Tag: Growth

  • Where will growth come from in the UK’s international education strategy?

    Where will growth come from in the UK’s international education strategy?

    The long-awaited strategy, released today (January 20), outlines the UK government’s target to reach an annual education export target of £40bn by the end of the decade – up from £32.3bn in 2022. 

    Notably, it removes international student recruitment targets, signalling a break from the 2019 strategy, which targeted the 30% growth of international levels by 2030. 

    “Success will mean hitting the target while operating sustainable levels of international student recruitment,” the document states, doubling down on the government’s overall aim of reducing net migration, as laid out in last year’s immigration white paper. 

    In an exclusive interview with The PIE News, Sir Steve said a focus on transnational education (TNE) was the “biggest change” in the sector in recent years, welcoming the “commitment across government for that pivot to TNE” and the importance of other areas including skills, early years, schools, edtech and special educational needs.

    “The first strategy was a child of that world. Now, it’s much more about moving towards bringing the strength of the UK’s education system across the board to the international market,” said Sir Steve.

    The strategy states the £40bn aim will be achieved across the “full breadth of the sector”, including TNE, English language training (ELT), and edtech, while broadly referencing existing trade missions, soft power networks and boosting financial support mechanisms.  

    It highlights the success of existing TNE initiatives, with exports across all sectors reaching £3bn in 2022. But it doesn’t set out the financials of how much TNE will contribute to the overall growth plan.  

    It recognises the “strong potential” of further overseas expansion and hails the “significant achievement” of Southampton University establishing the UK’s first India campus last year – though the financial impact of the expansion is yet to be realised.  

    The UK’s international education champion Sir Steve is spearheading many of the IES’ objectives, with the government prioritising partnerships in India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, and recognising the “strategic importance” of China and Hong Kong.

    Sir Steve said the cost of travelling to study abroad in the UK was only accessible to a small percentage of students, and that the demand for TNE was coming from international governments.

    “What these governments want is UK quality, but at a price point that is more inclusive for their society, and what we do is work with the government of each of the countries where TNE is growing to make sure that fulfils the needs,” he told The PIE.

    Now, it’s much more about moving towards bringing the strength of the UK’s education system across the board to the international market

    Sir Steve Smith, UK international education champion

    Beyond higher education and TNE, the strategy spotlights the “dynamic” ELT sector, which generated £560m in 2022. It praises the quality of the UK’s English language teaching, assessment and teacher training, though doesn’t explicitly state how growth will be boosted. 

    Meanwhile, edtech and other educational services added £3.89bn to the UK economy in 2022, the strategy states, identifying online learning as another opportunity for growth.  

    While making clear that growth will not come from increased international recruitment targets, the strategy sets out measures to promote the UK as a study and research destination, including through the Study UK campaign partly funded by the British Council. 

    It makes much of leveraging the British Council’s existing diplomatic network “to build bridges across cultures and sectors, deepen global ties, and support strategic collaboration”, vowing to expand such partnerships across global trade, study abroad and skills.  

    The strategy highlights the value of previously announced policies, including the launch of the British Council’s new TNE strategy last year, the UK’s rejoining of Erasmus+, and existing scholarships including the renowned Chevening program. 

    “The UK is taking a new diplomacy-led approach,” states the strategy, which is co-owned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Education and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). 

    As such, soft power is central to the strategy’s growth objectives, which looks ahead to the upcoming of the Soft Power Strategy that it says will support the IES, though it gives no details of the publication timeline.  

    Source link

  • Connecting devolving and prioritising innovation- It’s the Northern Growth Strategy

    Connecting devolving and prioritising innovation- It’s the Northern Growth Strategy

    Of all the things I am proud of in my life I am the most proud of being Northern.

    You have not felt love until you have seen the sun rise over the Tyne Bridge. Life is rendered that bit more vibrant by a visit to Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art. The North is the place where kindness is a professional sport. To be Northern is to be part of a collective, part of a cultural and economic history that spans from the Darlington and Stockton Railway to the Mercury Prize.

    To be Northern is to have won the lottery of life but it is to have not even been in the draw when it comes to infrastructure investment.

    Dark satanic mills

    The UK is stuck in a deep economic malaise. Productivity is low which means economic output and living standards are also flat-lining. This phenomena is even worse in the North where a vicious cycle of poor investment in innovation assets and infrastructure weakens the case for further investment in innovation assets and infrastructure which in turn further depresses productivity, growth and living standards.

    The regional imbalance in infrastructure investment is not inevitable nor as prominent a feature of many comparable economies. It is a series of deliberate policy decisions that are both structural in the hyper-centralisation of the state which allocates and reallocates its resources to London and the South East, and economically reinforcing through investment in clusters of leading assets. The results of which see UKRI invest 72 per cent more per person in the Greater South East than outside the Greater South East.

    This arrangement is also not a good deal for London. The weak economy across the rest of the country reduces the amount of cash available to invest in London’s leading research assets which in turn depresses growth in the capital, and because of the size of London’s economy, the whole of the economy. Despite the concentration of state spending Londoners also generate far more in tax receipts than London receives in state expenditure.

