Tag: Educational

  • English lessons: Review of Nick Gibb’s book on educational reform after 2010 – by HEPI Director Nick Hillman

    English lessons: Review of Nick Gibb’s book on educational reform after 2010 – by HEPI Director Nick Hillman

    • HEPI Director Nick Hillman reviews Reforming Lessons: Why English Schools Have Improved Since 2010 and How This Was Achieved by Nick Gibb and Robert Peal.
    • On Tuesday, 9 September 2025, HEPI will be hosting the launch of the OECD’s flagship Education at a Glance report. Book a place (in person or online) here.

    This is the second book on education in a row that I have reviewed on the HEPI website that comes from a right-of-centre perspective. The previous review (of a book by the President of the New College of Florida) garnered some pointed attacks underneath – ‘No doubt we’ll soon be seeing articles offering a “more balanced” perspective on Putin and Orban’s records in office’. So let me start by noting HEPI has also run many reviews (by me and others) of books written by left-of-centre authors as well as centrist authors, such as Sam Friedman and Aaron ReeveSimon KuperFrancis Green and David KynastonMelissa Benn, and Lee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin.

    Let me also note that we are always on the lookout for reviews of recent books that are likely to be of interest to HEPI’s audience, irrespective of where on the political spectrum the authors of the books in question or – indeed – the reviewers sit. When we started running book reviews on the HEPI site many years ago, they tended to receive less engagement than other output, but that has changed over the years and they are often now among our most-read pieces. We hope this remains true on our brand new website. So the door is wide open. Come on in.

    Now down to business. Reforming Lessons is a defence of the changes wrought by the long-standing and thrice-appointed Minister for Schools, Nick Gibb, and to a lesser extent his boss Michael Gove, co-written by Gibb himself. The other author is Robert Peal, who was one of a group of young state-school teachers (often, like Peal, powered by Teach First) who made up the advancing phalanx for the school reforms that were implemented by the Coalition and subsequent Conservative Governments. (John Blake, the Office for Students’s Director for Fair Access and Participation was another member of this front line and merits a mention in the book, as was Daisy Christodoulou, who has contributed a Foreword and who features multiple times.)

    At the risk of further brickbats, it would be absurd for HEPI to have ignored this particular book at this particular time, for it is currently a huge talking point among educationalists. But is not just about education; it is also a book about the practice of politics. As the authors themselves write, it is an account of ‘the virtues of a subject-specialist minister driven by conviction in a specific cause rather than personal ambition.’ It fulfils this brief very well indeed, so it should be read far beyond the education world, especially by aspiring ministers in any field where they want to make a difference. But, and I do not mean this to be in any way rude, I suspect it was not – in one important sense – all that hard for Gibb and Peal to make their case.

    This is because the key international data on school performance, which come from the OECD’s comparative PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment), show England forging ahead, including against other parts of the UK, between 2009 and 2022. So Gibb and Peal had a secure evidence base on which to build their story.

    We may argue that PISA is not a perfect measure: it tests only a small number of disciplinary areas and to a fairly basic level of knowledge and it has not always been completed the same way (sometimes on paper and sometimes on screen), but it is better than anything else we have when it comes to comparing school systems – and infinitely better than anything we have in higher education. So anyone who wants to shoot down the book’s central claim that Nick Gibb succeeded as a Minister will struggle to find equally robust performance data for their argument – though they could presumably focus on other evidence such as on an apparent narrowing of the curriculum (though Gibb and Peal get their defence on this in first – see pages 123 and 124).

    Near the start, the book takes a look at how any education changes begun in 2010 had to be extremely cost-effective – cost-cutting or else free – given the dire fiscal position which led every major political party to promise drastic spending cuts at that year’s general election. Gibb and Peal also paint a picture of the ineffectiveness and wastefulness of the expensive centralised initiatives based on existing orthodoxies that preceded the Coalition. The multi-billion pound Building Schools for the Future programme was perhaps the archetype for, as Gibb shows, tens of millions of pounds were spent on building individual schools with open-plan classrooms where staff struggled to teach and pupils struggled to learn. Another challenge during the 2000s is that schools were overwhelmed with bureaucracy: in 2006/07 alone, we are told, there were around 760 missives to schools from Whitehall and quangos – four-per-day for the whole school year.

    Yet Nick Gibb is far from being a free-for-all libertarian right-winger. He is, rather, someone who wants to use the power of the state to drive policy, including how to teach reading (synthetic phonics) as well as how to shape other aspects of the school curriculum. It is easy to see how this approach could have gone wrong but Gibb’s primary goal is always to follow the evidence as he sees it, and I cannot be the only parent who was amazed by how quickly their children started to read during their initial school years in the second half of the 2010s. Gibb has given more thought to schooling than any other modern politician and he rejects many of the ideas of his colleagues as much as those from the political left: he did not favour a wave of new grammar schools, he did not want GCSEs to be replaced by O-Levels and he opposed Rishi Sunak’s Advanced British Standard.

    The book might begin and end somewhat immodestly and uncollegiately by reminding readers that many commentators picked out education as the one and only really big success of the Coalition and Conservative years, yet this is not by any stretch of the imagination a selfish book. Nick Gibb shows how his worldview was built upon teachers like Ruth Miskin, academics like ED Hirsch and others – even his researcher Edward Hartman gets a namecheck (or rather two) for introducing him to Hirsch. He shows how his agenda was carried forward by people like Hamid Patel, Katharine Birbalsingh and Jon Coles.

    Political colleagues like Michael Gove and David Cameron are given credit for changing Whitehall’s approach to schooling. The triumvirate of advisers, Dominic Cummins, Sam Freedman and Henry de Zoete all receive praise, as does Nick Timothy for his stint in Number 10 as Theresa May’s Joint Chief of Staff. Andrew Adonis garners the most praise of all for starting ‘the revolution we undertook whilst in office’, and Kenneth Baker is lauded for getting the successful City Technology Colleges (the forerunners of academies) off the ground in the 1980s. Gibb and Peal note there have been ‘squabbles’ between Conservatives and Lib Dems over who designed the Pupil Premium policy but they do not join in, concluding instead that ‘we should celebrate that it was jointly pursued and agreed upon by the Treasury’.

    There is high praise even for the man who temporarily displaced Gibb as the Minister for Schools, David Laws, especially for the design of the school accountability measure Progress 8 as well as for Lord Nash, who oversaw academies and free schools from the House of Lords. Gibb admits he did not agree with Nicky Morgan, who replaced Michael Gove as the Secretary of State for Education in 2014, on pushing ‘character education’ as a discrete concept but he excuses her on the grounds that ‘she had been transferred to Education from the Treasury with no notice, so never had the luxury of time I had enjoyed to read up on education philosophies.’

    The tales from Gibb’s period as a backbench MP and then Shadow Minister also remind us that the most effective Ministers have typically learnt their briefs in the years before they take office rather than on the job. They then stay in post long enough to make a difference (or, in Gibb’s case, do the job more than once). Even for bold reforming ministers, like Gibb and Gove, good policy tends to be patient policy. In contrast, many of Gibb’s predecessors as the Minister for Schools (who include the current Minister for Skills, Jacqui Smith, who did the job in 2005 to 2006) were not in post for long enough to make a major sort of difference. Gibb’s account of his time in office also serves to remind us that it is wrong to think effective ministers must have worked in the field they are overseeing before entering Parliament: Gibb was an accountant, not a teacher, just like David Willetts, the well-respected Minister for Universities and Science during the Coalition, was a civil servant rather than an academic or scientist.

