Tag: futures

  • [Podcast] Healthy Minds, Bright Futures: How to Navigate Mental Health & Build Support

    [Podcast] Healthy Minds, Bright Futures: How to Navigate Mental Health & Build Support

    Children’s mental health is in the spotlight like never before. Concerning data around anxiety and depression, as well as the increasing prevalence of conditions such as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and autism spectrum disorder, are driving important discussions about supporting kids’ mental health.

    In this three-part series, our expert guests address evidence-based interventions and assessments to equip clinicians with the latest tools and tactics for enhancing a child or adolescent’s well-being. We’ll assess the current landscape of student mental health and dive deeper into ADHD, ASD and co-occurring conditions, and the latest BASCTM family of solutions.

    Check out the podcast episodes!


    ⬆




    1. Ep. 1
      Getting Your Attention: What You Can Do To Support Children and Teens with ADHD



    Ep. 1

    Getting Your Attention: What You Can Do To Support Children and Teens with ADHD

    ADHD diagnosis rates vary widely, and the condition itself presents many complexities. We’ll explore actionable strategies for clinicians to identify children who need additional ADHD support and how to provide the right learning environment for them, with our guest: Tyler Vassar, Ed.S., a licensed school psychologist and assessment consultant at Pearson.







    Source link

  • The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    The first words I uttered after successfully defending my dissertation were, “Wow, what a ride. From Head Start to Ph.D.!” Saying them reminded me where it all began: sitting cross-legged with a picture book at the Westside Head Start Center, just a few blocks from my childhood home in Jackson, Mississippi. 

    I don’t remember every detail from those early years, but I remember the feeling: I was happy at Head Start. I remember the books, the music, the joy. That five-minute bus ride from our house to the Westside Center turned out to be the shortest distance between potential and achievement. 

    And my story is not unique. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children — kids whose names we may never know, though our futures depend on them — walk through Head Start’s doors. Like me, they find structure, literacy, curiosity and belonging.  

    For many families, Head Start is the first place outside the home where a child’s potential is nurtured and celebrated. Yet, this program that builds futures and strengthens families is now under threat, and it’s imperative that we protect it. 

    Years later, while training for high school cross-country meets, I’d run past the park next to the center and pause, flooded with memories. Head Start laid the foundation for everything that followed. It gave me structure, sparked my curiosity and built my early literacy skills. It even fed my short-lived obsession with chocolate milk.  

    More than that, Head Start made me feel seen and valued. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    There’s a clear, unbroken line between the early lessons I learned at Head Start and the doctoral dissertation I defended decades later. Head Start didn’t just teach me my ABCs — it taught me that learning could be joyful, that I was capable and that I belonged in a classroom.  

    That belief carried me through elementary school, Yale and George Washington University and to a Ph.D. in public policy and public administration. Now, as part of my research at the Urban Institute, I’m working to expand access to high-quality early learning, because I know firsthand what a difference it makes.  

    Research backs up what my story shows: Investments in Head Start and high-quality early childhood education change lives by improving health and educational achievement in later years, and benefit the economy. Yet today there is growing skepticism about the value of Head Start, reflecting an ongoing reluctance to give early childhood education the respect it deserves.  

    If Head Start funding is cut, thousands of children — especially from communities like mine in Jackson, where families worked hard but opportunities were limited — could lose access to a program that helps level the playing field. These are the children of young parents and single parents, of working families who may not have many other options but still dare to dream big for their kids.  

    And that is why I am worried. Funding for Head Start has been under threat. Although President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would maintain Head Start funding at its current $12.3 billion, Project 2025, the influential conservative policy document, calls for eliminating the program. The administration recently announced that Head Start would no longer enroll undocumented children, which a group of Democratic attorneys general say will force some programs to close.  

    Related: Head Start is in turmoil 

    I feel compelled to speak out because, for our family, Head Start wasn’t just a preschool — it was the beginning of everything. For me, it meant a future I never could have imagined. For my mother, Head Start meant peace of mind — knowing her son was in a nurturing, educational environment during the critical developmental years. My mother, Nicole, brought character, heart and an unwavering belief in my potential — and Head Start helped carry that forward. 

    My mother was just 18 when she enrolled me in Head Start. “A young mother with big dreams and limited resources,” she recounted to me recently, adding that she had “showed up to an open house with a baby in my arms and hope in my heart.” 

    Soon afterward, Mrs. Helen Robinson, who was in charge of the Head Start in Jackson, entered our lives. She visited our home regularly, bringing books, activities and reassurance. A little yellow school bus picked me up each morning. 

    Head Start didn’t just support me, though. It also supported my mother and gave her tips and confidence. She took me to the library regularly and made sure I was always surrounded by books and learning materials that would challenge and inspire me. 

    It helped my mother and countless others like her gain insight into child development, early learning and what it means to advocate for their children’s future.  