    The economy cannot grow without improving productivity, productivity will not grow without improving Northern economies, and Northern economies will not improve under the current approach to state spending. A problem at last recognised by the government in the launch of its Northern Growth Strategy.

    We do thing differently here

    There are three planks to the strategy. Investment in transport, business support, and a devolution agenda that combines investment in innovation assets with promises of further devolution.

    There are further plans to come but the agenda, while light, sets out some of the big opportunities that would be genuinely transformative to the North. The first is to improve the educational opportunities for the people in the North and increase the number of graduates that stay there. Unless there are going to be caps for students in the South East (unlikely) this would inevitably mean more not fewer university students. The hope is that retaining graduates, and therefore intellectual capital, would provide an economic boost. This reads more as a wish than a plan. The government has not explained how they will rebalance the economy by moving graduates without any incentives, fewer jobs in the North, and bad infrastructure.

    The wider economic plan relies on realising the benefits of key research assets aligned to the industrial strategy in things like manufacturing, digital, and clean energy. The promise is that there will be national investment in these assets, coupled with improved transport to improve the economic performance of radial cities, allied to wider transport infrastructure to improve connection between Northern cities. The plan is to use government investment to improve economic performance both with and across cities.

    Darlington and Stockton rail

    The transport announcements have captured the headlines. There is evidence in other contexts that good transport links allied to research assets induce spillover benefits The plan, finally backed by Labour’s perennial leadership candidate Andy Burnham, will see investment between Sheffield, Leeds, York, and Bradford followed by a new route between Liverpool and Manchester, and complete with new connections in the Pennines connecting the rest of the North via Darlington. Part of the case for transport investment is that improving connectivity between leading knowledge assets will support economic growth.

    Ultimately, this plan recognises two crucial points about the UK’s economy. The first is that the success of the UK’s knowledge assets is the success of the wider economy. That success is predicated on a better distribution of cash and opportunity. The second is that the North’s potential has been stymied by poor infrastructure. In addressing both the government not only confirms its ambitions for the North but further cements innovation at the heart of its economic plan.

    Source link

  • We built evaluation for accountability–now it’s time to build it for growth

    We built evaluation for accountability–now it’s time to build it for growth

    Key points:

    Teacher evaluations have been the subject of debate for decades. Breakthroughs have been attempted, but rarely sustained. Researchers have learned that context, transparency, and autonomy matter. What’s been missing is technology that enhances these at scale inside the evaluation process–not around it. 

    As an edtech executive in the AI era, I see exciting possibilities to bring new technology to bear on these factors in the longstanding dilemma of observing and rating teacher effectiveness.

    At the most fundamental level, the goals are simple, just as they are in other professions: provide accountability, celebrate areas of strong performance, and identify where improvement is needed. However, K-12 education is a uniquely visible and important industry. Between 2000 and 2015, quality control in K-12 education became more complex, with states, foundations, and federal policy all shaping the definition and measurement of a “proficient” teacher. 

    For instance, today’s observation cycle might include pre- and post-observation conferences plus scheduled and unscheduled classroom visits. Due to the potential for bias in personal observation, more weight has been given to student achievement, but after critics highlighted problems with measuring teacher performance via standardized test scores, additional metrics and artifacts were included as well.

    All of these changes have resulted in administrators spending more time on observation and evaluation, followed by copying notes between systems and drafting comments–rather than on timely, specific feedback that actually changes practice. “Even when I use Gemini or ChatGPT, I still spend 45 minutes rewriting to fit the district rubric,” one administrator noted.

    “When I think about the evaluation landscape, two challenges rise to the surface,” said Dr. Quintin Shepherd, superintendent at Pflugerville Independent School District in Texas. “The first is the overwhelming volume of information evaluators must gather, interpret, and synthesize. The second is the persistent perception among teachers that evaluation is something being done to them rather than something being done for them. Both challenges point in the same direction: the need for a resource that gives evaluators more capacity and teachers more clarity, immediacy, and ownership. This is where AI becomes essential.”

    What’s at stake

    School leaders are under tremendous pressure. Time and resources are tight. Achieving benchmarks is non-negotiable. There’s plenty of data available to identify patterns and understand what’s working–but analyzing it is not easy when the data is housed in multiple platforms that may not interface with one another. Generic AI tools haven’t solved this.  

    For teachers, professional development opportunities abound, and student data is readily available. But often they don’t receive adequate instructional mentoring to ideate and try out new strategies. 

    Districts that have experimented with AI to provide automated feedback of transcribed recordings of instruction have found limited impact on teaching practices. Teachers report skepticism that the evolving tech tools are able to accurately assess what is happening in their classrooms. Recent randomized controlled trials show that automated feedback can move specific practices when teachers engage with it. But that’s exactly the challenge: Engagement is optional. Evaluations are not. 

