Ever wonder what happens when one of the biggest school districts in the U.S. decides to go all-in on AI? Spoiler alert: It’s pretty amazing.
Broward County Public Schools (BCPS) just pulled off something huge—the largest global deployment of Microsoft Copilot licenses in education. Yep, the biggest in the world. And guess what? NCCE is right in the middle of it, making sure teachers feel confident and ready to roll.
So, why is this a big deal?
Because AI isn’t just a buzzword anymore—it’s here, and it’s changing how schools work. With Copilot, teachers can:
Knock out lesson plans in minutes
Automate those never-ending admin tasks-emails, agendas, data, feedback
Spend more time doing what they love—teaching and connecting with students
This isn’t about replacing educators. It’s about giving them tools to make life easier and putting teaching and student learning at the forefront.
Where does NCCE come in?
We’re the professional learning crew behind the scenes working with Broward’s Innovative Learning Team and the Information System Team. Our job? Make sure Broward’s educators don’t just have Copilot—they know how to use it and implement it into their professional practice.
We’ve been running sessions like “Getting Started with Copilot” and “Copilot Champions and Beyond”—fun, hands-on workshops where teachers learn how AI can help with lesson planning, grading, and even sparking creativity.
And it’s not just one-and-done training. We’re doing coaching, virtual cohorts, and ongoing support, so teachers feel confident every step of the way.
What’s the impact so far?
Teachers and district staff are already using Copilot to:
Create standards-aligned lessons and units in minutes tailored to specific learning pathways
Draft school-wide communication memos and even event and initiative rollout plans quickly
Assist with emails and professional communication to ensure appropriate tone and style
Prepare meeting agendas, reminders, and summaries to help manage follow-ups efficiently
Summarize email threads and missed communications for efficient catch-up
Analyze instructional coaching data to identify trends and create graphic representations of the data
Review vendor contracts from a cybersecurity perspective to ensure compliance with statutory mandated PII safeguarding. Even creating a report that indicates whether the contract has strong or weak compliance and the reasons why.
Review previous meeting notes and discussions referencing relevant talking points for curriculum updates and budget planning
Draft policies, memos, and communication plans, streamlining the process and ensuring clarity
Compare versions of documents to identify changes and inconsistencies quickly
Generate custom visuals such as graduation rate graphs, student progress charts
Gather feedback and engagement data to refine report formats
Personalize learning for every student
Free up time for the stuff that really matters
Honestly, it’s a game-changer.
Why share this?
Because we want our community to know: NCCE can help any district make AI work for them. Whether you’re just starting or ready to scale big like Broward, we’ve got your back.
The bottom line
This isn’t just Broward’s story—it’s a peek at what’s possible when educators, tech, and great professional learning come together. AI isn’t the future anymore. It’s here. And we’re ready to help you make the most of it.
👉 Want to learn more? Visit https://www.ncce.org or reach out to our team. Let’s make AI work for you.
In November HEPI, with support from Elsevier, hosted a roundtable dinner to discuss the changing geography of research. This blog considers some of the themes that emerged from the discussion.
Fifty years ago, less than 10 per cent of authors of research articles worked in low and middle-income countries – those in which average annual incomes are below around $14,000. By 2024, the proportion of research authors from these countries had reached 56 per cent. Even excluding China, 28 of them, combined, had more authors than the 27 countries of the European Union plus the UK.
Meanwhile, since 1990, the number of doctorates awarded in China has gone from a few thousand to more than 80,000, while Brazil and India now graduate approximately 30,000 doctorates per year, compared to the UK’s 25,000.
What this means for research collaboration, for research funders and for the UK’s future as a leading research nation was the topic of a recent roundtable discussion, hosted by HEPI in conjunction with the academic publishers Elsevier and attended by senior university and research leaders and funders.
Participants in the roundtable agreed that the research landscape was experiencing major change, with the centre of gravity shifting away from traditional western and northern dominance, to countries including China, India, Brazil, Iran and Mexico, and that the pace of change was accelerating.
This was not just happening in terms of numbers of researchers and research outputs but also in terms of their quality. Many countries not historically considered strong in research are producing original research at scale, developing cross-disciplinary fields and paying close attention to research culture as well as to convergence with the United Nation’s sustainable development goals.
Participants suggested that research in European countries, including the UK, France and Germany, may be moving more sluggishly due to out-dated hierarchies, infrastructure and equipment that is expensive to maintain. University and research leaders often feel overlooked by their governments, which face pressures to direct funding elsewhere, in contrast to Low and Middle Income Countries where Governments are actively driving research and innovation growth.
This shift may not necessarily be negative, participants in the roundtable recognised. Any overall increase in research is a good thing for the advancement of knowledge worldwide, and more postgraduates mean more post-doctorates wanting to travel and more researchers seeking partnerships.
Participants noted the symbiosis between research strength and economic strength, with one tending to feed off the other. Perhaps it is time for science to move elsewhere, suggested one speaker. “We’ve had a good run.”
But he questioned what it could mean for the future nature of science. While it may not be worse, it was likely to be different in terms of ideas around disciplines, education and working practices and “we are going to have to live with that world”.
Many felt that for the UK, a long-time research power, the prospect of relative decline this presented should be ringing alarm bells.
One speaker asked: “Are we Rome?”
Others suggested that it wasn’t that simple. Optimists pointed out that the UK still enjoys extensive soft power and respect for its research and education system. It has one of the highest proportions of co-authored research publications in the world and clever people continue to want to work and study here. Even if its share of world research and researchers is declining, the numbers involved remain high.
On the other hand, pessimists argued that if other countries build up their own university systems, they will have less need to send their students and graduates or even post-doctorates to the UK. One speaker noted the impressive lab equipment he had seen in China.
Meanwhile, old hierarchies still dominate global research structures, partly helped by the English language. While the UK benefits from that, participants were challenged to consider reform of global research governance to better reflect the new geography of research.
Some participants expressed concern about UK research becoming increasingly inward-looking, in response to pressures from politicians to concentrate on particular research areas related to Government priorities.
It was noted that the UK conveys mixed messages around attracting talent from overseas. Other countries make clear they want to be global research players; UK politicians, appealing to anti-immigration sentiment, are more ambivalent. And while the EU presents the only research bloc big enough to compete with China and America, the UK is barely in it.
