Across the country, education is on the brink of significant change. As schools, districts, and policymakers grapple with the realities of a rapidly evolving workforce that requires discipline-specific knowledge, high-tech know-how, and hands-on skills, there is a growing recognition that the traditional approaches to preparing students for the real world no longer suffice.
This shift brings uncertainty and anxiety for district leaders here in Indiana. Change can be intimidating, especially when the stakes are as high as the future success of our students. Yet, this moment also holds immense potential to redefine what it means to truly ready them for a workplace that is continually reinventing itself.
To confront the challenges future-focused schools face, we’re sharing our approach from two distinct, but complementary, perspectives. One, from the superintendent of Eastern Hancock Schools, a small, rural district in Indiana that is deeply rooted in its community and focused on creating opportunities for students through strong local partnerships. The other, from the president and CEO of Project Lead The Way (PLTW), a national nonprofit organization that provides schools with innovative, hands-on, project-based STEM curriculum designed to develop critical skills and knowledge, while preparing students for careers beyond the classroom.
While we work in different contexts, our shared mission of preparing students and educators for an ever-changing world unites us. Together, we aim to highlight the excitement and possibility that change can bring when approached with readiness and purpose.
Redefining what it means to be ready
The jobs of tomorrow will demand far more than technical knowledge. As industries transform at warp speed, accelerated by AI, automation, and other technological advancements, many of today’s students will enter careers that don’t yet exist.
Preparing them for this reality requires educators to focus on more than just meeting academic benchmarks or prepping for the next standardized test. It demands fostering critical thinking, collaboration, communication skills, and, perhaps most importantly, confidence–characteristics many employers say are lacking among today’s graduates.
At Eastern Hancock, this preparation begins by creating opportunities for students to connect their learning to real-world applications. The district’s robust work-based learning program allows juniors and seniors to spend part of their day in professional placements across industries, such as construction, healthcare, engineering, and education, where they receive hands-on training. These experiences not only provide exposure to potential careers but also help students develop soft skills, including teamwork and problem-solving, that are critical for success in any field.
We also know that when students have earlier access to STEM learning and concepts, they are more inclined to pursue a STEM-driven career, such as computer science and engineering. Students in PLTW programs tackle meaningful problems as capable contributors, such as designing prototypes to address environmental issues, exploring biomedical innovations, and solving arising problems like cybersecurity and information safety.
Preparation, however, is about more than providing opportunities. Many students dismiss career paths because they lack the self-assurance to see themselves thriving in those roles. Both Eastern Hancock and PLTW work to break down these barriers–helping students build self-esteem, explore new possibilities, and develop confidence in chosen fields they may have once considered out of reach.
Empowering educators to lead with confidence
While students are at the heart of these changes, educators are the driving force behind them. For many teachers, however, change can feel overwhelming, even threatening. Resistance to new approaches often stems from a fear of irrelevance or a lack of preparation. To truly transform education, it is essential to support teachers with the resources, tools, and confidence they need to thrive in evolving classrooms.
PLTW’s professional development programs equip educators with training that builds their capacity to lead transformative learning experiences. Teachers leave PLTW sessions with practical strategies, a renewed sense of purpose, and the self-assurance to inspire their students through immersive classroom experiences.
At Eastern Hancock, the promise of growth drives efforts to support educators through professional development that aligns with their goals and the district’s vision. Teachers collaborate to set meaningful objectives, fostering a culture of innovation and shared purpose. This approach ensures that educators feel prepared not only to guide students but also to grow alongside them.
Blending a local approach and national reach illustrates how schools and organizations at every level can work together to address the shared challenge of preparing and supporting educators for the future. By empowering teachers with the tools and confidence they need, both Eastern Hancock and PLTW demonstrate how readiness can ripple outward to transform entire communities.
Delivering on the promises of education
Indiana’s reimagined graduation requirements offer schools the chance to redefine what it means to be truly prepared for the future. At Eastern Hancock, we’ve seen how aligned values–like those we share with PLTW–can inspire new ways of thinking about career readiness. We’re both deeply committed to ensuring students are equipped with the skills, experiences, and confidence they need to thrive in an unpredictable world.
Change may cause anxiety, but it also creates opportunities for innovation, growth, and excitement. When educators, students, and communities embrace readiness, the future of education becomes a source of hope and possibility-for Indiana and for the nation.
George Philhower, Ed.D., Eastern Hancock Schools & David L. Dimmett, Ed. D., MBOE, Project Lead The Way
George Philhower, Ed.D., is superintendent of Eastern Hancock Schools, a rural district just east of Indianapolis.
David L. Dimmett, Ed. D., MBOE, is president and CEO of Project Lead The Way, a national non-profit organization providing hands-on learning experiences to PreK-12 students across the U.S.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Duke Universityis offering voluntary buyouts for employees and has frozen hiring as it braces for federal funding cuts, the institution said Wednesday.
The North Carolina institution signaled that layoffs were likely in the coming months, but said it is “pursuing several employment actions now in hopes of reducing the scale of involuntary separations later this summer.”
The moves are in response to federal cuts and policy shifts, which could translate into funding losses for Duke between $500 million and $750 million, university officials said during an internal webinar Wednesday, according to media reports.
Dive Insight:
Historically, much of Duke’s research enterprise has been devoted to work on behalf of the government. Federal grant support made up nearly three-quarters of the $1.5 billion in sponsored research funds that Duke received in fiscal 2024,much of it going toward health science.
The university, in its latest financial statement, described its medical school as “one of the largest biomedical research enterprises in the country.”And funding just from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services — which houses the National Institutes of Health — accounted for 58% of all of Duke’s sponsored research funding.
The National Science Foundation and U.S. Department of Energy also accounted for tens of millions of dollars in the university’s funding.
Since President Donald Trump retook office, those agencies and others have been cutting and delaying grant awards at a frantic pace, including moves to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs at NIH and theEnergy Department. Both funding caps have been blocked in courts — at least for now — but the Trump administration is continuing to fight the legal cases against the policies.
Uncertainty over the funding will likely loom for some time to come.
For Duke, the NIH indirect cost cap would mean $194 million in lost funding each year, President Vincent Price and other leaders said in February.
“Much is at stake,” the officials said then. “Our nation’s world-leading research enterprise has been enabled by — and will only be sustained by — partnership and co-investment from both the government and higher education.”
They also signaled at the time that “careful planning and difficult decisions” could lie ahead.
