Tag: culture

  • Why education leaders must highlight their people

    Why education leaders must highlight their people

    Key points:

    When I asked my executive assistant to proof my first superintendent’s report for the public board packet, she came back and said that she was surprised that I gave so much credit to others for the work being completed by the district. A simple leadership lesson I learned from David Fridlington, my favorite battalion commander in the military, was to use your position to take care of your people and support them. He told everyone that when he presided over a promotion ceremony, he said: “Use this rank to take care of your soldiers.”

    One basic concept is that when things go well, give credit to those who did the work, even if you provided the direction. Your board or other supervisors should understand that success requires leadership. The opposite is true as well. When things do not go well, the leader needs to step in and accept the blame. Even if a subordinate was negligent and their performance needs to be addressed, there is never justification for doing it in a public forum.

    The traditional leadership trap

    For decades, educational leadership has often mirrored the corporate world’s focus on individual achievement and personal branding. Superintendents, principals, and department heads have felt pressure to position themselves as the architects of every success, the faces of every initiative, and the voices behind every innovation. This approach, while understandable given the accountability pressures facing education leaders, creates a dangerous dynamic that undermines both team morale and long-term organizational success.

    When leaders consistently claim credit for achievements, they inadvertently signal to their teams that individual contributions are less valuable than executive oversight. Faculty members, administrators, and support staff begin to feel invisible, their efforts overshadowed by leadership’s need for recognition. This dynamic is particularly damaging in educational environments, where collaboration and shared ownership of student success are essential.

    Smart educational leaders understand that their primary role is not as the star of the show, but to direct in such a way that every cast member shines. When a high school’s test scores improve dramatically, the effective principal doesn’t schedule interviews to discuss their leadership philosophy. Instead, they organize a celebration highlighting the innovative teaching strategies developed by their faculty, the dedication of support staff, and the hard work of the students.

    This approach accomplishes several critical objectives simultaneously. First, it builds tremendous goodwill and loyalty among team members who feel genuinely appreciated and recognized. Teachers who see their principal celebrating their classroom innovations in district newsletters or community presentations develop a deeper commitment to the school’s mission. They feel valued as both implementers of directives and as creative professionals whose expertise helps drive student success.

    Building trust through recognition

    Education leaders who consistently spotlight their teams create an atmosphere of trust that permeates the entire organization. When a superintendent highlights individual schools’ achievements without inserting themselves into the narrative, principals and teachers recognize that their leader is secure enough in their own position to share credit freely. This security translates into psychological safety throughout the organization, encouraging innovation and risk-taking that leads to better educational outcomes.

    Consider the university department chair who, when presenting research achievements to the dean, leads with faculty accomplishments rather than departmental management strategies. Graduate students and professors in that department understand that their work will be recognized and celebrated, not appropriated by administrative oversight. This recognition culture attracts top talent and retains valuable team members who might otherwise seek environments where their contributions receive proper acknowledgment.

    The ripple effect of recognition

    When leaders consistently elevate their teams, they create a cascade of positive behaviors throughout the organization. Teachers who feel appreciated by their principals are more likely to recognize and celebrate their students’ achievements. Support staff who see their contributions highlighted become more invested in finding innovative solutions to operational challenges. The entire educational community benefits when recognition flows freely rather than accumulating at the top of the organizational chart.

    This dynamic is particularly powerful in educational settings because it models the same growth mindset we want to instill in students. When young people see adults in their schools celebrating each other’s successes and sharing credit generously, they learn valuable lessons about collaboration, humility, and community building that extend far beyond academic subjects.

    Strategic communication for team-focused leaders

    Educational leaders might worry that stepping back from the spotlight will make them appear weak or uninvolved. The reality is quite the opposite. Stakeholders, from school board members to parents to community partners, are sophisticated enough to recognize that strong leaders create environments where others can excel. A principal who consistently highlights teacher innovations demonstrates their ability to recruit, develop, and retain talent. A superintendent who celebrates individual school achievements shows their skill at creating systems that enable success across diverse environments.

    The key is strategic communication that makes the leader’s supporting role visible without overshadowing team members. When presenting achievements, effective leaders briefly acknowledge their role in creating conditions for success before diving deep into team member accomplishments. They might say, “We’ve worked hard to create an environment where innovation can flourish, and I’m excited to share what our incredible faculty has accomplished.”

    Practical implementation strategies

    Educational leaders can begin implementing this philosophy immediately through simple but powerful changes in communication habits. Instead of using “I” language when discussing successes, they can shift to “we” and “they” language that emphasizes team contributions. Rather than accepting speaking engagements about leadership strategies, they can recommend team members as presenters on innovative practices.

    Internal communications offer rich opportunities for team recognition. Weekly newsletters, staff meetings, and board presentations become venues for celebrating individual and group achievements. Social media platforms allow leaders to amplify team member successes to broader audiences, creating positive publicity for both individuals and the organization. Two of the deans I currently work with are excellent examples of such active supporters of their faculty. Informal leaders can participate as well by highlighting their colleagues’ accomplishments via posting congratulatory notes on LinkedIn or other social media sites.

    The long-term leadership legacy

    Education leaders who consistently spotlight their teams create lasting legacies that extend far beyond their tenure. They build cultures of recognition and collaboration that persist even when leadership changes. More importantly, they develop future leaders among their team members who understand that true leadership means elevating others.

    In an era when educational institutions face unprecedented challenges, from funding constraints to political pressures to rapidly changing technology, leaders who can inspire and retain talented teams have a significant competitive advantage. These leaders understand that their success is measured not by their personal recognition, but by their ability to create environments where others can achieve their highest potential.

    The most effective leaders recognize that the spotlight is not a zero-sum game. When they illuminate their teams’ achievements, they don’t diminish their own leadership; they demonstrate it in its most powerful form. In education, where the ultimate goal is developing human potential, leaders who model this philosophy create ripple effects that benefit students, staff, and communities for years to come.

    Steven M. Baule, Ed.D., Ph.D.
    Latest posts by Steven M. Baule, Ed.D., Ph.D. (see all)

    Source link

  • Preparing students for the world of work means embracing an AI-positive culture

    Preparing students for the world of work means embracing an AI-positive culture

    When ChatGPT was released in November 2022, it sent shockwaves through higher education.

    In response, universities moved at pace during the first half of 2023 to develop policy and good practice guidance for staff and students on appropriate use of GenAI for education purposes; the Russell Group’s Principles on the use of generative AI tools in education are particularly noteworthy. Developments since, however, have been fairly sluggish by comparison.

