Tag: change

  • Capability for change – preparing for digital learning futures

    Capability for change – preparing for digital learning futures

    Digital transformation is an ongoing journey for higher education institutions, but there is something quite distinctive about the current moment.

    The combination of financial uncertainty, changing patterns of student engagement, and the seismic arrival of artificial intelligence is pointing to a future for higher education learning and teaching and a digital student experience that will certainly have some core elements in common with current practice but is likely in many respects to look rather different.

    At the moment I see myself and my colleagues trying to cling to what we always did and what we always know. And I really do think the whole future of what we do and how we teach our students, and what we teach our students is going to accelerate and change very, very quickly now, in the next five years. Institutional leader

    Our conversations with sector leaders and experts over the past six months indicate an ambition to build consistent, inclusive and engaging digital learning environments and to deploy data much more strategically. Getting it right opens up all kinds of possibilities to extend the reach of higher education and to innovate in models for engagement. But future change demands different kinds of technological capabilities, and working practices, and institutions are saying that they are hindered by legacy systems, organisational silos, and a lack of a unified vision.

    Outdated systems do not “talk to each other,” and on a cultural level as departments and central teams also do not “talk to each other” – or may struggle to find a common language. And rather than making life easier, many feel that technology creates significant inefficiencies, forcing staff to spend more time on administrative tasks and less on what truly matters.

    I think the problem always is when we hope something’s going to make it more efficient. But then it just adds a layer of complexity into what we’re doing…I think that’s what we struggle with – what can genuinely deliver some time savings and efficiencies as opposed to putting another layer in a process? Institutional leader

    In the spirit of appreciative inquiry, our report Capability for change – preparing for digital learning futures draws on a series of in depth discussions with leaders of learning and teaching, and digital technology, digital experts and students’ union representatives. We explore the sorts of change that are already in train, and surface insight about how institutions are thinking in terms of building whole-organisation capabilities. “Digital dexterity” – the ability to deploy technology strategically, efficiently, and innovatively to achieve core objectives – may be yet another tech buzzword, but it captures a sense of where organisations are trying to get to.

    While immediate financial pressures may require cutting costs and reprofiling investment, long term sustainability depends on moving forward with change, finding ways, not to do more with less but to do things differently. To realise the most value from technology investment institutional leaders need to find ways to ensure that across the institution staff teams have the knowledge, the motivation and the tools to deploy technology in the service of student success.

    How institutions are building organisational capability

    Running through all our conversations was a tension, albeit a potentially productive one: there needs to be much more consistency and clarity about the primary strategic objectives of the institution and the core technology platforms and applications that enable them. But the effect of, in essence, imposing a more streamlined “central” vision, expectations and processes should be to enable and empower the academic and professional teams to do the things that make for a great student experience. Our research indicates that institutions are focusing on three areas: leadership and strategy; digital capabilities of institutional staff; and breaking down the vertical silos that can hamper effective cross-organisational working.

    A number of reflections point to strategy-level improvements – such as ensuring there is strategic alignment between institutional objectives for student success, and technology and digital strategies; listening to the feedback from students and staff about what they need from technology; setting priorities, and resourcing those priorities from end to end from technology procurement to deployment and evaluation of impact. One institutional leader described what happens when digital strategies get lost in principles and forget to align with the wider success of the organisation:

    The old strategy is fairly similar, I imagine, to many digital strategies that you would have seen – it talks about being user focused, talks about lean delivery, talks about agile methodologies, product and change management and delivering value through showing, not telling. So it was a very top level strategy, but really not built with outcomes at its absolute core, like, what are the things that are genuinely going to change for people, for students? Institutional leader

    Discussions of staff digital capabilities recognised that institutional staff are often hampered by organisational complexity and bureaucracy which too often is mirrored in the digital sphere. One e-learning professional suggested that there is a need for research to really understand why there is a tendency towards proliferation of processes and systems, and confront the impact on staff workloads.

    There may also be limits to what can reasonably be expected from teaching staff in terms of digital learning design:

    You need to establish minimum benchmarks and get everyone to that place, and then some people will be operating well beyond that. You can be clear about basic benchmark expectations around student experience – and then beyond that you need to put in actual support [such as learning design experts] to implement the curriculum framework. E-learning professional

    But the broader insight on staff development was around shifting from provision of training on how to operate systems or tools to a more context-specific exploration of how the available technologies and data can help educators achieve their student success ambitions. Value is more systematically created across the organisation when those academic and professional teams who work directly with students are able to use the technology and data available creatively to enhance their practice and to problem solve.

    Where data has been used before it’s very much sat with senior colleagues in the institution. And you know it’s helped in decision making. But the next step is to try and empower colleagues at the coal face to use data in their day to day interventions with their students… How can they use the data to inform how they support their students? Institutional leader

    Decisive leadership may be successful in setting priorities and streamlining the processes and technologies that underpin them; strong focus on professional development may engage and enable institutional staff. But culture change will come when institutions find ways to systematically build “horizontals” across silos – mechanisms for collaborative and shared activity that bridge different perspectives, languages and disciplinary and professional cultures.

    Some examples we saw included embedding digital professionals in faculties and academic business processes such as recruitment panels, convening of cross-organisation thinking on shared challenges, and appointment of “change agent” roles with a skillset and remit to roam across boundaries.

    Technology providers must be part of the solution – acting as strategic partners rather than suppliers. One way to do that is to support institutions to pilot, test, and develop proof of concept before they decide to invest in large-scale change. Another is to work with institutions to understand how technology is deployed in practice, and the evolving needs of user communities. To be a great partner to the higher education sector means having a deep understanding not only of the technological capabilities that could help the sector but how these might weave into an organisation’s wider mission and values. In this way, technology providers can help to build capability for change.

    This article is published in association with Kortext. You can download the Capability for change report on Kortext’s website. The authors would like to thank all those who shared their insight to inform the report. 

    Source link

  • Can fiction help us get to the truth about climate change?

    Can fiction help us get to the truth about climate change?

    Truth in fiction

    That’s where fiction can come in. But most climate fiction presents gloomy scenarios: think the waterless world of Arrakis in Frank Herbert’s “Dune” series or our earth after a virus wiped out most of human life in Margaret Atwood’s “Oryx and Crake” trilogy.

    In contrast, Baden’s story showed more positive solutions. Her own research found that 98% of her readers changed their attitudes. A month after reading the story 60% of readers actually adopted a green alternative.

    She’s set to release “Murder in the Climate Assembly“, a fictional story about the ramifications of a murder that takes place in a citizens’ assembly on climate.

    Some media organizations are now including climate change awareness initiatives that use fictional examples into their marketing campaigns.

    Baden worked with BAFTA, the British Academy of Film and Television Arts, to create social media content that provided solutions with a tinge of humour. For example, they contrasted the carbon footprint of two popular characters from books and movies: James Bond who drives a gas guzzling sports car and has a walk-in wardrobe versus Jack Reacher who traveled by bus and shopped second-hand.