    Twenty-five years after those early mornings when I climbed onto the Head Start bus, we both still think about how different our lives might have been without that opportunity. Head Start stood beside us, and that support changed our lives. 

    As we debate national priorities, we must ask ourselves: Can we afford to dismantle a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns? 

    My family provides living proof of Head Start’s power.  

    This isn’t just our story. It is the story of millions of others and could be the story of millions more if we choose to protect and invest in what works. 

    Travis Reginal holds a doctorate in public policy and public administration and is a graduate of the Head Start program, Yale University and George Washington University. He is a former Urban Institute researcher. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about the Head Start funding was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Why Are So Many Smaller Independent Colleges and Universities So Similar and What Does This Mean for Their Futures? – Edu Alliance Journal

    Why Are So Many Smaller Independent Colleges and Universities So Similar and What Does This Mean for Their Futures? – Edu Alliance Journal

    September 8, 2025, by Dr. Chet Haskell: It is well known that many small American private non-profit academic institutions face serious financial pressures. Typically defined as having 3000 or fewer students, more than 170 of these have been forced to close in the past two decades. Numerous others have entered into various mergers or acquisitions, often with well-documented negative impacts on students, faculty, staff, alumni and local communities. Of the more than 1100 such institutions, at least 900 continue to be a risk.

    The basic problems responsible for this trend are also well-known. Most institutions lack significant endowments and are thus almost totally dependent on tuition and fee revenues from enrolled students. Only 60 such small institutions have per student endowments in excess of $200,000. The remainder have far less.

    The only additional potential source of revenue – gifts and donations –is generally neither large nor consistent enough to offset enrollment-related declines. While the occasional donation or bequest in the millions of dollars garners attention, most institutions raise much smaller amounts regularly.

    Enrollment declines are the existential threat to many of these smaller colleges and universities. These declines are also well-documented. There simply will be fewer high school graduates in the US in the coming decade or more. This reality creates a highly competitive environment, especially in regions with many of these institutions.

    Demographic worries are augmented by broad concerns about the cost of higher education and the imputed return on such an investment by students and families. Governmental policies such as limitations on international students or restrictions on immigration further add to the problem. Also, these institutions not only compete with each other for students, but they also compete with colleges and universities of the public sector and a growing number of for-profit entities.

    Most of these 900 or so institutions have high quality programs, often described under the term “liberal arts”. Many are differentiated by a specialization or an emphasis. However, at their core they are very similar. The basic concept of a personal scale four-year undergraduate educational experience provided in a residential campus setting has a long history and is highly valued by many students and faculty alike. These institutions have lengthy, strong histories, loyal alumni and important roles in their local communities.

    The fact is that it is difficult to differentiate among many of these institutions. Not only their scale or their general model of personalized undergraduate education are similar, but many of their basic messages sound the same. A review of the websites of these schools results in striking consistencies of stated “unique” missions, programs, facilities, faculty and even marketing materials.

    Their approaches to financial challenges are also similar. There is considerable competition on price. Most of these institutions discount their formal tuition rates by 50% or more. Initiatives to grow enrollments support an industry of educational consultants whose recommended initiatives are themselves similar and, even if successful, are quickly copied, thus reducing advantages.

    Some have tried to compete by raising money for new, attractive facilities through dipping into limited endowments, borrowing or securing external major gifts. These shiny new buildings – athletic facilities, science centers, student centers – are assumed to provide an edge in student recruitment. In some cases, this works. However, in many others the new facilities do not come with long term maintenance and eventually add to increased on-going institutional expense. The end result is often another demonstration of similarity.

    Some institutions have tried to branch out into selected graduate programs, perhaps based on a strong group of undergraduate faculty. Success is often limited for multiple reasons. Graduate students in commonly introduced professional fields such as business or nursing do not naturally align with an undergraduate in-person academic calendar. Older students, especially those in careers, are reluctant to come to a campus for class twice a week. Even if there is sufficient interest in such a program, it is difficult to increase in scale because of the limits of distance and geography. And most of these institutions lack significant expertise and technology do conduct effective on-line operations.

    Their institutional similarities extend to their governance. Typically, there is a Board of Trustees, all of whom are volunteers, often with heavy alumni representation. These boards generally lack expertise or perspective on the challenges of higher education and thus are dependent on the appointed executive leadership. They often take a short-term perspective and lack strategic foresight that may be most valuable in times of uncertainty and external changes.

    Even when trustees have financial experience from other fields, their common approach to small institutions is to bemoan any lack of enrollments. Most do not make significant personal financial contributions, particularly if they think the institution is struggling to survive. The assumed budget goal is basically a balanced budget and when one does not control revenues, one focuses on the more controllable expense side, trying to balance budgets solely on cuts.  Board members serve because they want to support the institution, but many are risk adverse. For example, a fear of being associated with an institution that might generate possible legal liability for the board member means a first concern usually involves whether there is sufficient insurance.

    While every institution is indeed different in its own way, they also are very similar. What explains this?