    The sector is still very much at an exploratory phase of development: funding pilots, individual staff using AI tools for formative learning and assessment, baseline studies of practice, student and staff support, understanding of tools’ functionality and utilisation etc. The result is a patchwork of practice not coherent strategy.

    Yet AI literacy is one of the fastest growing skills demanded by industry leaders. In a survey of 500 business leaders from organisations in the US and UK, over two-thirds respondents considered it essential for day-to-day work. Within AI literacy, demand for foundation skills such as understanding AI-related concepts, being able to prompt outputs and identify use cases surpassed demand for advanced skills such as developing AI systems.

    Students understand this too. In HEPI’s Student generative AI survey 2025 67 per cent of student respondents felt that it was essential to understand and use AI to be successful in the workplace whereas only 36 per cent felt they had received AI skill-specific support from their institution.

    There is a resulting gap between universities’ current support provision and the needs of industry/ business which presents a significant risk.

    Co-creation for AI literacy

    AI literacy for students includes defining AI literacy, designing courses aligned with identified learning outcomes, and assessment of those outcomes.

    The higher education sector has a good understanding of AI literacy at a cross disciplinary level articulated through several AI literacy frameworks. For example, UNESCO’s AI Competency Framework for Students or the Open University in the UK’s own framework. However, most universities have yet to articulate nuanced discipline-specific definitions of AI literacy beyond specialist AI-related subjects.

    Assessment and AI continues to be a critical challenge. Introducing AI tools in the classroom to enhance student learning and formatively assess students is fairly commonplace, however, summative assessment of students’ effective use of AI is much less so. Such “authentic assessments” are essential if we are serious about adequately preparing our students for the future world of work. Much of the negative discourse around AI in pedagogy has been around academic integrity and concerns that students’ critical thinking is being stifled. But there is a different way to think about generative AI.

    Co-creation between staff and students is a well-established principle for modern higher education pedagogy; there are benefits for both students and educators such as deeper engagement, shared sense of ownership and enhanced learning outcomes. Co-creation in the age of AI now involves three co-creators: students, educators and AI.

    Effective adoption and implementation of AI offers a range of benefits specific to students, specific to educators and a range of mutual benefits. For example, AI in conjunction with educators, offers the potential for significantly enhancing the personalisation of students’ experience on an on-demand basis regardless of the time of day. AI can also greatly assist with assessment processes such as marking turnaround times and enhanced consistency of feedback to students. AI also allows staff greater data-driven insights for example into students at risk of non-progression, areas where students performed well or struggled in assessments allowing targeted follow up support.

    There is a wealth of opportunity for innovation and scholarship as the potential of co-creation and quality enhancement involving staff, students and AI is in its infancy and technology continues to evolve at pace.

    Nurturing an AI-positive culture

    At Queen Mary University of London, we are funding various AI in education pilots, offering staff development programmes, student-led activities and through our new Centre for Excellence in AI Education, we are embedding AI meaningfully across disciplines. Successfully embedding AI within university policy and practice across the breadth of operations of the institution (education, research and professional practice), requires an AI-positive culture.

    Adoption of AI that aligns with the University’s values and strategy is key. It should be an enabler rather than some kind of add-on. Visible executive leadership for AI is critical, supported by effective use of existing champions within schools and faculties, professional services and the student body to harness expertise, provide support and build capacity. In some disciplines, our students may even be our leading institutional AI experts.

    Successful engagement and partnership working with industry, business and alumni is key to ensure our graduates continue to have the necessary skills, knowledge and AI literacy to achieve success in the developing workplace.

    There is no escaping the fact that embedding AI within all aspects of a university’s operations requires significant investment in terms of technology but also its people. In our experience, providing practical support through CPD, case studies, multimedia storytelling etc whilst ensuring space for debate are essential for a vibrant, evolving community of practice.

    A key challenge is trying to maintain oversight and co-ordinate activities in large complex institutions in a field that is evolving rapidly. Providing the necessary scaffolding in terms of strategy and policy, regulatory compliance and appropriate infrastructure whilst ensuring there is sufficient flexibility to allow agility and encourage innovation is another key factor for an AI-positive culture to thrive.

    AI is reshaping society and building an AI-positive culture is central to the future of higher education. Through strategic clarity and cultural readiness, universities need to effectively harness AI to enhance student learning, support staff, improve productivity and prepare students for a changing world.

    Source link

  • The battle for people, culture and environment

    The battle for people, culture and environment

    On the face of it, I can understand why the REF team have pressed pause on their guidance development for 2029.

    The sector is in serious financial difficulties, and while most are keen to see a greater focus on People, Culture and Environment (PCE), the challenges experienced by pilot institutions with the proposed assessment mechanism were real.

    We cannot get away from this.

    But of course, where there’s a vacuum, people will rush to fill it with their own pet peeves and theories, up to and including a full reversion to the rules of REF 2021.

    PCE and EDI

    One of the biggest fallacies being promoted is this view that PCE is what Iain Mansfield, Director of Research at the Policy Exchange Thinktank, and former Special Adviser, called “a euphemism for Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)”. This conflation of REF PCE with EDI is entirely false. In fact, the PCE pilot included five different enablers of research culture, only one of which related to inclusivity. Of the others (strategy, responsibility, connectivity, and development) two were already themes in REF 2021 Environment Statements (strategy and collaboration) so not exactly a dramatic shift in a whole new direction.

    Indeed, the Code of Practice and Environment elements of REF 2021 already placed a significant focus on EDI. Equality Impact Assessments had to be performed at every stage of the submission, EDI training for REF decision-makers was an essential requirement for even submitting to the REF, and both institution- and unit-level environment statements demanded narratives as to how equality and diversity in research careers were promoted across the institution. So anyone seeking a reversion to REF 2021 rules in order to eliminate a focus on EDI is going to be deeply disappointed.

    Perhaps the biggest disappointment about this attempt to row back on any deeper focus on research culture in the next REF is that having a thriving research culture is an integral part of any definition of research excellence, whilst being perhaps the second biggest challenge facing the sustainability of the research sector after funding. The Wellcome Trust report, and the Nuffield report that preceded it, taught us that poor incentives, highly competitive & toxic environments, precarious research careers, and unmanageable workloads, are leading to questionable research practices, increased retractions, a loss of talent and reduced trust in science. And all this at a time when we really need more talent and greater trust in science. It wasn’t that long ago that this all led to a Government R&D Culture Strategy making a clear case for better investment in research culture for the benefit of society, but still, in the recent DSIT survey of the UK Research & Development workforce, only 52 per cent of higher education respondents said the culture of their organisation enabled them to perform their best work, compared to 85 per cent in the private sector.