    Making environmentalism fun

    Pilot testing showed interesting results: “If we just presented the negative one like James Bond, some people laughed and thought it was funny, but a few people thought they were being a bit preached at and switched off,” Baden said. “Whereas when you kind of had both together with a bit of humor, that seemed to hit the right spot.”

    Pike agreed: “Comedy too allows us to let our guard down. When we open our mouth to laugh, our mind is open to learn.”

    When Pike was in Chile working on the PhD that led to her book she found that she loved the animated series “The Simpsons“. In 2008, one of the three TV channels played Simpsons episodes endlessly, she said. Simpsons creator Matt Groening intended his show to make people aware of environmental challenges and complications in ways that start conversations, she said.

    Context makes a difference too. “I read ecoactivist discourse in South America and it seemed so darn white and privileged,” Pike said. “If you read “Burning Rage of a Dying Planet” in a comfortable U.S. suburb, it’s one thing. If you read the same book in Chile, it feels different, almost too precious, definitely not the tone I would take in talking about ecology in South American countries.”

    The Center for Health Communication at Harvard University says that showing, not telling induces stronger emotional responses as visual imagery and helps our brains understand abstract and complex associations like those between climate and health.

    Connecting emotion to change

    Telling stories through books, plays or social media also help to create emotion, and change beliefs and behaviours. They may also reduce feelings of anxiety and depression that surface when bombarded with alarmist news about the climate crisis. Focusing on solutions is more effective.

    Pike said the way to get through the barrage of media messages and talk about the climate crisis is with honesty, independence and humour. “Acknowledge the hypocrisy and move on toward solutions,” Pike said. “A solution offers me a choice, agency, a chance to put up a sail and navigate to a goal.”

    Pike taught a class called “Environmental Reporting for a Hopeful Planet” in the spring 2024 semester. One assignment was “Forest Friday”: students were asked to read, watch or listen to examples of environmental storytelling.

    One week, the students were assigned a video of Rebecca Solnit. She’s a writer, historian and activist who has been examining hope and the unpredictability of change for more than two decades. In 2023 she co-edited an anthology called “It’s Not Too Late”, a guide for finding hope even while climate change-induced disasters continue. This is what one student said after they watched that video:

    “I felt reassured by her calmness and her endless lists of knowledge of times and places in which meaningful change has occurred. I think she makes many great points about the way that just because ideas don’t always get the opportunity to fully take shape they are still impactful on society as a whole.”

    So, what’s the best way to write about the climate crisis?

    “Read environmental writing and write,” Pike said. “Be so deeply curious about how ecology works, how nature and culture interact, how businesses and institutions works and their role in the climate crisis.”

    Ways to write effectively

    Having a community of people who also write about and care about the environment can also help. But most importantly, Pike said: “Work to tell a story well.”

    This means reading the publications which interest you and seeing if your story would be a good fit. Try different mediums. Take Dr. Seuss’ “The Lorax”. It’s a children’s book written in 1971 about a character who speaks for the trees as a business tycoon destroys the environment. The story encourages activism and involvement in making the situation better. In it the Lorax tells us: “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It’s not.”

    More recently, there are films like “Flow“, which won an Academy Award for Best Animated Feature and was nominated for Best International Feature Film, and “The Wild Robot“, which was nominated for three Academy Awards including Best Animated Feature.

    In both, climate change is a world-building element; one showed a submerged Golden Gate Bridge, the other showed a flood of biblical proportions. But they’re both animated films, with cute animals coming together to save the world, reaching a younger audience who will grow up with climate change and its impacts.

    Creating a story that can make people think about our planet and how we can tackle climate change isn’t easy. Pike said it is worth persevering.

    “If you get tired, don’t give up,” Pike said. “Rest and get back to it when you can. We all plant seeds and it’s hard to say which ones will take.”

     

    Three questions to consider:

    1. What makes you switch off the news when a story about climate change comes on?
    2. What happens to our brain when we show, rather than tell, in our writing on climate change?
    3. What might you learn in a course like “Environmental Reporting for a Hopeful Planet?” 

     

    Source link

  • Body cams, staff to carry ID, change of culture: TEQSA draft rules for protests, student complaints

    Body cams, staff to carry ID, change of culture: TEQSA draft rules for protests, student complaints

    Security stand in front of a pro-Israel protest at the University of Sydney on May 3, 2024. Picture: David Swift



    By: Erin Morley

    in Industry & Research, Top Stories


    March 19, 2025

    Universities will be expected to publish de-identified complaints data publicly, make student complaints processes clearer, and analyse the data twice a year if the university regulator’s interim guidelines for student complaints mechanisms are adopted.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • You can’t change the design of a plane while it’s in flight

    You can’t change the design of a plane while it’s in flight

    Just under a year ago now, I was doing a keynote on student rights for course reps at a conference organised by a students union.

    At the break, I was cornered by one of the delegates who’d been told that her school in the faculty of humanities had been earmarked for merger with another to “improve the student experience”.

    This was one of those reps that goes beyond popping up in meetings to raise concerns (that nobody in said meeting can fix) about timetabling or heating in the library – a second year rep that had helped organise events and ensure that new students feel what the old NSS once described as “part of a community of staff and students”.

    She, along with everyone else in the school, had been sent numerous emails full of euphemisms and non sequiturs about what would happen to her and her cohort as a result of the “exciting” proposals.

    She was worried about the standing of her subject and worried for the staff she’s been working alongside. But chief among her concerns was that nobody seemed to be able to confirm that the modules that her and her cohort had already chosen to study in their third year – many of which had been key in their decision to choose that course – would actually be available by the time they re-enrolled in September.

    She got back in touch last month to update me on what had happened. Obtaining information about what was going to happen had continued to be difficult throughout the spring – lecturers leading her chosen modules were either cagey or conspiratorial, suggesting it was somehow up to her to “save their jobs”.

    Yet when she’d attempted to press layers of management about whether her modules would actually run – in part to help her her decide whether switching to another university for her third year was something she should look into – she’d been told that her interventions were inappropriate, and that “she should leave trade unionism to UCU” and “trust the process”.

    She’d also been warned that optional modules were “not part of the student contract” – but that if there were changes, she’d be told in good time to enable her to make choices that would enable her to work towards her final award.

    Deadlines were looming and the stress of the third term was getting the better of her. Then over the summer she watched, one by one, each of the lecturers that led her chosen modules (other than the dissertation) announce on social media that they were leaving the university.

    The process not “complete”, emails to the school, the faculty and the central university either went unanswered or contained general reassurances similar to those already issued – the students’ union similarly unable to get official confirmation that module choices would be honoured. It was already too late to consider switching to a different university.