    Teachers whose observations and evaluations are compromised or whose growth is stymied by lost opportunities for mentoring may lose out financially. For example, in Texas, the 2025-26 school year is the data capture period for the Teacher Incentive Allotment. This means fair and objective reviews are more important than ever for educators’ future earning potential.

    For all of these reasons, the next wave of innovation has to live inside the required evaluation cycle, not off to the side as another “nice-to-have” tool.

    Streamlining the process

    My background at edtech companies has shown me how eager school leaders are to make data-informed decisions. But I know from countless conversations with administrators that they did not enter the education field to crunch numbers. They are motivated by seeing students thrive. 

    The breakthrough we need now is an AI-powered workspace that sits inside the evaluation system. Shepherd would like to see “AI that quietly assists with continuous evidence collection not through surveillance, but pattern recognition. It might analyze lesson materials for cognitive rigor, scan student work products to detect growth, or help teachers tag artifacts connected to standards.”

    We have the technology to create a collaborative workspace that can be mapped to the district’s framework and used by administrators, coaches, support teams, and educators to capture notes from observations, link them to goals, provide guidance, share lesson artifacts, engage in feedback discussions, and track growth across cycles. After participating in a pilot of one such collaborative workspace, an evaluator said that “for the first time, I wasn’t rewriting my notes to make them fit the rubric. The system kept the feedback clear and instructional instead of just compliance-based.”

    As a superintendent, Shepherd looks forward to AI support for helping make sense of complexity. “Evaluators juggle enormous qualitative loads: classroom culture, student engagement, instructional clarity, differentiation, formative assessment, and more. AI can act as a thinking partner, organizing trends, highlighting possible connections, identifying where to probe deeper, or offering research-based framing for feedback.”

    The evaluation process will always be scrutinized, but what must change is whether it continues to drain time and trust or becomes a catalyst for better teaching. Shepherd expects the pace of adoption to pick up speed as the benefits for educators become clear: “Teachers will have access to immediate feedback loops and tools that help them analyze student work, reconsider lesson structures, or reflect on pacing and questioning. This strengthens professional agency and shifts evaluation from a compliance ritual to a growth process.”

    Real leadership means moving beyond outdated processes and redesigning evaluation to center evidence, clarity, and authentic feedback. When evaluation stops being something to get through and becomes something that improves practice, we will finally see technology drive better teaching and learning.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • How business school research can power inclusive and sustainable regional growth

    How business school research can power inclusive and sustainable regional growth

    This blog was kindly authored by Jack Harrington, CEO, Emma Parry, Chair and Katy Mason, President, British Academy of Management.

    Chartered ABS recently published its Business Schools as Engines of Growth report. This work provides a much needed look at the social and economic value of Business Schools. It paves the way for likely changes in the policy landscape.

    Here, we focus on why Business Schools are so well placed to deliver on so many policy priorities. Among other things, Business Schools are a channel through which social science research can change lives for the better.

    Business Schools across the UK are situated in very different kinds of regional economy. At a time of immense disruption – from climate shocks to technological transformation – our business schools must reimagine their role in helping shape the future of regional economies. The ‘Business Schools as Engines of Growth, Opportunity and Innovation’ report, published as a supplement to Universities UK’s 2024 Blueprint for Change, rightly positions business schools as more than excellent educators. Crucially, they are also strategic collaborators in place-based transformation, driving a new kind of socio-economic growth.

    The report calls to deepen research partnerships between business schools, local businesses, and policymakers. This is not just a question of economic necessity (though the productivity gap between UK regions remains stark). It is, most importantly, a question of social responsibility. We must place people and planet at the heart of our research agendas, building new understandings of inclusive, sustainable growth that reflect the urgent challenges of our time.

    From knowledge to impact: research that makes a difference

    Business and management research is often undervalued in national Research & Development debates. This is surprising, given it plays such a pivotal role in enabling the adoption and use of technical innovations as viable, scalable, and ethical elements of our everyday organisational practices and social lives. Research insights from UK business schools are already helping local firms adopt digital tools, improve leadership, decarbonise operations, and engage communities more inclusively.

    Programmes such as the Help to Grow: Management course, delivered by Small Business Charter-accredited schools, demonstrate how research-informed education can empower SME leaders to drive digital adoption and productivity. IPSOS evaluation shows 91% of participants report improved leadership and growth capabilities.

    This is just the tip of the iceberg. Research conducted through Knowledge Transfer Partnerships (KTPs), place-based innovation catalysts, accelerator and labs offers a roadmap for changing the way business schools can act as “anchor institutions” in their regions to drive positive change.

    A new narrative for business research

    If we are serious about creating a fairer economy and a more inclusive society, then the UK’s business schools and their research must be seen as essential infrastructure for inclusive and sustainable regional development.

    Fortunately, this is largely a matter of valuing what we already have. As the white paper shows, Business Schools often provide the most visible way in which the social sciences inform decision-making and operational life in organisations across the UK. Business Schools offer the networks, the expertise, and the commitment to act as coordinators between science, society, and markets, and the skills to drive the co-production of new kinds of knowledge and imaginaries for a better future.

