton College.

    Source link

  • Counting the cost of financial challenges in English higher education

    Counting the cost of financial challenges in English higher education

    The financial health of UK universities has become a pressing concern, with widespread reports of deficits and shrinking operating surpluses. Yet until now, robust evidence on how these pressures shape institutional decisions – on investment, staffing, research, and student services – has been limited.

    To address this evidence gap, interviews were conducted with chief financial officers and directors of finance in 74 of the 133 higher education institutions in England between March and May 2025, covering 56 per cent of institutions.

    The study covered all TRAC peer groups, from research-intensive universities to specialist arts and music colleges. The findings reveal stark differences in financial resilience across the sector, but also common themes that underscore systemic vulnerabilities.

    A striking 85 per cent of institutions reported either an operating deficit, break-even position, or reduced surplus in the current year. Only 11 institutions – just under 15 per cent – maintained or improved their operating surplus. Even among these, financial pressures were evident, with cost-cutting and efficiency drives mirroring those in deficit institutions.

    Low research intensity institutions are most exposed, with 95 per cent in deficit or reduced surplus, while high research intensity universities fare slightly better at 79 per cent. Arts and music colleges also show significant vulnerability, with nearly nine in ten reporting financial strain.

    Strategies and trade-offs

    The origins of financial weakness vary by institutional type. For research intensive universities, the decline in international tuition fee income is the dominant concern, compounded by visa restrictions and heightened global competition. Medium and low research intensity institutions cite rising staff and estate costs, alongside pension liabilities. For arts and music colleges, the freeze on UK tuition fees was a critical issue, although face additional challenges given the liability of smallness.

    These challenges are not short-term blips. An overwhelming 97 per cent of respondents view the current situation as a structural, long-term problem. Many argue that the sector’s business model – heavily reliant on international student income and constrained by capped domestic fees – is fundamentally unsustainable. And more worryingly difficult to change in the short to medium term.

    Faced with financial stringency, universities are deploying a mix of defensive and adaptive strategies. Borrowing has been rare – only five per cent of deficit institutions increased debt – but asset sales and diversification of income streams are common. Over three-quarters of institutions are actively seeking new revenue sources, from commercialisation and estate rental to online learning and transnational education partnerships.

    Interestingly, financial pressure is not uniformly leading to retrenchment. While some institutions have closed departments or dropped programmes – particularly among medium and less research-intensive universities – many are introducing new courses, both undergraduate and postgraduate, to attract students and generate income.

    Staffing, however, tells a more sobering story. Nearly half of deficit institutions have implemented voluntary redundancy schemes, and around one-fifth have resorted to compulsory redundancies. Recruitment freezes are widespread, affecting academic and professional staff alike. These measures, while necessary for financial stability, risk eroding institutional capacity and morale.

    Counting the cost

    The ripple effects of financial constraint extend beyond staffing. Research support is under significant strain: over a third of institutions report cuts to research facilities and internal consortia. Yet there are pockets of investment – 18 per cent of institutions have increased funding for libraries and data services, and nearly one-fifth have boosted support for industrial collaborations, reflecting a strategic pivot toward partnerships and innovation.

    Student experience has, so far, been relatively protected. Most institutions have maintained spending on mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion initiatives, though career development and academic support have seen reductions in about a quarter of cases. Investment in estates is more uneven: while many institutions are deferring maintenance and new builds, over half are increasing spending on digital transformation – a clear signal of shifting priorities.

    Financial turbulence is also reshaping leadership dynamics. Nearly 90 per cent of respondents agree that leadership teams are under heightened pressure and scrutiny, with a growing emphasis on short-term decision-making. This environment is taking a toll on staff wellbeing: two-thirds of respondents report negative impacts on mental health, alongside rising workloads and job insecurity. Trust in leadership has declined in almost half of institutions, underscoring the human dimension of the financial crisis.

    Perhaps the most sobering finding is the sector’s view of external support. Over 60 per cent of respondents rated government and regional assistance as ineffective. The message is clear: incremental adjustments will not suffice. Respondents called for a fundamental review of the funding model in higher education. Without decisive intervention, the risk is not just institutional hardship but systemic decline – jeopardising the UK’s global standing in higher education and research.

    Source link

  • Five challenges faced by the Welsh tertiary sector

    Five challenges faced by the Welsh tertiary sector

    Wales’ tertiary education and research sector is something we should all be proud of.

    This is why I want to ensure it not only remains sustainable but continues to build on the achievements of the past five years.