    Then three weeks before the autumn term started, the inevitable news came in. As she’d predicted, all but the dissertation – worth a third of her second year – were no longer on offer. What was a catalogue of sixteen 20 credit modules had been trimmed to just six, although there were four new ones – one that would enable her to “enhance her employability”, another that would enable her to write a longer dissertation, and two that had been approved for the English award that had previously been exclusive for students in the history department.

    The rep herself was plenty employable given her experience in the department, had no desire to deepen the stress of a longer dissertation when her chosen supervisor had left, and had no interest in the history modules on offer.

    On enquiring, she was informed (via a letter with more legalese than usual) that she had signed a set of terms of conditions that had said that “course content may evolve to reflect student feedback and industry and academic changes” and that that “may involve an update to elective modules”. She asked for detail on the student feedback or industry and academic changes that had led to none of her choices being available. She never got a reply – and her third year has been “awful”.

    She was also told that she could leave the university without penalty, although as the contract has been honoured, no compensation would be on offer or available.

    In the air

    Like trying to fix an aeroplane while in flight, it ought to be incredibly difficult to make cuts in expenditure while students are enrolled at a university.

    It is of course not the case that departmental, campus or even institutional closures will never occur. Higher education providers are autonomous institutions, and as such are entitled to make their own decisions about any future business model or viability of any particular course or subject.

    But students are making a considerable investment when they commit to a programme of study – investing their time, energy and money. It is important that they should be able to complete those studies, and that changes and closures do not adversely affect students and their ability to conclude their studies and obtain a degree.

    Those last two paragraphs aren’t mine – they’re from the Department for Education’s (DfE) own consultation on the formation of the Office for Students (OfS) and what would be contained in its regulatory framework.

    It noted that for prospective students, there are significant information asymmetries, and prospective students often make decisions with limited reliable information, which is why there was to be support for students to continue their studies if their provider can no longer deliver their course:

    The creative destruction witnessed in more traditional markets, though still a powerful and relevant tool, has the potential to carry greater cost.

    It promised that whilst OfS was to be a market regulator, it would also recognise the relationship between students and providers is about much more than a “rigid transaction”:

    Higher education goes far beyond the exchange of goods and services for money; students collaborate and co-create their experiences, often forming strong, personal relationships with staff and providers themselves.

    As a result:

    Students need to be protected as they make potentially life changing decisions about higher education… change cannot and will not be at the expense of deep, trust-based higher education experiences.

    So as providers went about their business running their “business”, five types of protection were to be on offer for students – which ironically I’d been explaining with a fairly straight bat in my talk to the reps.

    The first was financial – if your course doesn’t lead to a large salary you’ll have a decent chunk of your debt written off.

    For the rep in my DMs, salary was never a major driver – although since the DfE policy paper and the passage of the Higher Education and Research Act 2017, that protection has been neutered by extending the loan term to 40 years – most graduates will now pay back in full, with richer graduates relieved from funding that cushion via lower interest rates.

    The second was that sufficient information – mainly about past performance – would mean students chose the right course and university for them.

    Not all students make use of the tables and the data and or what used to be called the “Key Information Set”. For some it’s the weather on the Open Day and the vibes from the staff and ambassadors. But for this student, it very much had been about finding a course with modules on offer that she’d been passionate about when she got into reading as a kid – modules that were cut “to reflect student feedback and industry and academic changes”.

    If nothing else, the staff-student ratio that was touted when she’d selected the course back in 2021 was some distance from the ratio she ended up experiencing in her third year.

    The third was to make providers have a Student Protection Plan that was supposed to ensure the course and provider didn’t stop operating. That regime has proved to be utterly useless at dealing with both explosions (SPPs obviously won’t work if lots of providers are in trouble all at once) and implosions (where the course still runs but isn’t really the same course).

    When the rep in my DMs had asked about the protection plan, she’d been told that because her course wasn’t closing, she had no entitlement to avail herself of what were pretty weak protections anyway.

    The fourth was a strengthening of compliance with consumer protection law – summarised as “you’ll get what we promised”. A look at student contracts was promised in 2017, as it has then been repeatedly promised pretty much every year ever since. A look at her contract – especially the clauses giving the provider wide discretion to change or abolish pretty much anything marked up as “optional” – suggests that it is not compliant with consumer protection law. Still nothing gets done.

    And even if she had rights, those rights are almost impossible to enforce, promised progress in this area conspicuous by its absence.

    The fifth was transfer. It was supposed to become very easy to transfer university – so much so that OfS was required in HERA 2017 to monitor the availability of schemes for student transfers, monitor the extent to which the arrangements are utilised by students generally or students of a particular description, include in its annual report a summary of conclusions drawn by it from that monitoring, and facilitate, encourage, or promote awareness of the provision of arrangements for student transfers.

    If literally any of that has been done since this was published in 2021 (largely covering transfers before OfS was set up), then I’ve missed it.

    Sustainability priority

    A couple of weeks ago now on a call with students and their reps, I’m told that OfS officials explained in some detail the context behind the current financial woes facing the sector – the freeze in fees, the increases in costs, and the work that OfS is doing to monitor the finances of providers.

    I’m also told that OfS said that it had commenced a process of attempting to determine the impacts on the student experience of providers making savings, especially since OfS had started to put so much pressure on providers to make their numbers add up.

    This isn’t to argue that the staff undertaking that work aren’t doing their level best, or that it is somehow wrong for OfS to have commenced that exercise – but isn’t it all a little late?

    Just as during the pandemic, it appears to people like the rep in my DMs that the protections on offer to students don’t work. Even when people take time out to recognise that “giving students what they promised” is less an ideological, neoliberal drive towards consumerism and more about basic decency, it has often seemed that such protections are only really for the good times – and that in times like these, the top priority is to be solvent.

    Just compare the emphasis on financial sustainability versus the potential impacts on students in this insight brief from last May. Nestled amongst the acres of material on provider finances, there’s one paragraph that says this:

    Where universities and colleges are considering changes to secure their financial sustainability, they should consider their continued compliance with the OfS’s regulatory requirements, including maintaining high quality course delivery and protecting students’ interests. They must also ensure their ongoing compliance with consumer protection law.

    Doubtless the provider thinks that in the long-run, it did the right thing to secure its ongoing viability. Hopefully new students will get what it is that they’re promised on the thinner webpages that accompany the rep’s course, and fingers crossed that it all pans out for them.

    But for the student rep and those she represents, the introduction of fees and individual debt came with a deal – that while in the past pooled public funding meant courses and services were vulnerable to cuts, individual agreements were supposed to offer protection of the same sort when buying any other service.

    They weren’t supposed to have to put up with collective utilitarianism – but in many ways, that’s precisely what has happened. And ironically, the fact that is seemingly so easy to do what has been done to her and her cohort is almost certainly why the government has been so slow at doing anything financially that might have helped avoid having to make the decisions that have been made.