    The point of adding greater weight, and a clearer assessment mechanism, to a broader range of culture elements in the next REF was thus to address exactly these issues. As a reminder, the international advisory group for the next REF recommended a split of 33:33:33 for PCE, outputs and impact. Reducing the weight allocated to PCE would not only reduce the attention given to promoting positive research cultures, but actually increase the weighting allocated to the element of REF that is most responsible for driving poor research cultures: publications. We know that the publish-or-perish culture is causing significant problems across the sector. Re-calibrating the assessment to put greater weight on publications would run counter to the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment’s first commitment: to recognise the diversity of contributions to research.

    Outputs

    I do think the pause in REF is an opportunity to think about how we recognise, incentivise and reward the better research cultures we clearly need. I’ve written before about how many elements of our research culture are essentially hygiene factors and as such should not attract gold stars, but be established as a basic condition of funding. There is also an opportunity to supply culture-related data (e.g., research misconduct reporting, and research staff pay gaps) alongside the other environment data already supplied to support REF-decision making. This could be formative in and of itself, as could the use of case studies (a tested REF assessment technology) by which HEIs report on their research culture interventions.

    Whatever is decided, no-one working in a research-intensive institution can deny the power of the additional weight allocated to PCE in REF 2029. The knowledge that 25 per cent of the next exercise will be allocated to not just E, but P and C, has naturally been a lever staff have pulled to get culture issues up the agenda. And we’ve seen significant improvements: policy changes, new initiatives, and culture indicators moving in a good direction. So whilst it might feel like an easier move to simply revert back to the rules of REF 2021, there is an opportunity cost to this. A lot has already been invested in preparing institutions for a greater focus on research culture, and more will need to be invested in reverting back to the rules for REF 2021.

    Because of the REF’s direct link both to (unhypothecated) gold and (international) glory, nothing really motivates universities more. To row back on efforts to recognise, incentivise, and reward the thriving research cultures that are at the very heart of any ‘excellent’ research institution therefore makes little sense. And it makes even less sense when financial constraints are putting those environments under even more pressure, making it more important than ever that we put people first. Can we do it in a more sensitive and manageable way? Yes, of course. Should we ditch it and run for the cover of REF 2021 rules? Absolutely not.

    Source link

  • Celebrating heritage means honoring students’ languages

    Celebrating heritage means honoring students’ languages

    Key points:

    Every year, Hispanic Heritage Month offers the United States a chance to honor the profound and varied contributions of Latino communities. We celebrate scientists like Ellen Ochoa, the first Latina woman in space, and activists like Dolores Huerta, who fought tirelessly for workers’ rights. We use this month to recognize the cultural richness that Spanish-speaking families bring to our communities, including everything from vibrant festivals to innovative businesses that strengthen our local economies.

    But there’s a paradox at play.

    While we spotlight Hispanic heritage in public spaces, many classrooms across the country require Spanish-speaking students to set aside the very heart of their cultural identity: their language.

    This contradiction is especially personal for me. I moved from Puerto Rico to the mainland United States as an adult in hopes of building a better future for myself and my family. The transition was far from easy. My accent often became a challenge in ways I never expected, because people judged my intelligence or questioned my education based solely on how I spoke. I could communicate effectively, yet my words were filtered through stereotypes.

    Over time, I found deep fulfillment working in a state that recognizes the value of bilingual education. Texas, where I now live, continues to expand biliteracy pathways for students. This commitment honors both home languages and English, opening global opportunities for children while preserving ties to their history, family, and identity.

    That commitment to expanding pathways for English Learners (EL) is urgently needed. Texas is home to more than 1.3 million ELs, which is nearly a quarter of all students in the state, the highest share in the nation. Nationwide, there are more than 5 million ELs comprising nearly 11 percent of the U.S. public school students; about 76 percent of ELs are Spanish speakers. Those figures represent millions of children who walk into classrooms every day carrying the gift of another language. If we are serious about celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month, we must be serious about honoring and cultivating that gift.

    A true celebration of Hispanic heritage requires more than flags and food. It requires acknowledging that students’ home languages are essential to their academic success, not obstacles to overcome. Research consistently shows that bilingualism is a cognitive asset. Those who are exposed to two languages at an early age outperform their monolingual peers on tests of cognitive function in adolescence and adulthood. Students who maintain and develop their native language while learning English perform better academically, not worse. Yet too often, our educational systems operate as if English is the only language that matters.

    One powerful way to shift this mindset is rethinking the materials students encounter every day. High-quality instructional materials should act as both mirrors and windows–mirrors in which students see themselves reflected, and windows through which they explore new perspectives and possibilities. Meeting state academic standards is only part of the equation: Materials must also align with language development standards and reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of our communities.

    So, what should instructional materials look like if we truly want to honor language as culture?

    • Instructional materials should meet students at varying levels of language proficiency while never lowering expectations for academic rigor.
    • Effective materials include strategies for vocabulary development, visuals that scaffold comprehension, bilingual glossaries, and structured opportunities for academic discourse.
    • Literature and history selections should incorporate and reflect Latino voices and perspectives, not as “add-ons” during heritage month, but as integral elements of the curriculum throughout the year.

    But materials alone are not enough. The process by which schools and districts choose them matters just as much. Curriculum teams and administrators must center EL experiences in every adoption decision. That means intentionally including the voices of bilingual educators, EL specialists, and, especially, parents and families. Their life experiences offer insights into the most effective ways to support students.

    Everyone has a role to play. Teachers should feel empowered to advocate for materials that support bilingual learners; policymakers must ensure funding and policies that prioritize high-quality, linguistically supportive instructional resources; and communities should demand that investments in education align with the linguistic realities of our students.

    Because here is the truth: When we honor students’ languages, we are not only affirming their culture; we are investing in their future. A child who is able to read, write, and think in two languages has an advantage that will serve them for life. They will be better prepared to navigate an interconnected world, and they carry with them the ability to bridge communities.

    This year, let’s move beyond celebrating what Latino communities have already contributed to America and start investing in what they can become when we truly support and honor them year-round. That begins with valuing language as culture–and making sure our classrooms do the same.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Is research culture really too hard to assess?

    Is research culture really too hard to assess?

    Assessing research culture has always been seen as difficult – some would say too difficult.

    Yet as REF 2029 pauses for reflection, the question of whether and how culture should be part of the exercise is unavoidable. How we answer this has the potential to shape not only the REF, but also the value we place on the people and practices that define research excellence.

    The push to assess research culture emerged from recognition that thriving, well-supported researchers are themselves important outcomes of the research system. The Stern Review highlighted that sustainable research excellence depends not just on research outputs but on developing the people who produce them. The Harnessing the Metric Tide report built on this understanding, recommending that future REF cycles should reward progress towards better research cultures.