    These achievements include our progressive higher education funding policy, which has ensured financial barriers do not hold back talent and ambition. Welsh full-time undergraduates studying away from home outside London are entitled to £12,345 in maintenance support, with up to £8,100 in grants for those from the lowest income household.

    Our financial package for part-time study has opened higher education to thousands more students since 2018.

    Welsh universities led the UK for the proportion of their research whose impact is considered internationally excellent or world-leading in REF 2021.

    The pandemic had a tremendous impact on every aspect of education, but the tide has started to turn. Further education has seen a revival in participation in recent years, helped by increased funding for colleges and the continuation of the Education Maintenance Grant and Welsh Government Learning Grant. Last year there was an 8.5 per cent increase in school leavers progressing to college and it is promising that early data suggests a similar increase this year.

    A time of challenges

    But I am mindful that there are significant challenges facing tertiary education, not just in Wales, but across the UK.

    Yesterday in the Senedd I set out what I believe are now the five most pressing challenges for higher and further education in Wales in the coming years, and how I will use the remainder of the Senedd term to work with the sector to address them.

    Increasing participation must continue to be a priority. Wales has a smaller proportion of young people attaining level 3 (A Levels and equivalent) than other UK nations. Our higher education entry rate at age 18 is also the lowest in the UK at 30 per cent, and although a larger proportion of students appear to enter HE in Wales in their twenties, we want more to see university as part of their future at 18.

    The Welsh Government has a long-standing goal of 75 per cent of working age people being qualified to level 3 or higher by 2050. To achieve this, we need to expand access to a full range of vocational, technical, and academic pathways from age 16, which is why we are already reforming both 14-16 and post-16 qualifications.

    And our tertiary education sector must be ready for a significant decline in the numbers of young people. The number of 16-year-olds in Wales is expected to fall by 17 per cent between 2027 and 2037. As a result, demand for university places across the UK could fall by almost 20 per cent in the 2030s.

    Lifelong learning is already well ingrained in Welsh higher education. In 2022-23, 36 per cent of Welsh students studied part-time, compared with 23 per cent of English students, and 44 per cent of Welsh students were aged 25 and above compared with 36 per cent of English students. And during this Senedd term we have been able to increase the numbers of part-time learners in further education for the first time in a decade.

    This is a platform to build from, but we will need to go further to enable adults to upskill around work and family commitments, at all levels, by providing more flexible, part-time and lifelong learning opportunities.

    Unintended consequences

    Another challenge relates to the unintended consequences of growing competition between providers. The competition in student recruitment is fundamental to the financial challenges now facing our universities and it will only intensify from 2030.

    The removal of student number caps has permitted some UK universities to grow their domestic enrolments – often by lowering entry requirements – at the expense of the rest of the sector, including many of our excellent universities here in Wales. A future where higher-tariff providers continue to expand their enrolments at the rate of the past few years cannot be sustainable for the wider UK sector.

    So I agree with the UK Government’s white paper that the future for tertiary education lies not in greater competition, but in increased collaboration. We have already worked with the Competitions and Markets Authority (CMA) to clarify the position on collaboration between universities. Medr is working to map subject provision so we can better understand which subjects may be at risk in the future from growing competition and changes in student preferences. Now we must look at how we enable closer collaboration in practice, and create the right incentives in funding and regulation for institutions to act more collaboratively.

    I believe working in partnership will also be key to addressing the financial challenges facing not only institutions, but also students.

    Our financial support for tertiary education and students is significant, totalling over £1.2bn this year alone. Despite taking the difficult decision to increase tuition fees in the past two years and again next year, education must remain affordable. This is why we provide generous student support and a more progressive repayment policy in Wales. We will therefore consider cost-of-living pressures for students and learners in the ongoing evaluation of the Diamond reforms. But the challenges facing the public finances are likely to last, and we need to consider how every penny spent to support institutions and students is delivering the greatest value possible.

    Delivery

    Finally, a thriving tertiary education sector must deliver for our economy. There are already excellent examples of this – such as the role of Cardiff University to support the compound semiconductor manufacturing hub, or the work of the North Wales Tertiary Alliance to power the new reactors at Wylfa with a skilled workforce. But we will need to change our approaches to vocational skills and research and innovation, both to respond to UK Government reforms, and to ensure that our economy has the skills and ideas to boost productivity and reduce inequality.

    We have begun some of the work needed to meet these five challenges but must go further. In the coming weeks, we will publish an evidence paper, alongside a call for submissions from stakeholders, which will set out the challenges in much greater depth, and call on the sector to comment and advise on what more we need to understand about them.