    There is still more that business schools can do. We need to be much better at enabling and valuing interdisciplinary, engaged research that supports public and private sector leaders navigating complexity. We need to help early-career researchers to collaborate beyond the academy. And we need to rethink impact, not just as ‘REF returns’, but in terms of supporting the development of better jobs, fairer systems, and stronger communities.At a time when the Higher Education is in financial crisis, and the economy is struggling to grow, investment has never been so urgent.

    Source link

  • Career Growth Series 2 – CUPA-HR

    Career Growth Series 2 – CUPA-HR

    Module 2 – Managers as Career Growth Partners

    This module of CUPA-HR’s Career Growth Series is a three-part professional development opportunity for higher ed HR managers who want to explore how to support employee growth. These 90-minute virtual workshops will offer practical tools, peer insights and a reflective space to support your growth as a higher ed HR leader. 

    While you can register for only one or two of the workshops, together they form a cohesive journey — from identifying the benefits of employee professional and career development to succession planning and coaching your employees for success. 

    The Career Growth Series is a pilot program that is open to invited CUPA-HR members. Seats are limited to support interaction among participants. The workshops will be highly interactive, so come prepared to engage, reflect and share ideas. The sessions will not be recorded.

    New to CUPA-HR Virtual Events?

    CUPA-HR is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational organization of HR professionals serving our nation’s institutions of higher education. The content and discussions in these workshops are intended to be educational in nature and do not constitute legal advice or counsel. To that end, we request that participants refrain from promoting partisan positions during the workshops. 

    The Lasting Value of Career and Professional Development for Your Employees

    Thursday, January 29 | 1:00-2:30 p.m. ET

    This workshop will frame career and professional development not as a perk, but as a strategic investment tied to performance, engagement, retention and succession. We’ll explore how managers can actively facilitate development even when budgets are limited, and why investing in employees, even those who move internally, strengthens institutional talent pipelines. You’ll leave with actionable ideas for moving your employees’ growth forward.

    Presenters

    Lisa Laughter
    Senior Career Coach, Learning and Professional Development
    University of California-Davis

    Edda Urea
    Senior Executive Director, HR Learning and Organizational Development, and Compliance/Title IX and ADA/504 Coordinator
    Texas State Technical College

    Jeanann Croft Haas
    Associate University Librarian for Administrative Services and Organizational Development
    University of Pittsburgh


    Register for the January 29 Workshop

    Rethinking Succession Planning

    Wednesday, February 4 | 1:00-2:30 p.m. ET

    This workshop will challenge higher ed HR managers to move from static replacement lists to active talent cultivation. We’ll hear from a higher ed HR leader who began as a student employee and advanced to chief HR officer, demonstrating how intentional development can transform potential into leadership. We’ll also explore how to identify and grow talent in everyday work while designing low-risk stretch assignments that build leadership capacity for the future.

    Presenters

    Kristin Turner
    Assistant Vice President, HR, Learning and
    Development
    University of Colorado

    Jill Haskell
    Training and Development Coordinator
    University at Albany


    Register for the February 4 Workshop

    Coaching for Employee Growth

    Tuesday, February 10 | 1:00-2:30 p.m. ET

    This workshop will equip managers with practical tools for coaching employees to own and design their growth path. Using principles grounded in inquiry and curiosity, we’ll practice asking powerful questions, guiding reflection and creating development plans that align with both individual goals and team needs. You’ll leave with an understanding of core coaching skills and resources to navigate everyday coaching.

    Zhivi Williams
    Learning and Development Manager
    Rowan-Cabarrus Community College

    Nicole Englitsch
    Organizational Development Manager
    The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley

    Valyncia C. Raphael-Woodward
    Executive Director, Employee and Labor Relations
    University of Southern California


    Register for the February 10 Workshop

    CORE
    Employee Development

    Building Capabilities
    Succession Planning

    ENGAGEMENT
    Coaching

    New to CUPA-HR Virtual Events?
    The CUPA-HR website requires you to create a free site account if you don’t already have one. After you’ve created a website account and established a login, you can then proceed to register for this event. If you have any questions while registering, please contact CUPA-HR toll free at 877-287-2474 or via e-mail at [email protected].

    Need to Cancel a Registration?
    Fill out the cancellation form.

    Source link

  • Career Growth Series 1 – CUPA-HR

    Career Growth Series 1 – CUPA-HR

    Career Growth Series 1 – Preparing for Leadership

    CUPA-HR’s Career Growth Series is a three-part professional development opportunity for higher ed HR professionals who want to explore how to grow, lead and thrive in their careers. The three 90-minute virtual workshops in each series offer practical tools, peer insights and reflective space to support your growth.

    While you can register for only one or two of the workshops, together they form a cohesive journey — from identifying creative, self-directed development opportunities to evaluating leadership readiness and building the skills and strategies needed to step into and succeed in leadership roles.

