Tag: Collaboration

  • The possibilities for radical collaboration in HE go far beyond mergers

    The possibilities for radical collaboration in HE go far beyond mergers

    2024-25 has been quite a year for collaboration in higher education. A year on from the election of the Labour government two things are pretty clear: there will be no significant injection of public funds into the sector in the current parliament; and the guiding lens for this government’s post-16 education policy will be regional.

    Instead of a highly competitive national higher education market the current policy landscape speaks to finding more ways to pool resources between institutions – so much so that Universities UK announced the formation of its taskforce on efficiency and transformation with the announcement of a “new era of collaboration” in higher education.

    Early in the year as the reality of the fiscal situation became clearer the sector saw a renewal of interest in coordinated efficiency models, including shared services, joint procurement, and up to and including mergers and acquisitions. There was only one problem: anyone who had experience of these kinds of initiatives, whether in higher education or another sector, would quickly warn that they require a great deal of upfront investment of time and energy, and the intended efficiency savings rarely materialise in the short term.

    No institution whose sole objective was to save money would look to collaboration as the best solution. But when we have explored themes of collaboration with the sector – through our radical efficiency article series with KPMG UK and our Connect More report with Mills & Reeve – we have found that despite the competitive pressures on the sector there is an appetite to explore where greater coordination between institutions could enhance value for students, employers, research funders and communities and regions.

    Play by play

    That sense of strategic potential for new ways of realising value is the starting point for a new publication from KPMG UK and Mills & Reeve. Titled Radical collaboration: a playbook, the report sets out the strategic context and considerations for boards and executives considering the range of options for structural collaboration, and the legal implications for the different kinds of possible models for structural collaboration.

    “If structural collaboration is framed as a short term fix for immediate financial sustainability then it’s the wrong answer to a bad question,” says Justine Andrew, partner at KPMG UK, and one of the authors of the playbook. “I think this is the moment, looking at the medium to long term, to say ‘is there a more joined-up way of fulfilling the purposes of what universities are for which is delivering world class teaching and research with impact in our places?’”

    It is often assumed that “structural collaboration” is a euphemism for merger – which itself is a euphemism for acquisition of one education provider by another. But this is far from accurate. One of the intents of the playbook is to explore the breadth of possible collaborations available to higher education providers on a spectrum from the softer to harder forms, including contractual alliance models, federation, group structures, and even the concept of a “multi-university trust.”

    “The multi-university trust is a concept that doesn’t exist yet,” says Poppy Short, partner at Mills & Reeve, and playbook author. “But in the school sector we have multi-academy trusts where all the institutions combine into one charitable company but the legacy institutions operate out of a separate academic division within that corporate vehicle, with some localised autonomy and branding. I think we will see one or more of those in higher education in the not too distant future.”

    Better the hurdle you know

    A further, highly practical, intent of the playbook is to help institutions to navigate some of the initial barriers to thinking through those different possibilities. Where higher education providers have merged – something that, while not especially common in higher education, is hardly beyond the bounds of accepted practice – they have been surprised to discover a lack of formal guidance that sets out the legal and regulatory requirements to help two organisations become one. There is even a degree of murkiness about the extent to which organisations are allowed to start conversations about collaboration under competition law – something which, under pressure from the sector, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has said it will look into.

    To tackle this lack of guidance, for each of the collaborative entities explored the playbook sets out the corporate structure and governance, and the implications for brand identity, management of finances and delivery of services, and the impact on staff and students, including a real-world example where one exists. The playbook then sets out a worked example of a hypothetical scenario of a group of providers in a place working through options for structural collaboration, thinking through what the strategic drivers and risks for individual institutions might be, and the legal, financial and regulatory implications for a new corporate group entity.

    “We really hope the playbook can move the conversation from the theoretical into a really practical one,” says Justine. “We’re using the fictional example of a place called Newtown that has a diverse range of FE and HE providers, and looking through a regional lens, if I’m a student, if I’m an employer, if I’m a combined authority, an industrial partner is the way that the sector I’m interfacing with set up the best for me from a curriculum, a research, a delivery point of view. So we’re not only thinking through the impact on the institutions themselves but flipping the lens a bit and asking whether, from the end user point of view, there is a better way of doing this.”

    Why wait for government

    Traditionally, the sector might have looked to the government to set out an agenda or framework where policy gaps are identified – but it’s also fair to say that few in the sector want the government to start putting pressure on institutions to work together or combine forces when the strategic rationale for doing so is undercooked. Far better for the impetus to come from institutions themselves, underpinned by a shared idea of the kinds of value that can be created through collaboration and a common commitment to achieving those ends.

    That doesn’t mean there is no role for government, not least in reducing the barriers to collaboration and potentially setting out some kind of brokerage framework or regulatory support service to encourage and support exploration of options. There are also some obvious tweaks to be made to the tax system to, at the very least, ensure structural collaborations do not incur a tax penalty.

    “I think the Department for Education is in listening mode,” says Poppy. “I think they are looking for the sector to come forward with ideas, for these conversations to start happening, and for the asks to fall out of that. Obviously there are funding challenges but there are other asks as well, such as could the department broker conversations with the CMA or give some additional regulatory guidance? Also it would be helpful to work on joining up the different forms of education provision across FE and HE so you’re not constantly finding hurdles – just as you get over one issue in your sector, you’re in another sector. I think there are many things the department could do to help universities navigate their way through some of the decision-making and planning and considering what their options are.”

    None of this looks like the kind of funding investment in transformation the sector might hope to see, but it’s worth noting that in some cases a benefit of scale can be to unlock opportunities for private investment. The playbook works through the circumstances under which private investment could be a sensible option and points to some existing public/private partnerships already in place in the sector.

    Radical collaboration may not be the answer for all or even most higher education institutions in England. But both the sector and government have to answer the fundamental policy question of how to organise the post-16 education sector in such a way as to support the provision of the kinds of diversity of qualifications, subjects and modes of delivery that will enable the largest possible numbers to benefit from the opportunity to enhance their life chances.

    If there is a chance that broader and deeper structural collaborations across further and higher education can help to deliver that agenda, then at the very least boards and executive teams have to give those options meaningful consideration – and this playbook just radically lowered the bar to starting that process.

    This article is published in association with KPMG UK and Mills & Reeve. You can view and download Radical collaboration: a playbook here.