Some pointed out that the UK is unusually reliant on its universities since it lacks independent research institutes. Others highlighted the country’s problems with scaling up spin outs.
What about potential solutions?
One speaker suggested that while having lots of exciting science happening around the world was wonderful, it threatened what in the UK had become an industry. Perhaps it was therefore time to make more of a case for higher education not as an industry but as a public good.
Another suggested learning from other countries about how to work in more equitable and meaningful partnerships with partners around the world and how to conduct research in different – and perhaps more cost effective – ways.
One warned that higher income countries often fell into the trap of seeing partnerships with lower income countries in terms of offering aid. Collaborations should instead involve both sides recognising each other’s strengths and both benefitting in an equal way.
Similarly, when it comes to attracting overseas students, the UK should think in terms of how its own students benefit from the arrangement, said another. Curricula may also need to be re-assessed to make them more suitable to the different world future researchers will face.
One suggestion was to identify where the UK is particularly strong and to become more competitive by developing those specialisms. Another participant pointed out that it was important not only to identify specialisms that others do not have, but to identify areas where others are also strong and where collaboration can therefore be especially productive.
Work is needed to put in place facilities and mechanisms to enable those researchers who would benefit from working together to find each other, said one participant. Another said it was important to ensure a balance between a centralised system for identifying potential collaborations and allowing individual researchers and departments to find their own partners.
It is not just about strategies led from the top, one speaker stressed. Those working across global borders need a rich understanding of the context in which institutions in other countries operate and how collaborations are conducted on the ground.
Researchers also need to be aware that the current world is a hugely unstable one and to be prepared to meet that challenge with equal partners.
The kind of challenges involved was made clear by one speaker who pointed out that America has recently turned off satellite climate data, which had been free for low and middle income countries to use, and has withdrawn from Antarctica its last ice-breaker ship, which monitored the melting of ice shelves threatening coastal cities.
The result of this loss of data could affect not only individual countries of all income levels around the world but the very planet they occupy.
Under repeated threats to their funding, higher ed institutions began to rebrand or shut down cultural centers, Black student resource centers and LGBTQ+ and women’s programs. Many campus diversity officers lost their jobs or were shuffled off to other offices, barred from doing much of the work they were hired for. Some institutions scrapped celebrated traditions such as affinity graduations and campus residential communities geared toward students of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds. Some student groups, like Esperanza, lost university funding because of their identity-based missions.
In one recent example, the University of Alabama ended two student publications, one focused on women and the other on Black students, citing federal policy concerns. The University of Tennessee at Chattanooga shuttered its Women’s and Gender Equity Center, an LGBTQ center, its Office of Multicultural Affairs, and the Office of Student & Family Engagement, replacing them with a Center for Student Leadership, Engagement and Community. The changes have affected faculty and staff as well as students; earlier this fall, the University of Illinois System banned consideration of race, sex or country of origin not only in financial aid decisions but in hiring, tenure and promotion as well.
“It’s very sad to see a lot of universities fall to their knees,” Luna said. Higher ed institutions “are supposed to be the places where the exchange of ideas happen, where leaders are developed and where you’re just taught about how the world objectively is … It’s a very dangerous sign for the future.”
A Double Attack
State-level anti-DEI laws have proliferated for several years now, but diversity-related programs and services were dealt a double blow this year when Trump took office.
On Feb. 14, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a Dear Colleague letter declaring race-conscious student programming and resources illegal, based on an expansive interpretation of the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision against considering race in admissions in Students for Fair Admissions vs. Harvard. It gave colleges and universities 14 days to eliminate such offerings or risk losing their federal funding. A month later, ED launched investigations into 51 colleges for ongoing DEI activity. Federal judges struck down the department’s anti-DEI guidance in April, pausing enforcement, but colleges nonetheless scrambled to review and scrub DEI language from their programs and offices or shutter them altogether.
Over the summer, the Department of Justice came out with a sweeping guidance memo declaring an even wider set of practices off-limits, including those that use “potentially unlawful proxies” for race, such as recruiting students from majority-minority geographic areas. In a series of contentious legal battles, the federal government pressured some universities to agree to settlements that included anti-DEI provisions, including bans on race-conscious programs and transgender athletes. For example, the University of Virginia, which the DOJ targeted for DEI practices, recently agreed to quash all DEI programming to maintain federal funding.
I am a person who still believes, and I will forever believe, that it is important to call it diversity, equity, inclusion, anti-racism.”
Shaun Harper, founder and chief research scientist at USC’s Race and Equity Center
All the while, federal agencies have slashed, frozen and stalled billions of dollars in research grants to universities, often for perceived ties to DEI concepts. More than 120 TRIO programs, which support disadvantaged students, also lost their federal funds over alleged DEI connections. And in September, the Education Department abruptly ended grants for many minority-serving institutions, calling such programs—used to fund supports like extra peer mentoring or streamlined STEM programming at colleges with burgeoning minority student populations—“discriminatory” and “unconstitutional.”
States, meanwhile, enacted an unprecedented number of new laws cracking down on DEI: 14 in 12 states, including Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, New Hampshire, Mississippi, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia and Wyoming. That’s double the number of states that passed anti-DEI laws last year.
A higher education consultant and lawyer in the Washington D.C. area, who asked to remain anonymous, said campus leaders are increasingly asking, “How do we keep ourselves off the radar? How do we avoid scrutiny from the federal government?” At the same time, they face “increasingly disgruntled and disappointed communities within who are saying, ‘We thought you cared about this issue’,” the source said. University leaders have come under “very real pressure.”
A ‘Loss of Momentum’
Diversity officers and scholars fear that this year’s seismic policy shifts and campus crackdowns on DEI will have ripple effects across academe and beyond.
Kaleb L. Briscoe, associate professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Oklahoma, is concerned that some institutions have responded to DEI bans by limiting what’s taught in the classroom.
For example, Florida colleges removed hundreds of courses related to race, sex and gender from their general education requirement options. Classes at Texas A&M University that “advocate race or gender ideology, sexual orientation, or gender identity” now require approval from the university president. And other Texas universities have undertaken reviews of course syllabi and curricula for anything that runs afoul of state or federal DEI bans.