    A significant proportion of what we have learnt about assessing research culture came from the People, Culture and Environment indicators project, run by Vitae and Technopolis, and Research England’s subsequent REF PCE pilot exercise. Together with the broader consultation as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme, this involved considerable sector engagement over multiple years.

    Indicators

    Nearly 1,600 people applied to participate in the PCE indicators co-development workshops. Over 500 participated across 137 institutions, with participants at all levels of career stage and roles. Representatives from ARMA, NADSN, UKRN, BFAN, ITSS, FLFDN and NCCPE helped facilitate the discussions and synthesise messages.

    The workshops confirmed what many suspected about assessing research culture. It’s genuinely difficult. Nearly every proposed indicator proved problematic. Participants raised concerns about gaming and burden. Policies could become tick-box exercises. Metrics might miss crucial context. But participants saw that clusters of indicators used together and contextualised could allow institutions to tell meaningful stories about their approach and avoid the potentially misleading pictures painted by isolated indicators.

    A recurring theme was the need to focus on mechanisms, processes and impacts, not on inputs. Signing up for things, collecting badges, and writing policies isn’t enough. We need to make sure that we are doing something meaningful behind these. This doesn’t mean we cannot evidence progress, rather that the evidence needs contextualising. The process of developing evidence against indicators would incentivise institutions to think more carefully about what they’re doing, why, and for whom.

    The crucial point that seems to have been lost is that REF PCE never set out to measure culture directly. Instead, it aimed to assess credible indicators of how institutions enable and support inclusive, sustainable, high-quality research.

    REF PCE was always intended to be an evolution, not a revolution. Culture has long been assessed in the REF, including through the 2021 Environment criteria of vitality and sustainability. The PCE framework aimed to build on this foundation, making assessment more systematic and comprehensive.

    Finance and diversity

    Two issues levelled at PCE have been the sector’s current financial climate and the difficulty of assessing culture fairly across institutional diversity. These are not new revelations. Both were anticipated and debated extensively in the PCE indicators project.

    Workshop participants stressed that the assessment must recognise that institutions operate with different resources and constraints, focusing on progress and commitment rather than absolute spending levels. There is no one-size-fits-all answer to what a good research culture looks like. Excellent research culture can look very different across the sector and even within institutions.

    This led to a key conclusion: fair assessment must recognise different starting points while maintaining meaningful standards. Institutions should demonstrate progress against a range of areas, with flexibility in how they approach challenges. Assessment needs to focus on ‘distance travelled’ rather than the destination reached.

    Research England developed the REF PCE pilot following these insights. This was deliberately experimental, testing more indicators than would ultimately be practical, as a unique opportunity to gather evidence about what works, what doesn’t, what is feasible, and equitable across the sector. Pilot panel members and institutions were co-designers, not assessors and assessees. The point was to develop evidence for a streamlined, proportionate, and robust approach to assessing culture.

    REF already recognises that publications and impact are important outputs of research. The PCE framework extended this logic: thriving, well-supported people working across all roles are themselves crucial outcomes that institutions should develop and celebrate.

    This matters because sustainable research excellence depends on the people who make it happen. Environments that support career development, recognise diverse contributions, and foster inclusion don’t just feel better to work in – they produce better research. The consultation revealed sophisticated understanding of this connection. Participants emphasised that research quality emerges from cultures that value integrity, collaboration, and support for all contributors.

    Inputs

    Some argue that culture is an input to the system that shouldn’t be assessed directly. Others suggest establishing baseline performance requirements as a condition for funding. However, workshop discussions revealed that setting universal standards low enough for all institutions to meet renders them meaningless as drivers of improvement. Baselines are important, but alone they are not sufficient. Research culture requires attention through assessment, incentivisation and reward that goes beyond minimum thresholds.

    Patrick Vallance and Research England now have unprecedented evidence about research culture assessment. Consultation has revealed sector priorities. The pilot has tested practical feasibility. The upcoming results, to be published in October, will show what approaches are viable and proportionate.

    Have we encountered difficulties? Yes. Do we have a perfect solution for assessing culture? No. But this REF is a huge first step toward better understanding and valuing of the cultures that underpin research in HE. We don’t need all the answers for 2029, but we shouldn’t discard the tangible progress made through national conversations and collaborations.

    This evidence base provides a foundation for informed decisions about whether and how to proceed. The question is whether policymakers will use it to build on promising foundations or retreat to assessment approaches that miss crucial dimensions of research excellence.

    The REF pause is a moment of choice. We can step back from culture as ‘too hard’, or build on the most substantial sector-wide collaboration ever undertaken on research environments. If we discard what we’ve built, we risk losing sight of the people and conditions that make UK research excellent.

    Source link

  • What Ofsted inspections reveal about university leadership and culture

    What Ofsted inspections reveal about university leadership and culture

    The arrival of Ofsted inspections of degree apprenticeships in higher education was never going to be smooth. But what’s become clear is just how underprepared some universities were for the emotional and organisational demands that these inspections bring.

    As part of my doctoral research, I conducted a qualitative study, based on 20 semi-structured interviews with academic and professional services (PS) staff from 19 English universities. What I found reveals more than just overstretched teams or complaints about workload. It tells a story of institutional neglect within a sector where the rhetoric is one of apprenticeships being embraced while quietly sidelining the staff delivering this provision.

    As government policy surrounding apprenticeships, flexible/modular provision, and the growth and skills levy starts to become clearer, the findings act as a warning shot. The issues higher education staff face during Ofsted inspections reflect deeper structural and cultural problems – ones that won’t be solved with another “you’ve got this!” email from the vice chancellor’s office.

    A marginalised provision

    Apprenticeships have always had an awkward status in HE. They’re professionally significant and they can attract noteworthy employer relationships, but they remain institutionally peripheral. As one participant put it, “we’ve never been invited to a senior leader’s meeting to talk about apprenticeships.”

    Almost all academic participants described their apprenticeship work as invisible in workload models and poorly understood by senior leaders. One participant reported that they get “50 hours a year to look after apprenticeships, even though I would consider it to be my full-time role.” Another simply said, “we feel like the poor relation.” PS staff described the work during the Ofsted inspection creating “a permanent status of panic” and detailed 12-hour working days that ran through weekends until they were “running on fumes”. One cancelled a long-planned family holiday. Others reported stress-related illness, insomnia, extended sick leave, and the need for medication.

    The most striking point during many of the interviews wasn’t just the volume of work to support apprenticeship delivery or the Ofsted inspection – it was the sense that senior leaders within their institution didn’t acknowledge it or even care.