    She is no fool. Although she was never a full-time student leader, she understands how tough the country and the university’s finances are right now. But she and her students feel lied to, and badly let down – and no number of links to the OIA from me can convince her otherwise. She’s decided against doing a PGT – “in case it happens again”.

    Source link

  • How Trump is disrupting efforts by schools and colleges to combat climate change

    How Trump is disrupting efforts by schools and colleges to combat climate change

    This week I dug into how the Trump administration’s anti-climate blitz is hampering schools’ and colleges’ ability to green their operations, plus a new report on the California wildfires’ impact on students. Thank you for reading, and reply to this email to be in touch. — Caroline Preston

    LeeAnn Kittle helps oversee the Denver public school district’s work to reduce carbon emissions by 90 percent by 2050.

    In January, her job got a lot tougher. 

    Denver expected to receive tax credits via the Inflation Reduction Act for an additional 25 electric school buses. President Donald Trump attempted to freeze clean energy funds through the IRA in his first days in office. Kittle, the district’s executive director of sustainability, also considered applying for tax credit-like payments for energy-efficient heat pumps for the district’s older buildings that lack air conditioning. And she’d intended to apply this spring for a nearly $12 million grant through Renew America’s Schools, a Department of Energy program to help schools become more energy efficient. Staff working on that program have left and its future is uncertain.  

    “I think we’re all in shock,” said Kittle. “It’s like someone put us in a snow globe and shook us up, and now we’re asked to stand straight. And it’s like I don’t know how to stand straight right now.”

    Since January, the Trump administration has launched a broadside against efforts to reduce gases that cause climate change, including by freezing clean energy spending, slashing environmental staff and research, scrubbing the words “climate change” from websites, and rethinking decades of science showing the harms of global warming to human health and the planet. Experts and education leaders say those actions — some of which have been challenged in court — are disrupting, but not extinguishing, efforts by schools and colleges to curtail their emissions and reduce their toll on the planet.

    Related: Want to read more about how climate change is shaping education? Subscribe to our free newsletter.

    At the start of the year, the State University of New York was awarded $15 million to buy 350 electric vehicle charging stations. “We have yet to see the dollars,” said its chancellor, John B. King Jr. A webinar on the Department of Transportation grant program, which is funded by the bipartisan infrastructure act, was canceled. “It’s been radio silence,” said Carter Strickland, the SUNY chief sustainability officer. 

    The SUNY system, which owns a staggering 40 percent of New York State’s public buildings, had also planned to apply for IRA payments for a variety of projects to electrify campuses, reduce pollution and improve energy efficiency. In November, it applied for approximately $1.45 million for an Oneonta campus project that uses geothermal wells to provide heating and cooling. It still expects to get that money since the project is complete and the IRA remains law, but it can no longer count on payments for newer projects, King said. 

    “What the IRA did was turbocharged everything and gave many more players the ability to see themselves as part of a clean energy economy,” said Timothy Carter, president of Second Nature, a group that supports climate work in higher education. But the confusion that the Trump administration has sowed — even though the IRA has not been repealed — means both K-12 and higher education institutions are reconsidering clean energy projects. 

    There’s no count of how many colleges have sought funding through the IRA and bipartisan infrastructure act-funded programs, said Carter, but the work is spread across red and blue states, and some education systems have dozens of projects under construction. The University of California system, for example, filed applications for more than 70 projects, including a $1 billion project to replace UC Davis’s leaky and inefficient heating and cooling system and a project at UC Berkeley to phase out an old power plant and replace it with a microgrid. 

    “We remain hopeful that funding will be provided per the program provisions,” David Phillips, associate vice president for capital programs at the University of California, wrote in an email. 

    Sara Ross, co-founder of Undaunted K12, which helps school districts green their operations, said her group tells school leaders that for now, “energy tax credits are still the law of the land.” 

    But she expects those credits could be eliminated in the new tax bill that Congress is negotiating this year. 

    In the past, entities that begin construction on projects before any changes in a new law go into effect have been grandfathered in and still received that money, she said. “No promises,” Ross said, but historically that’s how such tax credit scenarios have worked. She said some school districts are speeding up projects to beat that possible deadline, while others are abandoning them.

    There is some political movement to preserve clean energy tax credits. Roughly 85 percent of the private-sector dollars that have gone into clean energy projects are in GOP-led districts, according to a report last year. Some GOP lawmakers have advocated for maintaining that funding, which has contributed to a surge in renewable energy jobs.  

    Steven Bloom, assistant vice president of government relations with the American Council on Education, said that gives supporters of the IRA some hope. But he said that many higher education institutions are facing so much pain and uncertainty from other Trump administration actions, like the National Institutes of Health’s plan to slash overhead payments and investigations into alleged antisemitism, that unfortunately “climate investments may get pushed down the ladder of priorities in the near term.” 

    Related: How colleges can become ‘living labs’ for combating climate change

    Another important vehicle for greening schools, the Renew America’s Schools grant program, was started in 2022 with $500 million for school districts. Many of the Department of Energy staff working on that effort have left, Ross said, and some school districts have not heard back about the status of funding for their projects.    

    In Massachusetts, the Lowell school district won a prize through the Renew America program that could unlock up to $15 million to help the district improve its aged facilities. The district’s facilities for the most part lack air conditioning and schools have been closed on occasion due to high temperatures.

    Katherine Moses, the city of Lowell’s sustainability director, wrote in an email that the district had so far pocketed $300,000 that it is using for energy audits to identify inefficiencies and lay the groundwork for a larger investment. It’s unclear what could happen beyond that and if the district will receive more money. She said Lowell is proceeding according to the requirements of the grant “until we hear otherwise from DOE.” 

    More than 3,400 school districts have applied for money through programs created under the bipartisan infrastructure law and the IRA to electrify school buses. After a federal judge ruled against the administration’s freeze on clean energy spending, grants through those programs appear to have been unfrozen and districts have been able to access payments, said Sue Gander, director of the electric school bus initiative with the nonprofit World Resources Institute. 

    But rebates for electric buses are still stalled, she said. Districts are submitting forms to receive rebates, she said, “but there’s no communication coming back to them through the system about the status of their award or any indication that any payment that may have been requested is being provided.”  

    The Transportation and Energy departments and the Environmental Protection Agency, which runs the Clean School Bus Program, did not respond by deadline to requests for comment for this article.  

    King, of SUNY, noted that climate change is already negatively affecting young people and contributing to worsening disasters like floods and fires. For some faculty, staff and students, the backtracking from climate action at the federal level is stirring disappointment and fear, he said. “There is this very intense frustration that as a society we are stopping efforts to deal with what is truly an existential threat.” 

    Contact Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, on Signal at CPreston.83 or via email at preston@hechingerreport.org. 

    This story about clean energy was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our climate and education newsletter.