    The book is peppered by illustrative and illuminating anecdotes. The one I found most shocking is about a visit Nick Gibb made in the mid-1990s to a school in Rotherham, where he was fighting a by-election: a headteacher ‘explained how she had completed an “audit” of her school library, removing any old-fashioned books that simply conveyed information.’ (A few years later, Tory party HQ abolished their library altogether, so it was not just schools that fell down this hole.) The second most shocking anecdote, at least to me, concerns the first draft of the rewritten National Curriculum for primary schools: ‘when the first draft of the curriculum was sent out for informal consultation amongst maths subject associations, it returned with all 64 mentions of the word “practice” expunged from the document.’ The funniest anecdote is one about Gibb visiting a successful academy that had converted from being an independent school: ‘On my train up to Yorkshire, I saw a pupil’s tweet expressing disappointment to find out the politician visiting her school was not Nick Clegg, as she had been led to believe, but instead “some random” called Nick Gibb.’

    Personally, I dislike the language used by those who talk of an educational ‘blob’, not least because it paints all educationalists in the same negative light. Gibb dislikes the term too, and he was uncomfortable with his political colleagues throwing it about. He is pro-teachers and there were always some classroom teachers who held out against the knowledge-light ‘progressivist ideology’ even at its height. Gibb’s reforms were designed to dilute the educational orthodoxy of unions and quangos and to give power to trusted headteachers as well as to multi-academy trusts instead – the mantra was ‘high autonomy and high accountability’. His core goals were to find the best resources and teachers, then to free school leaders to make the biggest differences they could and finally to encourage others to emulate them, especially via high-performing multi-academy trusts. If Blair’s mantra was ‘education, education, education’, Gibb’s was ’emulation, emulation, emulation’.

    But while rejecting the ‘blob’ term, the book does help one to understand how the moniker came to gain such currency. Gibb tells a story, for example, of how, as an MP and a member of the Education Select Committee, he was summoned to the ‘salubrious offices in Piccadilly’ of the Qualification and Curriculum Authority. Once there, the Chief Executive and Chairman demanded Gibb stop asking parliamentary questions about their work. It was an error of immense proportions – perhaps if they had known Gibb had circulated anti-communist propaganda in Brezhnev’s Russia, they would have had a better idea of how tough he is under the polite demeanour. Either way, the scenario served to remind Gibb not to back down in battles once he became a minister.

    One surprise in the book is the degree to which Gibb thinks his reforms have deep roots and are here to stay. He makes a persuasive case for this, especially in the Conclusion, when he notes how embedded and successful some multi-academy trusts now are. Yet his book also recounts how Scotland and Wales have in recent years moved in the opposite direction to England, downplaying knowledge in their school curricula (and suffering the consequences in international comparisons). So one-way travel is surely not guaranteed.

    Keith Joseph talked of a ‘ratchet effect’ in British politics and it might be too early to tell if the Gibb / Gove reforms are locked in or whether the pendulum could now swing back. What I saw after the 2024 general election from my vantage point of being a long-standing Board member of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) gives me less confidence that educational policy is now settled. Despite Gibb’s belief his reforms will last, even he notes in passing the recent attempt to water down the freedoms enjoyed by academies. What is taught in schools, and how, will surely continue to be fervently debated and it is why HEPI has sought to focus minds in higher education on the important Curriculum and Assessment Review under Professor Becky Francis.

    The book is all about the pipeline to higher education but it is not really about higher education except near the end, where the authors take a look at teacher training. Those running university education departments were among the people who did not take Nick Gibb seriously while in Opposition or in Government and they too paid the price for it:

    ‘Of all the different sectors of the education establishment, university education faculties were – by a stretch – the most difficult with which to work. … the main message I received whenever I visited university education faculties was, as Jim Callaghan had been told 40 years previously, “keep off the grass”. Meetings I had usually consisted of being talked at for 90 minutes in a boardroom with no appetite or opportunity for discussion. If I, as a minister, showed any interest in what they thought, they would mistily invoke the virtues of “academic independence”, and insist the government had no place stepping on their hallowed turf.’

    At the very end of the book, Gibb bemoans the fact that, when it comes to ‘the evidence revolution in English education’, ‘university education faculties have been – with one or two exceptions – notable only by their absence’. And when it comes specifically to school teaching, Gibb regards universities as part of the problem rather than the solution. (So perhaps we should not be surprised that Gibb and Peal do not mention the short-lived attempt by Theresa May’s Government to get universities to sponsor academies.) As Universities UK prepare to release new research on public perceptions of higher education institutions, I was left wondering whether there might be lessons for how the higher education sector can best engage with Ministers and officials. 

    While Twitter / X may often be a sewer today, Gibb argues that various education bloggers and tweeters (often from the political left) played a vital role in shoring up his reforms, for example in helping Michael Wilshaw sort out Ofsted, who we are told ‘succeeded where Chris Woodhead could not.’ Gibb may point the finger of blame at those who pushed the ‘progressivist ideology’ that he has fought against but when it comes to A-Level grade inflation, for example, he does not limit his criticism to the Blair / Brown Governments, also complaining about his Conservative predecessors. Yet despite the ferocious attacks he was subjected to as a Minister, Gibb does not respond in kind, confident instead that his policies rested on evidence from the UK and overseas rather than polemic.

    This is a lengthy book and a very very good one, though it does not stop me wanting to know more about what Gibb thinks in one or two areas. For example, we surely do not talk enough about demographics in education. Yet it was the growing number of young people that was part of the reason why the Treasury and others accepted lots of brand new schools called ‘free schools’, just as it was the falling number of school leavers prior to 2020 which helped persuade the Treasury to remove student number caps for undergraduates in England. Gibb does acknowledge the impact of changes to the birth rate in boosting his agenda, but personally I would like to have read more than the single paragraph on page 155 about it.

    Churchill is said to have remarked, ‘history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it’. I kept thinking of this as I was reading the book, so it is perhaps too much to expect a deep dive into educational areas that the Conservatives failed to fix in their 14 years in charge. For me, these are: the educational underperformance of boys relative to girls, which does not merit any specific mentions; the current crisis in the supply of new teachers, which gets less than a page of dedicated text; and post-COVID truancy rates, which gets a paragraph and a couple of other fleeting mentions. But Nick Gibb is, and will rightly remain, one of the most important Ministers of recent decades – and to think he never even made it into the Cabinet.

    Source link

  • Email Marketing for Educational Institutions

    Email Marketing for Educational Institutions

    Reading Time: 13 minutes

    Email remains one of the most effective ways for colleges and universities to connect with their audiences. Unlike social platforms that limit reach through algorithms,  email marketing for educational institutions provides a direct line to prospects, parents, students, alumni, and partners, people who have already chosen to hear from you. It’s measurable from start to finish, integrates easily with CRMs and student information systems, and can be automated to deliver timely, relevant messages.

    The numbers back it up: across industries, email consistently produces one of the strongest returns on investment of any channel. In higher education, the impact is even greater when schools combine clean data with thoughtful segmentation, personalization, and creative storytelling. In practice, email often becomes the foundation of a recruitment strategy, supporting everything from initial outreach to alumni engagement.

    This guide brings together proven email marketing best practices for educational institutions. Alongside examples and trusted resources to help your team build campaigns that not only perform but also feel authentic and meaningful to the people you’re trying to reach.

    Struggling with enrollment and retention?

    Our email marketing services can help you generate more leads!

    Where Email Fits in the Student Journey

    Email plays a role at every stage of the student journey, from the first moment of discovery through to lifelong alumni engagement. What makes it so effective is its ability to deliver the right message to the right person at the right time.