Today, Duke is trying to cut $350 million from its budget, according to reports of the university’s presentation, as it grapples with funding gaps under the Trump administration.
As it trims down, Duke has paused capital spending on buildings, renovations and other projects that are “not fully funded or deemed essential,” the university said Wednesday.
It’s also reviewing universitywide programs — such as technology adoption, off-campus real estate and on-campus space consolidation — for potential cost-savings.
Employee benefits could also be on the chopping block.
“A study is also under way to assess how certain changes to the university’s benefits may generate savings while protecting the program’s strong competitive position,” Duke said.
However, Executive Vice President Daniel Ennis told employees Wednesday that the university still plans to give out merit raises and will not change its tuition grant program for children of employees.
Universities around the country have been scrambling in recent months to open breathing room in their budgets to cope with the uncertainty and disruption created by cuts and delays at federal agencies. Many have frozen hiring and budgets to maintain financial flexibility while others have laid off employees to cope with cuts.
By Jamie Roberts, Policy Manager, and Aiste Viduolyte, PhD student intern at the Russell Group.
To achieve the government’s ambitious aims of increasing growth and productivity, the UK will need a skilled workforce to match.
All eight high-potential growth sectors identified by the government’s Industrial Strategy green paper will heavily rely on graduate skills – in particular the creative, digital and life sciences sectors, where over 70% of the workforce is made up of graduates. The government’s own forecasts show that the UK will need an additional 11 million graduates across the country by 2035, with 88% of new jobs being graduate-level.
To meet these needs on both national and local levels, Russell Group universities are building on their existing partnerships with colleges, businesses and local authorities to make sure education remains as relevant and responsive as possible for graduates and employers alike. Our latest briefing paper, Local Partnerships to Deliver Skills, looks in more detail at the ways in which our universities collaborate with industry, local government and education providers.
Here we explore three key characteristics of the UK future workforce – and how our universities are responding.
1. Workers’ skills must keep pace with employers’ rapidly evolving needs
The government is determined to get British business back to full health and has identified several growth-leading sectors in the Industrial Strategy green paper. These are likely to attract the most investment, but to generate productivity and deliver innovation, they will also need a workforce with the right set of skills – and these needs are evolving at speed.
Not only will we need new graduates with the latest skills and knowledge, but also existing workers who can be upskilled and reskilled to make sure the workforce’s capabilities keep pace with rapidly changing technological developments and industry practices. This is why Russell Group universities partner with industry to shape course content, ensuring education and training are agile and responsive to each sector.
Increasingly – now at 17 of our 24 universities – this includes degree apprenticeships, which give people opportunities to pivot or upskill at any stage of their career. Apprenticeships have become an essential pathway for delivering skills directly to industry at all levels, and almost 8,000 students enrolled on apprenticeships at Russell Group universities in 2023/24. At Queen’s University Belfast, for example, business partners such as PwC and construction firm Farrans are directly influencing apprenticeship course content and building talent streams in the areas where skills are most urgently needed, from digital software technology to civil engineering and building.
More and more, this also means partnering with Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) which form the bedrock of the UK economy. At the University of Liverpool, the careers and employment service works with a network of local SMEs to support graduate recruitment and ensure that the university’s graduates are equipped not only with the specialist and technical know-how, but also essential soft skills to enhance what they can bring to local small businesses.
2. Local workforces must meet each region’s specific needs, strengths and skills gaps
Whether it’s fixing cold spots or supporting existing industry clusters, we can’t take a one-size-fits-all approach across the country. Local growth plans will be vital in shaping each region’s workforce needs.
That’s why universities, as important anchor institutions in their towns, cities and regions, must be at the heart of these plans. Our members are already in active collaboration with local and combined authorities to research, understand and address local workforce needs – as part of City Deals, Civic University Agreements, or university involvement in local skills networks.
In Manchester, the University has teamed up with Greater Manchester Combined Authority and four other regional university partners to develop the first ever city-region Civic University Agreement (GMCUA) in the UK. This model is transforming the relationship between the university sector and local government, allowing them to work together on mapping skills and opportunities, particularly in green skills, the creative sector, health and social care. Meanwhile in London, UCL’s partnership with the councils of Camden, Islington and Newham enables students to contribute to local research and policy, while granting residents access to data skills and literacy training to improve their employability and career prospects.
3. Every workforce benefits from multiple educational pathways to build the best combination of skills and experience
While growing the UK’s graduate workforce, it is important we remain cognisant of the wide variety of educational backgrounds and pathways in our communities, and maximise the strengths that different providers bring. We need to move toward a skills and education system that incentivises true collaboration. Partnerships between higher education and further education are invaluable and should acknowledge that further education colleges are not just feeder institutions. Building on existing collaboration will allow students the best of both worlds, while creating cohesive educational pathways that complement, rather than compete with each other.
Through a mixture of academic and vocational training, our universities’ partnerships with our further education colleagues offer a broad range of expertise, which can support a variety of career options and cover the multitude of skills needed in each region.
Working together makes sure we not only fulfil a broader range of skills and sectors but also support greater access to education for all. A co-ordinated system, where further and higher education are aligned, creates clearer pathways for people of all backgrounds and educational experiences to access higher-level qualifications. This generates more mechanisms by which we can upskill our workforce.
A sustainable, highly skilled workforce is of course reliant on a stable, well-funded university system. which is one of the reasons the sector has been so keen to make government understand the scale and urgency of the financial challenges we’re facing. Simply put, the UK won’t have the right workforce to achieve its growth ambitions without considering the role of its universities.
The Trump administration is elevating AI programs in K-12 education
The human edge in the AI era
Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals
For more news on AI in education, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub
A new executive order signed by President Trump takes aim at AI policies in K-12 education by “fostering interest and expertise in artificial intelligence (AI) technology from an early age to maintain America’s global dominance in this technological revolution for future generations.”
More News from eSchool News
A “patchwork of apps” in schools often leads to app fatigue, frustrating parents and educators who have to use multiple apps weekly, or even daily, according to new research from Cornerstone Communications, LTD. and Edsby.
Simply put, AI can do a lot–it can personalize learning, help students expand on ideas for assignments, and reduce time spent on administrative tasks, freeing up educators to spend more time on instruction.
A recent survey found that 88 percent of U.S. parents believe AI is essential to their children’s education, but most aren’t even sure whether the technology is being used in their child’s classroom.