    One possible way of explanation is provided by the organizational theorists Walter Powell and Paul DiMaggio who in 1983 (updated in 1991) published a seminal piece on what they called ”institutional isomorphism and collective rationality.” [1]They argued that ”institutions in the same field become more homogenous over time without become more efficient or more successful” and identified three basic reasons for such a tendency.

    Coercive isomorphism – similarities imposed externally on the institutions. In higher education, good examples would be Federal government policies around student financial aid or the requirements of both regional and specialized accreditors. Every institution operates within a web of regulation and financial incentives that impose requirements on all and work to limit innovation.

    Mimetic processes – similarities that arise because of standard responses to uncertainty. Prime examples in higher education are the increasingly common responses to the quest for enrollment growth. As noted, numerous consultants purport to improve enrollments, but the gains typically are limited, as other institutions mimic the same approach. In another example, recent surveys show that almost all institutions expect to be users of artificial intelligence models to promote marketing in the service of admissions, as if this is a “magic wand”. If one institution makes strides in this area, others will follow. The result will be more similarity, not less. It is a bit like the Ukrainian-Russian war, where Ukraine originally had clear advantages using drone technology until that technology was matched by the Russians, leading to a form of stalemate. As DiMaggio and Powell note, ”organizations tend to model themselves after similar organizations in their field that they perceive as more legitimate or successful.”[2]

    Normative pressures – similarities that arise from common “professional” expectations. The authors identify two important aspects of professionalization: the common basis of higher education credentials and the legitimation produced by these credentials and “the growth and elaboration of professional networks.” Examples include common faculty and senior administrator qualification requirements. Another would be so-called “best practices” in support areas like student affairs. “Such mechanisms create a pool of almost interchangeable individuals who occupy similar positions.”[3] Recently, Hollis Robbins pointed out the commonalities in paths to academic leadership positions, likening these to the Soviet nomenklatura process through which a leader progresses in one’s career.[4] Evidence of this is obvious through a cursory review of the qualifications and desired qualities posted in searches for college and university presidents or other senior administrators. Most searches end up looking for and hiring individuals with very similar qualifications and experience.

    The implications of such pressures and processes are several. With common values and similar personnel, “best practices” do not lead to essential changes. Innovation is quickly copied. Indeed, it becomes increasing difficult to differentiate an institution from competitors. Common regulatory structures, declining student pools, increased competition and a lack of resources for investment all combine to enhance similarity over difference. In some sense, it is almost a form of commodification where price does in fact matter, but the “product” basically the same, especially in the minds of the larger population of potential students and families.

    What is to be done?

    Leadership Must Confront Their Institution’s Reality

    Confronting reality has many aspects, but the leaders of every institution must be clear-eyed and unsentimental about where it stands and where it is headed. This is an essential role for boards and executive leadership.

    First and foremost, the mission of the institution must be understood in realistic and practical ways. What is the institution’s purpose and what is required to fulfill that purpose? Institutional mission is central as it should drive an appreciation for the current situation of the institution, provide clarity regarding longer term goals and bringing into focus the necessary means to move forward.

    With clarity of mission must come a full understanding the of institution’s financial situation, its opportunities and the longer term needs required to achieve mission goals.  Building multi-year mission-oriented budgets based on surpluses (positive margins) is key. Sometimes restructuring and cuts are necessary and thus leadership must make sure all faculty and staff have a clear understanding of reality and the strategy for addressing it.

    A clear understanding by all of the marginal results (positive and negative) of major components is also critical. Some elements or units return significant positive margins. Others less so. And some return negative margins, often year after year. Yet, some of these less financially productive elements may be essential to mission and must be balanced or subsidized by other elements. At the end of the day, it is the margin of the entire institution that matters. And, as the saying goes, “no margin, no mission.” However, the opposite is also true. Institutions that are unclear about their mission will be challenged to attract and motivate students, faculty, staff or major donations.

    Every institution must worry about enrollments as the largest source of revenue. Declining enrollments force expense restraints. Every institution must also be concerned about growing enrollments as a key prerequisite of financial stability. Institutions operating on thin or negative margins cannot hope to achieve their mission goals without some form of growth, including having the resources to invest in growth. Without some forms of growth, an institution will either be at risk or will have to make sometimes radical changes in order to continue to pursue mission goals. The only real alternative is to amend the mission and the definition of its success.

    The other important point is that all institutions are subject to unexpected external pressures that they cannot control. Examples would be 9/11, the 2008-09 Great Recession, the COVID pandemic or the advent new government policies, such as those confronting all institutions today. Coping with such events requires having some financial resiliency, strong leadership and creativity.

    Yet, the combination of external pressures and the realities of small-scale institutions operating on thin margins in the face of extensive competition may mean that even the best managed and led organizations will confront existential risk.