    • Awareness: Introduce programs, highlight scholarships, and showcase campus life with engaging stories that spark curiosity.
    • Consideration: Share degree guides, student experiences, faculty spotlights, and invitations to virtual or in-person events.
    • Decision: Provide deadline reminders, financial aid instructions, advisor booking links, and follow-up checklists that help prospects commit with confidence.
    • Onboarding & Retention: Support new students with orientation details, academic advising reminders, wellness resources, and career services updates that strengthen their connection to your institution.
    • Alumni & Advancement: Keep graduates engaged with mentorship opportunities, continuing education offers, impact reports, and giving campaigns that showcase the value of staying involved.

    Example in practice: The University of Alberta has built a structured email journey for international prospects, connecting them with advisors and surfacing key requirements at each stage of the process. This ensures that students receive timely, relevant information tailored to their current stage in the decision-making process.

    HEM Image 2HEM Image 2

    Source: University of Alberta

    Best Practices for Higher Education Email Marketing

    To make email marketing for educational institutions truly effective, schools need more than just frequent sends; they need strategy, structure, and respect for their audience. The best-performing campaigns are built on trust, relevance, and timing. 

    That means starting with a clean, permission-based list, segmenting by intent, and delivering value at every step of the journey. Each best practice below focuses on how colleges and universities can move beyond “batch and blast” tactics to create meaningful, high-ROI conversations with students, parents, alumni, and partners.

    1. Build a Permission-Based, High-Intent List

    The strength of your email marketing starts with the quality of your list. Buying addresses might look like a shortcut, but it usually leads to poor engagement and deliverability issues. Instead, focus on capturing leads through owned, value-driven channels. 

    Program pages with downloadable guides, open house registrations, scholarship calculators, and career snapshots are all proven ways to attract high-intent prospects. Keep sign-up forms short, just name, email, and one preference field, then use progressive profiling to enrich data over time.

    Example: George Brown College attracts prospective students by offering downloadable program guides in exchange for email sign-ups. Because students self-select the guide they want, the college immediately knows their area of interest and can trigger tailored follow-up campaigns. This approach builds a fully permission-based list where every contact has explicitly indicated their intent, making subsequent outreach more relevant and effective.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: George Brown College

    2. Segment Aggressively for Relevance

    Segmentation is the most consistent way to boost engagement and conversions in higher ed email marketing. Instead of sending broad blasts, divide your audiences by lifecycle stage, program interest, geography, or even behaviour, for example, attending a webinar or abandoning a form. This allows every recipient to receive content that feels timely and relevant. Segmentation also prevents fatigue by cutting down on irrelevant sends, which in turn protects your sender reputation and keeps unsubscribe rates low.

    How can segmentation improve the effectiveness of email marketing for higher education? Segmentation makes emails more relevant, which increases engagement. For example, international prospects segmented by country can receive updates on visas and housing, while domestic students see local funding options. Segmenting by lifecycle stage, program, and behaviour helps improve click-throughs and leads to better-qualified student interactions.

    Example: Humber College’s international portal structures content by region and need, ensuring students see information on study permits, housing options, and support services tailored to their home country. This kind of geo-segmentation can be mirrored in email journeys, for instance, sending region-specific pre-arrival checklists or visa guidance, so that communications land with stronger relevance for each subgroup of students.

    HEM Image 12HEM Image 12

    Source: Humber College

    3. Personalize Beyond the First Name

    True personalization goes deeper than inserting a first name in the subject line. In higher education, it means dynamically adjusting content blocks based on program interest, geography, or behaviour. 

    For example, prospective Nursing students should see different resources than prospective Business students. International applicants may need tuition estimates in local currency or immigration guidance. Behavioural triggers, like a reminder to finish an application, show prospects you’re paying attention to their journey.

    Why is personalization important in higher education email marketing? Personalization helps students see themselves at your institution. Tailoring emails by program, start term, or action, such as reminding them of an unfinished application, makes communication feel relevant and timely. This reduces fatigue and unsubscribes while guiding students toward conversion more effectively than generic messages.

    Example: Arizona State University has invested in dynamic email content that highlights degree options, campus resources, and next-step reminders based on each student’s profile data. ASU’s own email marketing guidelines encourage the use of personalized fields and scripting for tailored messaging, ensuring that outreach feels individually relevant and helpful rather than generic.

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: Arizona State University

    4. Write Subject Lines and Previews That Earn the Open

    Subject lines and preview text are the most decisive factors in whether an email gets opened. In higher education, a few consistent principles stand out:

    • Clarity over cleverness: “Fall 2025 Application Deadline: Sept 30” outperforms vague teasers.
    • Specificity: call out the program or event directly (“Early Childhood Education: Virtual Info Session Tomorrow”).
    • Urgency and utility: use time-sensitive reminders, but avoid spammy tactics (“Last 48 hours for residence priority”).
    • Length: keep subject lines to 45–50 characters, and use preview text to complete the thought and front-load value.
    • Testing: run A/B tests where possible: subjects, preheaders, and sender names (e.g., “Admissions at Seneca”) are all worth experimenting with. Emoji can work sparingly for student audiences.

    Example: The University of Arizona’s marketing team advises keeping subject lines concise (30–50 characters) and imbued with a sense of urgency, while still indicating the email’s content. Their guidelines echo what many have found: clear, direct subject lines (often including deadlines or event details) tend to lift open rates, because recipients immediately grasp the email’s value.

    Source: The University of Arizona

    In a nutshell, what are the best practices for creating engaging subject lines in higher education email marketing? Keep subject lines clear, specific, and under 50 characters. Highlight benefits like deadlines, outcomes, or events, and use preheaders to expand the message. Test frequently with A/B experiments, and consider humanized sender names (e.g., “Admissions at [School]”) to increase open rates without relying on gimmicks.

    5. Design Mobile-First and Accessible

    Most students and parents first open emails on their phones, so mobile-first design isn’t optional. Use responsive templates, 16-pixel body text, and tappable CTAs with enough space to avoid errors. Break content into scannable blocks with headings and subheads, and avoid image-only buttons. 

    Accessibility should be built in: add alt text, maintain contrast ratios, and caption videos. Keeping one clear CTA helps prevent distraction while making the path forward obvious. Load times matter, too. Opt for system fonts, compressed images, and videos hosted externally.

    Example: The University of Toronto’s Future Students portal provides a good model for digestible, mobile-friendly content blocks. Information is organized in concise sections and bullet points that mirror best practices for responsive email design. By structuring content for quick scanning on a small screen, U of T ensures that key messages (from program highlights to “Apply Now” links) remain prominent and actionable even on mobile devices.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: University of Toronto

    6. Calibrate Timing and Frequency

    How often you email matters as much as what you send. A thoughtful cadence keeps your audience engaged without overwhelming them. Consider these practical benchmarks:

    • Prospects: 1–2 emails per week; increase frequency near application deadlines or events, then cool down.
    • Applicants/Admitted Students: Send transactional updates and personalized nudges; shield them from generic blasts.
    • Enrolled Students: A weekly digest from student affairs or the registrar is usually sufficient, plus urgent communications when needed.
    • Alumni: monthly updates with stories, impact reports, and targeted appeals tied to affinity or giving campaigns.

    Example: The University of Rochester balances its email frequency by audience: it sends all current students, faculty, and staff a brief daily bulletin for campus-wide announcements, but for undergraduates, it also delivers a focused weekly newsletter highlighting only the most important deadlines and updates for the coming week. This approach keeps students informed and on track (e.g., keeping current on scholarship deadlines or add/drop dates) without inundating them with multiple emails per day, illustrating how strategic timing and pacing can improve engagement.

    HEM Image 10HEM Image 10

    Source: University of Rochester

    7. Calls-To-Action That Convert

    The best emails guide students toward small, progressive steps that build confidence and commitment. Think of calls-to-action (CTAs) as a series of micro-conversions leading to the big one: enrollment.