Curriculum changes that would normally “take years’ worth of processes” are sometimes happening quickly and without appropriate faculty input, Briscoe said. While proponents of DEI bans often call for viewpoint diversity, “by implementing these bans, you are taking away voices and taking away knowledge … which really counters what they are hoping to do.”
She also fears a “blue, red, purple divide of education,” where students have different levels of access to certain subject areas or perspectives depending on where they go to college.
“We are now going to see different people in different states learning and getting access to different things,” she said. “That is horrible because, knowledge-wise, we should be preparing our students to be productive citizens across difference.”
What we’re doing is reducing opportunities.”
Paulette Granberry Russell, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education
Shaun Harper, founder and chief research scientist at the University of Southern California’s Race and Equity Center, said he’s mourning a “loss of momentum” in improving the experiences and outcomes of underrepresented students, a movement that stretches back to the 1960s.
He recently visited a campus where “the Black cultural center still exists in name, but it has no staff. It has no programming. It’s just an empty room,” he said. Harper, who also serves as USC’s Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy, said he found a smattering of students still trying to use the space, sitting in the dark and talking. He remembers when the same center was “a light, bright, vibrant space that was rich with culture that had employees … who helped to make it a home away from home.”
To him, the darkened space was a symbol of what’s been lost.
DEI Professionals Under Fire
Harper said he’s been especially disheartened to see DEI professionals lose their jobs.
Institutions dismissed “good, innocent, hard-working people who were expert at bringing campus communities together across racial, religious, ideological and other important divides,” and who pushed for some widely-cared-about issues like pay equity for women and access for students with disabilities, he said. “The loss of those people has been catastrophic to higher education, to the students that they were serving and to those people’s careers.”
A former diversity professional at a public higher ed institution in the South told Inside Higher Ed that DEI officers were wrestling with the “trauma,” “shame” and “humiliation” of suffering such a forceful, nationwide rejection.
The ex-diversity officer, who asked to remain anonymous for fear of career repercussions, spent years working to make their institution a more welcoming place for students of color—and it worked, they said. Over their tenure, faculty diversity increased and the percentage of underrepresented students in the university’s entering class more than doubled.
But you wouldn’t know it from looking at the institution’s website, the former diversity officer said. It makes no mention of the diversity office, which was dissolved. The university stripped any evidence of its work, including videos of events and educational programs, data reports and online community platforms. Unlike many of their co-workers, the former diversity officer retained an unrelated position at the institution, but their former role feels like a “scarlet letter” on campus and in the job market, they said.
They worry not only for their colleagues but also for students and faculty members left unserved.
“I can tell you that students of color who had community, don’t,” they said. “They’re spitting on Black kids, they’re calling them the N-word, and kids don’t know where to go. They don’t know what office is going to support them.”
The former diversity professional believes DEI is officially “dead,” at least as a label.
But “the underlying work of creating welcoming, diverse, inclusive, supportive cultures on campus and communities is not dead,” they said. The “benefits of diversity, of inclusion, those are still there. It just can’t be called that.”
Students in Ann Arbor protested the University of Michigan’s decision last spring to close its DEI offices, putting up posters criticizing President Donald Trump and former UM President Santa Ono.
Bill Pugliano/Getty Images
DEI’s Murky Future
Harper argued that the work can’t really go on without using the term “DEI.” He believes replacement terms like “culture” and ”community” lack specificity in a way that makes them meaningless.
“It’s giving weak sauce,” he said. “I am a person who still believes, and I will forever believe, that it is important to call it diversity, equity, inclusion, anti-racism.” The same goes for “antisemitism, sexism, homophobia and transphobia. It’s important to call those things by their names.”
Whether DEI will continue in some form is an open question currently under debate by current and former DEI officers and researchers. Some retain their optimism; others argue it’s going to take years, even decades, for campus infrastructure to recover from the full extent of this year’s losses—if a comeback is even possible.
The DEI rollbacks mark a retreat from “60-plus years of effort to broaden access and address inequities,” said Paulette Granberry Russell, who’s stepping down as president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education in January after five years at the helm. “So, do I see this work coming back? Bouncing back? No.”
Regardless of who wins the next election, she believes federal funding cuts and stymied DEI-related research will cause long-lasting damage. She’s spoken with scholars studying issues related to race and gender who have been doxed and threatened, and who fear continuing the work they’ve done for years.
“What we’re doing is reducing opportunities,” Granberry Russell said. “You’re not going to make that up in two, three, four years.”
But she’s not without hope. She emphasized that a “systems approach” to improving academic outcomes for students—making such work the entire university’s responsibility—could be the next phase of these efforts as diversity offices fade. Doing so would require leaders to express “their commitment, which at least at this point, requires a certain amount of courage, given the very heavy-handed … taking away of resources to bring colleges and universities into line,” she said.
A chief diversity officer who lost their job in a state with a DEI ban but now works in the same role at an east coast institution, said they’re doing a “post-mortem” on where DEI went wrong. They believe the DEI movement might have tried to accomplish too much too fast, without explaining the research behind the practices developed to boost student outcomes.
Practitioners introduced concepts “really new to people” and sometimes “began to cancel people quickly” who didn’t get it, said the CDO, who asked to remain anonymous. But “you can’t run a marathon with people who are not fit. You have to bring them up to where you want them to be. And that requires teaching. It requires patience.”
They noted that the field of DEI grew rapidly in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter protests in 2020. Scholarship on improving campus climate flourished, and diversity professionals enjoyed a wide berth to try new strategies to close equity gaps. But it was short-lived. Less than a year into the CDO’s role at their previous institution, the anti-DEI movement gained traction in the state. An anti-DEI law ultimately passed, and the diversity office later closed for good.
“That great rebirth or Renaissance” was “like a star that just had its last final flash of wonder—and then the death began,” they said. “We didn’t know at the time that the star was shining brightly to die.”
They believe DEI could be on the brink of a new era, one that rectifies some of its past mistakes and garners more support. “My fear is that we won’t be given the opportunity to do so,” they said. But they’re confident diversity professionals won’t give up on the programs, practices and strategies they believe students need.
“Fear not. Rest up, my friends,” they said. “We will be back.”