    For many institutions, merging or partnering with another institution may be the only realistic path. While there often is reluctance to cede independence to another institution, mergers are hardly new, as consolidation in US higher education is hardly a new phenomenon. There are several hundred examples of mergers, many going back a century or more. Washington and Jefferson College in Pennsylvania in 1865 is the result of such an arrangement, as is Case Western Reserve University in Ohio a century later. In addition to these mergers, hundreds of other institutions have simply closed, including at least 170 in the past twenty years.

    Additionally, may institutions may be placed to take advantage of consortium relationships with other institutions. Again, there are numerous examples of institutions seeking to improve their situations through this form of collaboration. Participating institutions collaborate on such things as sharing costs or providing a wider range of student options, while remaining independent. However, this model, while valuable in many ways, rarely provides major financial advantages except at the margins. And successful consortia require a certain degree of independent sustainability for each member.

    Still others may be able find opportunity in growth through symbiosis. The recent Coalition for the Common Good begun by Antioch and Otterbein universities is an example. Other variants are possible. However, again such middle ground models also assume a basic stability of the members. As stated by Coalition president, John Comerford, “we are looking for a sweet spot of resources. This is not a way to save a school on death’s door. It’s also probably not useful to a school with billions in their endowment. Institutions in the big middle ground both need to look at new business models and likely have some flexibility to invest in them.” This type of model will not work in many cases.

    The point is that many of these small college will continue to be at risk as long as they are tuition dependent within a shrinking pool of potential students and insufficient external support. Fewer and fewer small institutions will be able to survive independently simply because of the financial challenges inherent in their small-scale model.

    Small undergraduate institutions represent the highest ideals of higher education. They are a key source for graduate students and future professors. They are central to their communities. Their strengthening and preservation as a class is an essential element of the American higher education ecosystem with its wide range of institutional models and opportunities. But this does not mean all can survive.

    The leaders of every institution need to have a clear and practical plan for the maintenance of their independence, while also being open to careful consideration of alternatives, exploring potential alternatives well before they face a crisis.

    Notes:

    1. DiMaggio, Paul and Powell, Walter, The Iron Cage Revisited: Institutional Isomorphism and Collective Rationality in Organizational Fields in DiMaggio and Powell, The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, University of Chicago Press, 1991. (pp.63-82)
    2. Ibid. p. 70
    3. Ibid. p. 71
    4. Hollis Robbins, The Higher Ed Nomenklatura? Inside Higher Education, May 12, 2025

    The next essay in this series will examine in some detail the steps in a process that begins with acknowledging the possible need for a partner and hopefully results in an agreement that is implemented.

     Dr. Chet Haskell is Senior Consultant and Higher Education Strategist at Edu Alliance Group. He brings over four decades of leadership and consulting experience in higher education, with a career spanning the U.S., Europe, Latin America, and Asia. He has held senior roles, including President of the Monterey Institute of International Studies and Cogswell Polytechnical College, Dean and de facto Provost at Simmons College, and 13 years of leadership positions at Harvard University and five years in senior administrative roles at the University of Southern California.

    As Provost and Chief Academic Officer of Antioch University, he helped lead the creation of the Coalition for the Common Good, a groundbreaking alliance with Otterbein University. Internationally, Dr. Haskell has advised universities in Mexico, Spain, Holland, and Brazil and served as a consultant to the Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), the Western Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) and the Council on International Quality Group.
    ‍
    A respected accreditation expert, he has served as a WSCUC peer reviewer and as an international advisor to ANECA (Spain) and ACAP (Madrid). He is a frequent speaker at global conferences and meetings.

     

     

    Source link

  • Engaging policy review to smooth lumpy futures into transformative higher education

    Engaging policy review to smooth lumpy futures into transformative higher education

    Hamish Coates, Ellen Hazelkorn, Hans de Wit, Tessa Delaquil, and Angel Calderon

    Hans de Wit, Ellen Hazelkorn and Hamish Coates are editors and Tessa DeLaquil is associate editor of Policy Reviews in Higher Education. Angel Calderon is a member of the PRiHE Editorial Board. This blog is based on their editorial for issue 2, 2025.

    It often feels like there is lots more ranting and moaning than imagining and evidencing around higher education these days. With excellent policy research, it does not have to be this way.

    The immediate post-millennium era was arguably a golden age for universities, with huge interest in massification, investment, especially in research, and institutional autonomy. But the global financial crisis followed a decade later by global pandemic shocked higher education into different worlds. Most countries still promulgate objectives for a sustainable and cost-efficient, equitable and accessible, high quality education system as the basis for growth. In OECD countries, however, assumptions that massification would on its own provide opportunities for everyone with mechanisms for social inclusion and social mobility are being heavily questioned. In developing and emerging economies, the challenge is meeting demand and being able to absorb graduates. Yet, too many countries and research-focused universities keep chasing ‘quick prestige’, leaving others to put up with disproportionately lower funding, as well as poorer facilities, resources and opportunities.