    Inspections as emotional events

    There are multiple other accountability mechanisms within HE: the Teaching Excellence Framework, the Office for Students’ conditions of registration, the Quality Assurance Agency, the Department for Education apprenticeship accountability framework, and professional accreditation processes. This results in a complex and multi-agency system of regulation and scrutiny. However, among participants, Ofsted inspections weren’t experienced as just another audit or review. They were felt as emotional, personal, a question of professional competence, and in many cases traumatic.

    The anticipation alone triggered stress symptoms and anxiety. One PS participant said:

    Before the inspection started, I was terrified because I was going to be representing my university. What if I get it wrong? I kept feeling sick.

    Another participant feared that the inspection outcome, if unsuccessful, could undermine years of hard work and this loss of control and emotional volatility left them feeling depleted and unwilling to experience an Ofsted inspection again:

    I cannot be here in five years’ time. I’m not going through that again. I had some stress symptoms which didn’t let up for six to eight months.

    Teaching staff viewed the inspection as a test of professional credibility and the emotional toll was compounded by the expectation to present calm professionalism: “I spent time telling everyone to be careful and not let your guard down” while managing their own fears and “the impending pit of doom” and those of their colleagues. Another said: “I was really worried about my colleague being pulled into an observation with an inspector. Her practice is wonderful, but she would have fallen apart. I wanted to protect her wellbeing.”

    The need to “perform professionalism” while internally unravelling created a specific kind of emotional labour which was often invisible to those in leadership roles. It was obvious that participants weren’t just preparing evidence: they were absorbing institutional risk. In doing so, they became the shock absorbers for their university’s unpreparedness.

    The problem isn’t Ofsted, it’s us

    One might assume the findings are a critique of Ofsted. In fact, most participants described the inspectors as “courteous”, “professional”, “kind”, “amazing” or “approachable”. The frustration wasn’t aimed at the inspectors; it was aimed at the system.

    One problem was the mismatch between Ofsted’s frameworks and the reality of delivering apprenticeships in higher education. Teaching staff spoke of “squeezing your programme, pedagogy, everything into an arbitrary box” that didn’t reflect their practice. Others questioned why Ofsted couldn’t operate more like consultants, “sharing best practice and providing exemplars” rather than simply evaluating.

    While almost all participants described inspectors as courteous and supportive, they also expressed concerns about the disempowering effects of inspection dynamics. One noted

    The power dynamic is… ‘If we don’t think you’re good enough, we’re going to close you down’. There are other regulatory bodies that don’t have the ability to put people out of jobs. It’s crazy.

    That perception of existential risk was heightened because many institutions appeared to have no clear inspection plan. No training. No joined-up strategy. “We only got Ofsted training two days before the inspection,” said one participant. Others had to “design and deliver” their own training from scratch “without any support” from their leadership which meant it was difficult to get people to engage with it.

    Teaching staff shared their views that traditional academic CPD (such as research outputs and pedagogic innovation) continues to be prioritised over compliance-linked work like Ofsted inspections, despite the institutional reputational risks:

    If any of us wanted to go off to London to present a research paper, we would have accommodation paid for us, we’d be able to go to that conference, no problem. But if we ask for £150 worth of CPD on how to improve apprenticeship delivery it wouldn’t be allowed. It’s not a business priority.

    Not malicious, just indifferent

    Overall, my research tells a story about institutional neglect. Unlike toxic leadership or micro-management, this form of harm is quieter. It’s not what leaders do; it’s what they fail to do. It’s the absence of engagement and the unwillingness to fund training. Most importantly, it’s the lack of psychological safety during a high-pressured event like an Ofsted inspection. As one participant said, “when the Ofsted inspectors came in, it was really hard to listen to senior leaders talking about how much they support staff… the reality is very different.”

    This isn’t about bad management, it’s about structural marginalisation. Apprenticeship provision was described as falling outside the strategic priorities of some institutions and their senior leaders were perceived as having “no awareness, no understanding” and that they “don’t particularly care about apprenticeships”. Research, undergraduate teaching, and the TEF occupied the centre of institutional gravity. Apprenticeships did not.

    Some participants said they almost wished for a “requires improvement” judgement just to get leadership to take them seriously. One observed:

    I had hoped that we would get ‘requires improvement’ because it would have made senior leadership pay attention to the changes we need to make. Senior staff have this sense of complacency as if the ‘good’ rating shows that we’re fine.

    The government is watching

    With this government promising a reshaping of apprenticeships and skills, and the growth and skills levy pushing modular/skills learning into new territory, the pressures experienced in apprenticeship provision in HE are likely to spread. Inspection and regulation in this space aren’t going away. Nor should they. But my findings suggest the real threat to quality and staff wellbeing is not external scrutiny, it’s internal culture.

    The risks here are reputational and ethical. Strategic responsibility for inspection readiness and staff wellbeing needs to sit at the top table, not with the most overworked and marginalised staff in the room. Here are five things that universities should do, right now:

    Stop marginalising apprenticeship teams. If universities are serious about their current apprenticeship provision and the imminent skills/flexible learning opportunities coming our way, the teams supporting these activities must be embedded into institutional strategy, not treated as marginalised, compliance-heavy provision.

    Build inspection readiness into annual planning, not panic-mode two days before the inspection starts.

    Invest in meaningful CPD for apprenticeships, including training on inspection frameworks, evidence expectations, managing emotional load during inspection periods, and conference attendance for the skills and apprenticeships agenda.

    Create psychological safety. No one should feel personally responsible for the entire institution’s regulatory fate.

    Use governance structures to ask hard questions. Boards and Senates should demand answers: how are we resourcing our skills and apprenticeship provision? What preparations do we have in place for the new skills/modular provision that will inevitably be inspected? Does leadership in schools/faculties understand their skills and apprenticeships provision fully? Do all colleagues get equal access to relevant CPD to do their job effectively?

    Ofsted didn’t bring stress into higher education; it just exposed a stretched system and the fragility of institutional operations and governance which relies on invisible labour.

    With the introduction of the growth and skills levy and a significant shift toward modular and flexible provision, the emotional and operational burdens seen in apprenticeship delivery and Ofsted inspections risk being replicated at scale unless universities adapt. When senior leaders are thinking about the structures and metrics for expanding into new opportunities such as modular/skills provision, they also need to carefully consider culture, responsibility, support, and compassionate leadership.

    If they replicate the same dynamics – underfunded, misunderstood, marginalised, and shouldered by isolated staff – universities risk institutionalising burnout and anxiety as conditions of participation in apprenticeships and skills.