    Source link

  • Making the most of degree apprenticeships requires collaboration across the whole of the UK

    Making the most of degree apprenticeships requires collaboration across the whole of the UK

    Less than a decade after their introduction, degree apprenticeships have become a significant feature of higher education provision across the United Kingdom. Despite this shared initiative, institutions in England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland continue to operate largely independently, creating a fragmented UK landscape that limits collective learning and improvement.

    This separation has resulted in a fragmented landscape that undermines opportunities for mutual learning and improvement. The absence of sustained dialogue means each nation continues to trial and refine its own approach in relative isolation, an approach that leaves apprentices short-changed.

    If we want better outcomes for everyone involved, we need to stop running four parallel experiments and start talking to one another.

    As a consortium of educational leaders committed to work-based higher education across the UK, we’ve collectively observed a concerning trend during our extensive engagement with employers, universities, and apprentices: the persistent siloing of knowledge and practice between our four nations. While Scotland has established its graduate apprenticeships program, England has developed its degree apprenticeships framework, and both Wales and Northern Ireland have implemented their own distinct approaches. Despite facing remarkably similar implementation challenges, there remains a troubling lack of systematic knowledge-sharing and collaborative learning across these national boundaries.

    Enhanced cross-border collaboration could lead to better outcomes for institutions, apprentices, and employers alike, preventing duplication of efforts and fostering collective improvements based on shared experiences.

    Diverse approaches

    Each UK nation has developed its distinct approach to integrating apprenticeships within higher education, despite common policy objectives and implementation challenges.

    In 2024, the Labour government announced the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill, paving the way for the establishment of Skills England. Previously employers defined apprenticeship standards, with apprentices required to dedicate at least 20 per cent of their training time away from the workplace, concluding with an end-point assessment. The new legislation gives the government powers to bypass employer groups to design and approve standards and apprenticeship assessment plans in a move argued to make the skills system more “agile” to employer needs and allow Skills England to become central to Labour’s five missions.

    In Scotland, graduate apprenticeships managed by Skills Development Scotland similarly prioritise employer involvement. However, Scotland employs a more centrally controlled skills system, directly influencing university offerings through funded apprenticeship places. This approach is further reinforced by the Tertiary Education and Training (Funding and Governance) (Scotland) Bill – introduced in February 2025 – which centralises responsibility for the delivery and funding of apprenticeships within the Scottish Funding Council. By consolidating these responsibilities, the bill aims to enhance system efficiency, transparency, and alignment with the Scottish labour market, thereby facilitating improved outcomes for learners and employers.

    Wales introduced a novel structure by establishing the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research (Medr), a single governing body overseeing the entire tertiary education sector, including apprenticeships. This model represents a significant structural departure from other nations.

    Northern Ireland’s strategy aligns apprenticeships with broader economic ambitions, specifically targeting a transformation to a “10X economy” by 2030. Apprenticeships play a pivotal role in this ambitious economic development strategy, not merely seen as educational pathways, but as strategic instruments for workforce development and sectoral transformation.

    Shared challenges, isolated solutions

    Despite the distinct policy approaches, institutions in each nation encounter remarkably similar operational difficulties. Institutions consistently face challenges integrating workplace experiences within academic curricula, navigating multiple regulatory frameworks, and establishing comprehensive support mechanisms for apprentices. These recurring issues highlight a fundamental inefficiency: duplicated efforts across borders without coordinated learning.

    For instance, Middlesex University’s Sustainable Degree Apprenticeships report identifies common struggles across the UK, particularly with managing supernumerary positions for nursing apprentices and reconciling workplace assessments with academic expectations.

    The widespread nature of these issues emphasises the potential value of a collective, cross-border approach to sharing effective strategies and solutions.

    Exemplifying untapped collaborative potential is the University of the West of Scotland’s (UWS) approach to graduate apprenticeships. UWS’ graduate apprenticeship business management programme has introduced dedicated “link tutors” who act as a consistent point of contact for both apprentices and employers. These tutors navigate the complex relationship between universities and employers, support apprentices in managing the demands of full-time work alongside academic study and help ensure alignment between on-the-job experience and academic outcomes. For apprentices who have struggled in more traditional learning environments, this targeted, consistent support has been especially impactful.

    The UWS example points to a broader truth – that the success of degree apprenticeships depends not just on academic content or employer engagement, but on the quality of the relationships built around the apprentice. UWS link tutors demonstrate what is possible when those relationships are given structure and sustained attention. However, without mechanisms for knowledge-sharing across the UK, such practices risk becoming isolated successes rather than the foundation for a more consistent and effective system.

    Barriers to effective collaboration

    The persistence of fragmentation across the UK is not accidental but reinforced by several systemic barriers. Firstly, the varied regulatory and quality assurance frameworks across each nation create natural divisions. These distinct regulations complicate collaborative efforts and reinforce separation.

    Competition among institutions for apprenticeships and employer partnerships further discourages cooperation. Institutions often perceive cross-border collaboration as potentially undermining competitive advantage, despite potential long-term benefits for shared knowledge. Divergent policy frameworks across the four nations intensifies these tensions. Employers operating across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland face significant challenges navigating the inconsistent apprenticeship standards, funding mechanisms, and regulatory requirements, thereby limiting the scale and effectiveness of apprenticeship programs and potentially undermining broader national objectives of skills development and economic growth.

    Additionally, frequent policy shifts undermine the stability required for effective collaborative planning. Institutions, wary of unpredictable policy changes, prefer short-term, autonomous strategies rather than investing in potentially unstable cross-border collaborations.

    And the absence of structured platforms for meaningful cross-border exchange remains a significant barrier. Resource constraints, particularly in staff workloads and budgetary limitations frequently hinder the capacity of institutions to engage in sustained, meaningful dialogue with counterparts in other UK regions. This lack of institutional infrastructure and resourcing limits the development of collaborative practices essential for a cohesive UK-wide degree apprenticeship ecosystem.

    The imperative for collaborative platforms

    Addressing these barriers requires deliberate action to create structured, cross-border collaborative forums. Recent informal discussions among apprenticeship providers across the UK indicate widespread acknowledgment of these missed collaborative opportunities. Academics frequently express frustration about facing common challenges without access to shared resources or systematic opportunities to learn from peers in other parts of the UK. This is despite frequent calls from the sector.