    The Career Growth Series is a pilot program that is open to invited CUPA-HR members. Seats are limited to support interaction among participants. The workshops will be highly interactive, so come prepared to engage, reflect and share ideas. The sessions will not be recorded.

    New to CUPA-HR Virtual Events?

    CUPA-HR is a nonpartisan, nonprofit educational organization of HR professionals serving our nation’s institutions of higher education. The content and discussions in these workshops are intended to be educational in nature and do not constitute legal advice or counsel. To that end, we request that participants refrain from promoting partisan positions during the workshops. 

    Building the Blueprint for Your Professional Development Journey

    Wednesday, August 13 | 1:00-2:30 p.m. ET

    This workshop invites you to rethink professional development by exploring unconventional, self-directed strategies that align with your position and career aspirations. Through interactive activities and real-world examples, you’ll learn how to identify meaningful growth opportunities, build support for your development plan and articulate the value of your learning. Explore how curiosity, creativity and commitment can be key drivers for shaping a fulfilling professional journey in higher ed HR.

    Presenters

    Krista Vaught, Ed.D.
    Principal Advisor, Employee Experience and Learning and Development
    Frontier Design

    Natalie Trent
    Talent Management Manager
    Grand Valley State University

    Navigating Career Possibilities: Is Leadership Your Next Destination?

    Wednesday, August 20 | 2:00-3:30 p.m. ET

    This workshop will help you explore if leadership/management is the right next step in your career journey and will challenge the assumption that upward mobility is the only route to career fulfillment. Through self-assessment, peer dialogue and real-world insights, you’ll examine your motivations and strengths — and the realities of leadership roles. Leave with clarity on your path forward, whether it involves formal leadership or alternative growth opportunities in higher ed HR.

    Presenters

    Dawn Aziz, Ph.D.
    Director, Organization and Employee Development
    Wayne State University

    Kristen Finley
    Talent and Organizational Development Specialist
    Clemson University

    Elizabeth Oeltjenbruns
    Organization Development Consultant
    University of South Florida

    Krista Vaught, Ed.D.
    Principal Advisor, Employee Experience and Learning and Development
    Frontier Design

    From Aspiration to Action: Positioning Yourself for a Successful Transition Into Leadership

    Wednesday, August 27 | 2:00-3:30 p.m. ET

    This workshop is for higher ed HR professionals who are pursuing a leadership or managerial role or have recently transitioned into leadership/management. You’ll explore essential leadership competencies, reflect on your readiness, and learn strategies to build experience and credibility, even without a formal title. Through interactive discussions and real-world insights, you’ll gain tools to confidently navigate the shift from team member to a formal leadership role.

    Laura Boehme
    Vice President of People and Technology
    Central Oregon Community College

    Krista Vaught, Ed.D.
    Principal Advisor, Employee Experience and Learning and Development
    Frontier Design

    CORE
    Employee Development

    STRATEGIC LEADERSHIP
    Leading the Higher Ed Business Model

    ENGAGEMENT
    Self-Awareness and Accountability

    New to CUPA-HR Virtual Events?
    The CUPA-HR website requires you to create a free site account if you don’t already have one. After you’ve created a website account and established a login, you can then proceed to register for this event. If you have any questions while registering, please contact CUPA-HR toll free at 877-287-2474 or via e-mail at [email protected].

    Need to Cancel a Registration?
    Fill out the cancellation form.

    Source link

  • Only innovation can return higher education to growth

    Only innovation can return higher education to growth

    The economic impact of UK higher education is a source of great pride, but universities are under financial duress. There are many reasons for this, but one reason stands out above the others. It demands energetic innovation to avoid long-term decline.

    Not that long-ago optimism about the future of higher education was at its height. Sustained growth in participation (even in the face of the hike in undergraduate fees to £9000) saw unparalleled growth in home student enrolments, widening of access to the less advantaged, booming international enrolments, with UCAS talking about the Journey to a Million. The mood in the sector was upbeat and optimistic.

    Even then, there were worrying indicators that all was not well. The decline in student numbers in the US since 2012 carried a huge warning, and we could see shifting employer attitudes to degrees. There were clear signs that the optimism and hubris was overdone.

    Jim Collins, author of Good to Great described a conversation with James Stockdale, a US Navy pilot shot down and taken prisoner in the Vietnam war. When Collins asked which prisoners didn’t make it out of Vietnam, Stockdale replied:

    Oh, that’s easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.

    Collins called this the Stockdale Paradox, and it offers a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end – which you can never afford to lose – with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

    A few years on, things have changed. Half of universities are already in deficit and much has been written about the challenges of rising costs, falling real income, growing immigration controls, weakening political support, growing competition, and growing regulation. To make matters even worse, demographic forecasts show a steady decline in the number of 18-year-olds from the end of this decade. Unbridled optimism has been followed by cost-cutting with momentum building behind mergers and consolidation.

    The elephant in the room

    All this begs the question of whether this is a transient coincidence of unfortunate events or a much deeper problem. Some university leaders argue the problem is not with the perceived value of higher education, but with a media conspiracy and lack of government support. While that view has some merit it misses the elephant in the room.