The D.C.-based higher education consultant and lawyer believes DEI isn’t dead; it’s just shifting. Campus DEI work has never been unlawful, they argued, so colleges and universities simply need to emphasize that fact, not scale back their work. They encourage campus leaders to state explicitly that cultural centers and programs are open to all, and to train everyone on campus, including student group leaders, how to frame their programming that way—even though the programs didn’t discriminate in the first place.
“Many times, I’m just trying to remove language that I know is going to draw scrutiny and then trying to offer them a way to continue to live out their values,” they said. “There may be ways to thematically describe the intended purpose of a program without using an identity marker that really just is a lightning rod in this moment.”
They acknowledged that “this transition has been really painful” for all invested in diversity, equity and inclusion work.
“But I think people are resilient,” they said. “They’re evolving, and they’re trying to figure out a pathway to make the work of universal access and opportunity evergreen.”
If you work anywhere near international student recruitment in the UK right now, chances are you’re feeling it: the tension; the uncertainty; the quiet panic behind friendly webinar smiles and networking events where we gather with peers. Is there some comfort in realising it’s not just you? The recruitment landscape really has shifted – and it’s shifted fast.
For years, the UK felt like a safe bet. We’ve dined out on a strong reputation, our many world-class universities and our significant English-language advantage, which has given us a steady flow of students from our key markets. Looking back on the year just gone, it’s not hard to see why it feels like we’ve been living through a crisis.
The international student levy and student demand
The announcement of the international student levy sent shockwaves through the sector. There has been much focus on the potential material impacts to universities, but there is also a significant symbolic effect among prospective international students.
At a time when international students are already facing rising tuition fees, higher living costs, currency volatility, and visa expenses, the levy feels like yet another barrier. Even if institutions absorb the levy cost, the levy has already done time in the court of public opinion, and the “international student tax” perception is out there. The most recent iteration of our student perceptions research, Emerging Futures 8, saw that three of the top five reasons international students decline their offer to study internationally are financially linked: the cost of tuition is beyond their financial reach; the cost of living has become too expensive; and the student visa cost has become too high.
While institutions and the British public are being encouraged to look at it as an investment in other areas of HE, from a student’s perspective, it doesn’t read as investment. It reads as “you’re welcome… but at a price.” We saw a similar proposal come and go in Australia pre-election. The Australian Universities Accord panel considered and ultimately ruled out a levy, on the grounds of both the damage to Australia’s international appeal, and the significant headache in administering it
If we put ourselves in the shoes of a student weighing up studying in the UK versus studying in Germany, the UK option now comes with higher tuition fees to offset domestic fees, the NHS surcharge, an increase in maintenance amounts, a steep visa fee and now, an additional levy. Meanwhile, Germany is saying low or no tuition, post-study work routes and growing English-taught provision. Even if the UK still offers higher prestige, the financial psychology is changing, and we know that matters.
The countries that traditionally send students to the UK are facing shrinking job markets. And while students are still interested in international qualifications, the tone has shifted from aspirational to transactional with a strong emphasis on whether UK study is “really worth it.”
The quiet squeeze of the BCA
The BCA (Basic Compliance Assessment) framework is another pressure point, and it hits universities unevenly. On paper, it’s about quality and credibility, which no one disputes works to safeguard the reputation of the UK. But operationally, it’s becoming a quiet limiter on recruitment ambition. If an institution’s refusal rate climbs, its recruitment strategy tightens. If dependency on a single market becomes too visible, risk tolerance drops. And suddenly, growth opportunities shrink.
That’s not because the demand isn’t there, but because the risk feels too high, with real consequences: fewer bold recruitment experiments; less appetite for new or emerging markets; more conservative agent partnerships and reduced flexibility in offer-making. The result? A recruitment environment that’s more cautious than creative.
Sliding demand for the UK
For a long time, the UK competed largely on reputation. Now, while the UK is still in the conversation, it no longer owns the room. The UK still has world-class education, but these days, so does everyone else. While UK institutions were navigating Brexit fallout, policy uncertainty, immigration messaging shifts and now compliance tightening, our competitors were building momentum. Students are more informed than ever. They compare graduate salaries, post-study work options, cost of living, the political climate, safety, and mental health support as well as prestige and reputation. But the recruitment decision is no longer just academic – it’s deeply geopolitical and financial, with a focus on ROI.
The UK is no longer the automatic first choice destination it once was. Emerging Futures 8 puts Australia out front, with the UK second, ahead of the USA. But this doesn’t mean demand has collapsed. It means it has fragmented.
We’re seeing a softening in traditional high-volume markets, slower conversion from offer to enrollment and more students holding multiple destination options later into the cycle. In fact, the same survey showed that now only 12 per cent of students apply for one destination – meaning 88 per cent of students are considering multiple options and they are holding onto those options much later down the recruitment funnel than in previous years. This also goes some way to explaining why institutional modelling of admissions is not as accurate as it has been in the past.
At the same time, countries like France and Germany are stepping confidently into the spotlight. France has aggressively expanded English-taught programmes, particularly at Masters level. Business schools, engineering schools and public universities are all in the mix. Add lower tuition and growing post-study work routes, and suddenly France is no longer Plan B but a plausible first-choice option.
Germany, meanwhile, has quietly built one of the most attractive international education propositions in the world: minimal or zero tuition, strong industry links, STEM leadership and a welcoming post-study work ecosystem. Layer in concerted campaigns from Poland, Spain, Turkey, Korea, China and Hong Kong to attract international students and you’ve got a busier marketplace than UK HE has ever had to contend with.
What this means in 2026
Despite all of the rather gloomy realities I’ve outlined, I see no reason why the UK should concede its market advantage without a fight – we are looking forward to working with our partners in 2026 to do just that. But winning back market share will mean recognising that the UK is no longer competing from a position of automatic advantage. We’re competing in a truly global marketplace where value matters as much as prestige, policy signals shape perception, compliance restricts agility, and cost sensitivity is rising everywhere.
The institutions that will thrive are the ones that diversify markets meaningfully (not just on paper), invest in authentic student support, build real industry and employability pipelines, strengthen agent relationships as partnerships, and tell clearer, more honest value stories to students. As the government puts the final touches to its international education strategy, there is much opportunity to sustain and even extend international education, but any strategy that depends on “recruit as many as we can” without thinking deeply about how the offer lands in the international student market, is not likely to see long term success.