    I have also invited representatives from across the Welsh sector to join a new Ministerial Advisory Group, to consider these challenges in depth and in the spirit of social partnership.

    Together, this work will provide a comprehensive evidence base upon which to deliver further reform, and help us to secure a thriving future for our tertiary education sector in Wales in these challenging times.

    Source link

  • Austin ISD is closing 10 schools amid enrollment challenges

    Austin ISD is closing 10 schools amid enrollment challenges

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Austin Independent School District’s board of trustees approved a plan Thursday evening to close 10 schools in the Texas district by the 2026-27 school year in the midst of ongoing enrollment declines. 
    • The closures will impact nearly 3,800 students who will be reassigned to new schools in the district and the plan will cut 6,319 open seats, according to Austin ISD.
    • The move is expected to save the district $21.5 million, according to Austin ISD Superintendent Matias Segura during the Thursday board meeting. That amount more than covers the district’s budget deficit of $19.7 million this school year.  

    Dive Insight:

    Segura said during the board meeting that developing and carrying out this school closure plan has been “a very difficult process.” 

    Most of the schools impacted by closures are at the elementary level, according to the district.

    Segura also said he wished the district didn’t have to make this decision, “but the pressures are gargantuan.”

    Austin ISD instructed 72,700 students across 113 schools in 2024-25.

    When Austin ISD first announced it was considering school closures and consolidations earlier this year, Segura emphasized that the district lost over 10,000 students within the past decade, which led to a total of 21,000 empty seats.

    While the district’s preliminary fall enrollment data has yet to be released by the Texas Education Agency, Austin ISD has said it’s likely that the number of students attending its schools will continue to drop. 

    In recent months the district considered several factors before proposing which schools should close, including size, condition, student enrollment and operational costs.

    Elsewhere in Texas, Houston Independent School District laid off and reassigned hundreds of its teachers “to align” them “with student enrollment” as the district had previously projected a drop in enrollment by about 8,000 students this school year. 

    Houston ISD, which is under the leadership of the state, initially planned to announce a proposal this fall to close some schools during the 2026-27 school year. However, the district announced last week that Superintendent Mike Miles told principals he was no longer going to recommend any school consolidations to the board for 2026-27. There still may be a small number of consolidations needed in future years, the district said in a video update on Wednesday. 

    Texas’ districts student enrollment declines are part of a larger trend across states and districts nationwide, with the downward trajectory straining budgets tied to per pupil funding. Reasons for declining enrollment vary by state and district. An ongoing decline in birthrates has been a common factor while other education leaders have cited this year’s federal immigration crackdown and newer school choice policies for detracting students from attending their public schools. 

    As a result, plans for school closures similar to Austin ISD’s and teacher layoffs as seen in Houston are rippling across large and small school districts— from Arizona’s Kyrene School District to Atlanta Public Schools and Florida’s Broward County Public Schools to Oregon’s Corvallis School District.

    Source link

  • HACU Conference Opens with Call to Action Amid Challenges Facing Hispanic Students

    HACU Conference Opens with Call to Action Amid Challenges Facing Hispanic Students

    Dr. Christopher Reber, President of Hudson County Community College, with staff, faculty and students from his college.HACUThe Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU) launched its 39th Annual Conference on Saturday, bringing together more than 1,600 education leaders, advocates, and students under the theme “Championing Hispanic Higher Education Success: Forging Transformational Leaders to Uplift Democracy and Prosperity.”

    The three-day gathering in Aurora, Colorado, opened with a sense of urgency as attendees acknowledged both the progress made in Hispanic higher education and the mounting challenges facing students and institutions.

    “The attacks on immigrants and higher education by the Trump administration is reason for why we need organizations like HACU to stand up for students like me,” said Maria Valasquez, 21, a college junior who attended the conference for the first time. “The threats are real and these are scary times for many first-generation college students.”

    The conference began with four specialized pre-conference events on October 31 and November 1, drawing approximately 200 participants total. These included the 14th Annual Deans’ Forum, focused on “Shaping Visionary Leaders for a Thriving and Democratic Future”; the Third Women’s Leadership Symposium; the 24th Annual Latino Higher Education Leadership Institute, themed “Building Transformational Leaders at All Levels to Strengthen Democracy and Prosperity”; and the 11th Annual PreK-12/Higher Education Collaboration Symposium, addressing “Bridging Education for Lifelong Success: Innovation, Collaboration, and Life Readiness.”