    Wealth and opportunity inequalities are increasingly greater within rather than between countries. At the same time, questions about educational outcomes such as employability, skills gaps and skills mismatches and over-qualification which have been long ignored by academic communities as irrelevant, are gaining public and policy traction. Governments and industries document the shift away from credentials towards greater focus on competencies – what people can do with what they know – and alternative accreditation processes.

    A few large countries are in the foothills of a demographic cliff, while others are (currently) privileged by demand. Traditional public systems in many countries face an identity crisis and appear too sluggish to grasp new opportunities. Parts of the private subsector are progressively active and more responsive to the needs of diverse and older learners and to competency-based learning, micro-credentials and other forms of just-in-time learning. Accordingly, the private sector is the fastest growing segment of postsecondary education worldwide.

    Countries vary considerably in their ability to cover costs associated with policy objectives due to revenue challenges and competitive demands elsewhere within society and the economy, alongside student and public unease about cost. Certain systems promote a laissez-faire or marketised approach whereby individual colleges and institutions (public and private) pursue their own agendas, while others grasp at opportunities for a more strategic state-led approach. Countries are beginning to examine the opportunities of a more joined-up post-secondary tertiary system (Hazelkorn, 2025). As Piketty has written, “it is access to skills and diffusion of knowledge that allow inequality to be reduced both within countries and at the international level” (2020: 534). But funding a mass system is very different from one catering to a small minority especially at a time when geopolitical/geoeconomic power shifts reshape the global landscape.

    Deglobalisation and populist nationalism are shaking these issues out differently around the world. In many countries, these tensions are contributing to a growing sense of people and communities being left behind, and to social unrest. The dominance of information technology over universities, challenging the value of graduates for entry-level work and of faculty, will spur heightened questioning of the value of higher education (Coates, 2017; The Guardian, 2025; Roose, 2025). While others look on in disbelief, there is a sense that this may not be a problem for higher education today, though it is likely to be so one day.

    It is too easy to blame governments and other external stakeholders. What role has higher education played itself, and what role can it play into the future? Is the sector, especially the public side, sufficiently strategic, forward-looking and adaptable? What are the implications for the governance of the system and of its many institutions? Or is it wandering unchained in the global wilds? Universities praise themselves as being one of the world’s oldest and most enduring institution, but as Darwin said: “It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is the most adaptable to change.”

    Once, such questions may have been ludicrous to provoke at the outset of a Policy Reviews in Higher Education (PRIHE) editorial. Not anymore. Accordingly, in the balance of this editorial we sketch frontier topics which higher education can embrace to drive positive reform, then current journal contributions (Figure 1). We conclude with a call to engage and transform.

    Figure 1: Current and frontier contributions

    Any higher education policy zealot who has read Arnold Lobel’s brilliant treatise on Owl’s strange bumps in the bed (in which the Owl is afraid to go to sleep because of two strange bumps at the bottom of his bed, which are, in fact, his feet) (Lobel, 1982) understands that fear is created by running scared and can be tackled by uncovering and addressing matters in ways that unlock innovation and progress.

    Policy Reviews in Higher Education plays this important role, though to date with fewer endearing drawings. Springing from inspiring intellectual dialogue with a member of the PRIHE Editorial Board and consequently guest author, Angel Calderon, we mark out a handful of narratives to carry forward policy research over the coming decades:

    • Moving beyond academic comfort communities
    • Handling looming demographic shifts and diversity
    • Addressing concerns about academic value
    • Creatively unpacking university clusterings and characteristics
    • Leaders who lead in smart ways.

    Higher education researchers must explore how universities and the academics who comprise them can move beyond comfort communities. This means finding ways to move beyond conservative research literatures and straightjacketing bibliometrics, beyond discipline and collegial communities, beyond the academic treadmill, beyond the subsector itself, and beyond naval-gazing research. A doctorate followed by decades toiling in the same institution is no prudent recipe for forging broader cognitive or tangible engagement with enterprise and industry (public and private) and the broader world. How can career trajectories be redefined to evoke and even provoke experimentation, fertilisation, and broader contribution?

    Policy researchers must find productive ways for helping universities handle looming demographic shifts. The Asian investment in higher education which has fuelled the last thirty years will plateau and in major instances decline. Smart countries and universities are already looking beyond increasingly risky ‘foreign and school-leaver markets’ at reconfigured alignments with career-inspiring work and adult life. As yet, however, few if any countries have policy and associated regulation or funding to spur new ventures and directions. Beyond the sensible need for regional or perhaps global ‘harmonisation’, what is the scope for more imaginative forward-thinking about the sort of institutional reconfigurations needed to deliver for societies in 2050? Also, universities continue to see international students as an alternative for demographic declines as well as for income generation, adopting imperialist approaches to new markets rather than anticipating global and local shifts. Internationalisation is still seen as an income source based on mobility flows, instead of as a possible change agent for innovation in education, research and service to society.