Because right now, the world isn’t waiting for the UK to catch up. The world has already moved on, and our future students have moved with it.
This article is published in association with IDP Education.
How one-to-one storytelling turns information into enrollment
Students are saturated with content in their daily lives, and video is a huge part of what they see and consume. However, as the 2025 E-Expectations Report reveals, students are also no longer impressed by one-size-fits-all marketing. They want outreach that feels personal, relevant, and authentic (RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus, 2025). What resonates with them is personalization that shows colleges see them and not just another applicant.
And when a personalized video connects those dots, combining storytelling, emotion, and data, something powerful happens: curiosity turns into commitment.
Why personalization works
Personalization amplifies engagement with students.
This is clear. When students see themselves reflected in a story, they engage more deeply and feel a stronger sense of belonging.
Zhao and colleagues (2024) tested this through a creative experiment involving personalized animated films. Participants watched short stories where their moods and habits shaped the life of a little corgi trying to reach the moon. The results? Viewers not only enjoyed the video, but they also identified with it. Some even started calling the character “me.” That sense of recognition is exactly what colleges aim to spark when they send a personalized admit or financial aid video.
Banerjee et al. (2023) found similar effects in the education technology sector. When apps delivered recommendations based on individual interests, student engagement increased, especially among those who typically ignored recommendations. The message for higher education marketers is clear: those who ignore your emails or skip your events may simply be waiting for the right message at the right moment.
Finally, Deng et al. (2024) showed that personalization is not just about what content appears; it is also about how it appears. TikTok’s algorithm, for example, predicts which segments you will watch and preloads them for a frictionless experience. When it comes to personalized video for students, the same principle applies. A message that loads quickly, feels smooth, and speaks directly to their needs earns attention and trust.
Real results from personalized video campaigns
You can see the full potential of personalization when colleges put it into practice, especially with the channel students use the most: video. Institutions across the country are using personalized video to make complex information clear, emotional moments unforgettable, and online discovery truly interactive. We work with our partners Allied Pixel, the pioneer in personalized video technology, to help campuses make that personalized connection that drives enrollment.
Personalized financial aid videos: Turning confusion into clarity
At Coastal Carolina University, affordability became an opportunity for connection. Through Personalized Financial Aid Videos (PFAVs), the university walked students and families through their aid packages in plain English and Spanish, helping them understand what college would actually cost. The outcome was remarkable:
Students who viewed their PFAV were nearly twice as likely to enroll as those who did not
More than 75% of students who clicked an action button after watching enrolled.
Coastal Carolina credits the videos as a major factor in enrolling a record-breaking incoming class.
What could have been a confusing moment became one of clarity and confidence.
Admit hype videos: Building emotional momentum
Once affordability is clear, emotion takes center stage. The University of Cincinnati used Personalized Admit Hype Videos as part of its “Moments That Matter” campaign, designed to celebrate admitted students in a way that felt deeply personal.
The results spoke for themselves: over 1,200 students confirmed their enrollment after watching their personalized video. One student shared, “It made me feel like I’ve found a new home. Thank you for putting this together!” A parent commented, “This is the absolute coolest thing I’ve seen in college recruiting, and this is my third child. Well done!!!”
It is hard to imagine a clearer example of how belonging drives yield.
Real-time web videos: Personalization in 30 seconds or less
Before a student ever inquires, colleges like Aquinas College are using Personalized Real-Time Web Videos to create immediate engagement. Visitors to the Aquinas website can build their own video in under 30 seconds, featuring content relevant to their interests.
Over 70% of visitors choose to create their own personalized clip, an extraordinary engagement rate. Even better, the form captures names, emails, and optional phone numbers, providing the admissions team with high-quality leads while offering students a memorable first touchpoint.
These examples show that personalization is not just a creative flourish. It is a measurable driver of engagement, confidence, and enrollment.
What personalized video means for enrollment leaders
For enrollment and marketing teams, personalized video has shifted from a novelty to a necessity. The results are too compelling to ignore. Here is what to focus on next:
Start with data. Use CRM or application data to personalize content around major, aid status, or next steps.
Make it one-to-one. Include each student’s name, major, and relevant details so it feels like their story.
Keep it short. The sweet spot is 30–60 seconds, enough to inform without overwhelming.
Guide with purpose. End every video with one clear call to action: confirm, apply, schedule, or log in.
Measure and refine. Track engagement and conversion metrics to keep improving.
Build belonging. Blend data with empathy, because personalization is about people, not just platforms.
When done right, personalized video meets both emotional and practical needs. It answers questions and builds confidence, but it also sparks joy, pride, and a sense of belonging. That is the sweet spot where conversion happens.
So, if you want students not just to watch, but to feel seen, do not just write it, film it. Keep it short, real, and personal. Because when a few seconds can change a student’s decision, the most powerful word in recruitment might just be their name.
Want to see the full picture?
Find out how personalized video can create powerful engagement at every stage of the enrollment journey. Watch our webinar, How to Ramp Up Student Engagement Through Personalized Videos, to learn how you can add personalized videos to your marketing and recruitment efforts.
You can also download the 2025 E-Expectations Trend Report to see the full findings on how today’s high-school students explore, evaluate, and choose colleges, plus what they expect from every click, video, and message.
References:
Banerjee, R., Ghosh, A., Nanda, R., & Shah, M. (2023). Personalized Recommendations In Edtech: Evidence From A Randomized Controlled Trial. Proceedings of the 14th ACM Conference on Learning at Scale. ACM.
Deng, W., Fan, Z., Fu, D., Gong, Y., Huang, S., Li, X., Li, Z., Liao, Y., Liu, H., Qiao, C., Wang, B., Wang, Z., & Xiong, Z. (2024). Personalized Playback Technology: How Short Video Services Create Excellent User Experience. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia. Advance online publication.
RNL, Halda, & Modern Campus. (2025). 2025 E-Expectations Report. Ruffalo Noel Levitz.
Zhao, X., Lee, J., Maes, P., & Picard, R. (2024). A Trip To The Moon: Personalized Animated Movies For Self-Reflection. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 8(CSCW2), 1–27.
The government’s diagnosis is that the homogeneity of sector outputs is a barrier to growth. Their view, emerging from the industrial strategy, is that it is an inefficient use of public resources to have organisations doing the same things in the same places. The ideal is specialisation where universities concentrate on the things they are best at.