    What I’m reading:

    My colleague Neal Morton traveled to northwest Colorado for a story on how phasing out coal-powered plants affects school budgets and career prospects for graduates. School districts haven’t done enough to plan for those changes or prepare students for alternate careers, he writes, and renewable energy projects are not popping up fast enough to smooth the financial pain.  

    Some 725,000 students at more than 1,000 schools faced school closures during the California wildfires in January, according to a new report from Undaunted K12 and EdTrust. The fire had a disproportionate impact on students living in poverty and from underrepresented backgrounds, the report says: Three-quarters of the affected students came from low-income households, and 66 percent were Hispanic. 

    The U.S. Coast Guard Academy removed the words “climate change” from its curriculum, reports Inside Climate News. The academy falls under the purview of the Department of Homeland Security, whose new director, Kristi Noem, issued a directive in February to “eliminate all climate change activities and the use of climate change terminology in DHS policies and programs.”

    Schools with satisfactory heating systems reduce student absences by 3 percent and suspensions by 6 percent, and record a 5 percent increase in math scores, according to a study by researchers at the University at Albany, State University of New York. Schools with satisfactory cooling systems see an increase of 3 percent in reading scores. 

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, on Signal at CPreston.83 or via email at preston@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about clean energy was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for our climate and education newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Will Trump’s “anti-wokeism” change DEI in Australian universities?

    Will Trump’s “anti-wokeism” change DEI in Australian universities?

    United States President Donald Trump’s first six weeks of his second term has been defined by 76 executive orders, the disestablishment of the national education department and establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

    One of the most controversial executive orders, which is a written directive signed by a president that orders immediate governmental action, was titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” signed on President Trump’s first day back in office on January 20, 2025.

    He directed all federal DEI staff be placed on paid leave and, eventually, laid off. He has also signed another Executive Order, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”

    DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, and refers to programs and committees that help people from underrepresented backgrounds (women, Indigenous, Black, for instance) get into, and stay in, jobs or courses those people wouldn’t traditionally participate in. It is largely similar to the strategy of the Australian Universities Accord.

    President Trump has also cut funding to schools and universities that do not cancel DEI programs. He labelled the programs “radical,” “wasteful” and said they demonstrate “immense public waste and shameful discrimination.”

    The full effects of these Executive Orders and DEI changes are yet to be seen because decisions regarding DEI will ultimately be made by the court.

    However, private companies in the US have walked away from internal DEI programs, including Meta (which has worked closely with Trump as of late), Google (which provides some services to the US government), Pepsi, Disney and multiple prominent banks.

    There has been no significant walk away from DEI in Australian private companies, and many universities continue to discuss how to bolster and “future-proof” internal DEI programs.

    Australia’s ambassador to the US from 2020 to 2023, Arthur Sinodinos, told the Universities Australia Solutions Summit last week that institutions are best off making decisions “based off their objectives,” but should enact genuine change, not just tick diversity boxes.

    Arthur Sinodinos said DEI should be about achieving true diversity rather than ticking boxes. Picture: Sam Ruttyn

    “My view on DEI is that [universities should] start from a posture that they want to make the best use of all the talent and resources available to them,” he said.

    “If you’re also interested in trying to expand the reach of higher education to groups that might otherwise be disadvantaged, you have to find ways to do that, but in a way that also addresses the genuine issue.

    “I think access to higher education is still important for a country like Australia, which has to make – given its population – the best use of the resources it’s got.

    “The argument that you can just leave it to the market, the meritocracy will still be there [is wrong]. Frankly, in the market, some people start with a head start with with inbuilt advantages.”

    President Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was also on the panel at the UA summit, said he thinks DEI programs in the US have gone “too far to one side.”

    Former Trump White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney said he thinks DEI has gone “too far” in the US. Picture: UA

    “One of the reasons you’re seeing the pushback against it in my country is that it went too far to one side. I don’t know where it is in this country, but at some point it may go too far, and the pushback will come.”

    He also explained why this Trump term is already more action-packed than his first was at this time: the President expected to win in November, 2024, but not in 2016.

    “Not only did [Trump] expect to win, [his team has] been working for four years on what they would do when they won,” he said.

    “What are we gonna do the first day? The first week, the first month, the first 100 days? Which is why we’re seeing all these executive orders. It’s actually four years worth of planning coming forward.”

    Mr Mulvaney said he thinks DEI could survive if its reasoning for existing is communicated in a tailored way.

    He said Trump’s administration is receptive to initiatives that improve efficiency, productivity and merit.

    “You could have a program that is good on on the climate, [for example,] but that’s not your selling pitch. That doesn’t register with the person you’re talking to,” he explained.

    Related stories: “Unis are not Centrelink offices”: Coalition’s pitch to university leaders | Q&A: Bill Shorten talks VC pay cuts and politics in HE | Report card: Accord recommendations 12 months on

    “You have to learn how to speak the language of the person you’re talking to. Don’t change what you’re doing, perhaps just simply change how you explain it.”

    UA chief executive Luke Sheehy was asked after his National Press Club address last Wednesday whether he thinks an “anti-woke” sentiment will affect how universities function.

    Luke Sheehy’s membership body discussed the impact of “Trump 2.0” at last week’s conference. Picture: UA

    “Obviously there’s a major disruption that’s happened in America with Trump 2.0 … One of the things we’ve learned is, once articulated in a certain way, positive sentiment skyrockets for universities,” he responded.

    “If you offer a simple proposition: we have 4,000 fewer teachers than we need today ,and universities are the only way to get those skilled workers into the workforce to support young people; we need 132,000 more nurses, etc.

    “Then remove yourself from what happens on the front pages of newspapers and what occupies political pundits, and think about what the real Australian people need and want from the university sector.

    “My hope is that the more we talk about the important role of universities and our core mission in education and research, the more Australians, irrespective of whether or not they went to university or not, they see the value for us as part of our future.”

    The university sector’s declining “social license” has been a major topic of discussion of late for university leaders.

    There is a growing sentiment that universities, and the knowledge economy, needs to “show” society why they’re worth the funding and enrolments.

    “We always have more work to do. In an era where there is declining trust in institutions, I think it’s really important that universities invest in themselves in terms of how they engage with their communities,” Mr Sheehy continued.

    Source link

  • Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    Policy change can help manage the demand for graduate knowledge and skills

    “Our universities have a paramount place in an economy driven by knowledge and ideas.”

    These are the opening words of the 2016 white paper Success as a Knowledge Economy, which created the funding and regulatory architecture governing English higher education today. The arrangements are founded on a broad faith in the economic benefits of generating and communicating knowledge.

    This vision assumes that an increasing supply of university graduates and research, coupled with open markets that reward enterprise, leads to endogenous economic growth. That can happen anywhere because ideas are boundless and non-rivalrous, but particularly in England because our universities are among the best in the knowledge business.