    The main conference kicked off with an Opening Plenary convened by Dr. Juan Sanchez Muñoz, HACU’s Governing Board chair and chancellor of the University of California, Merced. HACU Interim CEO Dr. John Moder delivered the Annual Address, followed by the induction of Dr. Félix V. Matos Rodriguez, chancellor of The City University of New York, into HACU’s Hall of Champions 2025.

    Dr. Mordecai Brownlee, President of The Community College of Aurora, and Dr. Christopher Reber, President of Hudson County Community College at the HACU conference.Dr. Mordecai Brownlee, President of The Community College of Aurora, and Dr. Christopher Reber, President of Hudson County Community College at the HACU conference.Corporate and nonprofit partners reaffirmed their commitment to Hispanic student success. Maria Pia Tamburri, Dominion Energy’s vice president of intergovernmental affairs and economic development; Audrey Stewart, Google’s global head of impact and reporting; and Francesca Martinez, the American Heart Association’s national director of the Bernard J. Tyson Office of Health, delivered remarks on behalf of their organizations. Capital One was also recognized for its support.

    A regional focus emerged through the Illinois Hispanic-Serving Institution Summit, also held November 1. After welcoming remarks from Moder and virtual comments from Illinois State Representative La Shawn Ford, a panel discussion addressed the midwestern region’s legislative agenda. The panel featured Dr. Susana Rivera-Mills, president of Aurora University; Dr. Lisa Freeman, president of Northern Illinois University; and Juan Salgado, chancellor of City Colleges of Chicago.

    The summit provided a platform for discussing HACU’s policy and legislative priorities in Illinois, including the critical role college and university presidents play in advancing and sustaining Hispanic-Serving Institutions across the state. Participants shared promising practices and explored collaborative approaches to strengthen institutional capacity.

    Seven honorees are being recognized throughout the conference for their contributions to improving opportunities for college students, with awards presented during various events over the three days.

    “As a president of a Hispanic-Serving Institution and member of HACU’s Board of Directors, I witness firsthand how these colleges and universities transform lives, strengthen families, and fortify our economy,” said Dr. Mordecai I. Brownlee, President of The Community College of Aurora. “The mission of HACU is not a moment — it’s a movement. Despite the challenges of our times, our collective commitment to equity, opportunity, and excellence is just getting started.”
     

    In an interview, Brownlee said that Hispanic-Serving Institutions are not just essential to higher education — they are essential to America’s economic growth and democratic future. 

     

    “By investing in HSIs, our nation invests in innovation, workforce readiness, and prosperity for all,” he said. “The mission of HACU is not simply about serving Hispanic students; it’s about strengthening the very foundation of America’s competitiveness and civic vitality.”  

     

    The conference continues through November 3, as higher education leaders work to chart a path forward for Hispanic student success amid an increasingly complex political landscape.

    Source link

  • Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Key points:

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

    How to find funding

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

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

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

    Strategies to win the grant

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

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

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

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

    Eight questions to consider when applying for a grant

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

    1. What is the goal? Clearly define what students will be able to do as a result of the project. Use action-orientated language: “Students will be able to…”
    2. Is the technology effective? Support your proposal with evidence such as whitepapers, case studies, or research that can demonstrate proven impact.
    3. How will the technology impact these specific students? Emphasize what makes your school or district unique, whether it’s serving a rural, urban, or high-poverty community and how this technology addresses those specific needs.
    4. What is the scope of the application? Specify whether the project involves elementary school, secondary school, or a specific subject or program like a STEM lab.
    5. How will success be measured? Too often schools reach the end of a project without a plan to track results. Plan your evaluation from the start. Track key metrics such as attendance, disciplinary data, academic performance, or engagement surveys, both before and after implementation to demonstrate results.
    6. What are your budgetary needs? Include all associated costs, including professional development and substitute coverage for teacher training.
    7. What happens after the grant is over? If you plan to use the technology for multiple years, apply for a multi-year grant rather than assuming future funding will appear. Sustainability is key.
    8. How will success be celebrated and communicated to stakeholders? Share results with the community and stakeholders. Host events recognizing teachers, students, and partners. Invite local media and highlight your funding partners–they’re not just donors, but partners in student success.

    Moving forward with confidence

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

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • How interactive tech simplifies IT and supercharges learning

    How interactive tech simplifies IT and supercharges learning

    Key points:

    Today’s school IT teams juggle endless demands–secure systems, manageable devices, and tight budgets–all while supporting teachers who need tech that just works.