    What is lacking is a coordinated infrastructure that supports regular exchange of pedagogical models, assessment strategies, and institutional policies. Cross-nation working groups, joint practitioner networks, and shared digital platforms could help bridge this divide. These would not only allow for the exchange of effective practice but also aid in the development of more consistent approaches that benefit apprentices and employers alike.

    The challenge is not a lack of innovation, but a lack of connection. Many institutions already possess effective, well-tested solutions to the very problems others are still grappling with. Without formal channels to communicate these solutions, valuable knowledge remains isolated and difficult to access. If higher education institutions across the UK are to realise the full potential of degree apprenticeships, they must find ways to turn informal acknowledgement into formal collaboration.

    The benefits of greater cross-border collaboration are substantial. Institutions could significantly improve the quality of apprenticeship programmes by collectively addressing shared challenges. Enhanced efficiency could reduce duplication of effort, allowing institutions to focus resources more strategically and effectively.

    Moreover, apprentices themselves stand to gain significantly. Improved programme coherence, stemming from collective learning, could ensure apprentices receive uniformly high-quality education and training, irrespective of their geographic location.

    Employers – essential stakeholders in apprenticeship programmes – would similarly benefit from improved programme consistency and quality. Collaborative cross-border dialogue could help standardise employer expectations and streamline their participation across multiple jurisdictions.

    A collective future

    Degree apprenticeships represent a substantial collective investment aimed at reshaping higher education and addressing key skills shortages within the UK economy. Apprentices at the heart of this initiative deserve integrated, high-quality experiences informed by the best practices and shared knowledge of institutions across the entire UK.

    Institutions and policymakers must therefore commit to overcoming existing fragmentation by prioritising structured cross-border collaboration. This approach not only maximises the effectiveness of the significant resources already committed but also establishes a more coherent, effective educational framework for future apprentices.

    Ultimately, collaboration among UK higher education institutions represents not only good educational practice but a strategic imperative, ensuring that apprenticeships fully realise their potential as transformative educational opportunities.

    Our apprentices deserve better than four parallel experiments. They deserve the best of what all four nations have learned. It’s time we started talking to each other.

    Source link

  • The Art of Collaboration: Designing Assignments That Work – Faculty Focus

    The Art of Collaboration: Designing Assignments That Work – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The Art of Collaboration: Designing Assignments That Work – Faculty Focus

    The Art of Collaboration: Designing Assignments That Work – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Universities UK’s new era of collaboration

    Universities UK’s new era of collaboration

    The first major report of Universities UK’s transformation and efficiency taskforce – Towards a new era of collaboration – is a milestone in the ongoing national debate about unlocking maximum value from state investment in the higher education system.

    Though “transformation and efficiency” is the headline, the focus of the group has largely been on collaboration – ways in which universities and other providers can work together, and ways in which government and regulators can make it easier for this to happen.

    The drive for transformation came slowly at first and then all at once. The financial pressures on the sector – arising from Covid recovery, uneven patterns of student recruitment, rising pensions costs and erosion of the unit of resource for undergraduate tuition – are long standing (remember then chief of staff Sue Gray’s “shitlist” for the new government which featured the financial collapse of a large university?)

    Why and how

    The election of a new Labour government prompted the publication of the Universities UK Blueprint which hoped for a shift in relations between government and the sector based on effort on both sides to address the structural challenges facing higher education, of which a taskforce on transformation was one recommendation.

    Even at the point of the formation of the taskforce, led by former University of the Arts London vice chancellor Nigel Carrington, there was a degree of scepticism about how feasible the promised “new era of collaboration” might be. Wonkhe and Mills & Reeve’s Only Connect report on the opportunities for cooperation in the English sector found an appetite in principle among university leadership for new models for collaboration, along with a sense that the cultural and regulatory barriers were so significant as to make meaningful exploration of those opportunities unlikely.

    The taskforce, through a series of in-depth interviews with stakeholders, and detailed work with sector organisations, professional bodies and external experts, has therefore made an enormous stride forward in setting out the potential for system-wide change.

    The case for change

    There is a genre of departmental spending review submission called the “bleeding stumps” report, wherein civil servants offer up apocalyptic and or foolish ways in which spending constraints can be overcome – ex-DfE adviser Sam Freedman loves to tell the story of a pre-spending review report that suggested that pupils could attend school either in the morning or the afternoon.

    What Universities UK has produced is pretty much the diametric opposite of this approach. While recognising the dwindling availability of cash, the impact of these circumstances is set out via the results of a survey conducted in May of this year. While this is pretty bleak reading – 55 per cent of universities are consolidating courses (94 per cent would consider in the next three years), 25 per cent have seen compulsory staff redundancies already (up 14 percentage points on last year) and 36 per cent are cutting student support services (77 per cent would consider) – it comes across neither as sensationalist nor overblown to reflect the way the sector is having to change.

    The “would consider in next three years” column will be of most concern to the government, even beyond DfE: 79 per cent would consider cutting academic research activity, 71 per cent would be looking at cutting civic and local growth activity. To be clear this is based on a survey completed by 57 providers, so while it does show a concerning direction of travel you couldn’t expect a precise picture of what is happening on the ground everywhere.

    One interesting nugget within this section is a call for sector stewardship – with OfS focusing on teaching through a market-based regulatory lens, and Research England acting as a research council UUK argues that no single body has an eye on the health of the sector as a whole with the ability to intervene where action is needed. The declining value of tuition fee income and other state support is part of the issue, but a rise in the number of providers and what is described as “an increasingly competitive environment” has played a part in many of the pressures universities are facing. As consultees told the taskforce:

    the focus had shifted too far to the individual student or institution, even where that created conflict with wider national interests, including disadvantaging activity that could benefit economic objectives and wider society but may not translate into student demand, such as the provision of highly specialised skills to meet the needs of certain industries or the protection of universities playing important civic roles in parts of the country with higher levels of disadvantage.

    Opportunities and actions

    The taskforce’s findings are neatly split across seven “opportunities”, each with associated actions for university leaders, Universities UK itself, other organisations, and government:

    1. Pursuing innovative collaborative structures
    2. Sharing more services and infrastructure
    3. Leveraging sector buying power
    4. Supporting digital transformation
    5. Adopting a common approach to assessing efficiency and benchmarking costs
    6. Developing leadership skills in those mandated to deliver change and further improving governance
    7. Developing the current regulatory environment and supportive structures to help collaboration and transformation to go further, faster

    Each is also supported by case studies (drawing primarily on existing work in the UK higher education sector, though the net is occasionally cast further afield) and indications of appetite from consultation respondees.