    English higher education has grown by integrating the development of specific skills for the workplace alongside universally applicable knowledge. This is clear from the progress of most English universities from institutes established for professional and technical training towards university status, the absorption of training for an increasing range of professions within higher education, and the way in which universities can now articulate the workplace capabilities of all graduates, regardless of their discipline.

    Notwithstanding this, the reforms proposed in 2016 emphasised knowledge more than skills. By that time, most of the cost of teaching in English universities had been transferred to student tuition fees backed by income-contingent loans. So, the reforms mostly focused on providing confidence for the investments made by students and the risks carried by the exchequer. This would be delivered through regulation focused on issues important to students and the government, whilst positioning students as the pivotal influence on provision through competition for their choices.

    Universities would compete to increase and improve the supply of graduates. This would then enhance the capacity of businesses and public services to capitalise on innovation and new technologies, which would yield improved productivity and jobs requiring graduates. That is a crude characterisation, but it provides a starting point for understanding the new imperatives for higher education policy, which are influenced by challenges to this vision of nearly a decade ago.

    From market theory to experience in practice

    Despite an expansion of university graduates, the UK has had slow productivity growth since the recession of 2008–09. Rather than the economy growing alongside and absorbing a more highly educated workforce, there are declining returns for some courses compared with other options and concerns that AI technologies will replace roles previously reliant on graduates. Employers report sustained gaps and mismatches between the attributes they need and those embodied in the domestic workforce. Alongside this, ministers appear to be more concerned about people that do not go to university, who are shaping politics in the USA and Europe as well as the UK.

    These are common challenges for countries experiencing increasing higher education participation. The shift from elite to mass higher education is often associated with a “breakdown of consensus” and “permanent state of tension” because established assumptions are challenged by the scale and range of people encountering universities. This is particularly the case when governments place reliance on market forces, which leads to misalignment between the private choices made by individuals and the public expectations for which ministers are held to account. Universities are expected to embody historically elite modes of higher education reflected in media narratives and rankings, whilst also catering for the more diverse circumstances and practical skills needed by a broader population.

    In England, the government has told universities that it wants them to improve access, quality and efficiency, whilst also becoming more closely aligned with the needs of the economy and civil society in their local areas. These priorities may be associated with tensions that have arisen due to the drivers of university behaviour in a mass market.

    In a system driven by demand from young people, there has been improved but unequal access reflecting attainment gaps in schools. This might not be such a problem if increasing participation had been accompanied by a growing economy that improves opportunities for everyone. But governments have relied on market signals, rather than sustained industrial strategies, to align an increasing supply of graduates with the capabilities necessary to capitalise on them in the workplace. This has yielded anaemic growth since the 2007 banking crash, together with suggestions that higher education expansion diminishes the prospects of people and places without universities.

    In a competitive environment, universities may be perceived to focus on recruiting students, rather than providing them with adequate support, and to invest in non-academic services, rather than the quality of teaching. These conditions may also encourage universities to seek global measures of esteem recognised by league tables, rather than serving local people and communities through the civic mission for which most were established.

    Market forces were expected to increase the diversity of provision as universities compete to serve the needs of an expanding student population. But higher education does not work like other markets, even when the price is not controlled as for undergraduates in England. Competition yields convergence around established courses and modes of learning that are understood by potential students, rather than those that may be more efficient or strategically important for the nation as a whole.

    Navigating the new policy environment

    After more than a decade of reforms encouraging competition and choice, there appears to be less faith in well-regulated market forces positioning knowledgeable graduates to drive growth. Universities are now expected to become embedded within local and national growth plans and industrial strategy sectors, which prioritise skills that can be deployed in specific settings ahead of broadly applicable knowledge. This asks universities to consider the particular needs of industry, public services and communities in their local areas, rather than demand from students alone.

    Despite these different imperatives, English higher education will continue to be financed mostly by students’ tuition fees and governed by regulatory powers designed to provide confidence for their choices. We suggest four ingredients for navigating this, which are concerned with strategy, architecture, regulation and funding.

    The government has promised a single strategy for post-16 education and a new body, Skills England, to oversee it. A more unified approach across the different parts of post-compulsory education should encourage pathways between different types of learning, and a more coherent offer for both learners and employers. But it also needs to align factors that influence the demand for graduates, such as research and innovation, with decisions that influence their supply. That requires a new mindset for education policy, which has tended to prioritise national rules ahead of local responsiveness, or indeed coherence with other sectors and parts of government.

    Delivery of a unified strategy is hampered by the fragmented and complex architecture governing post-16 education. Skills England will provide underpinning evidence, both influencing and drawing on Local Skills Improvement Plans (LSIPs), but it remains uncertain how this will be translated into measures that influence provision, particularly in universities. A unified strategy demands structures for convening universities, colleges, employers and local authorities to deliver it in local areas across the country.

    That could be addressed by extending the remit of LSIPs beyond a shopping list of skills requirements and enhancing the role of universities within them. Universities have the expertise to diagnose needs and broker responses, aligning innovation that shapes products and services with the skills needed to work with them. They will, though, only engage this full capability if local structures are accompanied by national regulatory and funding incentives, so there is a unified local body responsible for skills and innovation within a national framework.

    Regulation remains essential for providing confidence to students and taxpayers, but there could be a re-balancing of regulatory duties, so they have regard to place and promote coherence, rather than competition for individual students alone. This could influence regulatory decisions affecting neighbouring universities and colleges, as well as the ways in which university performance is measured in relation to issues such as quality and access. A clear typology of civic impact, together with indicators for measuring it, could shift the incentives for universities, particularly if there is a joined-up approach across the funding and regulation of teaching, research and knowledge exchange.

    Regulation creates the conditions for activity, but funding shapes it. Higher education tends to be a lower priority than schools within the Department for Education, and research will now be balanced alongside digital technologies within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. A new Lifelong Learning Entitlement and reformed Growth and Skills Levy may provide new opportunities for some universities, but any headroom for higher education spending is likely to be tied to specific goals. This will include place and industry-oriented research and innovation programmes and single-pot allocations for some MSAs, alongside the substantial public and private income universities will continue to generate in sectors such as health and defence. In this context, aligning universities with the post-16 education strategy relies on pooling different sources of finance around common goals.

    Closer alignment of this kind should not undermine the importance of knowledge or indeed create divisions with skills that are inconsistent with the character and development of English higher education to date. The shift in emphasis from knowledge towards skills reframes how the contributions of universities are articulated and valued in policy and public debate, but it need not fundamentally change their responsibility for knowledge creation and intellectual development.

    This appears to have been recognised by ministers, given the statements they have made about the positioning of foundational knowledge within strategies for schools, research and the economy. We have, though, entered a new era, which requires greater consideration of the demand for and take-up of graduates and ideas locally and nationally, and a different approach from universities in response to this.