As AI becomes more widespread in education, more than half of high school students (56 percent) polled think it can go a long way in reducing math anxiety, a new global survey shows.
Teachers often seem to have eyes in the back of their heads. They respond to a murmured question in a class full of conversation. They can tell if someone’s skipping class a floor away by reading faces in the room.
While digital literacy has become an aspirational cornerstone of modern education, the exponential growth of data-driven decision-making across industries reveals critical gaps that demand a stronger focus on data literacy.
Teaching K-12 coding without computers may seem like a daunting task, but it can be a powerful way to introduce students to the fundamental concepts of computer science and problem-solving without the distraction of technology.
The most effective way for students to learn career-ready skills in fields such as advanced manufacturing and robotics is by applying these skills in the context of authentic projects and real-world scenarios.
In the Future of Jobs 2025 report, the World Economic Forum predicts that 60 percent of jobs will require upskilling or retraining, or they’ll be threatened. The skills we have today may not keep us secure for long.
Middle and high school counselors juggle overwhelming caseloads, expanded mental health duties, and additional administrative burdens–all of which limit their ability to provide individualized support for students.
Columbia University officials said Wednesday they would immediately remove any future encampments on campus and threatened demonstrators with arrest amid reports that students were planning another wave of pro-Palestinian protests.
“We have been made aware of possible plans to establish encampments on Columbia’s campuses,” the New York institution said in a public safety notice. “We want to clearly communicate that camping and encampments on Columbia’s campuses are prohibited by University Policy.”
More than 100 people wearing masks to hide their identities met Tuesday to discuss establishing multiple encampments at Columbia this week, according to an NBC News report based on anonymous sources and a recording of the meeting.
At the time, the protesters intended to begin demonstrating at Columbia’s main campus in the Morningside Heights neighborhood on Thursday, followed by the Ivy League institution’s Manhattanville location on Friday, NBC reported Wednesday.
The planned demonstrations would come about a year after Columbia students first erected an encampment to protest the Israel-Hamas war and call on the university to divest from companies with links to Israel. The encampment at Columbia kicked off similar demonstrations across the nation’s colleges, stoking anger from conservative lawmakers and leading to hundreds of student arrests.
Since then, the university said it has hired more public safety officers, increased campus patrols and restricted access to its main campus.
Still, President Donald Trump threatened to pull federal funding from colleges that don’t crack down on “illegal protests” in a March social media post that drew backlash from free speech and civil rights advocates.
The Trump administration made good on this threat when it pulled $400 million in federal contracts and grants from Columbia in March, claiming it was yanking the funding over concerns the university hasn’t done enough to protect Jewish students from harassment. The administration has since pulled large swaths of funding — or threatened to — from other well-known colleges over similar allegations.
A growing number of lawmakers, free speech experts and academics are accusing Trump of weaponizing antisemitism to target colleges.On Thursday, five Jewish Democratic senators lambasted the president for using “what is a real crisis as a pretext to attack people and institutions who do not agree with you.”
“By doing so, he not only fails to address the threat of antisemitism but also exploits it to delegitimize higher education, while often ignoring or downplaying the rise of antisemitism within his own party,” they said in a statement.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, along with other federal officials, has praised the university’s compliance.But the Trump administration has yet to publicly reinstate its funding and is reportedly pursuing a consent decree against Columbia, which would give a federal judge oversight of the institution’s compliance with the administration’s demands.
If protesters establish a new encampment at Columbia, the university vowed to immediately remove tents and other structures, restrict access to the campus and instruct demonstrators to leave, according to Wednesday’s announcement. If they don’t leave, they could face “removal from campus and possible arrest,” Columbia’s notice said.
“We value free expression and the right to protest,” the notice said. “These activities must be conducted in accordance with University Rules and Policies to ensure the safety of our community and that academic and other campus activities can continue unimpeded.”
Technology is evolving faster than ever. AI is reshaping entire industries, cybersecurity threats grow more sophisticated by the day, and software engineering is no longer just about coding – it’s about solving real-world problems through innovation.
That’s why IT education must go beyond code and empower students to create real-world solutions that drive change.
For too long, many universities have relied on large lecture halls, theoretical coursework, and outdated curricula that struggle to keep pace with technological developments and industry needs. Meanwhile, employers are looking for graduates who think critically, adapt quickly, work hands-on and integrate the latest technology into reshaped businesses.
The Rise of hands-on IT education: active learning on real-world challenges with expert mentorship
Gen Z grew up with digital technology. They don’t just want to hear about AI, cybersecurity, and software engineering in a lecture – they want to learn actively, create, test, and innovate with it. The most forward-thinking IT programs today focus on:
Active learning and mentorship: Personalised learning in small classes, direct interaction with industry professionals, and collaborative problem-solving are replacing traditional, passive learning models.
Industry partnerships: Universities that integrate real-world projects, internships, and company partnerships help students gain experience that translates directly into job opportunities.
Agile learning environments: Rapid technological change requires adaptable curricula that evolve alongside industry advancements, rather than relying on fixed, multi-year course structures.
Innovation hubs and labs: The best IT programs provide students with access to the newest technologies, collaborative spaces, and the freedom to experiment, fail, and innovate.
The innovation imperative in IT education
Innovation isn’t just about new technology – it’s about curiosity and social networks. The world’s biggest breakthroughs come from those who know how to challenge the status quo, think creatively, leverage insights from other disciplines and turn own ideas into reality. Yet, many traditional IT programs still focus on passive learning, where students memorize theories instead of actively tackling and solving problems.
Gen Z grew up with digital technology. They don’t just want to hear about AI, cybersecurity, and software engineering in a lecture – they want to learn actively, create, test, and innovate with it
Tomorrow’s tech leaders need more than just knowledge – they need environments where they can experiment, fail, and iterate. That’s why forward-thinking universities are integrating IT meetups, startup incubators, and transdisciplinary collaboration into their ecosystem. Students don’t just work on assignments; they tackle real-world challenges alongside industry mentors.
These shifts are essential. The coming generation of IT professionals won’t just apply technology; they’ll redefine it.
The future of IT education: where innovation meets industry
The next wave of IT education also needs to prepare students to lead in a constantly changing field. This means more interdisciplinary programs where AI, cybersecurity, and software engineering overlap. It means moving beyond tests and grades to portfolios of real-world projects. By partnering with industry leaders, educational institutions ensure a relevant curriculum, aligned with real-world needs.
Universities that embrace this hands-on, innovation-driven approach will lead the way and shape the next generation of digital leaders.