    Collaboration and sharing

    The case for university collaboration in the UK has been made with increasing frequency as the financial squeeze starts to make itself felt in profound ways. That said, there has been little tangible activity – the report points to longstanding structures such as the University of London federation, existing networks of research collaborations, and strategic working with local stakeholders. The taskforce adds the multi-academy trust-esque group structures employed by the (HE and FE) University of the Highlands and (cross sector) London South Bank to the list., and there is a nod to the world of sharing expensive research infrastructure too.

    A third strand covers the sharing of infrastructure and services – major examples here include UCAS and the Jisc Janet network, alongside more specialist activity like Uniac on auditing services (further examples are worth digging into via the recent Jisc/KPMG report).

    Though the big newsworthy two-become-one moments exemplified by ARU Writtle may be few and far between, what comes across powerfully is just how much of this stuff is going one, and the potential that exists to do more. One of the big gaps is expertise and understanding – tackling the legal, technical, and process aspects of joint working is not for the faint of heart and if this is the direction of travel both specialist staff and institutional leaders need to be clear and up to date on how this works. There’s scope for detailed advice and guidance (that the taskforce itself will produce) alongside an ongoing support function at Universities UK – we need regulatory tweaks to allow for innovation in organisational forms too.

    The bigger asks are for a transformation fund, and specific advice from the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on what would constitute a breach of competition law in this space. The latter appears to be in progress – there was an encouraging blog post from CMA at the end of last week. The cost of transformation (ie investing in the infrastructure and systems that can enable efficiency) could, the taskforce suggests, arrive in a straightforward way by allowing universities to access a “small portion” of the existing £3.25bn Transformation Fund available to the public sector.

    Spending and benchmarking

    Taken as a whole, the higher education sector spends £20.1bn on operating expenses each year – much of the non-pay end of this happens via procurement processes at individual institutions. The cumulative impact of all this spending can often enable the sector to get a better deal, but this needs to be coordinated across multiple providers for the benefits to kick in. Initiatives like the UK University Purchasing Consortia and Jisc’s procurement on behalf of the sector are unlocking big, existing, savings – the report suggests savings of £116m via UKUPC, and £138m for the Jisc activity – taking maximum advantage of these proven schemes could drive further savings.

    But there is potential to unlock even more – the work of the taskforce indicates that there is both scope and appetite for this kind of collaborative spending in information technology (ask your IT department, the cost of software licenses and cloud-based solutions are spiralling) and estates (bear in mind the maintenance backlog that the precarious financial environment has led to).

    Another angle is making it easier to understand when your university is spending over the odds. Finance teams are very keen on benchmarking spending with comparable institutions – why should it cost more to do fundamental stuff than at the university down the road? – but it is difficult to access reliable and comparable data. There’s a suggestion that an Association of the Heads of University Administration (AHUA) organisational efficiency maturity model (basically best practice on understanding and reporting spending) could help get the sector on the same page, and that UUK could drive a more collaborative approach to sharing and using this data to drive savings.

    Digital transformation

    There’s any number of promises that the latest and greatest software can save your university time and money, but your IT director will tell you that such promises take substantial time and money to realise. The rise of large language model generative tools has unlocked another round of wild claims, and both institutional leaders and IT and administrative specialists are being asked to evaluate spending even more to make these efficiencies a reality. There’s so many questions – not least around whether your shiny new system will work with the systems and processes you already use.

    The trouble is, understanding and implementing this stuff takes time and expertise at both specialist and leadership levels – and both are at a premium in higher education. Jisc is already supporting 24 providers in understanding and benchmarking their digital transformation maturity – helping, in essence, to understand where further help may be needed. There’s also a need to actively and meaningfully involve senior leaders, and to understand the digital competencies of staff and students. The taskforce calls for a wider roll-out of this maturity model, and for Jisc and UCISA to promote shared standards around software and processes.

    Regulation and leadership

    The need for an advancement in leadership skills runs throughout the taskforce report. Transformations like the ones advocated require competencies and knowledge that go far beyond business as usual, and correspondingly more is being asked of senior staff and governors – all of which comes alongside a more onerous (and fast-moving) regulatory regime that requires its own expanding set of skills.

    The report is supportive of the current Committee of University Chairs (CUC) initiative to review university governance (via updating its current code for governors), and Universities UK proposes to facilitate ongoing and sector-led improvement activity.

    There’s immediate stuff that can be done on cost pressures – there’s a specific ask of government on relaxing the rules that require some universities to enroll all staff onto the increasingly expensive teacher’s pension scheme (TPS), and a more general suggestions that the government avoid putting additional costs on the sector such as introducing new and unfunded expectations, or inventing new levies.

    There is clearly scope to address the regulatory burden placed on the sector – one easy win would be to address the barriers to collaboration. Recent regulatory activity (particularly in England) has focused on individual providers – the recent shift in the OfS remit to consider the wider health of the sector offers scope to reestablish the idea of a “custodian” of the sector that could deliver on the long-term goals set all levels of government and by wider civic society.

    What’s next?

    This report marks the end of the first phase of Universities UK work on transformation and efficiency. Phase two will create an oversight group to keep an eye on the various asks from sector agencies and monitor both progress and impact. This is not in any sense a political report – though it is clearly politically useful – and it is clear that both UUK and the sector are in this for the long haul.

    More broadly the report stands as another signal to government that the sector is prepared to go further and faster on transformation and collaboration that has previously been the case – but there is a clear desire for a reciprocal “vision” or plan from government around which the sector can do, ideally backed up with some investment in that vision.

    The rather dour communications that have so far issued from DfE on HE reform and funding suggest that the government is not yet prepared to give the sector a full-throated endorsement, but there is scope for that to change following next week’s spending review and the publication of the post 16 education and skills and HE reform white paper this summer.

    Economic circumstances notwithstanding the policy agenda in the next few months will set a course for HE for the rest of this parliament and beyond – it would be a real own-goal not to seize the opportunity to work with the sector to get things onto a firmer footing.

    Source link

  • Optoma Announces Launch of the New 3-Series Interactive Displays with Google Certification and AI-Enabled Tools

    Optoma Announces Launch of the New 3-Series Interactive Displays with Google Certification and AI-Enabled Tools

    FREMONT, CA – Optoma, a world-leading provider of visual solutions, today announced its latest Creative Touch 3-Series Interactive Displays designed to empower educators and business professionals with new tools and features to enhance learning, make presentations more effective, and increase collaboration in classrooms, lecture halls, boardrooms, remote working and other business environments.