    • Early stage: “Download the Business Degree Guide.”
    • Mid stage: “Register for the Sept 12 Virtual Info Session.”
    • Late stage: “Finish Your Application” or “Book a 1:1 with Admissions.”

    Example: Concordia University encourages one-on-one engagement by making it easy for prospects to connect with recruitment advisors. In their outreach and on their website, Concordia invites prospective students to “Speak with a recruiter” and provides direct contact links for regional advisors. 

    By embedding advisor contact/booking links in recruitment emails, they effectively turn email into a two-way channel, and prospects can immediately take the next step of scheduling a conversation, which is often a key conversion on the path to enrollment. This kind of CTA (e.g., “Book a 1:1 Advising Appointment”) helps move students from interest to action at the decision stage.

    HEM Image 8HEM Image 8

    Source: Concordia University

    8. Automate Journeys and Triggers

    Automation ensures no student falls through the cracks. It also frees staff time by replacing one-off sends with structured flows. At a minimum, schools should build:

    • Welcome or nurture series by program cluster (3–5 emails over 10–14 days).
    • Event workflows: registration confirmation → reminder emails (24 hours and 2 hours before) → post-event follow-up with recording and next step.
    • Application rescue: reminders for incomplete applications, missing documents, or deposits.
    • Onboarding journeys: orientation checklist, LMS login, housing information, advising milestones.

    Example: The University of Georgia’s admissions office uses automated “incomplete application” emails to prompt action from applicants. About 10–15 days after a student applies, if any required materials are still missing, UGA’s system sends a notification to alert the student. This kind of trigger-based outreach (in UGA’s case, coupled with a status portal for real-time updates) helps increase completion rates by nudging students at the right moment. Ensuring more prospects finish their applications and none are unknowingly left behind due to missing paperwork.

    HEM Image 9HEM Image 9

    Source: University of Georgia

    9. A/B Test Continuously (And Scientifically)

    Testing makes email performance predictable. Without it, you’re guessing. To get reliable insights, follow a structured method:

    • Hypothesis: define what you’re testing and why (e.g., “Clearer subject line → higher open rate”).
    • Minimal variable: test one change at a time: subject, CTA wording, or design. Not everything at once.
    • Sample & duration: send to enough recipients for statistical significance, and let the test run its course.
    • Centralize learnings: record results in a shared log and bake winners into future templates.

    This discipline helps schools turn experimentation into ongoing optimization, rather than one-off guesswork.

    Example: Arizona State University’s email marketing team bakes A/B testing into its processes and training. In fact, ASU’s internal Marketing Academy offers specific sessions on email A/B testing best practices. By systematically experimenting, for instance, testing whether an email from “Admissions at ASU” versus a personal advisor name yields a higher open rate, or which subject line phrasing drives more clicks, universities like ASU turn anecdotal hunches into data-backed decisions. The result is a cycle of learning where each campaign performs better than the last, based on real audience insights.

    HEM Image 13HEM Image 13

    Source: Arizona State University

    10. Measure What Matters and Close the Loop

    A great email program doesn’t just send, it learns. Schools should define KPIs at each stage of the student journey and connect systems so results tie back to outcomes that matter.

    • Top of funnel: track deliverability, open rates (adjusted for privacy changes), and click-through rates (CTR).
    • Mid-funnel: measure landing-page engagement, event registrations, and advisor bookings.
    • Bottom of funnel: monitor application starts and completions, offers accepted, and deposits paid.
    • Lifetime value: go further with retention term-to-term, alumni engagement, and giving participation.

    Tools make this possible. Google Analytics 4 allows schools to set and track conversion goals across web and email touchpoints. Marketing automation platforms like HubSpot, Mailchimp, and HEM’s Mautic provide email-level reporting, lifecycle attribution, and integration with CRMs or student information systems.

    The real power comes when those metrics are connected—so you can see not just who opened, but who enrolled. That’s how email proves its ROI in higher education.

    Example: UMass Amherst provides a powerful case study in data-driven email marketing. After consolidating campus communications onto a single platform, they now rigorously track email performance and outcomes. In 2022, UMass separated its email sends into transactional vs. commercial categories to better gauge effectiveness. The university sent 6.7 million marketing (commercial) emails with a 61% open rate and only a 0.10% unsubscribe rate, about half the industry benchmark.

    HEM Image 11HEM Image 11

    Source: Cloud for Good

    These granular metrics (including year-over-year improvements in opens and clicks) are tied back to student engagement and enrollment outcomes. By monitoring and sharing such results, the UMass team can conclusively demonstrate email ROI in higher education, for instance, showing that automated, targeted campaigns directly led to more applicants completing their files and more students registering for classes

    Deliverability, Privacy, and Compliance Essentials

    Even the best-designed email is wasted if it never reaches the inbox. To protect deliverability and ensure compliance, schools need to focus on three pillars: technical health, consent, and governance.

    • Authenticate your domain with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. Align subdomains for bulk mail so your institution sends with a verifiable identity.
    • Maintain list hygiene by removing hard bounces automatically and applying “sunset rules” for long-inactive contacts. This keeps the sender’s reputation strong.
    • Comply with Canadian Anti-Spam Law (CASL): capture express opt-in, include your institution’s physical mailing address, and provide a one-click unsubscribe.
    • Offer preference centres so subscribers can opt out of specific program streams rather than unsubscribing from all communications.
    • Monitor sender reputation and complaint rates across platforms. Coordinate centrally across departments to avoid overlap that leads to over-messaging.

    Schools that treat deliverability and compliance as core practices, not afterthoughts, protect both their brand and their audience’s trust, while ensuring every message has a fair chance of being read.

    Content Strategy: What to Send (And When)

    The most effective email marketing calendars are tied to the academic cycle. By planning content around what matters most to students at each stage, schools can stay relevant, reduce last-minute scrambles, and guide prospects and current learners smoothly from interest to enrollment, and beyond.

    • September–October: Focus on discovery. Send “Explore Programs” series, scholarship primers, and fall open house invitations to capture interest early in the cycle.
    • November–December: Support applications. Share step-by-step application checklists, portfolio preparation guides, and alumni career stories that reinforce outcomes.
    • January–February: Address financial and career considerations. Feature financial aid tutorials, co-op or internship spotlights, and “Ask an Advisor” live chats to build trust and reduce barriers.
    • March–April: Drive urgency. Countdown emails for application deadlines, residence selection reminders, and campus life reels or shorts work well here.
    • May–June: Transition from admission to enrollment. Focus on onboarding with orientation sign-ups, registrar instructions, and personalized next-step communications.
    • July–August: Provide last-mile support. Send guidance on IDs, transit, and housing, plus international arrival instructions to prepare students for day one.

    A calendar like this ensures that your emails are not just timely, but also aligned with the emotional and practical needs of your audience throughout the year.

    Turning Best Practices Into Results

    Email remains one of the most powerful tools available to higher education marketers, but only when strategy and technology work hand in hand. The best practices outlined here are: permission-based lists, segmentation, personalization, accessibility, automation, and compliance. Ensure every message is not just delivered but resonates with the right audience at the right time.

    This is where Higher Education Marketing (HEM) makes the difference. With deep sector expertise, we help schools design and execute email strategies that align with recruitment, retention, and advancement goals. 

    Central to this is our use of Mautic CRM, an open-source higher education email marketing automation platform customized for educational institutions. Mautic allows institutions to manage campaigns, segment audiences, automate journeys, and integrate seamlessly with student information systems, all while keeping data governance and compliance front and center.