    That’s where interactive displays come in. Modern, OS-agnostic solutions like Promethean’s ActivPanel 10 Premium simplify IT management, integrate seamlessly with existing systems, and cut down on maintenance headaches. For schools, that means fewer compatibility issues, stronger security, and happier teachers.

    But these tools do more than make IT’s job easier–they transform teaching and learning. Touch-enabled collaboration, instant feedback, and multimedia integration turn passive lessons into dynamic, inclusive experiences that keep students engaged and help teachers do their best work.

    Built to last, interactive displays also support long-term sustainability goals and digital fluency–skills that carry from classroom to career.

    Discover how interactive technology delivers 10 powerful benefits for schools.

    Download the full report and see how interactive solutions can help your district simplify IT, elevate instruction, and create future-ready classrooms.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Chatbots in Higher Education: Benefits, Challenges, and Strategies to Prevent Misuse – Faculty Focus

    Chatbots in Higher Education: Benefits, Challenges, and Strategies to Prevent Misuse – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • New research highlights the importance and challenges of K-12 student engagement

    New research highlights the importance and challenges of K-12 student engagement

    This press release originally appeared online.

    Key points:

    While there is wide agreement that student engagement plays a vital role in learning, educators continue to face uncertainty about what engagement looks like, how best to measure it, and how to sustain it, according to a new study from Discovery Education. 

    Education Insights 2025–2026: Fueling Learning Through Engagement captures prevailing attitudes and beliefs on the topic of engagement from 1,398 superintendents, teachers, parents, and students from across the United States. Survey data was collected in May 2025 by Hanover Research on behalf of Discovery Education. 

    “Discovery Education conducted the Education Insights report to gain a deeper understanding of how engagement is defined, observed, and nurtured in K-12 classrooms nationwide, and we are thankful to the participants who shared their perspectives and insights with us,” said Brian Shaw, Discovery Education’s Chief Executive Officer. “One of the most important findings of this report is that engagement is seen as essential to learning, but is inconsistently defined, observed, and supported in K-12 classrooms. I believe this highlights the need for a more standardized approach to measuring student engagement and connecting it to academic achievement. Discovery Education has embarked on an effort to address those challenges, and we look forward to sharing more as our work progresses.” 

    Key findings of the Education Insights 2025–2026: Fueling Learning Through Engagement report include: 

    Engagement is broadly recognized as a key driver of learning and success. Ninety-three percent of educators surveyed agreed that student engagement is a critical metric for understanding overall achievement, and 99 percent of superintendents polled believe student engagement is one of the top predictors of success at school. Finally, 92 percent of students said that engaging lessons make school more enjoyable. 

    But educators disagree on the top indicators of engagement. Seventy-two percent of teachers rated asking thoughtful questions as the strongest indicator of student engagement. However, 54 percent of superintendents identified performing well on assessments as a top engagement indicator. This is nearly twice as high as teachers, who rank assessments among the lowest indicators of engagement. 

    School leaders and teachers disagree on if their schools have systems for measuring engagement. While 99 percent of superintendents and 88 percent of principals said their district has an intentional approach for measuring engagement, only 60 percent of teachers agreed. Further, nearly one-third of teachers said that a lack of clear, shared definitions of student engagement is a top challenge to measuring engagement effectively. 

    Educators and students differ on their perceptions of engagement levels. While 63 percent of students agreed with the statement “Students are highly engaged in school,” only 45 percent of teachers and 51 percent of principals surveyed agreed with the same statement.  

    Students rate their own engagement much higher than their peers. Seventy percent of elementary students perceived themselves as engaged, but only 42 percent perceived their peers as engaged. Fifty-nine percent of middle school students perceived themselves engaged in learning, but only 36 percent perceived their peers as engaged. Finally, 61 percent of high school students perceived themselves as engaged, but only 39 percent described their peers as engaged. 

    Proximity to learning changes impressions of AI. Two-thirds of students believe AI could help them learn faster, yet fewer than half of teachers report using AI themselves to complete tasks. Only 57 percent of teachers agreed with the statement “I frequently learn about positive ways students are using AI,” while 87 percent of principals and 98 percent of superintendents agree. Likewise, only 53 percent of teachers agreed with the statement “I am excited about the potential for AI to support teaching and learning,” while 83 percent of principals and 94 percent of superintendents agreed. 