    Over the last 30 years the increasing popularity of going to university has driven sustained growth in the proportion of 18 year olds making this choice. However, growth in participation at age 18 has stalled and started to decline just as we saw in the US in the last decade. It is hard to overstate the singular importance of growing evidence that demand for higher education is starting to reduce. We must respond energetically or accept its inevitability.

    Why is higher education becoming less popular than it was? Students in England have the highest debt in the English speaking world, despite most students now working their way through university. The graduate earnings premium has declined and a significant minority of students would be better off financially if they had not gone to university.

    More people now think more carefully about the economic return on their investment in higher education. These concerns about cost versus return must now unleash a much bigger conversation about how to make higher knowledge and skills more accessible and rewarding, not only at age 18 but over people’s lives.

    Lifelong learning is the future

    The global skills gap is structural and growing. People without a degree (most of us) will now need access to higher skills throughout their lives. Graduates too must acquire the higher skills needed to meet the changing needs of the economy. Higher education can provide the solutions. These needs can only be met through innovation in delivery, content, and partnership. Investment in innovation may be counter-intuitive at a time of retrenchment, but cost-cutting does not fix the underlying problem.

    We must find different models of delivery to support the changing needs of learners and reach more people with an ever-sharper focus on employer need. The evidence for demand is all around us. Millions of people (mainly adults) globally now enrol on online degree courses and tens of millions on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). There is a growing consensus that meeting learners where they are through lifelong learning is the future direction of higher education.

    More universities are putting their toe in the water and setting up innovative hubs and institutes. But few embrace this idea at an enterprise level, built explicitly into strategy. Doing so requires strong leadership but also great care.

    Care to avoid the false dichotomies between knowledge and skills, teaching and research, utilitarian models of employability versus education for intrinsic good, radical change versus evolutionary adaptation. We must fiercely control quality to avoid the pitfalls we see today, particularly in franchised provision. We must build on our strengths. We need to be commercially astute as well as educationally aware.

    The US experience

    The impressive wave of innovation and growth in several universities in the United States shows what is possible. American universities expanded access to higher education well before the UK did so there are important lessons to be learned from their experience. I’m fortunate to have worked with some of them.

    Innovation in education is relatively easy. Taking it to scale is very hard but several American universities have achieved that.

    While each of the examples below is different, they have things in common

    1. They are bold, imaginative, and embrace innovation across the entire institution
    2. They embrace technology to widen lifelong learner access
    3. They are not afraid to invest in building their brand and widening their reach
    4. They stand for something distinctive that is different to elitism
    5. They put students first

    Arizona State University under the leadership of Michael Crow measures itself not through whom they exclude but whom they include and how they succeed. They have significantly increased the size of the university by investing in new faculty, innovative curricula, and immersive learning technologies.

    Online delivery is a key element in their strategy, and they reach all ages from K-12 (having established an online school) to retirement. ASU uses partnerships to great effect and has been ranked the number one “most innovative university” for 11 consecutive years by U.S. News & World Report. They co-created the PLuS Alliance which established The Engineering Design Institute in London and have just announced ASU London which will combine a three-year U.K. bachelor’s degree from ASU London with an accelerated, one-year master’s degree from Arizona State University. They have done a remarkable job in setting out a vision for the New American University combining great research with great teaching.

    Northeastern University under the leadership of Joseph Aoun built employer relationships and used them to develop a distinctive pedagogical approach built around experiential learning. They have widened access through expanding their campus footprint and through online learning using partnerships as a part of the strategy. Online access features less strongly than some but is an important element. They now have a campus in the UK and offer a “double degree” accredited both by an American and an English university. This is highly distinctive for many international students who want the option to work in the US or the UK. They clearly define themselves as a research university.

    Southern New Hampshire University, led by Paul LeBlanc from 2003–2024, has had a remarkable journey of student growth, from a relatively unknown campus with a small number of students to one of America’s largest with more than 200,000 students today. They focused first on online delivery during the 1990s and then on their distinctive Competency Model of learning and access delivered through their “College for America.” They are primarily an online university today although the campus continues to be an important part of the proposition. Unlike some other universities they achieved remarkable growth without significant partnering with so-called OPM providers. They have positioned themselves distinctively as career focused, affordable and transfer friendly which is of great importance to adult learners.

    A generational opportunity

    These universities have shown an appetite for innovation and risk, perhaps knowing the risk of inaction to be greater, but primarily being confident what they stand for and why it is distinctive. They have widened access to serve lifelong learners and they offer flexibility to traditional students too – the majority of traditional US students now do at least one class online.

    Growth in the lifelong learning of advanced knowledge and skills is perhaps the biggest opportunity in education since the GI Bill made higher education accessible to millions of people in the United States after the Second World War. In England, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement provides a welcome catalyst, but only if the ideas behind it are firmly embraced and taken to scale by innovative leaders, will the potential be realised.