    By combining best-practice strategy with the flexibility of Mautic CRM, HEM enables institutions to run smarter, more personalized campaigns that drive measurable ROI across the student lifecycle. The result is simple: stronger engagement, higher conversion rates, and a more connected experience for every student, from prospect to alumni. Do you need help crafting an effective marketing strategy for student recruitment for your institution? Contact HEM for more information.

    Struggling with enrollment and retention?

    Our email marketing services can help you generate more leads!

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: How can segmentation improve the effectiveness of email marketing for higher education?
    Answer: Segmentation makes emails more relevant, which increases engagement. For example, international prospects segmented by country can receive updates on visas and housing, while domestic students see local funding options. Segmenting by lifecycle stage, program, and behaviour helps improve click-throughs and leads to better-qualified student interactions.

    Question: What are the best practices for creating engaging subject lines in higher education email marketing?
    Answer: Keep subject lines clear, specific, and under 50 characters. Highlight benefits like deadlines, outcomes, or events, and use preheaders to expand the message. Test frequently with A/B experiments, and consider humanized sender names (e.g., “Admissions at [School]”) to increase open rates without relying on gimmicks.

    Question: Why is personalization important in higher education email marketing?
    Answer: Personalization helps students see themselves at your institution. Tailoring emails by program, start term, or action, such as reminding them of an unfinished application, makes communication feel relevant and timely. This reduces fatigue and unsubscribes while guiding students toward conversion more effectively than generic messages.

    Source link

  • Building a Referral-Based Educational Consulting Practice

    Building a Referral-Based Educational Consulting Practice

    As an independent educational consultant (IEC), you already know that word-of-mouth referrals are one of the most powerful ways to grow a private college counseling practice. Families trust recommendations from other parents far more than ads, posts, or websites.

    But here’s the challenge:

    even when students succeed and parents are thrilled, referrals don’t always happen on their own.

    Many consultants wonder:

    How do I actually ask for referrals?

    What strategies make parents want to spread the word about my college admissions services?

    This post brings together proven referral strategies from fellow consultants to help you strengthen your college counseling business. Why? Because we counsel more students when we share knowledge, resources, and candid professional advice.

    Source link

  • The complex dynamics of principal turnover in modern educational institutions

    The complex dynamics of principal turnover in modern educational institutions

    Key points:

    The departure and replacement of school principals represents one of the most significant organizational changes within educational institutions, creating ripple effects that permeate every aspect of school operations. This phenomenon, increasingly prevalent in contemporary education systems, deserves thorough examination for its profound impact on institutional effectiveness, academic achievement, and organizational stability.

    When a principal exits an educational institution, the immediate effects reverberate throughout the entire school system. The administrative vacuum extends far beyond mere personnel changes, as new principals invariably bring distinct leadership philosophies, strategic priorities, and management approaches that can fundamentally reshape the school’s operational framework. Current research in educational leadership suggests that schools typically require between three to five years to fully stabilize following leadership transitions, indicating that frequent turnover can trap institutions in continuous cycles of adjustment and reorganization.

    The principal’s role transcends traditional administrative leadership, functioning as the cultural architect of the school community. During leadership transitions, the delicate fabric of established relationships between administration, faculty, and staff enters a period of uncertainty and realignment. The school’s cultural identity, carefully constructed through years of shared experiences and mutual understanding, often undergoes substantial transformation as new leadership implements alternative approaches to community building and professional collaboration. This cultural shift can significantly impact teacher motivation, student engagement, and overall school climate.

    Academic program integrity and student achievement metrics frequently experience fluctuations during principal transitions. New leaders typically introduce fresh perspectives on curriculum implementation, instructional methodologies, and resource allocation strategies. While innovation and new approaches can catalyze positive change, frequent shifts in academic direction may disrupt educational continuity and student progress. Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that schools experiencing frequent principal turnover often exhibit temporary declines in student achievement metrics, with particularly pronounced effects in high-poverty areas where stability serves as a crucial factor for student success.

    The impact extends deep into stakeholder relationships and community partnerships. Parents, community organizations, and local partners must adapt to new leadership styles, communication protocols, and institutional priorities. The critical process of building and maintaining trust, essential for effective school-community partnerships, frequently requires renewal with each leadership change. This cyclical process can affect various aspects of school operations, from volunteer program effectiveness to community support for school initiatives and funding proposals.

    Professional development trajectories and staff retention patterns often undergo significant changes during principal transitions. Different leaders may emphasize various areas of professional growth or implement modified evaluation systems, directly affecting teacher satisfaction and career advancement opportunities. Research indicates a strong correlation between principal turnover and increased teacher attrition rates, creating compound effects on institutional stability and educational continuity. This relationship suggests that leadership stability plays a crucial role in maintaining a consistent and experienced teaching staff.

    The challenges of strategic planning become particularly acute in environments characterized by frequent leadership changes. Multi-year improvement initiatives risk interruption or abandonment as new principals implement different priorities and approaches. This instability can affect various aspects of school development, from technology integration plans to curriculum development initiatives, potentially compromising the institution’s ability to achieve long-term educational objectives and maintain consistent progress toward established goals.

    Educational institutions can implement various strategies to minimize the negative impacts of principal turnover, including developing comprehensive transition protocols, maintaining detailed documentation of ongoing initiatives, creating strong distributed leadership teams, establishing clear communication channels during transitions, and building robust institutional memory through systematic record-keeping. These mitigation strategies prove essential for maintaining organizational stability and educational effectiveness during periods of leadership change.

    The implications of principal turnover extend throughout the educational ecosystem, influencing everything from daily operations to long-term strategic initiatives. Understanding these complex dynamics becomes increasingly crucial for educational stakeholders, policymakers, and administrators in developing effective strategies to maintain institutional stability and educational quality during leadership transitions. As educational institutions continue to evolve in response to changing societal needs and expectations, the ability to manage leadership transitions effectively becomes paramount for ensuring consistent, high-quality education for all students.

    This comprehensive analysis of principal turnover effects provides valuable insights for educational professionals, administrators, and policymakers working to create more stable and effective learning environments. The ongoing challenge lies in balancing the potential benefits of new leadership perspectives with the fundamental need for institutional stability and continuous educational improvement, all while maintaining focus on the ultimate goal: providing optimal learning opportunities for students in an ever-changing educational landscape.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Fulbright at 75, Reform at 30: recasting US-Korea educational exchange

    Fulbright at 75, Reform at 30: recasting US-Korea educational exchange

    This year marks the 75th anniversary of the Fulbright Program in Korea, one of the oldest and most robust binational educational exchanges in the world.

    Coinciding with this milestone is the 30th anniversary of South Korea’s landmark 5.31 Education Reform – a policy blueprint that sought to transform the nation’s education system into a more open and globally competitive ecosystem.

    The Fulbright legacy in Korea illustrates how long-term bilateral cooperation has scaffolded national education strategies and fostered intellectual diplomacy across generations.

    The strategic alliance between the Republic of Korea and the United States has been underpinned by an enduring educational partnership. Education has always been more than a soft-power tool in this relationship; it has served as a central pillar for shared values, talent development, policy learning, and institutional co-evolution.

    At a time when the Indo-Pacific region is undergoing profound geopolitical, technological, and demographic shifts, reaffirming the educational ties between Korea and the US is a strategic imperative.

    Fulbright Korea: peacebuilding through knowledge

    Established through a 1950 agreement, Korea became one of the first countries to join the Fulbright Program, though the Korean War delayed its launch until 1960. Revised agreements in 1963 and 1972 created the Korean-American Educational Commission (KAEC) and introduced joint funding, making Korea one of 49 nations to co-finance the programme with the US.