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The leadership challenges embedded in the 2025 OECD report, Education at a Glance

    The leadership challenges embedded in the 2025 OECD report, Education at a Glance

    • Yesterday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press and Assessment jointly hosted the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. You can see the OECD’s slides here.
    • Here we publish a response to the OECD from Professor Sir Chris Husbands, who is a former Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University and also former Chair of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Panel. Chris is a Trustee of HEPI and spoke at the launch.

    There is one line in the 2025 OECD Education at a Glance report which should be in bright flashing lights for this and all governments. The supporting data is on page 112 of the main report. It is this: Individuals with greater educational attainment generally face a lower risk of unemployment and earn higher wages. Race, gender, deprivation, place, subjects studied all impact outcomes in different ways, but the overall conclusion is clear, and in his HEPI briefing on the report, the OECD’s chief analyst Andreas Schleicher got the summary down to just two words: education pays.

    The 2025 OECD Education at a Glance report comes in at 541 pages, and the annual appearance of the report has made it the definitive guide to education system performance and policy dynamics all around the world: in the now familiar graphs of compelling clarity, and crisp text judgements, the OECD team have made themselves indispensable to institutional leaders, policy analysts and decision makers.

    This year’s report has a specific focus on tertiary education, which in OECD terms includes, but stretches a bit further than, higher education. There are some familiar and unsurprising themes in the 2025 report, but they are nonetheless important for being set out so clearly. A few key findings stood out for me, all of them speaking clearly to the English and UK policy agendas.

    First, advantages are inherited: those who have at least one tertiary-educated parent are more than twice as likely to attain a tertiary qualification than those whose parents have below upper secondary attainment, though the gap is smaller in the UK than elsewhere (p.56).

    Secondly, life is getting tougher for those without qualifications: the employment rate for young adults without upper secondary qualifications fell by 6 points since 2019, and by 9 points for men (pp.82-3).

    Thirdly, at the same it’s getting better for the better qualified: the nearly one-in-six with a Master’s degree have higher employment rates and earnings than those with an undergraduate degree (p48).

    Fourthly, education is losing the battle for public funding as the costs of health, pensions and defence rise: between 2015 and 2022, government spending on education declined from nearly 11% of budgets to just over 10% (p.278).

    And fifthly, despite that decline, R&D is strengthening to drive growth and competitiveness. Where it is highest, government drives it: in the UK, Israel and Switzerland, government R&D expenditure is more than twice private expenditure (p.329).

    There is more fine-grained analysis about English higher education. England, on the OECD data, is an outlier in important respects.

    First: English HE is well-funded by comparison with the OECD, whatever it feels like in the sector just now.  The finding is important: total tertiary expenditure per student, including R&D, is $35,000, among the highest in the OECD and 65% above the average (p.327). 

    Secondly, however, in the UK government tertiary expenditure is $8,000, 48% below the OECD average (p.331). This is a result of high tuition fees:  undergraduate fees are three times the OECD average.

    The third way in which England is an outlier is that access to higher education and completion rates within it are high – fourteen percentage points above the OECD average (p.246): access to higher education is far more a consequence of maintenance support than fee levels, but high fee levels almost certainly disincentivise non-completion. Finally, while there is a gap between economic returns to science and technology disciplines on the one hand and arts and humanities on the other in all OECD countries, the gap is much higher in the UK than in almost all other countries (p.111). 

    Putting all this together poses some knotty challenges. England has a successful, relatively accessible higher education system, but one which is very expensive when budgets for education are getting tighter. And this is happening when the economic returns to high levels of qualification are strengthening: masters and doctoral graduates enjoy higher returns than those with undergraduate degrees, while the least qualified face more intense difficulties. These challenges go beyond the voluminous data in Education at a Glance.

    First, and painful for English higher education, the challenge is not simply the level of current funding, but funding in relation to what is a high-cost operating and delivery model. That model secures strong results in terms of access for disadvantaged students and high completion rates, but it is relatively inflexible. It’s unclear whether a lower-cost and potentially more flexible operating model would put some of the successes of the English system at risk.

    Secondly, it is the economic, social and increasingly political costs of the plight of the lowest attaining young people, and especially young males without qualifications, which is attracting political attention. If money is tight, it’s more likely to go towards that problem, and the London government’s decision to move skills funding into the Department of Work and Pensions appears to be a signal of intent.

    These are the leadership challenges which emerge from this year’s report: how to reshape our successful HE system so that its strengths remain, but it can be more responsive and flexible. It needs to adapt to a changing labour market and to a society in which division and inequality are being reinforced with greater ferocity.

    Source link