    With Google’s Enterprise Device Licensing Agreement (EDLA) Certification and added functionality, the new 3-Series empowers professionals and educators to deliver dynamic and impactful content by providing cutting-edge tools that streamline management and elevate engagement. The advanced capabilities of the new 3-Series simplify planning and workflow through wireless collaboration, screen sharing, and innovative meeting solutions in both corporate and educational environments alike, all packed into a robust yet user-friendly platform.

    The 3-Series: Purpose-Built for Corporate and Education Environments

    New features and key highlights include:

    Google EDLA Certification: Ensures compatibility and optimized performance with thousands of educational applications and services available directly from the pre-installed Google Play Store allowing users to experience the full Google Suite for real-time collaboration from practically anywhere in the world.  Without compatibility issues or the hassle of connecting an external PC, users can easily access the entire suite of Google-based applications they are accustomed to – including Google Drive, Google Docs, YouTube, and more!

    The Optoma Solution Suite (OSS®): User-friendly software featuring Artificial Intelligence (AI) enabled tools, such as Sticky Notes* and AI Handwriting Recognition, the OSS package also includes:

    • Whiteboard: Unleash creativity through a digital whiteboard packed with tools that make learning and sharing ideas engaging – facilitating collaboration in real-time from anywhere.
      • Smart Sketch tool is ideal for drawing diagrams as it recognizes shapes and drawings and converts them into clipart images.
      • Floating Toolbar and Infinity Canvas allow you to seamlessly switch between tools to suit your tasks with a virtually limitless writing space.
      • Innovative Annotation and Highlighter Tools make underlining key points or annotating complex diagrams a breeze.
    • File Manager: Easily save, organize, or move files from local storage to networkable storage or to popular cloud services in seconds.
    • Display Share: Connect any device to wirelessly broadcast, share, or stream your content to the big screen. Bringing your own device has never been easier.

    Exceptional Performance: Seamless performance with an 8-core processor, Android 14 OS, and Zero Bonding screen for that natural writing experience.

    “We are excited to announce our new 3-Series and partnership with Raptor Technologies which truly embodies our commitment to supporting education through cutting-edge visual solutions, enhanced software packages and safety and security,” said Maria Repole, Head of Marketing at Optoma.

    A value-added solution, Optoma Management Suite (OMS®) is available out of the box on the 3-Series Interactive Displays, with a free trial available.** OMS offers IT administrators and technicians a real time remote platform to monitor, manage, diagnose, and update multiple or entire fleets of displays simultaneously that are either on the same network or connected through the cloud. OMS makes it easy to broadcast emergency messages, alerts, or announcements across displays worldwide.

    Optoma is thrilled to partner with Raptor® Technologies, the leading innovator in school safety solutions, redefining the landscape of school security with its Raptor School Safety Software Suite. By integrating Raptor’s software with Optoma’s interactive displays, school administrators and students can receive real-time alerts and emergency notifications using CAP protocols to improve the overall safety of the school.

    To experience a demonstration and learn more about Optoma’s new Creative Touch 3-Series Interactive Displays, please schedule a demo or visit: https://www.optomausa.com/products/interactive-flat-panel-displays-3-series/education https://www.optomausa.com/products/interactive-flat-panel-displays-3-series/corporate

    *Some AI features may require the use of an Optoma (OSS) account.

    **Free trial licenses are available for a limited time. Please register your OMS® Cloud account at https://oms.optoma.com or speak with your local representative.

    OMS and OSS are registered trademarks of Optoma Corporation

    DLP is a registered trademark of Texas Instruments

    About Optoma Technology, Inc.  

    Optoma combines cutting-edge technology and innovation to deliver remarkable visual display products designed to connect audiences with engaging video experiences. From the company’s ProScene projectors to its Creative Touch interactive, Professional LCD and LED displays, Optoma’s suite of products can meet the demands of nearly any professional environment, including conference rooms and classrooms, digital signage, corporate, houses of worship, retail, simulation environments and control rooms. Optoma Technology is the U.S. headquarters for The Optoma Group, with continental headquarters also in Europe and Asia. For more information, visit optomausa.com.   

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • This is what greater collaboration between further and higher education in England should look like

    This is what greater collaboration between further and higher education in England should look like

    With the UK government’s focus on opportunity as part of its mission-led approach, ensuring equitable access to higher-level skills development and training must be prioritised across all education sectors.

    To address skills shortages and support social mobility, high-quality, place-based solutions must be embedded within a cohesive tertiary landscape. College-based higher education plays a pivotal role in this system, not as a second-tier option, but as an essential component of the HE ecosystem.

    For the many people who cannot (or choose not) to leave their local area due to financial constraints, work or family commitments, higher education must remain a viable and accessible option. This means providing alternative, innovative pathways that allow individuals to develop higher level skills within their communities.

    Many institutions are committed to social justice, but existing policy structures, funding mechanisms and an emphasis on market competition between higher education institutions and further education colleges weakens local partnerships and impedes the development of inclusive pathways into higher education. Further education and higher education share a civic mission to deliver skills and education which drives social mobility and economic growth. To fulfil this mission, institutions must shift from competing for students and funding, to collaborating meaningfully to widen participation and create an inclusive HE system.

    Sharing knowledge

    Collaboration must extend beyond student recruitment strategies to include shared resources, further co-developed curricula and the integration of expertise between institutions. An example of this is the partnership between Loughborough University and Loughborough College, where both institutions work together to enhance provision rather than compete. This collaboration includes the sharing of facilities and staff expertise, ensuring delivery of high-quality education with clear progression routes, while successfully addressing regional skills needs.

    However, to be sustainable and effective partnerships must be structured equitably. Each institution must be valued and respected for its unique strengths and share a clearly defined ambition for learners. True partnership requires trust, ensuring that both HE and FE partners collaborate as equals, aligned to their strengths.

    Government policies must actively incentivise collaboration rather than perpetuate competition. This requires:

    • Revised funding models; rewarding collaboration instead of duplication of provision
    • Integrated quality assurance frameworks; streamlining oversight to prevent excessive bureaucracy and misaligned standards
    • Regional skills planning; aligning provision with workforce needs through engagement with combined authorities, local enterprise partnerships and other education providers including schools and multi-academy trusts.

