Tag: Driving

  • Driving resilient, stable school budgets in times of uncertainty

    Driving resilient, stable school budgets in times of uncertainty

    A perfect storm of financial pressures, from declining enrollment to escalating economic uncertainty, are pushing K-12 school district budgets to their limits.

    To adapt, districts nationwide are embracing innovative strategies to shore up budget stability. From reducing facility operational costs to forging strong community partnerships, school district leaders can learn from these proven examples to safeguard their financial stability and maintain funding for critical student programs.

    Securing revenue, and finding new revenue streams

    The post-COVID recovery era has been especially challenging for the majority of school districts whose budgets are based on per-pupil enrollment or attendance. Fortunately, there are many examples of school districts that have successfully combatted budget shortfalls through community-driven student engagement, retention and attendance programs. And with shifting populations and school choice schemes on the rise, school districts are also growing more adept at differentiating themselves through strong communications programs and visible investments into modern facilities. These strategies impact budgets by attracting new residents and strengthening student retention. 

    More districts are also looking to partnerships with local utility companies like utility rebates, net-metering programs, and demand response incentives. These programs reward smart energy management (i.e. energy efficiency upgrades, on-site renewables, and strategic energy usage) by offering direct cash infusions and bill credits that can improve a school’s budget health.

    Richland County School District One in South Carolina, for example, was able to take advantage of a net-metering program with their local utility after installing nearly 9MW of rooftop solar across 15 campuses. These solar upgrades will save the district over $29 million in energy costs over the next 20 years, more than funding themselves while creating a new financial cash flow into the district’s budget. This project also enables new STEAM curriculum, engaging students in energy generation and conservation in hands-on learning labs.

    Eliminating cost volatility and avoiding unexpected expenses

    Most US school districts are grappling with a portfolio of facilities that are decades past their prime. Maintaining those aging facilities often becomes reactive rather than planned—leaving districts vulnerable to costly, disruptive emergencies. This cycle of crisis spending is unsustainable, driving up long-term costs. That’s one reason why, in their 2025 Infrastructure Report Card for America’s Schools, the ASCE calls to, “urge school districts to adopt life-cycle cost analysis principles in planning and design processes to evaluate the total cost of projects and achieve the lowest net present value cost, including life-cycle O&M, in addition to capital construction.”

    Outdated HVAC systems, leaky building envelopes and inefficient lighting also strain budgets by consuming massive amounts of energy. With energy price volatility on the rise, inefficient energy usage can present a threat to predictable budgeting, particularly for public schools already navigating tight financial constraints.

    School districts like Greene County Schools (GCS) in Tennessee are seeing big budget impacts from taking a proactive approach to facility and energy management. Facing a growing list of deferred maintenance projects, including more than 400 aging HVAC units, GCS turned to Schneider Electric to help design a comprehensive, long-term energy management strategy that allowed the district to reallocate savings toward deferred maintenance.

    Support top-line priorities by capturing O&M cost savings

    Operations and maintenance (O&M) represent the second-largest expenditure in most school districts, right after personnel. Unlike staffing, however, these costs can be reduced without sacrificing student outcomes. By investing in facility modernizations—like smart building controls, LED lighting, water conserving plumbing, and clean energy technologies—schools can dramatically lower their utility bills and maintenance costs. These savings, when captured strategically, can be diverted back into what matters most: academic programming, staffing, and student engagement. 

    Gilbert Public Schools (GPS) in Arizona discovered first-hand how energy improvements can be an excellent tool to achieve budget sustainability. GPS started by upgrading to high-efficiency LED lighting across the district’s gymnasiums, allowing them to turn a $257,000 initial investment into more than $1.2 million in lifecycle savings over the life of the project. Next, GPS made modernizations that reduced water usage and lowered maintenance costs, from which the district ultimately realized $12.9M in lifecycle savings.

    Finding budget stability in times of uncertainty

    Times are uncertain, but as these stories show, budget stability is still within reach. Through smart resource optimization and strong community partnerships, schools can safeguard funding for their top priorities.

    Visit Schneider Electric’s K-12 Education Hub for more inspiring success stories and insights into our budget stability solutions tailored for schools.