    Genuine political concerns about academic quality and value are unlikely to be assuaged by fluffing up the fame of elite researchers who typically have little to do with students or voting communities. Graduate outcomes and relevance are some of the most pressing challenges for all governments pushing people to question the value of higher education and ensure it translates into good jobs. Broadening rankings to include topics like sustainability, while useful, misses the more substantial need to focus on local engagement rather than global striving. It is folly to think that all the ~88,000 higher education institutions (UNESCO, 2022: 12) should aspire to look the same. Pursuit of ‘world-class’ sameness is no substitute for critical research and delivery of more robust and compelling public information on value, quality of educational delivery and outcomes, and at the same time nuanced differentiation of the difference each and every institution can make. And arguably rankings bear increasing responsibility for distorting funding allocations and institutional/government priorities across many post-secondary systems.

    Higher education sector growth in recent decades has spawned exciting, misunderstood and very important institutional and national configurations. There is an urgent need to creatively unpack university clusterings. Far too much time and money has been invested in studying groups characterised by bibliometric performance. More interestingly, there are university-defined groups, ranging from ‘presidents’ dinner clubs’ to disciplinary groups of nationally aligned associations. There are broader political, cultural and religious associations. There are groups connected through graduate or professional diasporas, or research connections. There is an emergent clustering of associations shaped by geopolitical/geoeconomic and national security imperatives. Ownership and tax-status has long been a means of shuffling universities into groups. What novel patterns and projections can be revealed?

    Leading universities and the sector in smart ways will be imperative to ensuring the sector’s promise does not demise. Finding effective leaders is an obvious necessary step, which surprisingly little research has clarified. Cultivating and developing leaders is an obvious next step, though it is tackled in so many perplexing ways. Diversity is important, of course, including in intellectual as well as manifest characteristics. Assuring value and delivery is paramount, with increasing suspicions but to date far too little warrant is given to importing governance techniques from other sectors. Strengthening institutional governance and management is required to ensure that the right leaders are appointed and that they have the capacity and capability to deal with more frequent and overlapping crises and conflicting externalities in uncertain circumstances. There should be willingness to find new ways to govern tertiary education sectors more robustly considering turbulence and increased uncertainty and the level of emergent discord between the public and universities. No doubt policy governance can be tricky, but it needs to be more strategic and forward thinking, willing to take innovative steps to ensure the education system meets the needs of all learners and society. Governance systems were designed based on periods of relative stability and the occasional minor disturbance. What can be done, for instance, to build more resilient leadership for public and private vocational and higher education, encouraging active engagement with each other and their communities beyond the campus? Is there renewed scope to refresh ‘old public management’?

    With the intent of curating even more purposeful contributions, PRIHErecently launched a call for experts around the world to curate cognate collections on a high-impact policy contributions. These contributions which relate to hot topics in higher education policy seek to engage a group of scholars around important themes, and work with the journal and related networks to convene hybrid global seminars and deliver substantial insights on consequential frontier issues. PRIHE’s Editorial Board and Editors have spotlighted six shaping themes which raise questions, insights and issues to be addressed by policy, drawing on experiences from around the world. These include:

    • Proving contributions: Restoring public trust in higher education and universities
    • Emerging formations: Transnational, online and private higher education, regulation, ethics
    • Geopolitical upheavals: Collaboration, sovereignty, nationalism, deregulation
    • Global challenges: Sustaining autonomy, academic freedom, purposeful research, independence
    • Lifelong learning: Valuing higher learning and skills across the lifespan, and
    • Valuing education: Raising the profile of large-scale teaching and learning.

    Higher education in many if not most countries is confronting strong headwinds and needs strident thinking and reform rather than rent-seeking complacency. Carving out intellectual architectures to stimulate dialogue from disorder creates tailwinds for the tough work then required to create and promulgate the evidence which may sway policy and reform practice. In this editorial we have advanced a handful of non-ignorable developments as a guide for authorship, deliberation, and reforming practice.

    Reference: Hazelkorn, E (2025) ‘Building a Unified Tertiary Education System. Trends and Propositions to Provoke Discussion, Trending Topics’ New Directions for Community Colleges  Forthcoming.

    Professor Ellen Hazelkorn is Joint Managing Partner, BH Associates. She is Professor Emeritus, Technological University Dublin.

    Hamish Coates is professor of public policy, director of the Higher Education Futures Lab, and global tertiary education expert.

    Hans de Wit is Professor Emeritus and Distinguished Fellow of the Boston College Center for International Higher Education, Senior Fellow of the international Association of Universities.

    Tessa DeLaquil is postdoctoral research fellow at the School of Education at University College Dublin.

    Angel Calderon is Director of Strategic Insights at RMIT University and expert on global tertiary education.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Undocumented Kids Face Narrowed Pathways, Stifled Futures – The 74

    Undocumented Kids Face Narrowed Pathways, Stifled Futures – The 74

    School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark Keierleber. Subscribe here.

    In a battle over undocumented students’ access to public schooling — and, frankly, their futures — the Trump administration agreed this week to pause new federal rules designed to bar immigrants from Head Start and other education programs. 