    Further education colleges and higher education institutions have different but complementary knowledge and expertise. The government’s recent announcement to invest £600 million into construction training underscores its recognition that FE colleges are well placed to deliver high-quality technical education at scale. The plan to establish ten new technical excellence colleges builds on the success of institutes of technology, where FE institutions take the lead in delivering skills training, supported by higher education institutions and employers.By reinforcing the central role of FE colleges, the government is acknowledging their deep-rooted connections to local economies and their ability to respond flexibly to employer needs.

    It is this strong employer engagement that is crucial to a responsive tertiary system. FECs excel in building industry connections and adapting swiftly to workforce demands. Integrating HE institutions into these partnerships expands progression routes, ensuring access to technical training and advanced/professional qualifications. This is particularly critical in sectors facing acute skills shortages, such as digital technology, green industries and STEM. Joint curriculum development between FE and HE, informed by employer needs, ensures that students acquire both theoretical knowledge and the practical skills required in their chosen fields.

    Flexible pathways

    Ensuring accessible education also requires more flexible, modular learning pathways, particularly for adult learners balancing study with work and family. Colleges and universities alike are seeing an increase in students struggling with mental health challenges, which can impact attendance and academic performance. More comprehensive wrap-around student support, together with flexible and locally delivered learning plus adaptable timetables, are already helping to improve student retention and achievement in many further education colleges.

    However, rigid funding structures often restrict more flexible modular approaches to delivery. Effective funding adjustments are needed to support lifelong learning, allowing students to build qualifications, including sub degree provision progressively rather than committing learners to long-term study upfront.

    While collaboration is the logical and necessary path forward, inequitable funding remains a real barrier. Universities receive significantly higher per-student funding than colleges, despite the crucial role colleges play in delivering higher-level skills. Addressing this financial imbalance is essential if colleges are to deliver, sustain and expand high-quality Level 4 and 5 provision, particularly in sectors critical to economic growth.

    A more integrated tertiary system is needed, one that values the contributions of colleges, universities and other providers without unnecessary division. If done right, this will result in win/win for all students, employers and providers. This is not about merging the sectors but making collaboration the norm, underpinned by policy that prioritises partnership over competition and facilitates local, equitable access to high level skills and development.

    Debbie McVitty’s recent article on evolution vs. transformation in higher education is highly relevant to thinking through the future for place-based partnerships. While some advocate radical change, others prefer an evolutionary approach that builds on existing strengths. In FE and HE collaboration, enhancing partnerships, refining policies and expanding successful local models is more practical. This would enable more cost-effective delivery of skills and knowledge, while ensuring resources are not wasted on competition for students. Given the financial strain so many providers are currently under, this would be hugely beneficial.

    With genuine collaboration and more equitable funding, we can build a better-integrated, place-based higher education system that widens access and drives economic growth – advancing social mobility and regional prosperity.

    Source link

  • Innovation, Collaboration During Challenging Times

    Innovation, Collaboration During Challenging Times

    I just returned from the UPCEA annual conference held in Denver. A record attendance of some 1,300 administrators, faculty and staff from member institutions gathered to share policies, practices, innovations and knowledge in advancing the mission of higher education in 2025. It was a thriving and exciting environment of energy and enthusiasm in seeking solutions to challenges that confront us today and into the future.

    Recent policy shifts regarding the federal funding of grants provided by the institutes and foundations that support university research were on the minds of most who attended. These topics provided the undercurrent of discussions in many of the sessions. The spirit was one of supporting each other in advancing their initiatives despite the prospect of cuts in federal support. The confluence of the demographic enrollment cliff of college-bound students due to the drop in births during the previous recession of 2007–09 and additional promised cuts in funding from federal and many state sources created an environment for collaboration on solving shared challenges rivaled only by that of the COVID-19 pandemic.

    A number of the sessions addressed innovations with cost savings, efficiencies and effectiveness gains that can be realized by thoughtfully introducing artificial intelligence into supporting many aspects of the higher education mission. The potential savings are significant if AI can take over duties of positions that become vacant or instances where staff are better utilized by shifting their efforts elsewhere.

    Most Popular

    By fall 2025, readily available AI tools will be able to serve in course development, delivery and assessment:

    • Conceive, design, create online (even self-paced) courses
    • Adapt and update class materials with emerging concepts, societal situations and news context
    • Lead and assess class discussions—stimulate deeper thought and engagement
    • Assess course assignments with personalized recommendations to fill in the gaps in knowledge
    • Provide one-on-one counseling on academic matters and referrals for personal challenges
    • Create a summative assessment of course outcomes and initiate revisions for improvement
    • Generate a deep-thinking report for administrators and committees to consider

    By this fall, readily available AI tools will be able to serve in curriculum development, marketing and student onboarding:

    • Survey specified fields for addition or expansion of degree and certificate programs
    • Recommend detailed curriculum for new programs and suggest tuition/fees
    • Create marketing plans after developing a report on demand and competitors in the program area
    • Develop, track, implement and adapt marketing budget
    • Prepare and support student advising to optimize retention and completion
    • Prepare updated and revised plans for spring 2026

    By fall 2025, develop optimal staff allocation and review process:

    • Assess performance evaluations, recommend additional interviews as appropriate
    • Develop, refine and utilize departmental/college priority list to respond to revenue and enrollment trends for the year
    • Match staff skills with desired outcomes
    • Monitor productivity and accomplishments for each employee
    • Make recommendations for further efficiencies, having AI perform some tasks such as accounting and data analysis previously done by humans
    • Be responsive to employee aspirations and areas of greatest interest
    • Review and prepare updated and revised plans for spring 2026

    These tasks and many more can be accomplished by AI tools that can be acquired at modest costs. Of course, they must be carefully reviewed by human administrators to ensure fairness and accuracy are maintained.

    I learned from a number of those attending the UPCEA conference that, in these relatively early stages of AI implementation, many employees harbor fears of AI. Concerns center around human job security. While there are many tasks that AI can more efficiently and effectively perform than humans, most current jobs include aspects that are best performed by humans. So, in most cases, the use of AI will be in a role of augmentation of human work to make it more expedient and save time for other new tasks the human employees can best perform.