    Source link

  • It’s Censorship, Not Cancel Culture

    It’s Censorship, Not Cancel Culture

    “We are in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle.”

    This is the declaration of Adam Goldstein, vice president of strategic initiatives for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, writing at the organization’s website.

    In the piece, dated Sept. 12, he chronicles almost three dozen incidents of individuals being sanctioned, suspended or terminated for public remarks following the tragic killing of Charlie Kirk.

    The vast majority of these incidents concern schools, colleges and universities. The examples exhibit a pattern of public outrage, which gets the attention of a public official, who then calls for sanction, followed by the sanction being administered by another public entity.

    As a typical example, Tennessee senator Marsha Blackburn called for the firing of a Cumberland University professor on Sept. 11, the day after Kirk’s death. On Sept. 12, the professor was dismissed, along with a member of the university staff.

    Goldstein says that this is a cycle of “the cancel culture machine. It goes like this: A tragedy happens. Someone reacts by celebrating that tragedy for whatever reason. Then the social media mob comes to demand this person be fired, expelled, or otherwise punished for their views.”

    I’m appreciative of Goldstein’s work to compile, publicize and criticize these actions, but I have an important point of disagreement. Most of these are not incidents of cancel culture.

    It’s censorship.

    The problem is not about “social media mobs” making demands, but on the public officials in power following through and punishing those views.

    Whatever anyone thinks about people saying things on social media, all of it (providing it doesn’t run afoul of the law) is a form of protected speech. Some may decry the effect of that speech, but this doesn’t make it not speech. Charlie Kirk’s Professor Watchlist was a documented vector of threats and harassment directed toward college faculty, but the website itself is too is an example of speech, even when the website called for professors to be fired.

    The public discussion about these issues has been unfortunately muddled for years, including by FIRE president Greg Lukianoff, who, along with his Coddling the American Mind co-author Jonathan Haidt, invented a psychological pathology they called “safetyism” in order to delegitimize student speech they believed to be “illiberal.”

    The “cancel culture” narrative had much the same effect, by categorizing contentious speech where people were advocating for particular outcomes—without having the power to directly enact those outcomes—as something akin to censorship. Whatever one thinks of the phenomenon as a whole or individual examples of it, it was never censorship.

    United States senators calling for firings and then college presidents complying is straight-up censorship.

    These distinctions very much matter in this moment, because it is clear that numerous government officials are interested in using the response to Kirk’s death as a pretext to crack down on speech they don’t approve of. The United States State Department is “warning” immigrants not to “mock” Kirk’s death.

    Legal remedies to illegal firings are also no longer guaranteed in a system where politicians are willing to use the weight of their office to crush dissent. At Clemson, one employee was fired and two faculty members were removed from teaching duties after complaints originating with the Clemson College Republicans surfaced. The South Carolina attorney general, Republican Alan Wilson, issued an opinion holding Clemson harmless if it fired the employees claiming, without evidence, the speech was tantamount to threats.

    Other state legislators overtly threatened the school’s state funding should officials fail to act.

    Coercion, intimidation.

    Representative Clay Higgins declared that he is “going to use Congressional authority and every influence with big tech platforms to mandate immediate ban for life of every post or commenter that belittled the assassination of Charlie Kirk.”

    The same Clay Higgins sponsored the Protecting Speech from Government Interference Act in 2023, in which he said, “The American people have the right to speak their truths, and federal bureaucrats should not be dictating what is or isn’t true. We must continue to uphold the First Amendment as our founding fathers intended.”

    In 2021, Blackburn, who called for the firing the Cumberland University professor, introduced an anti–cancel culture resolution, declaring, “Cancel culture is a barrier to a free marketplace of ideas and remains antithetical to the preservation and perpetuation of global democracy.”

    It is tempting to nail Blackburn and Higgins as hypocrites, but again, this mistakes the underlying aim of the larger political project for surface-level features. Blackburn and Higgins were against “cancel culture” because they did not approve of the potential consequences for speech with which they agreed. They are now calling for sanctions against speech and speakers with which they disagree. In both cases, they are using their power to promote speech of which they approve and discount that of which they don’t approve.

    The major difference is that instruments of the state are acting on these calls to sanction, suspend and fire people.

    Like I said, censorship.

    The only thing that’s changed is the locus of power and a presidential administration that is more than willing to use the instruments of the state to intimidate and silence the opposition.

    This isn’t cancel culture; it’s authoritarianism.

    As I say, I’m appreciative of FIRE’s attention to these incidents, but the facts of what’s going on show the limits of trying to adjudicate freedoms—including academic freedom—entirely through the lens of free speech. If we’re going to preserve our freedoms, I think it’s important that, at the very least, we use the most accurate descriptive language we can.

    FIRE’s Goldstein is wrong. We aren’t in the “cancel culture” part of the cycle.

    We’re in the retaliation, censorship, coercion, authoritarianism part of the cycle, and the wheels are turning ever faster.

    Source link

  • We are in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle

    We are in the cancel culture part of the tragedy cycle

    First, two children lost their father and a wife her husband. Then people lost their humanity. And now, a nation loses another piece of its soul. This part of the cycle is its own special kind of awful: the cancel culture machine.

    It goes like this: A tragedy happens. Someone reacts by celebrating that tragedy for whatever reason. Then the social media mob comes to demand this person be fired, expelled, or otherwise punished for their views.

    Time and time again, we resort to this mob mentality when tragedy strikes. When Barbara Bush died. When the Queen diedRush LimbaughOtto WarmbierGeorge Floyd. After 9/11. After October 7. The attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

    As free speech advocates, it places us in a painful position. Charlie Kirk’s assassination was an attack on free speech and open discourse. In a free society, we must not be afraid to express our views, no matter how strongly some might oppose them. That’s the point of free speech. But it is precisely for that reason why we must not respond to mockery of Kirk’s assassination by canceling everyone who offends us: because that too creates a society where people are afraid to express themselves.

    Cancel culture ends when we decide that people can be horrifically wrong and still entitled to the grace that enables us all to grow from our worst moments. 

    Among the people targeted in the aftermath of Kirk’s heinous murder include:

    Businesses

    • The Carolina Panthers have fired a PR staffer for social media posts.
    • A DC comic book writer has had her series cancelled for her social media posts.
    • PHNX Sports has fired a staff writer for his posts.
    • The general manager of a burger restaurant in Quincy, Illinois, was fired for a post.
    • A restaurant in Wayzata, Minnesota, said it would review security camera footage and fire any employee seen to have celebrated.
    • Wausau River District has fired their executive director over her social media post.
    • A political contributor to MSNBC was fired over his on-air comments; Cumberland University in Lebanon, Tennessee, subsequently cancelled a scheduled speech.