There are different kinds of nudges to achieve this goal. One is the suggestion that the REF could more closely align to the government missions. The detail is not there but it is possible to see how impact could be made to be about economic growth or funding could be shifted more toward applied work. There is a suggestion that research funding should consider the potential of places (maybe that could lead to some regional multipliers who knows). And there are already announced steps around the reform on HEIF and new support for spin-outs.
Ecosystems
All of these things might help but they will not be enough to fundamentally change the research ecosystem. If the incentives stay broadly the same researchers and universities will continue to do broadly the same things irrespective of how much the government wants more research aimed at growing the economy.
The potentially biggest reform has the smallest amount of detail. The paper states
We will incentivise this specialisation and collaboration through research funding reform. By incentivising a more strategic distribution of research activity across the sector, we can ensure that funding is used effectively and that institutions are empowered to build deep expertise in areas where they can lead. This may mean a more focused volume of research, delivered with higher-quality, better cost recovery, and stronger alignment to short- and long-term national priorities. Given the close link between research and teaching, we expect these changes to support more specialised and high quality teaching provision as well.
The implication here is that if research funding is allocated differently then providers will choose to specialise their teaching because research and teaching are linked. Before we get to whether there is a link between research funding and teaching (spoiler there is not) it is worth unpacking two other implications here.
The first is that the “strategic distribution” element will have entirely different impacts depending on what the strategy is and what the distribution mechanism is. The paper states that there could, broadly, be three kinds of providers. Teaching only, teaching with applied research, and research institutions (who presumably also do teaching.) The strategy is to allow providers to focus on their strengths but the problem is it is entirely unclear which strengths or how they will be measured. For example, there are some researchers that are doing research which is economically impactful but perhaps not the most academically ground breaking. Presumably this is not the activity which the government would wish to deprioritise but could be if measured by current metrics. It also doesn’t explain how providers with pockets of research excellence within an overall weaker research profile could maintain their research infrastructure.
The white paper suggests that the sector should focus on fewer but better funded research projects. This makes sense if the aim is to improve the cost recovery on individual research projects but improving the unit of resource through concentrating the overall allocation won’t necessarily improve financial sustainability of research generally. A strategic decision to align research funding more with the industrial strategy would leave some providers exposed. A strategic decision to invest in research potential not research performance would harm others. A focus on regions, or London, or excellence wherever it may be, would have a different impact. The distribution mechanism is a second order question to the overall strategy which has not yet dealt with some difficult trade offs
On its own terms it also seems research funding is not a good indicator of teaching specialism.
Incentives
When the White Paper suggests that the government can “incentivise specialisation and collaboration through research funding reform”, it is worth asking what – if any – links there currently are between research funding and teaching provision.
There’s two ways we can look at this. The first version looks at current research income from the UK government to each provider(either directly, or via UKRI) by cost centre – and compares that to the students (FTE) associated with that cost centre within a provider.
We’re at a low resolution – this split of students isn’t filterable by level or mode of study, and finances are sometimes corrected after the initial publication (we’ve looked at 2021-22 to remove this issue). You can look at each cost centre to see if there is a relationship between the volume of government research funding and student FTE – and in all honesty there isn’t much of one in most cases.
If you think about it, that’s kind of a surprise – surely a larger department would have more of both? – but there are some providers who are clearly known for having high quality research as opposed to large numbers of students.
So to build quality into our thinking we turn to the REF results (we know that there is generally a good correlation between REF outcomes and research income).
Our problem here is that REF results are presented by unit of assessment – a subject grouping that maps cleanly neither to cost centres or to the CAH hierarchy used more commonly in student data (for more on the wild world of subject classifications, DK has you covered). This is by design of course – an academic with training in biosciences may well live in the biosciences department and the biosciences cost centre, but there is nothing to stop them researching how biosciences is taught (outputs of which might be returned to the Education cost centre).
What has been done here is a custom mapping at CAH3 level between subjects students are studying and REF2021 submissions – the axis are student headcount (you can filter by mode and level, and choose whichever academic year you fancy looking at) against the FTE of staff submitted to REF2021 – with a darker blue blob showing a greater proportion of the submission rated as 4* in the REF (there’s a filter at the bottom if you want to look at just high performing departments).
Again, correlations are very hard to come by (if you want you can look at a chart for a single provider across all units of assessment). It’s almost as if research doesn’t bring in money that can cross-subsidise teaching, which will come as no surprise to anyone who has ever worked in higher education.
Specialisation
The government’s vision for higher education is clear. Universities should specialise and universities that focus on economic growth should be rewarded. The mechanisms to achieve it feel, frankly, like a mix of things that have already been announced and new measures that are divorced from the reality of the financial incentives universities work under.
The white paper has assiduously ducked laying out some of the trade-offs and losers in the new system. Without this the government cannot set priorities and if it does not move some of the underlying incentives on student funding, regional funding distribution, greater devolution, supply-side spending like Freeports, staff reward and recognition, student number allocations, or the myriad of things that make up the basis of the university funding settlement, it has little hope of achieving its goals in specialisation or growth.
International education was growing. The United States hosted over 1.1 million international students in 2023/24, an all-time high and up 7% on the previous period. Graduate enrolments and OPT participation also reached record levels.
However, due to an unpredictable macro-environment, forecasts indicate that the US could expect a decrease of up to 40% in new international student enrolments this year, resulting in a potential loss of USD$7 billion to the US economy.
At the same time, budgets are tight. The loss of international student revenue can affect institutions in the U.S. Along with these losses, there are cuts in federal grants, with over 4,000 grants reduced to fewer than 600 institutions across the 50 states.
The result is an education sector that needs reliable revenue and an improved student financial experience.
Why instalments are becoming the default
Students are funding their degrees from multiple sources while managing the rising costs of living. In TouchNet’s 2025 Student Financial Experience Report, 55 percent of US students juggle three or more funding sources, 82 percent say financial tasks require moderate to high effort, and half of the international students surveyed stated that positive payment experiences with institutions had a positive effect on them.
That illustrates the importance of offering students flexible, self-service tools. By streamlining payment processes, offering alternative payment methods, and, most importantly, providing payment flexibility, those financial tasks that cause students stress can be alleviated. In turn, those positive experiences will lead to better-engaged students, who can worry about their financial standings a little bit less.