    James Stockman used a combination of realism and faith to sustain himself as a prisoner. Universities will need this too, but they also hold a key to the door.

    Source link

  • Universities and economic growth in the Commonwealth

    Universities and economic growth in the Commonwealth

    Join HEPI for a webinar on Thursday 11 December 2025 from 10am to 11am to discuss how universities can strengthen the student voice in governance to mark the launch of our upcoming report, Rethinking the Student Voice. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the key questions.

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Colin Riordan, Secretary General, The Association of Commonwealth Universities.

    Governments throughout the Commonwealth are faced with a familiar dilemma. Once seen as central to nation-building, poverty reduction and technological self-sufficiency, universities in many countries face scepticism and waning public support. At a time when cost of living pressures are relentless, institutions are increasingly seen as ‘a kind of elite luxury that the taxpayer pays for’, as Michael Ignatieff recently put it. But that narrative misses the point. New evidence shows that investment in higher education delivers measurable, long-term economic growth – the kind that no government can afford to ignore.

    Education as economic infrastructure

    The evidence is revealed in a new study, undertaken by London Economics at the request of The Association of Commonwealth Universities, to investigate the link between investment in higher education and economic growth.

    The study found that a hypothetical 1% increase in the proportion of the population obtaining tertiary education qualifications (tertiary attainment) in 2025 would boost Commonwealth GDP by US$28 billion in 2029. That’s in addition to further increasing annual gains along the way, a clear sign that higher education returns compound over time.

    Why does this matter? Well, it is clear that many, if not all, of the pressures on universities stem from a paucity of resources following on from the 2008 financial crisis (from which many large economies have still not recovered); from the Covid pandemic; and from an upturn in conflicts across the world that are costly drains on the public purse. The difficulties are exacerbated by locally specific problems, including natural disasters such as drought, flooding, and extreme weather events, as well as political events such as Brexit, trade wars, and political instability.

    Governments have to find ways to restore their position in the face of these headwinds, and higher education can easily be depicted as part of the fiscal problem rather than of the solution. Demonstrating the return on investment in higher education will allow education ministers to go well-armed into the conference chamber with their finance ministers and national leaders.

    Beyond the balance sheet

    There are other economic arguments for universities, of course. Their knock-on effects through research and innovation, as employers, and as attractors of foreign direct investment, all come in addition to their core educational function. Universities improve public health outcomes, generate productivity gains, and strengthen civic life. But making the case for higher education as central to national prosperity is essential at a time when governments are facing seemingly intractable difficulties.

    The message, then, is clear: far from being a luxury perk for the elite, expenditure on higher education is an investment in critical national infrastructure. Building opportunities in higher education equates to building a road to future prosperity. Unlike eye-catching projects involving new roads, railways, bridges or airports, however, increasing the proportion of the population with higher education qualifications requires a leap of the imagination, and an array of arguments to be marshalled.

    Certainly, a clear vision of how the world will be different as a result of such an investment is critically important. Voters and populations want to know what difference more university places will make to their lives. It is up to politicians to set out that vision, but they themselves must first be persuaded, and so we must marshal further helpful arguments to support them.

    A shared responsibility

    Firstly, the investment does not have to come solely from the public purse. Tertiary attainment is the proxy that implies prior increases in expenditure on higher education, which could include private investment, partnering with overseas institutions, changing the proportion of the cost for which the individual is responsible, or imaginative loan schemes. Reformulating incentives and requiring efficiencies could certainly be in the mix. So, no education minister should need to envisage themselves going cap-in-hand to the finance department.

    On the contrary, they can offer the prospect of contributing to the public coffers in due course. Depending on the size of the country and the proportion of tax take, this could range from the US$ billions in a country like India to hundreds of millions in Bangladesh and many tens of millions in Kenya.

    A call to reimagine policy

    In a country like the UK, the GDP boost of a hypothetical 1% increase in tertiary attainment in 2025 would amount to £4.9 billion in 2029. This means that increasing capacity in higher education is fiscally prudent as well as being the most important tool we have to future-proof the economy and improve productivity in an age of AI-driven technological transformation. But in low-income countries, the multiplier effect is even higher, and so the argument for investment is stronger still.

    Commonwealth countries with rapidly growing youth populations face an urgent need to expand tertiary access if they are to harness their demographic dividend. Targeted investment in higher education is one of the most effective levers to drive inclusive, sustainable economic growth. The evidence supports stronger collaboration between governments, universities, and international funders to build tertiary systems that deliver for national economies.

    With all necessary caveats in relation to correlation versus causation, the results of the London Economic analysis are compelling. Governments that embed higher education policy into national economic planning and industrial strategies, and invest in universities as economic assets and hubs for talent development, innovation and productivity, will do more than balance their budgets: they will secure their future.

    Source link

  • Growth is possible in international student recruitment for UK universities

    Growth is possible in international student recruitment for UK universities

    This blog was kindly authored by Viggo Stacey, International Education & Policy Writer at QS Quacquarelli Symonds. It is the fourth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the first blog here, the second blog here, and the third here.