    Since then, Korea has often matched or exceeded US contributions. Today, KAEC awards over 200 grants annually to Korean and American participants, supporting a global network of Fulbright scholars and more than 7,600 Korean alumni across diverse fields.

    Fulbright Korea exemplifies educational diplomacy at its best. Graduate fellowships support future policymakers and scientists, while English teaching assistants serve across Korea’s provinces, enhancing not just language acquisition but also cross-cultural understanding.

    These initiatives echo the lifelong learning ambitions embedded in Korea’s broader educational reforms, showing how international exchange and domestic innovation can reinforce each other. These long-standing programs have strengthened Korea’s education system while fostering mutual understanding, helping to build enduring people-to-people ties that support bilateral cooperation.

    Fulbright Korea exemplifies educational diplomacy at its best

    The US also supports student mobility and academic advising in Korea through EducationUSA, housed at KAEC, which offers Korean students up-to-date information on American higher education. Korea continues to rank among the top sending countries of international students to the US, with over 43,000 enrolled in 2023/24, making it the third-largest sender.

    While the Ministry of Education’s 2024 data reports 3,179 American students enrolled in Korean higher education, US study abroad figures suggest that nearly twice as many participate in programmes based in Korea. The US has also been recognised as a key partner in Korea’s Study Korea 300K Project, which seeks to host 300,000 international students by 2027.

    Institutional transformation and globalisation

    The 5.31 Education Reform, declared in 1995 amidst the waves of globalisation, aimed to modernise Korea’s education system through two core principles: globalisation and informatisation.

    These pillars reshaped how universities operate, allowing for greater curricular flexibility, the introduction of credit banking and recognition of prior learning, and the rapid adoption of digital tools. Competitive government initiatives like Brain Korea 21 and, later, the University Restructuring Plan incentivised research output and global benchmarking.

    Despite uneven implementation, the reform not only accelerated the internationalisation of Korean higher education but also deepened its ties with US institutions. By 2008/09, over 75,000 Korean students were enrolled in US higher education, placing Korea among the top sending countries globally.

    Given its relatively small population, this figure represented the highest per capita rate of US-bound students in the world. At the same time, Korea became an increasingly attractive destination for American students, with study abroad numbers growing substantially over the past two decades, growing from 2,062 in 2008/09 to 5,909 in 2022/23.

    Even before the 5.31 reform, US higher education institutions played a pivotal role. In the decades following the Korean War, American graduate programs served as critical training grounds for a generation of Korean scholars. These individuals returned not as passive recipients or brokers of foreign models but as active knowledge creators who adapted global ideas to local contexts, built research infrastructure, and mentored emerging academics.

    This process of intellectual circulation laid the groundwork for Korea’s ascent in global university rankings and research productivity. Foundational initiatives such as the Minnesota Project and the US-supported establishment of KAIST in 1971 were emblematic of this transformation.

    Transnational education and role of program providers

    Transnational education has added new depth to Korea-US educational co-operation. The Incheon Global Campus, which hosts the Korean branches of five US universities, enables local students to earn US degrees without leaving the country.

    These institutions bring American accreditation standards and pedagogical approaches into the Korean context, serving as important centres for cross-cultural learning and academic collaboration. Increasingly, they also function as supportive platforms for study abroad, facilitating intercultural engagement. Modest but meaningful forms of faculty and scholarly exchange further enrich these settings.

    Not-for-profit organisations such as IES Abroad have also become indispensable facilitators of educational exchange. Marking its 75th anniversary in 2025 as well, IES Abroad shares a parallel legacy with Fulbright Korea in advancing international education.

    Its recently established Seoul Center has already hosted over 220 US students, exemplifying the growing role of study abroad programme providers in fostering engagement with Korean society. By offering for-credit academic programmes, cultural and language immersion, and hands-on learning opportunities, these providers play a crucial role in sustaining the depth and accessibility of bilateral educational exchange.

    Toward mutuality and innovation

    Together, these developments have yielded significant accomplishments: a thriving academic pipeline, robust knowledge circulation, improved global rankings for Korean institutions, and a steady increase in intercultural literacy among students from both countries. Korean graduates with US degrees now occupy leadership roles in government, academia, and business. American students return with deeper cultural understanding, with many pursuing careers in diplomacy, education, or East Asia-focused industries.

    However, challenges remain. Some observers have raised concerns about the asymmetrical flow of talent, particularly during earlier decades when “brain drain” seemed more plausible than circulation.

    Others caution against over-Americanisation in curricula and institutional culture. Korea’s demographic decline and the rising cost of US education now pose additional obstacles to sustained exchange. National policy shifts, ideological realignments, and increasing public scrutiny of foreign involvement in higher education further complicate the outlook.

    Reimagining educational diplomacy

    The pressing challenges highlight the importance of rearticulating a shared vision for the future, particularly as the direction of bilateral commitments established under previous administrations continues to evolve.

    Mutual investment in scholarship funds, stronger collaboration among diverse stakeholders within the broader international education field, more accessible hybrid learning models, and enhanced joint governance of transnational campuses can all help to future-proof the Korea-US educational partnership.

    In 2025, as we commemorate 75 years of Fulbright Korea and IES Abroad, and reflect on 30 years since Korea’s 5.31 reform, it becomes evident that international exchange and domestic transformation are not separate trajectories but mutually reinforcing forces. Korea-US educational cooperation has evolved from aid-driven assistance to a platform for peer-to-peer growth and innovation.

    If approached strategically, the next chapter of this relationship can not only address pressing policy challenges but also reimagine the purpose of education in a world increasingly defined by brittleness, anxiety, nonlinearity, and incomprehensibility.

    Source link

  • NEA Executive Committee Reverses Member Vote to Boycott ADL Educational Materials

    NEA Executive Committee Reverses Member Vote to Boycott ADL Educational Materials

    ADL CEO Jonathan GreenblattThe National Education Association’s (NEA) executive committee has rejected a resolution passed by union members that would have severed ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), preserving access to educational materials on antisemitism and Holocaust education amid rising campus tensions.

    The decision, announced Friday by NEA President Becky Pringle, came after the union’s Representative Assembly voted last week in Portland, Oregon, to cut ties with the civil rights organization over its characterization of campus protests related to the Gaza conflict as antisemitic.

    “Following the culmination of a thorough review process, it was determined that this proposal would not further NEA’s commitment to academic freedom,” Pringle said in a statement. The rejection preserves educators’ access to ADL curricula and professional development programs that address antisemitism in educational settings.

    The controversy highlights the complex challenges facing educational institutions as they navigate discussions about antisemitism, campus climate, and academic freedom in the aftermath of increased tensions following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and subsequent Gaza conflict.

    The executive committee’s decision followed an unprecedented coalition effort, with nearly 400 Jewish organizations and dozens of elected officials urging the NEA to reject the boycott proposal. The coalition argued that excluding ADL materials would harm efforts to combat antisemitism in schools and marginalize Jewish educators and students.

    “This resolution was not just an attack on the ADL, but a larger attack against Jewish educators, students, and families,” said a joint statement from ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations COO Stephanie Hausner, and Jewish Federations of North America Executive Vice President Shira Hutt.

    The Jewish leaders emphasized that the proposed boycott would have normalized “antisemitic isolation, othering, and marginalization of Jewish teachers, students and families in our schools,” even as teachers’ unions have limited power to dictate curriculum.

    The debate reflects broader tensions on college and K-12 campuses nationwide, where Jewish students and faculty have reported increased incidents of antisemitism alongside pro-Palestinian advocacy efforts. The ADL’s annual reporting on antisemitic incidents has itself become a point of contention, with some progressive Jewish leaders questioning whether the organization conflates legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism.

    Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, offered a nuanced perspective: “It’s possible to disagree with ADL without cutting off all engagement — which would undercut our shared goals of countering antisemitism and broader hate and bias.”

    Pringle clarified that rejecting the boycott proposal was not an endorsement of “the ADL’s full body of work” but acknowledged the organization’s role in addressing rising antisemitism. She met with ADL CEO Greenblatt to discuss the union’s processes and reaffirm the NEA’s commitment to combating antisemitism.

    Source link

  • Addressing educational poverty – HEPI

    Addressing educational poverty – HEPI

    • By Pam Tatlow, Policy Adviser to the Cathedrals Group of Universities

    The Government’s decision to extend free school meals to an estimated 500,000 primary school children is a win-win, both in addressing disadvantage and supporting learning and attainment. In fact, all primary-age school children in Scotland and London now receive free school meals, with an evaluation of the latter concluding that its impact was overwhelmingly positive and that for some children, school attendance and mental well-being had also been improved.

    It’s clear that free school meals are a worthwhile investment of Department of Education resources. It is also why Ministers should maximise take-up in England by linking auto-enrolment of Free Schools Meals with universal credit and pupil premium.

    But why should universities care about Free School Meals? The answer is quite simple, especially if, like the Cathedrals Group of Universities, you recruit students who progress to university later in life. In some universities, many students are parents and carers in their own right who will undoubtedly benefit from widening the eligibility for free school meals. It’s a policy that has inter-generational impact as well as positive impacts on the children of today.  

    Moreover, rising levels of inequality as documented by the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank and in the UK by Danny Dorling, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Oxford, constrain not only economic growth (an objective of Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer) but also educational attainment – a fact not lost on Professor Becky Francis, Chair of the government’s Curriculum and Assessment review who concluded in 2015 ‘that all the data supports the idea that the socioeconomic divide is the biggest issue in education’. While diverse in size, Cathedrals Group Universities continue to play a key role in educating the teachers of the future, but crucially are also united by a commitment to social justice – and this means a continuing interest in measures that address inequality.

    The June Spending Review was notable for its silence on other measures which might directly support educational attainment beyond the primary stage. There is still time for Ministers to recognise that supporting pupils and students during their studies is an investment in their futures that will pay dividends in terms of monetised and non-monetised benefits for individuals, communities and ultimately the Treasury itself.

    At the secondary phase, Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was a weekly payment to disadvantaged young people aged 16-19 in full-time education. Introduced in 1999, expanded nationwide in 2004, the EMA was abolished by the Coalition Government in England in October 2010, with the 2010/11 academic year marking the final year of the scheme. Replaced by a 16-19 Bursary Fund that continues today, the Fund has a significantly reduced budget and, other than for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people, is administered at the discretion of colleges and training providers, which decide their own schemes.

    The difference between this Fund and the EMA is stark. EMA provided direct payments to young people for which they could apply before opting for a specific post-16 education course or institution. As shown by its continuation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the EMA remains a popular policy with young people (who were not consulted about its abolition in England). Research by the Edge Foundation confirmed that the EMA had a positive impact on post-16 education participation and retention rates among young people from lower-income families and those with disabilities. Although the school leaving age has been increased to 18 for over a decade, there are often costs associated with post-16 study, such as specialist equipment and transport, for which young people get little support. What does exist in England is discretionary and dependent on a postcode lottery.

    Then there’s higher education, which by common agreement needs a new funding model in England and, in the view of the Cathedrals Group, more direct government investment. Investment in universities and investment to address the hardship of students are two sides of the same coin. If maintenance support for students is increased by inflation, it will be welcome but not enough. London Economics research for the Sutton Trust in 2024 confirmed that the abolition of maintenance grants (which did not have to be repaid) has resulted in students from the poorest families incurring the highest debts during their studies. Moreover, parental income thresholds, which determine when parents are expected to contribute to the living costs of their children at university, have remained frozen at £25,000 pa. The same research estimated that in real terms, household income thresholds should have increased to £32,535 and that students from poorer households could graduate with over £60,000 of debt, 38% higher than those from wealthier families.

    Universities know only too well about educational poverty. Notwithstanding the pressures on institutional funding, many have increased their hardship funds. In spite of their best efforts, including money advice, demand from students for financial support outstrips budgets. Hepi and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Experience Survey confirms that cost-of-living concerns have impacted on students’ studies but also the extent to which students now combine study and paid employment with the average total of study and workload hours for students who work standing at 44.3 hours a week – ‘higher than the average full-time job in the UK’.

    And to end where we began: in Finland, there are no free school meals because the provision of free meals is an integral part of the Finnish education system – the same system which is consistently ranked first among all OECD countries in education and in terms of the outcomes and well-being of its pupils and students. Only the Treasury can now help square the circle and address educational poverty of pupils, students and their families at every stage of their educational journey. Such a strategy would not only support the government’s stated ambition to tackle inequality but also Ministers’ aspiration to improve educational attainment – a win all round.

    Source link

  • Organization of Educational Historians National Conference, September 26-27th Online

    Organization of Educational Historians National Conference, September 26-27th Online

    Save the date – September 26-27! As a non-profit educational organization, we hope you will join us at our annual conference! If you are looking for a conference that includes sharing histories of education to help define present processes and inform the development of future responses, we hope you will join us and attend our annual conference. This year’s conference will include at least one panel on aspects of how artificial intelligence will impact educational history, but there will be many other panels. While the final conference schedule is still in development, this poster features examples of previous topics at the annual conference, so we can’t guarantee sessions on all these topics yet, but they demonstrate our past conference topics and may be indicative of what will be in this year’s conference. Our conference being offered online ensures low cost as we seek to invite many scholars into the organization by keeping travel costs low – and a full year’s membership, complete with the journal and attendance at the conference, remains affordable with a student rate ($60) and a regular rate (non-student) ($120)! With a peer-reviewed journal, an annual conference attendance complete with a noted keynote speaker, and a membership, we are dedicated to ensuring as many people as are interested can attend our conference. As you look to the fall, save the date and register here to attend: http://www.edhistorians.org/annual-meeting.html

    Source link

  • AI, Irreality and the Liberal Educational Project (opinion)

    AI, Irreality and the Liberal Educational Project (opinion)

    I work at Marquette University. As a Roman Catholic, Jesuit university, we’re called to be an academic community that, as Pope John Paul II wrote, “scrutinize[s] reality with the methods proper to each academic discipline.” That’s a tall order, and I remain in the academy, for all its problems, because I find that job description to be the best one on offer, particularly as we have the honor of practicing this scrutinizing along with ever-renewing groups of students.

    This bedrock assumption of what a university is continues to give me hope for the liberal educational project despite the ongoing neoliberalization of higher education and some administrators’ and educators’ willingness to either look the other way regarding or uncritically celebrate the generative software (commonly referred to as “generative artificial intelligence”) explosion over the last two years.

    In the time since my last essay in Inside Higher Ed, and as Marquette’s director of academic integrity, I’ve had plenty of time to think about this and to observe praxis. In contrast to the earlier essay, which was more philosophical, let’s get more practical here about how access to generative software is impacting higher education and our students and what we might do differently.

    At the academic integrity office, we recently had a case in which a student “found an academic article” by prompting ChatGPT to find one for them. The chat bot obeyed, as mechanisms do, and generated a couple pages of text with a title. This was not from any actual example of academic writing but instead was a statistically probable string of text having no basis in the real world of knowledge and experience. The student made a short summary of that text and submitted it. They were, in the end, not found in violation of Marquette’s honor code, since what they submitted was not plagiarized. It was a complex situation to analyze and interpret, done by thoughtful people who care about the integrity of our academic community: The system works.