    Schools and universities

    • The Florida Department of Education has said it would investigate every teacher who makes “disgusting comments” about the tragedy.
    • An assistant dean of Middle Tennessee State University has been fired for a social media post.
    • Naples (NY) Central School District has started a formal investigation of one staff member’s posts.
    • A cheerleading coach from Meridian (ID) High School was fired over a video.
    • A teacher at Ridgeview Elementary School in Lakeside, Florida, has been suspended for her posts.
    • A teacher at Greenville (SC) County Schools was suspended and then terminated for his post after a member of congress called for his firing.
    • A teacher at Lake Norman Charter School in Huntsville, North Carolina, has been placed on leave pending an investigation of his post.
    • A teacher at Gaston County (NC) Schools is under investigation for their post.
    • A teacher at the School District of Lancaster (PA) is facing some action, described as a “personnel matter,” for their posts.
    • A teacher at Lee County (FL) School District is being investigated for their post.
    • The University of Mississippi fired an executive assistant over her post, after a member of the state house said he would vote against continued university funding until her firing.
    • Linden (NJ) Public Schools had to shelter in place after the school received threats because a post was erroneously claimed to have been written by an employee. In reality, the author never worked there.
    • A teacher at Wachusett (MA) Regional School District has been suspended for her social media posts.
    • A teacher at Framingham (MA) Public School District has been suspended for her social media video.
    • A teacher at Vassar (MI) Public Schools has been suspended for her social media posts.
    • A teacher at Oksaloosa (IA) High School has been suspended for his social media post after U.S. Rep. Marionette Miller-Meeks promised to contact the school.
    • A teacher at the Cleveland Heights-University Heights (OH) School District has been suspended for alleged social media posts.
    • A professor at East Tennessee State University has reportedly been suspended after state lawmakers complained about his posts.

    Legislators and government officials

    • The U.S. State Department has warned that it will review the legal status of immigrants who mock the tragedy.
    • U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn and U.S. Rep. Andy Ogles have called for the firing of a Cumberland University professor over his post.
    • U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert has called for the firing of a Colorado Department of Health staffer for a social media post.
    • U.S. Rep. Riley Moore has called on West Virginia University to remove a state lawmaker from a gender equity council based on her posts.
    • A Michigan state senator has demanded a University of Michigan professor be fired for his post.
    • A Virginia state senator has demanded a dean at the Chesterfield School Board be fired for her posts.
    • A Texas state senator has demanded a teacher be fired for liking someone else’s post.
    • A city councilman in Jacksonville, Florida, called for the removal of a city appointee over a now-deleted post.
    • A South Carolina state lawmaker called for the firing of a Clemson University professor over his posts.
    • The Louisiana attorney general is calling for the firing of a New Orleans firefighter for a now-deleted post.
    • The Toledo Fire Department is investigating one firefighter’s post. 

    Have no doubt: There will be more. 

    A website is actively soliciting reports of posts “celebrating Charlie’s death” to preserve them for, presumably, posterity. (Take my word for it or don’t. Linking the website would tend to undermine the larger goal here.)  And in a counter-cancellation remarkable for its willingness to victim-blame, a Tennessee lawmaker has called for all events by Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, to be cancelled “out of fear of violence and threat to public safety.” 

    When state lawmakers and officials make demands to employers to fire people for their speech, those demands can violate the First Amendment. When private people and businesses do the same, it undermines the culture of free expression we all want to cultivate. To be clear, a business owner can fire employees for any lawful reason. At times, a misalignment of values or a need to retain customers will be those perfectly legitimate reasons. But performative firings are participation in a cancel culture that undermines American values.

    Violence must never be a response to speech

    America must be an open society where we feel safe to share our ideas in the public square, not just from behind bulletproof glass and bulletproof vests.


    Read More

    None of us are immune to these instincts. Kirk’s organization, Turning Point USA, maintains a Professor Watchlist. As we noted back when it was launched in 2016, the watchlist is protected speech. But as we also noted and predicted, the watchlist has been used to call for sanctions on professors for their protected academic expression, contributing to the scourge of cancel culture. We have opposed those calls, too.

    Governments and lawmakers must do better. The rest of us should do better, too. 

    When someone indulges their worst impulses after a tragedy, we should use our own voices to challenge them. Or if we’re really courageous, we can be like Daryl Davis, a black musician and activist who through love, compassion, and constructive dialogue has convinced dozens of people to leave and denounce the Ku Klux Klan. We should remember we don’t win an argument by ruining someone’s life. We just ruin someone’s life. 

    We are not so fortunate, in this imperfect world, that Charlie Kirk’s murder is the last tragedy we experience. Nor is it the last time that some of us take a moment that calls for compassion and fill it with vitriol. If we (as a society) were to wait for either of those things to stop being true before ending cancel culture, that’s the same as ceding freedom of speech to the assassins and the mobs. 

    Cancel culture ends when we decide that people can be horrifically wrong and still entitled to the grace that enables us all to grow from our worst moments. 



    Source link

  • 3 steps to build belonging in the classroom

    3 steps to build belonging in the classroom

    Key points:

    The first few weeks of school are more than a fresh start–they’re a powerful opportunity to lay the foundation for the relationships, habits, and learning that will define the rest of the year. During this time, students begin to decide whether they feel safe, valued, and connected in your classroom.

    The stakes are high. According to the 2023 Youth Risk Behavior Survey, only 55 percent of students reported feeling connected to their school. That gap matters: Research consistently shows that a lack of belonging can harm grades, attendance, and classroom behavior. Conversely, a strong sense of belonging not only boosts academic self-efficacy but also supports physical and mental well-being.

    In my work helping hundreds of districts and schools implement character development and future-ready skills programs, I’ve seen how intentionally fostering belonging from day one sets students–and educators–up for success. Patterns from schools that do this well have emerged, and these practices are worth replicating.

    Here are three proven steps to build belonging right from the start.

    1. Break the ice with purpose

    Icebreakers might sound like old news, but the reality is that they work. Research shows these activities can significantly increase engagement and participation while fostering a greater sense of community. Students often describe improved classroom atmosphere, more willingness to speak up, and deeper peer connections after just a few sessions.

    Some educators may worry that playful activities detract from a serious academic tone. In practice, they do the opposite. By helping students break down communication barriers, icebreakers pave the way for risk-taking, collaboration, and honest reflection–skills essential for deep learning.