    Source link

  • What’s driving low levels of full economic cost recovery in research?

    What’s driving low levels of full economic cost recovery in research?

    Media attention has emphasised that the financial issues facing universities continue to worsen. While research is a cornerstone and strength of the sector, it is often regarded as a cost, which leads to scrutiny as part of institutional savings targets. Despite calls to acknowledge the value of research, the focus understandably remains on research costs.

    The focus of universities on the volume and cost of unfunded research, or more accurately, internally funded research, is a question that must be addressed. Institutions are reflecting on and revising internal research allowances as part of their efforts to achieve a more sustainable financial position, as the cross-subsidy from international student fees is no longer as viable as it once was.

    The question of funded research, however, is a different matter. For quite some time, there have been questions about what constitutes the full economic cost (FEC) and how these costs are recovered when projects are funded. Both issues have once again come to the forefront in the current climate, especially as institutions are failing to recover the eligible costs of funded projects.

    As part of the Innovation & Research Caucus, an investment funded by UKRI, we have been investigating why the recovery of UKRI-funded research is often below the stated rates. To put it simply, if the official recovery rate is 80 per cent FEC, why is 80 per cent not being recovered on UKRI-funded projects?

    Understanding under-recovery

    We conducted a series of interviews with chief financial officers, pro vice chancellors for research, and directors of research services across mission groups, the Transparent Approach to Costing (TRAC) group, and various geographic regions. They identified several key reasons why universities are not recovering the funding to which they are entitled.

    Before exploring the causes of under-recovery on UKRI-funded projects, the project aimed to establish the extent to which TRAC data was curated and utilised. Notably, the study found that the data collected for TRAC does not exist within research organisations and would not otherwise be collected in this form if it were not for the TRAC reporting requirement.

    While scrutinising TRAC data was less of a priority when the financial situation was more stable, in many institutions, it is now of interest to the top table and serves as the basis for modelling, projections, and scenario planning. That said, such analysis did not always recognise TRAC’s limitations in terms of how it was compiled and, therefore, its comparability.

    In many of the research organisations consulted, the responsibilities for TRAC, project costing, and project delivery are distinct. Given the growing significance of TRAC data in influencing resource allocation and strategic decision-making, it is essential for research organisations to adopt a more integrated approach to compiling and utilising TRAC data to achieve improved outcomes.

    Drivers of under-recovery

    A wide range of factors explains why the cost recovered at the end of a funding grant is less than anticipated at the point of submission and award. Almost all respondents highlighted three factors as significant in low cost recovery:

    1. Equipment and facilities costs were consistently cited as a factor, including issues associated with allocating and costing overheads and estates. Several institutions highlighted the difficulty in realistically costing equipment and facilities shared between research projects or between research projects and teaching.
    1. Staff under-costing was frequently mentioned, as principal investigators (PIs) underestimated their own and their colleagues’ time commitment to projects. This ineffective practice was driven by a (mis)perception that lower costs will likely improve success rates – despite the emphasis being on value rather than cost within a specific funding envelope.
    2. Inflation has been identified as a factor affecting all cost elements – from staff costs related to pay settlements and promotions to the rising expenses associated with consumables, equipment, and energy. This reveals a growing gap in applications, delivery, and reporting.

    Beyond these top three, the report highlights the implications of the often “hidden” costs associated with supporting and administering UKRI grants, the perennial issues of match funding, and the often inevitable delays in starting and delivering projects – all of which add to the cost and increase the prospect of under-recovery.

    In addition, an array of other contributing factors were also raised. These included the impact of exchange rates, eligibility criteria, the capital intensity of projects, cost recovery for partners, recruitment challenges, lack of contingency, and no cost extensions. While not pinpointing the importance of a single factor, the interplay and cumulative effect were considered to result in under-recovery.

    Addressing under-recovery

    Universities bear the cost of under-recovery, but funders and universities can take several actions to improve under-recovery – some of which are low- or no-cost, could be implemented in the short term, and would make a real difference.