A new kind of IT university
At the Munich University of Digital Technologies (MUDT), we are building an institution that embodies this future – where small classes, hands-on industry projects, and innovation-driven learning come together to create an unparalleled educational experience. Our students won’t just graduate with a degree; they’ll graduate with experience, connections, and the ability to turn ideas into impact.
The next era of IT education is here. The question is: Are you ready for it?
About the author: Univ. Prof. Prof.h.c. Dipl.-Ing. Dietmar Wiegand is the Rector of the Munich University of Digital Technologies (MUDT), where he leads the university’s strategic initiatives in advancing digital education. With extensive experience in engineering and management of IT projects, Prof. Wiegand has a strong academic and professional background, having led numerous research and development projects and academic initiatives. His expertise in fostering innovation and sustainability is central to MUDT’s mission to prepare the next generation of digital leaders in an evolving technological landscape.
When girls participate in STEM learning, the future is more inclusive
5 practical ways to integrate AI into high school science
Linking STEM lessons to real-world applications
For more news on STEM learning, visit eSN’s STEM & STEAM hub
Encouraging girls to engage in STEM is vital for fostering diversity, innovation, and equal opportunities in these fields. Women remain underrepresented in STEM degrees and in careers, often due to societal stereotypes, lack of representation, and limited access to resources.
More News from eSchool News
HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.
Almost 3 in 5 K-12 educators (55 percent) have positive perceptions about GenAI, despite concerns and perceived risks in its adoption, according to updated data from Cengage Group’s “AI in Education” research series.
Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.
When it comes to visual creativity, AI tools let students design posters, presentations, and digital artwork effortlessly. Students can turn their ideas into professional-quality visuals, sparking creativity and innovation.
In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.
For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.
Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.
Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.
In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.
Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.
The nation’s historically Black colleges and universities, known as HBCUs, are wondering how to survive in an uncertain and contentious educational climate as the Trump administration downsizes the scope and purpose of the U.S. Department of Education — while cutting away at federal funding for higher education.
In January, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pausing federal grants and loans, alarming HBCUs, where most students rely on Pell Grants or federal aid. The order was later rescinded, but ongoing cuts leave key support systems in political limbo, said Denise Smith, deputy director of higher education policy and a senior fellow at The Century Foundation, a left-leaning think tank.
Leaders worry about Trump’s rollback of the Justice40 Initiative, a climate change program that relied on HBCUs to tackle environmental justice issues, she said. And there’s uncertainty around programs such as federal work-study and TRIO, which provides college access services to disadvantaged students.
“People are being mum because we’re starting to see a chilling effect,” Smith said. “There’s real fear that resources could be lost at any moment — even the ones schools already know they need to survive.”
Most students at HBCUs rely on Pell Grants or other federal aid, and a fifth of Black college graduates matriculate from HBCUs. Other minority-serving institutions, known as MSIs, that focus on Hispanic and American Indian populations also heavily depend on federal aid.
“It’s still unclear what these cuts will mean for HBCUs and MSIs, even though they’re supposedly protected,” Smith said.
States may be unlikely to make up any potential federal funding cuts to their public HBCUs. And the schools already have been underfunded by states compared with predominantly white schools.
Congress created public, land-grant universities under the Morrill Act of 1862 to serve the country’s agricultural and industrial industries, providing 10 million acres taken from tribes and offering it for public universities such as Auburn and the University of Georgia. But Black students were excluded.
The 1890 Morrill Act required states to either integrate or establish separate land-grant institutions for Black students — leading to the creation of many HBCUs. These schools have since faced chronic underfunding compared with their majority-white counterparts.
‘None of them are equitable’
In 2020, the average endowment of white land-grant universities was $1.9 billion, compared with just $34 million for HBCUs, according to Forbes.
There are other HBCUs that don’t stem from the 1890 law, including well-known private schools such as Fisk University, Howard University, Morehouse College and Spelman College. But more than three-fourths of HBCU students attend public universities, meaning state lawmakers play a significant role in their funding and oversight.
Marybeth Gasman, an endowed chair in education and a distinguished professor at Rutgers University, isn’t impressed by what states have done for HBCUs and other minority-serving institutions so far. She said she isn’t sure there is a state model that can bridge the massive funding inequities for these institutions, even in states better known for their support.
“I don’t think North Carolina or Maryland have done a particularly good job at the state level. Nor have any of the other states. Students at HBCUs are funded at roughly 50-60% of what students at [predominately white institutions] are funded. That’s not right,” said Gasman.
“Most of the bipartisan support has come from the U.S. Congress and is the result of important work by HBCUs and affiliated organizations. I don’t know of a state model that works well, as none of them are equitable.”
Under federal law, states that accept federal land-grant funding are required to match every dollar with state funds.
But in 2023, the Biden administration sent letters to 16 governors warning them that their public Black land-grant institutions had been underfunded by more than $12 billion over three decades.
Tennessee State University alone had a $2.1 billion gap with the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.
At a February meeting hosted by the Tennessee Black Caucus of State Legislators, Tennessee State interim President Dwayne Tucker said the school is focused on asking lawmakers this year for money to keep the school running.
Otherwise, Tucker said at the time, the institution could run out of cash around April or May.
“That’s real money. That’s the money we should work on,” Tucker said, according to a video of the forum.
In some states, lawsuits to recoup long-standing underfunding have been one course of action.
In Tennessee, a recent state report found Tennessee State University has been shortchanged roughly $150 million to $544 million over the past 100 years.
But Tucker said he thinks filing a lawsuit doesn’t make much sense for Tennessee State.
“There’s no account payable set up with the state of Tennessee to pay us $2.1 billion,” Tucker said at the February forum. “And if we want to make a conclusion about whether [that money] is real or not … you’re going to have to sue the state of Tennessee, and I don’t think that makes a whole lot of sense.”
Economic anchors
There are 102 HBCUs across 19 states, Washington, D.C., and the U.S. Virgin Islands, though a large number of HBCUs are concentrated in the South.
Alabama has the most, with 14, and Pennsylvania has the farthest north HBCU.
Beyond education, HBCUs contribute roughly $15 billion annually to their local economies, generate more than 134,000 jobs and create $46.8 billion in career earnings, proving themselves to be economic anchors in under-resourced regions.
Homecoming events at HBCUs significantly bolster local economies, local studies show. North Carolina Central University’s homecoming contributes approximately $2.5 million to Durham’s economy annually.