    My colleague Jo Napolitano reports the reprieve, through Sept. 3, applies in 20 states and Washington, D.C., after state attorneys general sued to stop new rules designed to give undocumented preschoolers and other immigrant students the boot.

    Health and Human Services Secretary Robert. F. Kennedy Jr. visits a Head Start program on May 21 to promote healthy eating. On July 10, he issued a directive barring undocumented students from the federally funded early education program. (Facebook/HeadStart.gov)

    Those regulations could end up restricting educational opportunities for the youngest learners. But as Jo explains in her newest analysis, it’s just one part of a multifaceted approach to bar undocumented students from learning from cradle to career. 

    Read Jo’s full analysis — and learn how the changes could undercut the chance immigrant youth get for a better life. 

    In the news

    More on Trump’s immigration crackdown: In Arizona, unaccompanied minors are facing immigration judges alone — without help from lawyers — after the administration cut off access to funding for their defense. A court order has restored the money temporarily through September. | Arizona Republic

    • The Trump administration instructed federal agents to give detained migrant teenagers the option of voluntarily returning to their home countries instead of being confined in government-overseen shelters. | CBS News
    • Attorneys for immigrant children say youth and families are being detained in “prison-like” facilities even as the administration seeks to terminate rules that mandate basic safety and sanitary conditions for children. | CBS News
    • The Denver school district says fear of federal immigration enforcement led to a surge in student absences. A review of attendance data by The Denver Gazette suggests a more nuanced picture. | The Denver Gazette
    • Undocumented students who attended K-12 schools in the U.S. last year before getting deported share their stories. | USA Today
    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    Penny Schwinn, who was in line to be the Education Department’s second in command, has dropped out of consideration following critiques of her conservative bona fides, including for past support of campus equity initiatives. | The 74

    ‘Trampling upon women’s rights’: The Oregon Department of Education is the latest agency to come under federal investigation over allegations the state allows transgender students to compete in women’s sports. | Oregon Public Broadcasting

    New Education Department guidance encourages the use of federal money to expand artificial intelligence in classrooms, which the agency said has “the potential to revolutionize” schools. | Education Week 

    • The Trump administration’s “AI Action Plan” comes after the Senate failed to pass rules in the “big, beautiful” tax-and-spending bill designed to prevent states from regulating AI. Instead, Trump’s guidance directs the Federal Communications Commission to evaluate state regulations and block any “AI-related federal funding” to any states with rules deemed “burdensome.” | The White House

    How a 45-second TikTok video portraying a campus shooting — created by middle school cheerleaders — led to criminal charges. | ProPublica

    A phishing campaign has taken advantage of mass layoffs at the Education Department by mimicking a portal maintained by the agency to manage grants and federal education funding. | DarkReading

    Drones are being pitched as the next big thing to thwart school shootings — but district leaders are balking at the million-dollar price tag. | WCTV

    ‘Critical gaps’: An inspector general report in Washington, D.C., uncovered flaws in the city school system’s gun violence prevention efforts, including a backlog on repairs to security equipment. | The Washington Post

    Wisconsin schools are installing controversial license plate readers that have been used by law enforcement to track down undocumented immigrants. | Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

    ICYMI @The74

    Sierra Rios and her daughter Nevaeh (Sierra Rios)

    For Decades, the Feds Were the Last, Best Hope for Special Ed Kids. What Happens Now?

    A Student’s View: Cell Phone Bans Won’t Fix Education

    Report: ‘A Mixed Picture’ in Pandemic Recovery for American Children

    Emotional Support

    Chompers gonna chomp. Photo credit: Bev Weintraub


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Building Connections and Shaping Futures by Fostering Cohort Success – Faculty Focus

    Building Connections and Shaping Futures by Fostering Cohort Success – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Building Connections and Shaping Futures by Fostering Cohort Success – Faculty Focus

    Building Connections and Shaping Futures by Fostering Cohort Success – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Capability for change – preparing for digital learning futures

    Capability for change – preparing for digital learning futures

    Digital transformation is an ongoing journey for higher education institutions, but there is something quite distinctive about the current moment.

    The combination of financial uncertainty, changing patterns of student engagement, and the seismic arrival of artificial intelligence is pointing to a future for higher education learning and teaching and a digital student experience that will certainly have some core elements in common with current practice but is likely in many respects to look rather different.

    At the moment I see myself and my colleagues trying to cling to what we always did and what we always know. And I really do think the whole future of what we do and how we teach our students, and what we teach our students is going to accelerate and change very, very quickly now, in the next five years. Institutional leader

    Our conversations with sector leaders and experts over the past six months indicate an ambition to build consistent, inclusive and engaging digital learning environments and to deploy data much more strategically. Getting it right opens up all kinds of possibilities to extend the reach of higher education and to innovate in models for engagement. But future change demands different kinds of technological capabilities, and working practices, and institutions are saying that they are hindered by legacy systems, organisational silos, and a lack of a unified vision.