    Funders, such as UKRI, should provide clearer guidance for research organisations on how to cost facilities and equipment, as well as how to include these costs in research bids. Similarly, applicants and reviewers should receive clearer guidance regarding realistic expectations from PIs in leading projects, emphasising that value should be prioritised over cost. Another area that warrants clearer guidance is match funding, specifically for institutions regarding expectations and for reviewers on how match funding should be assessed. We are pleased to see that UKRI is already taking steps to address these points in its funding policies [editor’s note: this link will be live around 9am on Friday morning].

    In the medium term, research funders could also review their approaches to indexation, which could help mitigate the impact of inflation in driving under-recovery, although this is, of course, not without cost. Another area worth exploring by both research organisations and funders is the provision of shared infrastructures and assets, both within and across institutions – again, a longer-term project.

    We are already seeing institutions taking steps to manage and mitigate under-recovery, and there is scope to extend good practice. Perhaps the main challenge to improving cost recovery is better managing the link between project budgets – based on proposal costs – and project delivery costs. Ensuring a joined-up approach from project costing to reporting is important, but more important is developing a deeper understanding across these areas.

    A final point is the need to ensure that academics vying for funding really understand the new realities of cost and recovery. This has not always been the case, and arguably still is not the case. These skills – from clarifying the importance of realistic staff costs to accurately costing the use of facilities to effectively managing project budgets – will help close the cost recovery gap.

    The real FEC of research funding

    The current project has focused on under-recovery in project delivery. The next step is to understand the real cost to research organisations of UKRI grant funding.

    This means understanding the cost of developing, preparing and submitting a UKRI grant application – whether successful or not. It means understanding the costs associated with administering and reporting on a UKRI grant during and beyond the life of a project (think ResearchFish!).

    For more information, please get in touch – or watch this space for further findings.

    The Innovation & Research Caucus report, Understanding low levels of FEC cost recovery on UKRI grants, will be published on the UKRI site later today.

    Source link

  • From Potholes to Progress: How Higher Education is Driving Solutions to the UK’s Pressing Challenges

    From Potholes to Progress: How Higher Education is Driving Solutions to the UK’s Pressing Challenges

    It’s National Apprenticeship Week. Today on the HEPI blog, you can read about how University Alliance members are using healthcare degree apprenticeships to address workforce shortages: click here to read.

    Or carry on reading to hear from Viggo Stacey at QS about how the researchers at Swansea University are solving contemporary problems like potholes with cutting-edge research.

    • By Viggo Stacey, International Education & Policy Writer at QS Quacquarelli Symonds.

    Drivers in England and Wales encounter an average of six potholes per mile, and damage sustained from them cost drivers an average of £460 in 2024. One estimate put the cost of potholes to the UK economy at £14bn last year.

    Research published last week by Swansea University provides a real solution to this critical problem. Adding plant spores to bitumen will create a self-healing road surface that can extend its lifespan by 30%.

    This speaks directly to the Secretary of State for Education’s five key priorities for reform of the higher education system – that universities should play a great civic role in their communities.

    Local communities and businesses need to benefit fully from the work of higher education institutions, Bridget Phillipson wrote to the sector in November last year and as Debbie McVitty recently covered over at Wonkhe. This research will help individual drivers, councils across the country and UK industry.

    But another thing that is so exciting about this discovery is where it came from. Swansea University, on the south coast of Wales and an institution whose Vice Chancellor in the last week has said higher education in Wales is facing ‘the toughest [financial] position that we’ve been in’, is showing what its academics are capable of, given the right resources.

    And that leads to the second place where this research originated.

    One of those involved is Dr Jose Norambuena-Contreras, a Senior Lecturer in Swansea’s Department of Civil Engineering, originally from Chile, while Dr Francisco Martin-Martinez is a Lecturer at King’s College London’s Chemistry Department who hails from Spain.

    It is also notable that this news came out on the day that Keir Starmer became the first UK prime minister to join a gathering with EU leaders since Brexit.

    While rejoining the EU’s single market is firmly off the cards, a deal on youth mobility is an obvious open goal. Some 57% of voters recently backed a scheme for the under 30s, in addition to polling last year finding 58% thinking a scheme is a good idea.

    The UK Science and Tech Secretary, Peter Kyle, rightly met with EU counterparts in January to push to turbo-charge UK-EU science and technology links in a bid to tackle shared global challenges.