    This presents the need for upskilling to enable human staff to make the efficiencies possible by learning to work best with AI. Interestingly, in most cases experts say this will not require computer coding or other such skills. Rather, this will require personnel to understand the capabilities of AI in order to tap these skills to advance the goals of the unit and university. Positions in which humans and AI are coworkers will require excellent communication skills, organizational skills, critical thinking and creative thinking. AI performs well at analytical, synthetical, predictive and creative tasks, among others. It is adept at taking on leadership and managerial roles that recognize the unit and institutional priorities as well as employee preferences and abilities.

    How then can we best prepare our staff for optimizing their working relations with the new AI coworkers? I believe this begins with personal experience with AI tools. We all should become comfortable with conducting basic searches using a variety of chat bots. Learning to compose a proper prompt is the cornerstone of communicating with AI.

    The next step is to use a handful of the readily available deep-research tools to generate a report on a topic that is relevant to the staff member’s work. Compare and contrast those reports for quality, accuracy and the substance of cited material. Perform the research iteratively to improve or refine results. This Medium post offers a good summary of leading deep-research engines and best applications, although it was released in February and may be dated due to the Gemini version 2.5 Pro released on March 26. This new version by Google is topping many of the current ratings charts.

    In sum, we are facing changes of an unprecedented scale with the disruption of long-standing policies, funding sources and a shrinking incoming student pool. Fortunately, these changes are coming at the same time as AI is maturing into a dependable tool that can take on some of the slack that will come from not filling vacancies. However, to meet that need we must begin to provide training to our current and incoming employees to ensure that they can make the most of AI tools we will provide.

    Together, through the collaborative support of UPCEA and other associations, we in higher education will endure these challenges as we did those posed by the COVID pandemic.

    Source link

  • Collaboration in Action: The Third Sector Forum and the OfS Equality Agenda

    Collaboration in Action: The Third Sector Forum and the OfS Equality Agenda

    Last month, the Office for Students (OfS) confirmed the successful bids for their £2 million Equality of Opportunity Innovation Fund, launched to ‘support institutions to undertake new and innovative collaborative work or projects that will reduce risks to equality of opportunity’. 

    It is the culmination of three years of collaboration, beginning in February 2022 when Impetus hosted John Blake in his first external speaking event as the OfS’s Director for Fair Access and Participation.

    This seminal event gave rise to the Third Sector Forum – a quarterly dialogue between the Office for Students and third sector organisations working to support young people into higher education.   

    As an impact funder supporting the best attainment, engagement, and employment interventions for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds, we recognise the invaluable role of the third sector in addressing deep-seated barriers. We wanted to support this knowledge-sharing in the widening participation space.  

    Three years on, I spoke to some of the CEOs of Third Sector Forum organisations on what’s made the forum a success.

    Trust and openness  

    I was struck by the number of CEOs who cited the forum’s format as key to its success. While we fund widening participation organisations, Impetus itself is not a direct delivery organisation, meaning we can provide an independent middle ground. As a result, many emphasised the forum’s open and trusting nature and the uniqueness of this set-up. Anna Searle, CEO of The Access Project, reflected on how ‘you don’t often have the [governmental regulatory body] being as open with their constituent group’.  

    Another key factor in the success of the forum was the genuine engagement from the Office for Students, and particularly John Blake. Jayne Taylor, CEO of The Elephant Group, emphasised how John ‘genuinely listens to the voices around the table’, while Anna was quick to note how he went beyond discussing challenges for the OfS and what was next and provided his genuine views and reflections.  

    Collaborating and knowledge sharing

    Sam Holmes, CEO of Causeway Education, mentioned how participating in the sessions enabled him to form partnerships with other organisations in the space. Sitting next to Jayne when the Innovation Fund was announced, he says they were ‘immediately having conversations about […] potential collaboration’. 

    For organisations such as Causeway, which occupy a different space to programmatic organisations, it was also valuable to hear from colleagues across the sector. Forum members were able to share updates which, for Sam, demonstrated the wealth of collective knowledge and painted a picture of the higher education landscape.

    Shifting the narrative

    Action Tutoring is another member of the forum who wouldn’t ordinarily describe itself as a widening participation organisation. Susannah Hardyman, then-CEO, initially wondered if it was the right place for Action Tutoring, whose tutoring stops at age 16.  Organisations focusing on Level 2 outcomes have not always been seen as part of the widening participation space, but John Blake’s conscious decision to widen the focus of the equality of opportunity agenda brought them within scope. Over time, Susannah began to feel Action Tutoring had a place, helping to shift the narrative of what ‘widening participation’ means.

    At Impetus, we know that each step up the qualification ladder halves your chances of being NEET. We also know that early intervention is critical – before the barriers that young people face become acute – making the case for the importance of Level 2 pathways in achieving equality of opportunity. For Susannah, both the dialogue and John Blake’s emphasis on GCSE attainment, ‘[genuinely] did change the narrative of how we understand widening participation’. The implications of this reverberated beyond the four walls of the forum, opening up opportunities for organisations like Action Tutoring, which was later funded by the University of Brighton to work with two secondary schools on GCSE attainment.

    What next? 

    Policy professionals will know how rare it is to attribute policy change to their work. So, while Third Sector Forum members should undoubtedly shout about the fact that their expertise and dedication have helped to bring about £2 million of funding and a change to regulatory guidance, the work doesn’t end there. 

    Last year, the widening participation gap grew to 20.8 percentage points – its highest recorded level. The number is staggering, and even more bleak when coupled with a higher education sector on its knees and a ‘fiscal blackhole’ with seemingly no money to plug it up. It is clear that fighting to achieve equality of opportunity is more important than ever, but how?

    That a key pillar of the updated regulatory guidance is collaboration with the third sector is a testament to the success of the forum, but we can and must go further. 

    For Jayne Taylor, this looks like working groups or direct-action areas to facilitate collaboration, leveraging the collective knowledge and resources of the sector. With further investment, the forum could even evolve into an ecosystem, with opportunities for publishing research, bidding and running events together. 

    Collaboration also looks like an ever-evolving partnership between third sector organisations and the regulator. Anna Searle suggested implementing mechanisms for feedback loops, such as regular newsletters, to continue to foster a transmission of knowledge between forum members and the Office for Students. 