    Source link

  • Research supervision in the context of REF – time for a step change?

    Research supervision in the context of REF – time for a step change?

    At a time when resources within research organisations are stretched, the PGR experience, and the role doctoral supervisors play in supporting that experience, needs closer attention.

    The release of the pilot indicators for the REF People Culture and Environment (PCE) has promoted a flurry of conversations across UK universities as to what ‘counts’. For the first time, institutions may evidence that “infrastructure, processes and mechanisms in place to support the training and supervision of research students are working effectively” and are invited to consider the inclusion of “pre and post training assessments” for supervisors.

    This signals to institutions that research supervision needs to be taken seriously– both in terms of quality and consistency of PGR experience, as well as the support and recognition for supervisors themselves. In doing so it validates the contribution of doctoral research to the research ecosystem.

    Accelerated prioritisation of research supervision shouldn’t come as a complete surprise. This lack of consistency in PGR experience was recognised less than a year ago in the UKRI New Deal for Postgraduate Research, which stated that “All PGR students should have access to high quality supervision and Research Organisations should ensure that everyone in the supervisory team is well supported, including through induction for new supervisors and Continuous Professional Development (CPD)”. That messaging has been repeated in the UKRI Revised Statement of Expectations for Doctoral Training (2024), alongside a call to research organisations to “build supervisor awareness of PGR mental health, wellbeing, bullying and harassment, and equality, diversity and inclusion issues.”

    So, what do we know about research supervision?

    Data from the UK Research Supervision Survey 2024 (UKRSS) confirms that, overwhelmingly, research supervision is considered valuable, rewarding and enjoyable by those who undertake it. Supervision also positively impacts upon their own research. However, a third of respondents reported feeling anxious about supervision and reported their main challenge was fostering student confidence and focus, followed by offering compassionate support to students facing difficult issues ranging from mental health and wellbeing, to finances and funding.

    Lack of time continues to be a barrier to high quality supervision practice, and rising supervisor-to-candidate ratios complicate this further. While early career supervisors were likely to be allocated one to two candidates, those later in their career could be supervising five to ten– only 30 per cent of UKRSS respondents reported that their institution had a policy on maximum candidate numbers. Respondents also made it clear that doctoral research supervision is not being adequately calculated into workload allocations, with a typically described workload model allocating 42 hours per candidate, per year, but supervisors reporting investing an average of 62 hours.

    Time constraints like these contribute greatly to the ability of supervisors to participate in CPD opportunities. This itself is a barrier to good supervision practice, as the UKRSS revealed that supervisors who engage in regular, mandatory CPD reported higher levels of confidence in all areas of supervisory practice. A staggering 91 per cent of respondents who had experienced mandatory induction reported they felt able to enact their institutions’ procedures around supervision– compared to 66 per cent of those for whom induction was not mandatory and 55 per cent who reported no mandatory requirements..

    The data illustrates that supervisors care about and take satisfaction from supporting the next generation of researchers, but they are getting a raw deal from their institutions in terms of time, reward, recognition and opportunities to develop and enhance their own practice. Underscoring this point, just 56 per cent of supervisors reported feeling valued by their institution, compared to 90 per cent who felt valued by their students. Until now this has gone under the radar, making the inclusion of the PCE indicators a welcome sign for those of us working to make changes within the sector.

    Engaging supervisors with high quality Continuing Professional Development

    Focus groups conducted with supervisors at five UK universities as part of the Research England funded Next Generation Research SuperVision Project (RSVP), have provided insight into what CPD is considered useful, meaningful and relevant. Supervisors were well aware of the need to develop and improve their practice, with one participant reflecting “… there isn’t sufficient training for supervision, you have a huge responsibility to another person’s career. So I think the idea that we ‘wing it’ perhaps shouldn’t be acceptable.”

    An overwhelming majority of participants reported that the most important aspects of their supervision practice and development come from interactions with, and support from, their peers and more experienced colleagues. The idea that supervision practice is best developed by watching other supervisors on the job and through communities of practice was repeated by participants across experience levels, genders, disciplines, and institutions– with some even claiming this to be the only way to become a truly good supervisor.

    Far from being reluctant to engage in professional development, many supervisors welcomed the idea of having the space and time to reflect on their practice. What they were less keen on was anything perceived as a ‘tick-box’ exercise– examples given included short courses without time for discussion, and self-directed online modules. There was a recognition by some that these approaches can be useful, but should form part of a more varied approach to CPD.

    Generally speaking, supervisors with less experience were more likely to engage in facilitated workshops and other interventions that help them understand their role and the doctoral journey. Those with more experience expressed a strong preference for discussion-based CPD, including peer reading groups, opportunities for facilitated reflection and mentoring.

    Recognising supervision as part of research culture

    Whatever the final version of the PCE metrics look like, there is now a growing body of empirical evidence to suggest that a revision in the way we manage, reward and recognise research supervision is needed. When government enabled universities to introduce fees for undergraduates the issue of quality assurance quickly surfaced. It was recognised that students should be taught by properly trained staff with a knowledge and understanding of pedagogy and approaches to learning and teaching. Arguably that moment has now come for research supervision.

    If the UK HE sector wishes to attract capable, committed, creative doctoral candidates from a range of backgrounds then those supervising them need to be treated, and trained, as professional practitioners. This means creating the time and space to enable supervisors at all levels of experience to engage in meaningful exchanges about their practice and to refresh their knowledge of policies and new areas as they arise.

    Quick wins?

    For institutions looking for ways to bolster their supervision support there are some empirically grounded ways to improve practice

    Firstly, tap into existing levers for change. The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers outlines the need for PIs (many of whom are supervisors) to engage in professional development. Postdoctoral researchers are also required to engage in “10 days of professional development.” Since postdoctoral researchers are often informally involved in doctoral supervision (15% of the UKRSS respondents identified themselves as ‘early career researchers’) their engagement in CPD could also be counted. Actively recognising and celebrating the diversity of doctoral researchers and their supervisors also aligns with Athena Swan.

    Secondly, increase the visibility of provision. Many supervisors in the UKRSS and focus groups didn’t know what CPD was available in their institution. Very few knew about routes to recognition of supervisory practice (e.g.through the UKCGE Research Supervision Recognition Programme). There is little to be lost in an institution showcasing themselves to prospective researchers and funders as one which takes the quality of supervision seriously and actively invests, rewards and recognises supervisors.

    Thirdly, actively enable conversations about supervision. Aside from the formal training it is the time spent together which is often valuable. This may include offering simple opportunities for new and experienced supervisors to come together to talk about their experiences on topics that matter to them. It may mean enlisting a few champions who will speak about their experience. If there is already a mentoring scheme research supervision could be added to the list of topics that can be discussed as part of that relationship. It is also helpful to encourage supervisors to engage with the UKCGE Supervisor’s Network which offers cross-disciplinary and national level value as a community of practice.