Apart from providing financial security and a positive experience to students, payment plans are crucial to an institution’s survival. International students contributed an estimated USD$43.8bn to the US economy in 2023/24. Protecting that value means eliminating friction from the invoicing, payment, and reconciliation processes across borders and currencies.
From annual to monthly payments: what institutions gain
Moving from one or two large value annual due dates to monthly, quarterly, or term-aligned schedules spreads risk for students in a turbulent macroeconomic environment and smooths cash flow for institutions.
That shift helps students plan around scholarship disbursements, loans, family support, and part-time work, while giving bursar teams earlier visibility of potential issues.
The outcome is higher on-time payment rates, fewer past-due balances, and a better student experience.
What to demand from a payments partner
If you are rethinking fee schedules, the partner you choose matters.
Look for providers that offer multiple payment options for annual payments and instalment payments. Whether it’s credit or debit cards, bank transfers, or alternative regional payment methods, ensure that the provider you choose offers a wide range of payment options.
This way, students who need to pay you can complete the financial transaction in the most convenient way for them. A bonus is when the provider uses local payment rails to complete the transaction, helping you benefit from reduced intermediary fees.
Seek partners that can provide complete visibility of payments for both students and institutions. This will help to reduce your admin time. By maintaining a comprehensive record of student payment history, you can easily verify a student’s financial standing without having to search through paperwork.
On the other hand, students and parents (or anyone paying the tuition) can view the status of their payments, balances, sign up for payment plans, and check their standings without needing to raise support tickets.
Make sure a prospective provider can facilitate fast refunds and handle automated reconciliation. Linking in with the full record of payment history, any provider you onboard should be able to initiate refunds promptly and return funds to the originating account. Not only is that required from a regulatory standpoint, but with the rise in education payment-related fraud, it may save you multiple thousands of dollars in the long run.
Furthermore, if a student drops out of their course six months into their first year and has made seven payments for their tuition, it should be a simple process to refund them any amount they’re due. Choose a provider with capabilities to do so to save your team headaches.
How TransferMate helps you make monthly instalments work
TransferMate’s education solutions were built for the new reality we’re living through. Providing choice across instalments and payment methods is at the forefront of our platform, and is specifically designed to meet institutional control requirements and student expectations.
Here’s what you can expect from our integration:
Multiple instalment options out of the box: Offer students monthly schedules that they can opt into. Plans can be paid for across multiple cards, bank transfers, or local payment methods, with clear due-date reminders.
Recurring card payments for student housing: Students can sign up once for automated recurring card payments on their housing fees. This reduces missed payments, lowers the administrative load for teams, and provides students with predictable outgoings throughout the year.
API Client Dashboards: Finance and student accounts teams with embedded solutions from TransferMate can see payment histories and statuses per student, country, currency, or programme. This surfaces issues earlier and supports more innovative outreach to at-risk cohorts. As analytics deepen, you can monitor instalment adoption and on-time performance by segment.
Virtual Accounts and refunds: With our Global Account solution, you can accept and hold funds in multiple currencies, route payments over local rails, and issue refunds quickly without breaking reconciliation. And as a plus, you can convert currencies and make payments in those local currencies for any inter-campus requirements, scholarship, or guest lecturer fees.
Beneficiary Portal: Through our beneficiary portal, users can invite students, agents, and research partners to provide their bank details aligned to your reference fields (such as student ID, program code, etc). Instead of your team collecting sensitive bank details via email or phone, you can invite the beneficiary with a secure portal link, allowing them to complete the form in minutes. This results in fewer data errors, fewer returns, and faster payment processing for scholarship, bursary, commission, or refund payments.
Compliance and transparency. TransferMate operates the largest globally licensed fintech payments infrastructure, featuring end-to-end tracking that allows students and institutions to see when funds are sent and received. As we own our infrastructure, we offer preferential foreign exchange rates and zero transaction fees. Clients save real time and money, with one institution having increased the college’s revenue by about 3%, purely on the savings made on bank and credit card charges.
The strategy that pays back
The plain facts are simple, even if it is a hard truth to swallow.
Institutions do not control the macro environment.
But what you do control is how easy it is for students to enrol and pay. The sector is moving from annual lump sums to monthly and quarterly instalments because it improves affordability, supports retention, and strengthens cash flow.
Being part of that movement is as easy as reaching out to a payments partner and getting started.
Want to learn more about how TransferMate configures instalment options for your institution? Get in touch with our team today.
About the author: Thomas Butler is head of education at TransferMate, driving innovation in payment solutions for the education sector. He leads teams focused on developing seamless, secure systems that simplify how institutions, platforms, and students send and receive international payments. Under his guidance, TransferMate powers collections in over 140 currencies across more than 200 countries, with fully regulated infrastructure and integrations via APIs, white-label platforms, and embedded solutions. Thomas works with both educational institutions and software partners to reduce bank fees, improve FX rates, automate reconciliation, cut administration, and enhance transparency, all to improve the payment experience and financial operations in education globally.
Earlier this week the presidents of three of the formerly regional accreditors—Middle States, SACSCOC and WASC—hosted a webinar on AI and transfer credit. I watched, as did several colleagues; both topics are important, and since we’re covered by Middle States, it’s useful to know where its policies and expectations are heading. Credit loss upon transfer is a chronic issue on which accreditors have historically been muted; serious attention would be welcome.
It was … frustrating My colleagues and I tried afterward to isolate actual concrete changes and came away befuddled. It reminded me a bit of “strategic plans” that say things like, “We will achieve excellence.” OK, but that’s neither a strategy nor a plan. At best, it’s an intention.
Heather Perfetti, the president of MSCHE, stated that she doesn’t want accreditors to be seen as barriers to credit transfer; if anything, they’re urging a shift in the burden of proof for credit transfer from yes to no. That’s good, as far as it goes, but the key word is “urging.” Urging is not requiring. Kay McClenney famously noted that “students don’t do optional.” I’ve seen too many cases of universities not doing optional when it comes to accepting credits in transfer.