    Potholes in the UK might just be a small part of the UK’s challenge. But as Norambuena-Contreras puts it, it’s a ‘very sexy topic’ that British people like to talk about. If researchers can continue to identify problem areas that resonate with local communities and industry, they’ll be on to a winner.

    International talent is, and will continue to be, key to solving crises across the UK. If only researchers at the country’s top business schools were empowered to find solutions to filling higher education’s financial gaps in the same way as others can for potholes.

    Jessica Turner, CEO at QS Quacquarelli Symonds, commented:

    The UK’s universities are not just centres of learning—they are engines of economic transformation and real-world problem-solving.

    Research from the University of Bristol released this week – showing that it contributed £1.13 billion to the West of England economy in 2022/23 – is just one example of that.

    Swansea University’s ground-fixing research is a perfect example of how higher education drives innovation with tangible benefits for communities, industries, and the economy,” Turner added.

    As the QS World Future Skills Index highlights, the UK is a global leader in academic readiness and future workforce skills. To sustain this momentum, continued investment in universities is essential—not just to address today’s challenges but to shape the solutions of tomorrow.

    Source link

  • Study Reveals Key Factors Driving Student College Choice in 2025

    Study Reveals Key Factors Driving Student College Choice in 2025

    A comprehensive new study by education research firm EAB has identified the most influential factors shaping how students choose colleges, with academic program variety, campus safety, and student organizations emerging as the top three drivers of student attraction.

    The research, analyzing data from U.S. four-year colleges, found that schools offering a wider range of majors see significantly higher student interest, with each additional program contributing to increased application and enrollment rates. Campus safety measures and the number of available student organizations were also found to be major factors in students’ decision-making process.

    “What’s particularly interesting is how these factors play out differently across institution types,” said Dr. Ryan Gardner-Cook, the project director. “For example, smaller schools gain more from incremental improvements in campus amenities and academic offerings compared to larger institutions.”

    The study also revealed that affordability remains a critical factor, especially for first-generation and low-income students. Schools with lower net prices and stronger financial aid packages showed notably higher attraction rates among these demographics.

    Environmental factors like climate and location also play a significant role. Schools in temperate climates and growing urban areas generally showed stronger appeal to prospective students. State-level political environments were found to increasingly influence student choice as well.

    The research identified nine distinct “institutional personas” ranging from “Accessible Education Anchors” to “Rigorous Academic Giants,” each with unique characteristics and challenges in attracting students. This classification system aims to help institutions better understand their competitive position and develop more effective recruitment strategies.

    For institutions looking to improve their student attraction, the study recommends focusing on controllable factors like admissions processes, student life offerings, and academic programs while finding ways to mitigate challenges related to location or cost.

    The findings come at a crucial time as higher education institutions face evolving student preferences and increasing competition for enrollment.

     

    Source link

  • When Driving Through a Rural Area, Do You Think “How Far is the Local Hospital”?

    When Driving Through a Rural Area, Do You Think “How Far is the Local Hospital”?

    As a lifelong rural resident, I think about the proximity of my home and my work to a local hospital. Actually, I always think about my proximity to a Level I hospital when traveling in a rural area or visiting a relative.

    Many rural sections of our Texas interstates are located far from a Level I hospital. This means that when I am traveling to another location in Texas, I have to be very careful to practice defensive driving because I do not want to end up in a situation when I have to be transported to a high level hospital from a rural area.

    As a result, I looked forward to this live session from the Texas Tribune for weeks. This panel highlighted the perils that many of our rural residents encounter everyday. In many of our rural Texas counties, you cannot deliver a baby in a hospital, because there is not a labor and delivery unit. Also, some of our rural counties like Shelby County, TX, do not have a rural hospital any longer.

    Which part of the video stands out to you? 

    Thanks for visiting! 

    Sincerely,

    Dr. Jennifer T. Edwards
    Professor of Communication

    Executive Director of the Texas Social Media Research Institute & Rural Communication Institute

    ***

    Check out my book – Retaining College Students Using Technology: A Guidebook for Student Affairs and Academic Affairs Professionals.

    Remember to order copies for your team as well!

    Source link