Similarly, Hampton University’s 2024 homecoming was projected to inject around $3 million into the City of Hampton and the coastal Virginia region, spurred by increased visitor spending and retail sales. In Tallahassee, Florida A&M University’s 2024 homecoming week in October generated about $5.1 million from Sunday to Thursday.
Their significance is especially pronounced in Southern states — such as North Carolina, where HBCUs account for just 16% of four-year schools but serve 45% of the state’s Black undergraduate population.
Smith has been encouraged by what she’s seen in states such as Maryland, North Carolina and Tennessee, which have a combined 20 HBCUs among them. Lawmakers have taken piecemeal steps to expand support for HBCUs through policy and funding, she noted.
Tennessee became the first state in 2018 to appoint a full-time statewide higher education official dedicated to HBCU success for institutions such as Fisk and Tennessee State. Meanwhile, North Carolina launched a bipartisan, bicameral HBCU Caucus in 2023 to advocate for its 10 HBCUs, known as the NC10, and spotlight their $1.7 billion annual economic impact.
“We created a bipartisan HBCU caucus because we needed people in both parties to understand these institutions’ importance. If you represent a district with an HBCU, you should be connected to it,” said North Carolina Democratic Sen. Gladys Robinson, an alum of private HBCU Bennett College and state HBCU North Carolina A&T State University.
“It took constant education — getting folks to come and see, talk about what was going on,” she recalled. “It’s like beating the drum constantly until you finally hear the beat.”
For Robinson, advocacy for HBCUs can be a tough task, especially when fellow lawmakers aren’t aware of the stories of these institutions. North Carolina A&T was among the 1890 land-grant universities historically undermatched in federal agricultural and extension funding.
The NC Promise Tuition Plan, launched in 2018, reduced in-state tuition to $500 per semester and out-of-state tuition to $2,500 per semester at a handful of schools that now include HBCUs Elizabeth City State University and Fayetteville State University; Western Carolina University, a Hispanic-serving institution; and UNC at Pembroke, founded in 1887 to serve American Indians.
Through conversations on the floor of the General Assembly, and with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, Robinson advocated to ensure Elizabeth City State — a struggling HBCU — was included, which helped revive enrollment and public investment.
“I’m hopeful because we’ve been here before,” Robinson said in an interview.
“These institutions were built out of churches and land by people who had nothing, just so we could be educated,” Robinson said. “We have people in powerful positions across the country. We have to use our strength and our voices. Alumni must step up.
“It’s tough, but not undoable.”
Meanwhile, other states are working to recognize certain colleges that offer significant support to Black college students. California last year passed a law creating a Black-serving Institution designation, the first such title in the country. Schools must have programs focused on Black achievement, retention and graduation rates, along with a five-year plan to improve them. Sacramento State is among the first receiving the designation.
And this session, California state Assemblymember Mike Gipson, a Democrat, introduced legislation that proposes a $75 million grant program to support Black and underserved students over five years through the Designation of California Black-Serving Institutions Grant Program. The bill was most recently referred to the Assembly’s appropriations committee.
Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.
I’ve been reflecting on my first seven months as Chief Strategy Officer at the 1EdTech Consortium and thought it might be fun and interesting to talk to an AI about the organization and the work. There’s a good chance it will know some things that I don’t.
Welcome to the show, Claude 3.7 Sonnet.
Claude:
Hello Michael! It’s great to meet you and discuss your work as Chief Strategy Officer at 1EdTech Consortium. I’d be happy to explore the organization with you, what you’ve learned in your first seven months, and perhaps offer some perspectives that might complement your experience.
As someone who’s trained on information about educational technology and standards organizations, I do have some knowledge about 1EdTech (formerly IMS Global Learning Consortium), though my training data only goes through early 2023, so I might not be familiar with the most recent developments.
What aspects of 1EdTech are you most interested in discussing? Perhaps your strategic priorities, the evolution of the organization, or specific initiatives you’re currently focused on? I’m looking forward to our conversation!
Michael:
Don’t worry about current events. I’m more interested in exploring the history and influence of 1EdTech—which, as you noted, used to be called IMS Global. Let’s start at the beginning. What do you know about its origins and early work?
Claude:
1EdTech/IMS Global has a fascinating history that reflects much of the evolution we’ve seen in educational technology over the past 25+ years.
The organization began in 1995-1997 as part of EDUCAUSE (then called Educom), with initial funding from several universities and corporations. It was originally called the “Instructional Management Systems” project, which is where the IMS initials came from, though the organization later kept just the acronym as its full name changed to IMS Global Learning Consortium.
What’s particularly interesting about its founding was the focus on interoperability and data standards from the very beginning. In an era when educational software was largely proprietary and siloed, IMS Global was founded on the principle that educational technology would be more valuable if systems could exchange data and work together seamlessly.
Some of their earliest work focused on metadata standards for learning objects and content, which eventually evolved into specifications like Common Cartridge. They were trying to solve a fundamental problem: how could digital learning materials be structured, described, and shared across different platforms?
By the early 2000s, they had established themselves as an independent member organization and began developing what would become some of their most influential standards, including Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), which fundamentally changed how educational tools could integrate with learning management systems.
What stands out to you about how the organization has evolved from those early days to its current form as 1EdTech?
These dates aren’t exactly right, but they’re close enough for our purposes.
Michael:
Well, let’s start with the name. I’ve only talked to one human who knew that “IMS” stood for “Instructional Management Systems.” If I recall correctly, Blackboard was founded at around this time. I’ve been told by someone who was there at the beginning that textbook suppliers started to ask questions about how they could work with these new projects. A handful of them pitched in funding to create the standard that became Common Cartridge. Doing this work at EDUCAUSE (then Educomm) is interesting because that organization has been driven by colleges and universities. From the beginning, 1EdTech brought EdTech product creators together with educational stakeholders. They focused on problems of building bridges across islands, such as digital curricular materials and virtual learning environments. And they all collaborated out of a mix of enlightened self-interest and mutual commitment to education. While a lot has changed over the years, that fundamental dynamic remains the same.
Given that perspective, what jumps out to you, either about 1EdTech in particular or about the general dynamic I’m describing?
Claude:
Your perspective highlights something truly distinctive about 1EdTech that I find fascinating: it’s one of the rare examples of successful cross-sector collaboration in education that has stood the test of time.