The stated reason is usually something about standards; the real reason is economic self-interest. Departments don’t want to “give away” any more credits than they have to, so they don’t. That changes only when orders come down from above—say, from a provost’s office because the college is desperate for enrollment, or from a State Legislature that got sick of shenanigans and passed a law, like MassTransfer in Massachusetts. Accreditors could conceivably play that role—it would be naïve to think that outcomes assessment would have gained the momentum it did without pressure from accreditors—but they’d have to put some force behind it. I didn’t catch any mention of that.
To be fair to the accreditors, that’s much harder now that they’ve lost their de facto regional monopolies. The regional accreditors are membership-driven organizations whose imprimatur opens up access to federal financial aid. Membership-driven organizations aren’t normally tough on their members, but the unusual combination of regional monopoly and access to federal financial aid gave them the leverage to push their members harder than they otherwise could. That didn’t always work out ideally—some colleges went bankrupt having recently satisfied accreditors that they were financially sound—but the structure made it at least possible for the accreditors to carry real weight.
The first Trump administration broke the regional monopolies and opened the door to alternative accreditors. Now there’s an entirely new body emerging in SACS’s territory, and colleges are empowered to shop around. When members can shop around for more lenient or ideologically aligned accreditors, it becomes more difficult for the legacy accreditors to issue mandates.
The new preference—I can’t call it a mandate or a policy—seems to mean that colleges should “default to yes” on credit transfer, in the absence of evidence that they shouldn’t. It wasn’t immediately clear what would constitute evidence that they shouldn’t. Lack of regional accreditation isn’t supposed to be dispositive in itself. Over time, a college could track success rates of students in Calc II who transferred in Calc I from College X, and if the rate were low enough, they could cite that. But that would require first allowing everything in for several years to build a track record; after that, the politics of saying no would be more complicated.
The connection to AI, as near as I could tell, was that it would allow colleges to assess transcripts and issue transfer decisions much more quickly at scale. That would actually help. As one of the presidents put it—I should have written it down, but alas—the current system works like trading in a car for a new one but not being told the value of your trade-in until you’ve had the new one for a few months. It’s not consumer-friendly at all. If transfer credit decisions could be issued at the same time as admission and financial aid decisions, students would be much more able to make informed decisions. I have concerns about AI hallucinations in this context (and many others), but if defaulting to yes is built in, it might work at least as well as the current system.
So, I’ll give this shift a cheer and a half out of three. The direction is positive; I just hope they can find a way to move from an intention to a plan.
This blog was kindly authored by Rachel Hewitt, Chief Executive, MillionPlus, the Association of Modern Universities
Every year, surveys like HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey offer a snapshot of university life. But behind the charts and statistics is a changing story about what higher education looks like, especially at modern universities. These institutions are showing that studying in 2025 rarely follows a single, conventional route.
Modern universities have long been known for their openness and ties to local communities. Now, they are also shaping a very different kind of student journey—one that does not always follow the traditional three-year residential degree. Instead, it reflects the realities of a diverse student body: people working while studying, commuting from home, caring for family, or building new careers later in life.
Beyond the “traditional” student
For many students at modern universities, higher education is less about stepping away from life for three years and more about weaving learning into a busy, complicated existence. As the Student Academic Experience Survey shows, almost half (45%) of modern university students are in paid employment—often out of necessity, not choice. Many are parents, carers, or career-changers. For these students, study isn’t a bubble; it’s one delicate strand in a web of responsibilities.
For some, this results in a very different kind of campus life: less time spent living in halls, more commuting (40% travel over 10 miles) and a stronger pull between work, family and academic priorities.
New models of participation
While financial pressures for students and wider society remain acute—38% of students who need work can’t find it, and 30% say cost-of-living concerns affect their ability to focus—modern universities are adapting their teaching and support models. Many now offer blended delivery, intensive block teaching, alongside established flexible provision such as degree apprenticeships and part-time study. These approaches allow students to earn, care, and live at home while progressing towards qualifications.
Supporting non-traditional students
This is a student population that remains deeply committed to learning. Despite all the pressures, modern university students show up, participate, and persist. Approaching a fifth of students has caring responsibilities, comfortably higher than their peers at older institutions. Some 40% report that their tutors actively encourage class discussion and help them explore personal areas of interest. They value that their feedback is accessible and constructive, helping them improve and stay on track.
While their circumstances may be more complex, their commitment to learning is strong. These students also place a high value on being heard and report a sense of belonging, often shaped by feeling that their opinions matter and that support services are there when needed. These aren’t just “nice to haves”—they’re essential in a system where so many are juggling competing demands.
Their experience may look different from the “classic” university model, but it is no less valid.
For institutions, the challenge is that this is all happening against a backdrop of unsustainable finances, with their resources being stretched increasingly thinly.
The financial strain on universities
While much of the conversation around student experience rightly focuses on individuals, universities across the sector are also under growing pressure, the reasons for which are by now well established. Modern universities typically receive less research funding and fewer philanthropic donations than many of their older counterparts, with their international student income potentially next on the chopping block if the government follows through on its proposed levy.
They also face higher staff costs, with significant increases in pensions cost (recent changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme which modern universities are bound to offer are estimated to cost the sector £125 million per year) and this year are facing an 11% fall in Office for Students recurrent grants, compared to 5% at pre-92s. This is coupled with recent defunding of Level 7 apprenticeships, provision into which many modern universities had put significant investment to support the skills system. Yet they educate a high proportion of students from disadvantaged or underrepresented backgrounds, often with greater support needs.
Balancing quality education with constrained budgets is becoming increasingly unsustainable. The financial model that underpins higher education in the UK is coming apart at the seams. These universities are doing vital work—widening participation, supporting local economies, and offering first and second chances—but they’re being asked to do more with less.
The case for a new funding model
The current system is simply not fit for purpose. If modern universities are to continue serving their students effectively—and if those students are to thrive—there needs to be a shift in how higher education is funded. This could mean more targeted government support, reforms to tuition fee and maintenance structures, or increased investment in student support services. In order to maintain a world-leading higher education sector, vital to help meet the government’s stated goals, there must be a clear strategy for higher education from Westminster and Holyrood. The sector waits in hope for the government’s promised HE reform package.
Without change, inequality will be further entrenched and institutions that play a crucial role in social mobility will be immeasurably lessened. In 2025, with the support of their institutions, modern university students are doing everything they can to succeed. It’s time the system worked just as hard for them.