    Outdated systems do not “talk to each other,” and on a cultural level as departments and central teams also do not “talk to each other” – or may struggle to find a common language. And rather than making life easier, many feel that technology creates significant inefficiencies, forcing staff to spend more time on administrative tasks and less on what truly matters.

    I think the problem always is when we hope something’s going to make it more efficient. But then it just adds a layer of complexity into what we’re doing…I think that’s what we struggle with – what can genuinely deliver some time savings and efficiencies as opposed to putting another layer in a process? Institutional leader

    In the spirit of appreciative inquiry, our report Capability for change – preparing for digital learning futures draws on a series of in depth discussions with leaders of learning and teaching, and digital technology, digital experts and students’ union representatives. We explore the sorts of change that are already in train, and surface insight about how institutions are thinking in terms of building whole-organisation capabilities. “Digital dexterity” – the ability to deploy technology strategically, efficiently, and innovatively to achieve core objectives – may be yet another tech buzzword, but it captures a sense of where organisations are trying to get to.

    While immediate financial pressures may require cutting costs and reprofiling investment, long term sustainability depends on moving forward with change, finding ways, not to do more with less but to do things differently. To realise the most value from technology investment institutional leaders need to find ways to ensure that across the institution staff teams have the knowledge, the motivation and the tools to deploy technology in the service of student success.

    How institutions are building organisational capability

    Running through all our conversations was a tension, albeit a potentially productive one: there needs to be much more consistency and clarity about the primary strategic objectives of the institution and the core technology platforms and applications that enable them. But the effect of, in essence, imposing a more streamlined “central” vision, expectations and processes should be to enable and empower the academic and professional teams to do the things that make for a great student experience. Our research indicates that institutions are focusing on three areas: leadership and strategy; digital capabilities of institutional staff; and breaking down the vertical silos that can hamper effective cross-organisational working.

    A number of reflections point to strategy-level improvements – such as ensuring there is strategic alignment between institutional objectives for student success, and technology and digital strategies; listening to the feedback from students and staff about what they need from technology; setting priorities, and resourcing those priorities from end to end from technology procurement to deployment and evaluation of impact. One institutional leader described what happens when digital strategies get lost in principles and forget to align with the wider success of the organisation:

    The old strategy is fairly similar, I imagine, to many digital strategies that you would have seen – it talks about being user focused, talks about lean delivery, talks about agile methodologies, product and change management and delivering value through showing, not telling. So it was a very top level strategy, but really not built with outcomes at its absolute core, like, what are the things that are genuinely going to change for people, for students? Institutional leader

    Discussions of staff digital capabilities recognised that institutional staff are often hampered by organisational complexity and bureaucracy which too often is mirrored in the digital sphere. One e-learning professional suggested that there is a need for research to really understand why there is a tendency towards proliferation of processes and systems, and confront the impact on staff workloads.

    There may also be limits to what can reasonably be expected from teaching staff in terms of digital learning design:

    You need to establish minimum benchmarks and get everyone to that place, and then some people will be operating well beyond that. You can be clear about basic benchmark expectations around student experience – and then beyond that you need to put in actual support [such as learning design experts] to implement the curriculum framework. E-learning professional

    But the broader insight on staff development was around shifting from provision of training on how to operate systems or tools to a more context-specific exploration of how the available technologies and data can help educators achieve their student success ambitions. Value is more systematically created across the organisation when those academic and professional teams who work directly with students are able to use the technology and data available creatively to enhance their practice and to problem solve.

    Where data has been used before it’s very much sat with senior colleagues in the institution. And you know it’s helped in decision making. But the next step is to try and empower colleagues at the coal face to use data in their day to day interventions with their students… How can they use the data to inform how they support their students? Institutional leader

    Decisive leadership may be successful in setting priorities and streamlining the processes and technologies that underpin them; strong focus on professional development may engage and enable institutional staff. But culture change will come when institutions find ways to systematically build “horizontals” across silos – mechanisms for collaborative and shared activity that bridge different perspectives, languages and disciplinary and professional cultures.

    Some examples we saw included embedding digital professionals in faculties and academic business processes such as recruitment panels, convening of cross-organisation thinking on shared challenges, and appointment of “change agent” roles with a skillset and remit to roam across boundaries.

    Technology providers must be part of the solution – acting as strategic partners rather than suppliers. One way to do that is to support institutions to pilot, test, and develop proof of concept before they decide to invest in large-scale change. Another is to work with institutions to understand how technology is deployed in practice, and the evolving needs of user communities. To be a great partner to the higher education sector means having a deep understanding not only of the technological capabilities that could help the sector but how these might weave into an organisation’s wider mission and values. In this way, technology providers can help to build capability for change.

    This article is published in association with Kortext. You can download the Capability for change report on Kortext’s website. The authors would like to thank all those who shared their insight to inform the report. 

    Source link