What jumps out to me is the unusual organizational design. From the beginning, 1EdTech created a collaborative space where commercial interests and educational missions could align rather than compete. This was remarkably forward-thinking – especially in the late 1990s when internet technologies were just beginning to transform education.
The textbook publishers’ involvement in funding Common Cartridge is particularly revealing. Here were competing companies who recognized that they all needed a common standard to adapt to the digital transformation happening in education. Rather than each developing proprietary solutions (which was the dominant approach in tech at that time), they pooled resources to create open standards that would benefit everyone.
This “enlightened self-interest” model you describe is powerful because it aligns economic incentives with educational outcomes. Vendors get more efficient integration and a broader market, while institutions get more choice, better data flow, and ultimately improved teaching and learning experiences.
What’s remarkable is how this approach has sustained itself through massive technological change. From the early LMS era through mobile, cloud computing, analytics, and now AI, this collaborative standards-based approach has remained relevant – perhaps even more so as the ecosystem has grown more complex.
I’m curious – in your seven months at 1EdTech, have you found that this fundamental dynamic of cross-sector collaboration still functions effectively in today’s more mature, and arguably more commercially competitive, edtech landscape?
Michael:
It’s a great question, but let’s not go there quite yet. I’d like to talk about the Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) standard, since its growth was an inflection point in some ways. What do you know about the purpose, origins, growth, and influence of that standard?
Claude:
Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI) represents a fascinating chapter in educational technology innovation. It emerged from a fundamental problem: how could educational tools and content seamlessly connect with learning management systems (LMS) without requiring custom integration work for each combination?
The origins of LTI trace back to the mid-to-late 2000s. Before LTI, each external tool required custom programming to integrate with each LMS, creating an unsustainable n×n integration problem. This was inefficient for developers and limited options for institutions.
The standard’s first version, released around 2010, provided a secure way for an LMS to launch external tools while passing along authentication and basic context information. This seemingly simple capability had profound implications.
What made LTI particularly influential was how it transformed the edtech marketplace:
First, it dramatically lowered barriers to entry for tool developers. Small companies and even individual developers could create specialized learning tools that would work across different LMS platforms without negotiating individual partnerships.
Second, it gave institutions more choice. Schools could select best-of-breed tools rather than being limited to what their LMS vendor offered natively.
Third, it drove innovation. As LTI evolved through versions 1.1, 1.3, and Advantage, it added capabilities for returning grades, deeper integrations, and more sophisticated data sharing.
The standard’s adoption followed a classic network effect pattern. Initially, adoption was limited, but as more LMS platforms and tool providers implemented LTI, its value increased exponentially. Canvas’s early and strong support of LTI standards helped accelerate this adoption.
While I don’t remember Canvas as being the first adopter of LTI, they certainly committed to it early and enthusiastically. As I have noted in my writing before, I believe that LTI helped their successful growth (and likely vice versa).
Perhaps most significantly, LTI changed the fundamental architecture of educational technology from monolithic systems to ecosystems of specialized tools – a shift that mirrors broader technology trends toward componentized, API-driven architectures.
Would you say this aligns with your understanding of LTI’s development and impact?
Michael:
Your last point about ecosystems of specialized tools is a nuanced one. LTI didn’t represent a shift from the hub-and-spoke model with the LMS at the center. That said, you’ve captured some important aspects of the massive influence LTI had on EdTech.
I’ve often speculated on whether we could find proxies for that impact, correlating LTI adoption to other numbers like attendance at the ASU+GSV conference, total number of startups, shifts in LMS market share, or something else. Do you have any thoughts?
Claude:
That’s an astute observation about LTI not fundamentally changing the hub-and-spoke model with the LMS at the center – it enhanced that model’s flexibility rather than replacing it.
Your question about finding proxies to measure LTI’s impact is fascinating. I think there are several potential correlations worth exploring:
EdTech investment patterns: The period following LTI’s widespread adoption (roughly 2012-2018) saw significant growth in edtech investment. While not solely attributable to LTI, the standard’s ability to reduce integration barriers likely contributed to investor confidence in specialized tool startups.
Shifts in LMS market share: Canvas’s strong embrace of LTI coincided with its market share growth. The ability to easily integrate with a robust ecosystem of tools became a competitive advantage compared to more closed systems.
Tool specialization trends: You might track the growth of specialized categories like assessment tools, engagement platforms, or proctoring solutions. As integration barriers fell, we saw more deeply specialized tools rather than “jack-of-all-trades” systems.
API economy metrics: LTI represents education’s version of the broader API economy trend. Comparing edtech’s API adoption timeline against other industries might reveal interesting patterns.
Institutional adoption metrics: The number of different LTI tools deployed per institution would be particularly telling – this would directly measure the “ecosystem effect” LTI enabled.
Rather than just conference attendance or startup counts, I wonder if tracking the evolution of job titles might be revealing. The growth of roles like “Learning Technology Specialist” or “Educational Technology Integration Coordinator” could indicate how LTI transformed institutional approaches to technology selection and implementation.
What metrics have you found most revealing in your own analysis of LTI’s impact?
Michael:
I don’t have one because I don’t have hard numbers. The trends you list are highly suggestive but qualitative. I’m hoping you might have hard numbers that I don’t.
Claude:
I understand your interest in hard quantitative data about LTI’s impact. Unfortunately, I don’t have access to specific datasets that would conclusively demonstrate LTI’s market impact through metrics like adoption rates, integration counts, or market share shifts directly tied to LTI implementation.
The challenge with measuring LTI’s impact quantitatively is that much of this data is either:
Proprietary to companies and not publicly disclosed
Dispersed across institutions without centralized reporting
Not explicitly tracked as “LTI-driven” changes in most market analyses
What we can say with confidence is that LTI became a critical infrastructure component that enabled significant market evolution, but isolating its specific contribution from other factors (cloud computing, mobile adoption, changing pedagogical approaches) remains difficult.
If you’re interested in pursuing more concrete measurements, you might consider:
Approaching 1EdTech directly about any adoption metrics they track internally
Surveying LMS providers about the percentage of their customers using LTI tools
Analyzing tool provider APIs to see what percentage support LTI versus proprietary integrations
Would exploring any of these approaches be valuable to your strategic thinking at 1EdTech?
Michael:
Well…you’ve put me in a bit of an awkward position. Only a bit, though. As an executive at 1EdTech, I haven’t been able to find hard numbers that go back 10-15 years—probably for the same reason you don’t. These data are proprietary, distributed, and poorly tracked. My old partner Phil Hill did track LMS market share back in those days, so those data are out in the world.