    Consider starting with activities that combine movement, play, and social awareness:

    • Quick-think challenges: Build energy and self-awareness by rewarding quick and accurate responses.
    • Collaborative missions: Engage students working toward a shared goal that demands communication and teamwork.
    • Listen + act games: Help students develop adaptability through lighthearted games that involve following changing instructions in real time.

    These activities are more than “fun warm-ups.” They set a tone that learning here will be active, cooperative, and inclusive.

    2. Strengthen executive functioning for individual and collective success

    When we talk about belonging, executive functioning skills–like planning, prioritizing, and self-monitoring–may not be the first thing we think of. Yet they’re deeply connected. Students who can organize their work, set goals, and regulate their emotions are better prepared to contribute positively to the class community.

    Research backs this up. In a study of sixth graders, explicit instruction in executive functioning improved academics, social competence, and self-regulation. For educators, building these skills benefits both the individual and the group.

    Here are a few ways to embed executive functioning into the early weeks:

    • Task prioritization exercise: Help students identify and rank their tasks, building awareness of time and focus.
    • Strengths + goals mapping: Guide students to recognize their strengths and set values-aligned goals, fostering agency.
    • Mindful check-ins: Support holistic well-being by teaching students to name their emotions and practice stress-relief strategies.

    One especially powerful approach is co-creating class norms. When students help define what a supportive, productive classroom looks like, they feel ownership over the space. They’re more invested in maintaining it, more likely to hold each other accountable, and better able to self-regulate toward the group’s shared vision.

    3. Go beyond the first week to build deeper connections

    Icebreakers are a great start, but true belonging comes from sustained, meaningful connection. It’s tempting to think that once names are learned and routines are set, the work is done–but the deeper benefits come from keeping this focus alive alongside academics.

    The payoff is significant. School connectedness has been shown to reduce violence, protect against risky behaviors, and support long-term health and success. In other words, connection is not a “nice to have”–it’s a protective factor with lasting impact.

    Here are some deeper connection strategies:

    • Shared values agreement: Similar to creating class norms, identify the behaviors that promote safety, kindness, and understanding.
    • Story swap: Have students share an experience or interest with a partner, then introduce each other to the class.
    • Promote empathy in action: Teach students to articulate needs, seek clarification, and advocate for themselves and others.

    These activities help students see one another as whole people, capable of compassion and understanding across differences. That human connection creates an environment where everyone can learn more effectively.

    Take it campus-wide

    These strategies aren’t limited to students. Adults on campus benefit from them, too. Professional development can start with icebreakers adapted for adults. Department or PLC meetings can incorporate goal-setting and reflective check-ins. Activities that build empathy and connection among staff help create a healthy, supportive adult culture that models the belonging we want students to experience.

    When teachers feel connected and supported, they are more able to foster the same in their classrooms. That ripple effect–staff to students, students to peers–creates a stronger, more resilient school community.

    Belonging isn’t a single event; it’s a practice. Start the year with purpose, keep connection alive alongside academic goals, and watch how it transforms your classroom and your campus culture. In doing so, you’ll give students more than a positive school year. You’ll give them tools and relationships they can carry for life.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • How consistent communication transformed our school culture

    How consistent communication transformed our school culture

    Key points:

    When I became principal of Grant Elementary a decade ago, I stepped into a school community that needed to come together. Family involvement was low, staff morale was uneven, and trust between school and home had to be rebuilt from the ground up.

    Early on, I realized the path forward couldn’t start and end in the classroom. We needed to look outward to families. Our goal wasn’t just to inform them. We needed to engage them consistently, with care and transparency.

    That meant changing how we communicated.

    A shift toward authentic partnership

    We made a schoolwide commitment to open up communication. That included using a digital platform to help our team connect with families more frequently, clearly, and consistently.

    With our platform, we could share classroom moments, highlight student growth, reinforce positive behavior, and build relationships, not just exchange information. Importantly, it also supported two-way communication, which was key to creating real partnership.

    The impact was visible right away. Families felt more connected. Teachers felt more supported. And students were proud to share their progress in ways that resonated beyond school walls.

    That foundation has become central to how we approach culture-building today.

    5 ways better communication deepened engagement

    A decade later, we’ve learned a lot about what it takes to build a strong school-home connection. Here are five strategies we’ve used to increase trust and engagement with our families:

    1. Strengthen student-teacher relationships
    Real communication depends on a two-way dialogue, not one-way blasts. It’s about building relationships. During the pandemic, for example, students submitted photos of artwork, short reflections, or voice notes through the platform we use. Even in isolation, they could stay connected to teachers and classmates and feel seen. That continuity gave them a sense of belonging when they needed it most.

    2. Reinforce positive behavior in real time
    Our school uses a digital point system tied to schoolwide expectations. Students can earn points and use them at our “Dojo Store,” a reward system named by our students themselves. From spirit week participation to classroom challenges, this approach helps students stay motivated while reinforcing a culture of positivity and pride.

    3. Build trust through direct, personal updates
    Many of our families speak different home languages or come from diverse cultural backgrounds, so building trust is something we focus on every day. One of the most impactful ways we’ve done that is by using ClassDojo, which is both direct and secure, while feeling personal–not formal or distant. When families receive messages in a language they understand, and know they’re coming straight from our school team, it helps them feel connected, informed, and valued.

    4. Share classroom stories, not just grades
    One of the most powerful changes we made was giving families a window into classroom life. Teachers regularly post photos, lesson highlights, and messages recognizing growth, not just achievement. Kids go home excited to show what was shared. And even those parents who can’t attend in-person events still feel part of the learning experience.

    5. Keep communication simple and accessible
    Ease of use matters. Even staff members hesitant about technology embraced our system once they saw how it strengthened connections. It became part of our school’s rhythm, like a digital bulletin board, messaging app, and family newsletter all in one. And because everything lives in one place, families aren’t scrambling to find information.

    What we gained

    This shift didn’t require an overhaul. We didn’t start from scratch or invest in a complex system. We just chose one easy-to-use platform families already loved, committed to using it consistently, and focused on relationships first.

    Today, that platform is still part of our daily practice. But the tool was never the end goal–we were trying to build connections.

    What we’ve gained is a more unified school community. We’ve seen more proactive family involvement, stronger student ownership, and a deeper sense of belonging across our campus.

    Families are informed. Teachers are supported. Students are celebrated.

    Looking ahead

    As we continue to evolve, we’ve learned that consistent, authentic communication isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s a foundational part of any school culture built on trust.

    If you’re leading a school or district and looking to increase family engagement, my biggest advice is this: Pick an accessible platform families are already familiar with and enjoy using. Use it consistently. And let families in–not just when it’s required, but when it matters.

    That’s where trust begins.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link