    For some, it feels like public policy is waiting for a return to pre-pandemic conditions. They believe that to truly move forward, we need to adapt to the present socio-economic landscape. One CEO pointed out the need for realistic conversations about the economic realities of the sector. With 40% of higher education institutions thought to be in deficit in 2023/24, providers and organisations are operating in an unprecedented funding landscape. For Sam Holmes, clearer messaging for charities that have relied on university contracts is increasingly necessary. He suggests there may even be benefits to involving funders in these discussions, alongside considering alternative partnerships, funding models and strategies.

    For others, such as Susannah Hardyman, we must continue to reevaluate our understanding of ‘equality of opportunity’.  With a record 56% of students now working part-time while studying, foodbank usage doubling since 2022, and 60% stating that money concerns affected their university choice, the landscape has undoubtedly changed. Where two decades ago the focus was relatively narrow – focused mostly around supporting high-achievers from deprived areas into high tariff institutions – this understanding has moved on. For Susannah, this needs to be taken into account, not to quash ambition but to broaden the definition of opportunity to reach as wide a group as possible. 

    When we hosted the Director for Fair Access and Participation three years ago, he said,

    ‘We are not short on people who will give up days, weeks, years of their time to pour into projects supporting the vulnerable and disadvantaged. We are not short on good suggestions, possible solutions, and rough ideas how things could be better. No, what we lack, still, is enough commitment for all those dedicated people to work together…’ 

    While the past few years have demonstrated the commitment that may have been missing previously, if we are to give every young person equal opportunity to succeed, our work is far from over. 

    Source link

  • Canadian associations welcome collaboration with new Prime Minister

    Canadian associations welcome collaboration with new Prime Minister

    With Mark Carney sworn in as Canada’s new Prime Minister, major education groups have urged the incoming cabinet to recognise international students’ vital role in the country’s economy. 

    As Canada has already implemented study permit caps and post-graduation work permit restrictions over the past year, stakeholders are pinning their hopes on Carney. 

    His decision to remove immigration minister Marc Miller – widely seen as a key architect of temporary resident restrictions – has fuelled expectations for change. 

    “New leadership brings a fresh perspective on policies and challenges, and we welcome the opportunity to meet with the new minister to discuss the vital role of international students in Canada’s immigration strategy,” a Universities Canada spokesperson told The PIE News. 

    Despite the optimism, Carney’s stance on immigration policies in Canada leaves much to consider.

    Terming the North American country’s immigration policies as “failure of executions,” Carney has previously stated that Canada has failed to live up to its “immigration values.”

    “We had much higher levels of foreign workers, students and new Canadians coming in than we could absorb, that we have housing for, that we have health care for, that we have social services for, that we have opportunities for. And so we’re letting down the people that we let in, quite frankly,” Carney stated at a Cardus event – a Christian non-partisan think tank – in November.  

    Moreover, according to a CIC News report, Carney’s policy aims to address Canada’s housing crisis by “capping immigration until it can be returned to its sustainable pre-pandemic trend,” as stated in policy documents released in February 2025.

    This aligns with the government’s aim to reduce Canada’s total population of temporary residents by about 445,000 in 2025 followed by another 445,000 in 2026. 

    According to the Universities Canada spokesperson, while Carney intends to follow a similar direction in temporarily reducing immigration, Canadian universities “stand ready to collaborate on a responsible, sustainable plan that aligns with the country’s labour needs”.

    “This approach should be targeted – prioritising individuals with the right skills – while also addressing internal issues like processing delays that hinder Canada’s ability to attract top global talent,” stated the spokesperson. 

    According to Larissa Bezo, president and CEO, Canadian Bureau of International Education, Canada’s International Student Program is not expected witness any new major changes. 

    “Against the backdrop of an existential threat to Canada’s sovereignty and policy focus on Canada’s economic resilience, CBIE does not anticipate further policy changes affecting international students in the near term,” stated Bezo.

    “CBIE is actively engaging with policymakers to ensure that any future policy recalibration reflects the strategic role international students play in Canada’s long-term economic and demographic sustainability.”

    Though Carney hasn’t made direct statements about further restrictions on international students, he has previously blamed Canadian provinces for underfunding higher education, which pushed institutions to rely on international students.

    “Transfers from provincial coffers have been frozen, leaving universities to rely completely on international students for growth,” he stated at an event, as per Canadian media reports. 

    Ontario’s universities predicted nearly $1 billion in financial losses over the next two years as international student caps exacerbate “years of underfunding”, as reported by The PIE News.

    The figures do not yet account for the additional impacts of policies that further reduce the cap and including postgraduate students, among other changes.

    Several Canadian colleges and universities across various provinces have also recently reduced programs and staff due to a decline in international student enrolment. 

    While Sheridan College in Ontario is suspending 40 academic programs with an expected revenue loss of $112 million, Douglas College in British Columbia suspended its business and technology programmes and laid off 15% of its faculty. 

    Alberta’s Bow Valley College reported a 25% decline in international student enrolment, cancelled five diploma programs, and laid off staff, while Nova Scotia’s Cape Breton University has paused intake for certain engineering and technology programs, and cut staff to manage budgetary constraints.

    “While our advocacy focuses on the federal level, we recognise the persistent underfunding of the post-secondary sector in many provinces,” stated the Universities Canada spokesperson. 

    Canadian universities, especially ones in Ontario, have not only witnessed decline in public funding but also reduction in domestic tuition fees, in recent years.

    “The immigration policy changes of the past year have exposed what is a chronic under-funding and undervaluing of post-secondary education in this country,” stated Bezo. 

    “Ultimately, we need commitment by provinces and territories to properly fund post-secondary education in Canada to ensure a high-quality offering for Canadian students which is not reliant on revenues from international student tuition for operational survival.”

    “In 2022 alone, they injected $30.9 billion into the economy, surpassing the auto parts manufacturing industry, and supported over 361,000 jobs.”

    Universities Canada spokesperson

    The organisations have also highlighted the economic impact of international students, who have contributed $31 billion to Canada’s GDP in 2022, as reported by The PIE News. 

    “In 2022 alone, they injected $30.9 billion into the economy, surpassing the auto parts manufacturing industry, and supported over 361,000 jobs,” stated the Universities Canada spokesperson. 

    “Their contributions also generated $7.4 billion in tax revenue, funding essential services like hospitals, schools, and infrastructure.”

    “We need to see more recognition for the fact that international students are integral to meeting Canada’s economic, demographic, and workforce priorities,” added Bezo.  

    “International students fill critical workforce shortages, strengthen Canada’s research and innovation ecosystem, and enhance regional economic development.”

    Source link