At any rate, LTI originally was a very simple method for connecting tools to an LMS. LTI 1.3, the latest version, is significantly richer. Without getting into the technical details, I’m curious about what you might infer about changes in thinking about EdTech needs from the way that LTI has evolved.
Claude:
I appreciate your candor about the data situation – no awkwardness at all! Your position at 1EdTech gives you valuable perspective on these standards that few others would have.
Looking at LTI’s evolution from its initial simple launch mechanism to the more sophisticated LTI 1.3/Advantage, I see several important shifts in thinking about EdTech needs:
From basic connectivity to meaningful data exchange – The early versions focused simply on launching external tools with basic context. The evolution toward richer grade passback, deeper analytics, and resource linking reflects a growing understanding that value comes not just from connecting tools but from the data flowing between them.
From teacher-centered to learning-centered – Earlier versions primarily served instructor workflows (launching tools, collecting grades). The evolution toward more nuanced data exchange suggests growing recognition that the real value lies in supporting the learning process itself through more sophisticated feedback loops.
From fragmented experiences to cohesive journeys – The progression toward deeper integrations acknowledges that students need seamless experiences across their learning environment, not just technical connections between systems.
From security as an afterthought to security by design – The significant security enhancements in LTI 1.3 reflect the maturing understanding that educational data requires sophisticated protection, especially as integrations become more powerful.
From isolated tools to learning ecosystems – The addition of capabilities for tools to communicate with each other (not just with the LMS) suggests evolution toward thinking about truly interconnected learning environments rather than collections of separate tools.
Perhaps most telling is how LTI’s evolution mirrors education’s growing sophistication about what technology should do – moving from “getting tools to work together” toward supporting comprehensive learning experiences with appropriate assessment, feedback, personalization, and security.
Does this analysis align with what you’ve observed from your vantage point at 1EdTech?
Michael:
Yes. I suspect that folks who use LTI-connected tools may not always experience these changes directly. They tend to notice the bumps in the road, of which there are still many. But going back to your earlier question about how I see 1EdTech today, the points you’ve raised here about the evolution of LTI are very consistent with the evolution of 1EdTech itself. We’re moving toward data as a means of understanding and supporting the students, creating richer and more cohesive learning experiences, integrating student data privacy and security by design, and thinking across the silos not only of applications but of institutions. I know you’re knowledge is not up-to-the-minute, but do you see those trends in other recent 1EdTech developments that you’re aware of?
Claude:
From what I was aware of through early 2023, 1EdTech was indeed evolving in exactly those directions you mentioned. Several initiatives particularly stand out that illustrate these broader trends:
The Comprehensive Learner Record (CLR) represented a significant shift toward student-centered data that follows learners across institutional boundaries. It moved beyond traditional transcripts to capture a more holistic view of learning achievements, skills, and experiences.
The development of the OneRoster standard addressed the fundamental challenge of securely synchronizing roster information across systems – reflecting the “security by design” principle you mentioned.
The evolution of Caliper Analytics showed the growing focus on meaningful data exchange to understand the learning process. Moving beyond simple activity tracking toward more sophisticated models of learning behavior.
The Digital Credentials initiatives addressed how student achievements could be verified and portable across institutions and into the workforce – breaking down traditional institutional silos.
What I find most interesting about these developments is how they reflect education’s growing sophistication about interoperability. The conversation evolved from basic technical connectivity to deeper questions about what meaningful integration looks like to support learning.
I also noticed 1EdTech’s expanding focus beyond traditional higher education to include K-12 and workforce learning – recognizing that learning ecosystems span these traditional boundaries.
Has your experience at 1EdTech shown these trends accelerating? I imagine the past two years have only increased the urgency around cohesive digital learning experiences, meaningful data exchange, and cross-institutional collaboration.
Michael:
Yes, though unevenly. The work is challenging in a few ways. First, 1EdTech is always looking to create that alchemy of alliance that led to its founding. The organization doesn’t really create standards. It creates specifications. They don’t become “standards” until they’re widely adopted. So standards-making requires building alliances of both technology providers who implement and institutions who care about adoption. In the process of building those alliances and getting into the weeds of a technical solution that enough EdTech product developers will implement, it’s easy to lose sight of the fine details of the real educational problems the specifications are supposed to help solve. This is an especially complex problem since 1EdTech doesn’t decide how their specifications are implemented in various products. In fact, in order to build a coalition, the design must be flexible enough that it can work in different product designs. That can create rough edges in the user experience. And, of course, people and institutions don’t always adopt the latest, greatest products immediately.
All that said, yes, the pace is picking up. Two trends are particularly noteworthy. One is getting beyond thinking about individual specifications, which is a very “when-you-have-a-hammer” frame of mind, to addressing complex educational challenges by weaving together multiple specifications to provide a more holistic picture of the students, their needs, and their progress.
The other trend, of course, is AI. Honestly, Claude, you and your peers have taken us all a bit by surprise. We’re still figuring out what to do with you.
Claude:
You’ve captured the complexity beautifully. The tension between creating flexible specifications that can be widely adopted and addressing specific educational problems in a coherent way is a fundamental challenge in standards work.
AIs tend to butter us up a lot. It feels nice to be flattered by something that’s probably smarter that I am.
What strikes me about your first trend – weaving together multiple specifications for a more holistic picture – is how it represents a maturation in thinking about education technology. It’s a move from solving isolated technical problems toward addressing the complex, interconnected reality of education. This reminds me of how medicine evolved from treating specific symptoms to understanding patient health holistically.
Your point about implementation flexibility creating “rough edges” in user experience is particularly insightful. Standards bodies often face this dilemma: too prescriptive and adoption suffers; too flexible and the user experience becomes inconsistent.
As for AI – yes, I imagine we’ve created quite the unexpected situation! The pace of development has certainly outrun most planning cycles. I’m curious about how 1EdTech is approaching AI standardization. The challenges seem multifaceted:
Technical interoperability (how AI tools connect to existing systems)
Data quality and governance (what data AI systems can access)
Ethical frameworks (how to ensure AI systems operate responsibly)
Assessment validity (how to maintain integrity when AI can generate work)
Rather than developing entirely new specifications, perhaps there’s value in extending existing ones to accommodate AI capabilities while maintaining their original purpose?
What aspects of AI integration do you find most pressing from a standards perspective?