    Finally, use existing PGR and supervisor networks and expert spaces to find out what works well and where the gaps are. Including working with RSVP which is designing, with 58 partners, CPD interventions for new and more experienced supervisors around the topics identified above. Following pilots and evaluation these will be made freely available to the sector. Specific resources to support supervisors to engender a *neurodiversity-affirmative culture will be available later this year. Webpages to support mentoring will be available very soon. Join the RSVP mailing list to be kept up to date.

     

    *with thanks to Professor Debi Riby at the centre for Neurodiversity & Development at Durham University

    Source link

  • Using school land to fight climate change

    Using school land to fight climate change

    HOUSTON — When Jefferson Early Learning Center first opened on the corner of a busy intersection in the city’s west side in 2022, school officials started receiving calls from irritated residents.

    It wasn’t the increase in traffic or the noise from loud preschoolers that was the source of the callers’ ire.

    It was the wild, unkempt landscaping.

    Residents wanted to know, “‘Why aren’t you cutting the lawn?’ ‘Why aren’t you keeping the grounds?’” recalled Hilda Rodriguez, the assistant superintendent of support services for the Alief Independent School District, home to Jefferson and nearly 50 other schools west of Houston.

    Although Jefferson’s neighbors didn’t know it, the tall grass surrounding the early learning center was part of a larger strategy to mitigate climate-related issues in a county where a major flood occurs nearly every two years and the number of days at or above 95 degrees has increased significantly over the past 25 years.

    In addition to choosing durable, impact-resistant materials to help the school building withstand natural disasters, Jefferson’s designers focused on the surrounding land. They chose to restore much of the ground’s nearly 20 acres to native prairie lands and wetlands, creating a habitat for more than 200 plant and animal species.

    A sign at the front of Jefferson Early Learning Center teaches children about the surrounding land, which was designed to withstand floods and heat. Credit: Jackie Mader/The Hechinger Report

    That sort of habitat is especially beneficial in an area vulnerable to climate change events such as the torrential rains that regularly hit the city, said Melissa Turnbaugh, senior principal at PBK Architects, which designed Jefferson. “By putting in native prairies and grasses, we can now actually absorb three to four times as much water as if we had manicured grass,” she said.

    Experts who study early learning and climate science say there is growing demand for solutions like these to address challenges related to climate change, such as floods, fires and hotter temperatures. Angie Garling, a senior vice president at the Low Income Investment Fund, which runs initiatives to help build and improve early learning facilities, said that when her organization solicited applications from child care programs needing facilities improvements, the vast majority had to do with climate.

    “They were asking for things like HVAC systems, misting systems, air filtration systems, shade structures, turf … because they couldn’t maintain their lawn anymore because the cost of water was too high,” said Garling. Due to the extreme level of climate-related need, LIIF recently partnered with other organizations to launch a program to help fund renovations for child care providers in Harris County, where Houston is located.

    Alief officials have already noticed benefits from the unconventional use of the school land. During the school year, students can walk on trails that weave through the prairie, learning about insects, plants and flowers. The native plants can withstand Houston’s infamous summers, when the average temperature sits above 90 degrees. That saves work, time and money for Alief’s maintenance team, which rarely needs to mow or water the land at Jefferson.

    Over the next few years, Turnbaugh, the architect, hopes the presence of the prairies and grassland — rather than concrete or other surfaces that are known to reflect heat — will pay long-term dividends in “an overall heat-challenged area.”

    “I think we’re going to see that we’re actually cooling the neighborhood,” she said. “I think there’s not only good carbon capture, but we’re actually being good neighbors.”

    Over time, Jefferson’s neighbors have seemed to realize that, said Alief’s Rodriguez. The calls, for the most part, have stopped. “Once they understood, it became very clear to them that this was purposeful.”

    Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at (212) 678-3562 or mader@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about climate change solutions was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • A sea change in student partnership

    A sea change in student partnership

    A few years back now, someone who worked for one of Scotland’s sector agencies liked to draw a comparison when talking about student-centredness.

    They said that conservation charities passionately place wildlife at the heart of everything they do, but crucially would never put representatives of flora and fauna on committees (imagine the mess).

    Therefore, my erstwhile and esteemed colleague would argue, when institutional leaders proudly claim to be “student-centred” it reveals nothing about how they involve students in shaping their experiences.

    Of course, you can diligently monitor wildlife and use your data to make good decisions, in a manner not dissimilar to learning analytics in education, but the difference is that students can then go on to be a part of conversations in a way that wildlife never can.

    Waterproof papers

    My mind was cast back to this parallel when I saw the recent news that the Scottish Association for Marine Science (SAMS), one of our partners here at the University of the Highlands and Islands (UHI), has put The Ocean on its governing body.

    It’s a move that SAMS’ Director Nick Owens admits “could be seen as trivial or ‘greenwashing’”, and we might imagine other specialist institutions making similar gestures in the disciplines they so richly embody and advance.

    For instance a conservatoire could put “Music” on their board, or an agricultural college “The Land”.

    Nick explains further, however:

    The Ocean is clearly a metaphor in this context and cannot represent itself in human terms.”

    That point is vital because, if we go back to our parallel, SAMS has already gone much further with its other main cause – students.

    Like all constituent parts of UHI and indeed our university overall, SAMS has student membership on its governing body, not to just sit there and wave like the ocean might, or to flap about disruptively like a bird among a wildlife charity’s trustees.

    Instead, we expect of student governors an informed, constructive and active contribution.

    As my colleague Aimee Cuthbert wrote on Wonkhe a year ago, we have a major project that is making that student membership truly effective and impactful across UHI’s complex governance arrangements.

    On a basic level we want to build on national guidelines such as Scotland’s codes of good governance for colleges and universities and support packages such as those from the College Development Network.

    The wet room

    In our own unique context we want to make sure UHI’s governing bodies do not merely talk about students as an abstract concept or worthy concern, and instead have them in the room to provide meaningful input about students’ diverse and complex experiences and the implications for students of the difficult decisions that must be made.

    That means a lot of work with those involved in our governing bodies, exploration of the key issues on our boards’ desks at a time of change, and helping our local officers impact on their individual partner governing bodies while also working together as a team to impact on decisions that are UHI-wide.

    A core part of our project is therefore that very human process of communication – supporting the networking, sharing practice and informal relationship building that makes student governors truly a part of the process in a way that an ocean can’t be.

    So, when someone tells you their institution is student-centred, that’s arguably the very least we might expect, and in isolation such a declaration risks viewing students in the same way that others might view wildlife.

    The Ocean as governor, therefore, is not only a striking metaphor for SAMS’ important mission, but has added power in benchmarking our perceptions of those we claim to be here for – reminding us that there’s a big difference between caring about students and actively involving them as partners.

    Source link