    In some ways, though, such activity is more concerning than plagiarism, for, at least when students plagiarize, they tend to know the ways they are contravening social and professional codes of conduct—the formalizations of our principles of working together honestly. In this case, the student didn’t see the difference between a peer-reviewed essay published by an academic journal and a string of probabilistically generated text in a chat bot’s dialogue box. To not see the difference between these two things—or to not care about that difference—is more disconcerting and concerning to me than straightforward breaches of an honor code, however harmful and sad such breaches are.

    I already hear folks saying: “That’s why we need AI literacy!” We do need to educate our students (and our colleagues) on what generative software is and is not. But that’s not enough. Because one also needs to want to understand and, as is central to the Ignatian Pedagogical Paradigm that we draw upon at Marquette, one must understand in context.

    Another case this spring term involved a student whom I had spent several months last fall teaching in a writing course that took “critical AI” as its subject matter. Yet this spring term the student still used a chat bot to “find a quote in a YouTube video” for an assignment and then commented briefly on that quote. The problem was that the quote used in the assignment does not appear in the selected video. It was a simulacrum of a quote; it was a string of probabilistically generated text, which is all generative software can produce. It did not accurately reflect reality, and the student did not cite the chat bot they’d copied and pasted from, so they were found in violation of the honor code.

    Another student last term in the Critical AI class prompted Microsoft Copilot to give them quotations from an essay, which it mechanically and probabilistically did. They proceeded to base their three-page argument on these quotations, none of which said anything like what the author in question actually said (not even the same topic); their argument was based in irreality. We cannot scrutinize reality together if we cannot see reality. And many of our students (and colleagues) are, at least at times, not seeing reality right now. They’re seeing probabilistic text as “good enough” as, or conflated with, reality.

    Let me point more precisely to the problem I’m trying to put my finger on. The student who had a chat bot “find” a quote from a video sent an email to me, which I take to be completely in earnest and much of which I appreciated. They ended the email by letting me know that they still think that “AI” is a really powerful and helpful tool, especially as it “continues to improve.” The cognitive dissonance between the situation and the student’s assertion took me aback.

    Again: the problem with the “We just need AI literacy” argument. People tend not to learn what they do not want to learn. If our students (and people generally) do not particularly want to do work, and they have been conditioned by the use of computing and their society’s habits to see computing as an intrinsic good, “AI” must be a powerful and helpful tool. It must be able to do all the things that all the rich and powerful people say it does. It must not need discipline or critical acumen to employ, because it will “supercharge” your productivity or give you “10x efficiency” (whatever that actually means). And if that’s the case, all these educators telling you not to offload your cognition must be behind the curve, or reactionaries. At the moment, we can teach at least some people all about “AI literacy” and it will not matter, because such knowledge refuses to jibe with the mythology concerning digital technology so pervasive in our society right now.

    If we still believe in the value of humanistic, liberal education, we cannot be quiet about these larger social systems and problems that shape our pupils, our selves and our institutions. We cannot be quiet about these limits of vision and questioning. Because not only do universities exist for the scrutinizing of reality with the various methods of the disciplines as noted at the outset of this essay, but liberal education also assumes a view of the human person that does not see education as instrumental but as formative.

    The long tradition of liberal education, for all its complicity in social stratification down the centuries, assumes that our highest calling is not to make money, to live in comfort, to be entertained. (All three are all right in their place, though we must be aware of how our moneymaking, comfort and entertainment derive from the exploitation of the most vulnerable humans and the other creatures with whom we share the earth, and how they impact our own spiritual health.)

    We are called to growth and wisdom, to caring for the common good of the societies in which we live—which at this juncture certainly involves caring for our common home, the Earth, and the other creatures living with us on it. As Antiqua et nova, the note released from the Vatican’s Dicastery for Culture and Education earlier this year (cited commendingly by secular ed-tech critics like Audrey Watters) reiterates, education plays its role in this by contributing “to the person’s holistic formation in its various aspects (intellectual, cultural, spiritual, etc.) … in keeping with the nature and dignity of the human person.”

    These objectives of education are not being served by students using generative software to satisfy their instructors’ prompts. And no amount of “literacy” is going to ameliorate the situation on its own. People have to want to change, or to see through the neoliberal, machine-obsessed myth, for literacy to matter.

    I do believe that the students I’ve referred to are generally striving for the good as they know how. On a practical level, I am confident they’ll go on to lead modestly successful lives as our society defines that term with regard to material well-being. I assume their motivation is not to cause harm or dupe their instructors; they’re taking part in “hustle” culture, “doing school” and possibly overwhelmed by all their commitments. Even if all this is indeed the case, liberal education calls us to more, and it’s the role of instructors and administrators to invite our students into that larger vision again and again.

    If we refuse to give up on humanistic, liberal education, then what do we do? The answer is becoming clearer by the day, with plenty of folks all over the internet weighing in, though it is one many of us do not really want to hear. Because at least one major part of the answer is that we need to make an education genuinely oriented toward our students. A human-scale education, not an industrial-scale education (let’s recall over and over that computers are industrial technology). The grand irony of the generative software moment for education in neoliberal, late-capitalist society is that it is revealing so many of the limits we’ve been putting on education in the first place.

    If we can’t “AI literacy” our educational problems away, we have to change our pedagogy. We have to change the ways we interact with our students inside the classroom and out: to cultivate personal relationships with them whenever possible, to model the intellectual life as something that is indeed lived out with the whole person in a many-partied dialogue stretching over millennia, decidedly not as the mere ability to move information around. This is not a time for dismay or defeat but an incitement to do the experimenting, questioning, joyful intellectual work many of us have likely wanted to do all along but have not had a reason to go off script for.

    This probably means getting creative. Part of getting creative in our day probably means de-computing (as Dan McQuillan at the University of London labels it). To de-compute is to ask ourselves—given our ambient maximalist computing habits of the last couple decades—what is of value in this situation? What is important here? And then: Does a computer add value to this that it is not detracting from in some other way? Computers may help educators collect assignments neatly and read them clearly, but if that convenience is outweighed by constantly having to wonder if a student has simply copied and pasted or patch-written text with generative software, is the value of the convenience worth the problems?

    Likewise, getting creative in our day probably means looking at the forms of our assessments. If the highly structured student essay makes it easier for instructors to assess because of its regularity and predictability, yet that very regularity and predictability make it a form that chat bots can produce fairly readily, well: 1) the value for assessing may not be worth the problems of teeing up chat bot–ifiable assignments and 2) maybe that wasn’t the best form for inviting genuinely insightful and exciting intellectual engagement with our disciplines’ materials in the first place.

    I’ve experimented with research journals rather than papers, with oral exams as structured conversations, with essays that focus intently on one detail of a text and do not need introductions and conclusions and that privilege the student’s own voice, and other in-person, handmade, leaving-the-classroom kinds of assessments over the last academic year. Not everything succeeded the way I wanted, but it was a lively, interactive year. A convivial year. A year in which mostly I did not have to worry about whether students were automating their educations.

    We have a chance as educators to rethink everything in light of what we want for our societies and for our students; let’s not miss it because it’s hard to redesign assignments and courses. (And it is hard.) Let’s experiment, for our own sakes and for our students’ sakes. Let’s experiment for the sakes of our institutions that, though they are often scoffed at in our popular discourse, I hope we believe in as vibrant communities in which we have the immense privilege of scrutinizing reality together.

    Jacob Riyeff is a teaching associate professor and director of academic integrity at Marquette University.

    Source link

  • AI as an Educational Ally: Innovative Strategies for Classroom Integration – Faculty Focus

    AI as an Educational Ally: Innovative Strategies for Classroom Integration – Faculty Focus

    Source link