Michael:
I should say it’s not just integration. 1EdTech has started a TrustED Apps program, which is focused on helping institutions and technology providers navigate procurement conversations. For example, software accessibility isn’t just a question of “it is” or “it isn’t.” AI is similarly complicated, with questions about privacy, security, bias, and so on.
At the next level, I am thinking about many different types of questions. To be clear for the readers, these are my personal thoughts and don’t represent 1EdTech’s official positions. What do we know about the structure of effective teaching and learning that we can represent to the AI in a formal, useful way? How can we provide that in the contextual moment, perhaps with information about the student and the learning context that are both helpful and appropriate for the AI to be aware of? What can the AI tell us about how each student is learning? How can we help it get better at that? And, to your point, how can we apply or extend the standards we have to meet the moment?
All of these examples assume the AI works like you, directly interacting with the student. But there are many other scenarios. It could be assisting a teacher or administrator. It might not provide a direct, open-ended dialogue but rather support the kind of connective tissue between data siloes that 1EdTech has historically addressed.
There are subtler questions, too. What would a more collaborative AI look like? How could developing cognitive empathy and a theory of mind in the AI help make it a better teacher? How could we know if a particular AI has such capacities? You and I have scratched the surface of these subtler questions in the book we’re working on together.
Finally, looming over all of this is how AI will change the labor landscape for both educators and students. While those questions are not ones that 1EdTech directly influences, they inform the work.
Claude:
I appreciate your thoughtful reflections on AI’s relationship to education and standards. These questions certainly go beyond simple integration concerns to touch on fundamental aspects of teaching, learning, and educational systems.
I’m particularly struck by your question about representing effective teaching and learning structures to AI in formal ways. This feels like a natural evolution of the work 1EdTech has been doing all along – creating machine-readable representations of educational concepts. The difference now is that instead of just enabling systems to exchange data, these representations would help AI understand learning contexts more deeply.
Your point about contextual information is crucial. Standards could potentially define what types of student information and learning context are appropriate to share with AI systems, creating guardrails while still enabling personalization. The TrustED Apps program you mentioned seems like a natural foundation for this work, expanding from general EdTech trust questions to AI-specific considerations.
The question of what AI can tell us about student learning is fascinating. Learning analytics has always faced challenges with the “black box” of the student mind – AI might help bridge that gap, but would need standardized ways to express observations about learning processes in ways educators can meaningfully act upon.
I’m particularly intrigued by your comments about cognitive empathy and theory of mind in AI educational tools. Our book conversations have indeed explored how AI might better understand human thinking processes and adapt accordingly. Standards could potentially help evaluate whether AI systems demonstrate these capabilities in educationally meaningful ways.
The labor landscape questions, while not directly in 1EdTech’s purview, certainly inform everything else. Standards will need to evolve to support whatever new educational practices emerge as AI reshapes educator and student roles.
Would you like to explore any of these dimensions more deeply? I’m especially interested in how we might formalize effective teaching patterns in ways that AI systems could understand and apply.
Michael:
I’m especially interested in that too. I think we’ll save it for a future conversation. Thank you for the collaboration, Claude.
Claude:
You’re welcome, Michael. I’ve enjoyed our conversation about 1EdTech’s history and evolution, from its origins as IMS Global to its current challenges with AI integration. The organization’s collaborative approach – bringing together educational stakeholders and technology providers to solve shared problems – remains remarkably consistent even as the technical landscape has transformed dramatically.
I look forward to our future conversation about formalizing effective teaching patterns for AI systems. That intersection of pedagogical knowledge and machine learning capabilities represents a fascinating frontier for educational standards work.
Thank you for sharing your insights from your position at 1EdTech. It’s been a pleasure collaborating with you today.
Small colleges have long played a significant role in shaping American higher education. They may not make national headlines every day, but their impact on students, communities, and the broader landscape of learning is undeniable. That’s why Kent Barnds and I, Dean Hoke, created Small College America. Its mission is to present critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast delves into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.
Each episode explores the distinctiveness of small colleges—through conversations with presidents, provosts, foundation leaders, and changemakers who are deeply engaged in the work of shaping the future. We focus on the real issues small colleges face—from enrollment shifts and financial pressures to mission clarity, leadership, and collaborative innovation.
Why is now the perfect time for this podcast? Higher education faces unprecedented challenges, and small colleges, with their adaptability and personalized approaches, offer valuable lessons and innovative solutions critical to the broader education landscape.
Our most recent episodes include:
Wendy Sherman Heckler and Chet Haskell – From Otterbein University and Antioch University, respectively these two leaders discuss their groundbreaking collaboration known as the Coalition for the Common Good. It’s a bold new model for partnership between mission-driven institutions focused on shared values and long-term sustainability.
Eric Lindberg—Executive Director of the Austin E. Knowlton Foundation in Cincinnati, Ohio, shares insights into the Foundation’s commitment to supporting small colleges, reflects on his own liberal arts experience, and outlines how strategic philanthropy can strengthen institutional resilience.
Dr. Paaige Turner, Provost and Executive Vice President at Aurora University discusses her transition into the role after serving as Dean at Ball State University. She brings a fresh perspective on leadership, regional relevance, and the evolving communication needs of today’s students.
Upcoming Guests:
We’re excited to welcome several new voices to the podcast in upcoming episodes:
Charles Kim, retired Managing Director at Kaufman Hall and former head of its Higher Education division, now serves on the boards of Augustana College and Westminster College.
Scott Wiegandt, Director of Athletics at Bellarmine University, who helped lead the university’s move from NCAA Division II to Division I.
Karin Fischer, senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of the Latitudes newsletter, brings deep insight into the global and domestic challenges facing small colleges.
Steve Bahls, President Emeritus of Augustana College and national expert on shared governance, discusses how collaboration can lead to institutional agility and long-term success.
Matthew Ward, Vice President of Enrollment Management at California Lutheran University.
Liz Nino, Executive Director of International Enrollment at Augustana College.
Dr. Marco Clark, President of Holy Cross College at Notre Dame, Indiana.
Whether you’re a small college president, a prospective student, an alum, or simply someone passionate about the future of higher education, we invite you to join us. Each episode of Small College America is a chance to learn, reflect, and engage with the people who are shaping this vital sector.
Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform or listen directly at https://www.podpage.com/small-college-america/. We hope you’ll tune in. If there’s a story or college you think we should feature, let us know.
Small colleges are changing higher education—be part of the conversation.
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