    The post-16 education and skills white paper, released last week, outlines how the UK government aims to ensure that universities can attract high-quality international talent and maintain a welcoming environment for them.

    New data in the QS Global Student Flows: UK Report projects that international student enrolments will grow 3.5% annually to 2030. While this is ahead of anticipated growth in the US, Australia and Canada, where projections are between 2% and –1%, the forecast for the UK is significantly slower than the double-digit surge of 11% between 2019 and 2022.

    When the Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, spoke about transformation in education in the UK on Monday, she may also have been speaking about the international education system worldwide. International education is changing, and the UK is facing unprecedented competition from international peers. Emerging study destinations are increasingly appealing to prospective international students.  India, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Hong Kong, and South Korea are just a handful of examples of places heavily investing in internationalisation, campus facilities, and English-language programmes. Additionally, unpredictable geopolitics, economic shifts and demographic changes are making the job of international student recruiters at universities in the UK extra challenging. In such an unstable global landscape, the QS Global Student Flows: UK Report urges universities to plan for a range of scenarios.

    What can institutions and the sector do?

    The latest HESA figures available are from the 2023/24 academic year. No other business would rely on such outdated figures. So why would a government make policy decisions based on them? And why would a university?

    This new QS report identifies key areas where UK universities can expect to see heightened global student flows in the future and how they can best continue to attract international talent and skills.  

    Enrolments from South Asia are expected to rise from 245,000 in 2024 to 340,000 by the end of the decade, and Africa is projected to be the UK’s second-fastest-growing region, with an annual growth rate expected to reach 4-5%.

    In Asia, growth is more mixed. Enrolments from Malaysia are expected to decline, Singapore is likely to remain stable, with places such as Thailand and Indonesia seeing upticks.

    Student numbers from the Middle East to the UK are projected to slow to about 1% annually in the years to 2030, compared to the nearly 5% average growth recorded between 2018 and 2024.

    However, enrolments from Europe, which have declined after Brexit on average by more than 8% annually between 2018 and 2024, are expected to grow modestly at around 2.5% through to 2030.

    Leveraging their strong reputations, quality of provision, as well as the important Graduate Route visa (some 73% of international students are satisfied with the pathway), UK universities can drive growth, especially in Africa and South and Southeast Asia.

    What can the government do?

    The government has reiterated that it wants to maintain the UK’s position as one of the world’s top providers of higher education; attract the best global talent; and project the UK’s international standing through strong international links and research collaboration.

    It rightly acknowledges that volatility in international student numbers is one factor driving financial pressures in higher education. But if it is to succeed in its ambitions, universities need the right support and policy landscape.

    Shortening the length of the Graduate Route visa to 18 months from two years and the possibility of hiking fees for students through the proposed International Student Levy could deter international students from choosing the UK.

    Yet UK government policy is not the only factor limiting the potential of the UK.

    Universities are grappling with heightened investment in higher education in key student source countries, with domestic provisions increasingly competing for quality students.

    Prospective students are weighing up their options in unpredictable economic landscapes and governments are increasingly seeking to retain talent rather than encourage them to study overseas.

    Examples of this include the UAE making criteria for joining its outbound mobility scholarship programme tougher; Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s ambition to create an “education system in India that youngsters do not need to go abroad to study”; China, traditionally the top source for international students, is gradually transforming into a study destination in its own right.

    The pressure is on higher education providers in the UK – they are already diversifying income streams. But this report shows that there are opportunities for growth. UK universities just need to identify what is possible for them.

    The QS Global Student Flows: UK report is available here.

    Source link

  • Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    Breaking the Bottleneck: How Process Mapping and Policy Reform Drive Enrollment Growth

    In today’s fiercely competitive higher education landscape, enrollment leaders are being asked to do more with less. That means more inquiries, more conversions, and more starts, all while working with fewer resources and a shrinking pool of students actively seeking traditional degree paths.

    What separates the institutions that are growing from those that are treading water? In my experience, it’s the willingness to question the status quo. The leaders seeing results are the ones taking a hard look at internal processes and policies and making bold decisions to remove what’s in the way of progress.

    The urgency to remove enrollment barriers

    Many institutions face enrollment plateaus not because they lack student interest, but because of self-imposed friction. Burdensome application requirements, slow review cycles, and legacy processes that haven’t evolved with changing student expectations can all stand in the way of progress.

    Students today expect seamless, responsive experiences. They compare your enrollment process not only to peer institutions but also to the intuitive digital experiences they encounter every day. If your application process is full of red tape or requires too many steps, students will disengage and likely move on to a more accessible option.

    Colleges and universities that want to stay competitive need to start clearing the path. By taking the time to understand how your enrollment process actually operates and identifying where students tend to get stuck, you can make meaningful changes that increase both efficiency and enrollment success.

    Start with a map: Uncovering friction through process review

    The first step to solving an enrollment slowdown is understanding where it’s happening. That’s where process mapping comes in.

    At Collegis, we partner with institutions to conduct comprehensive process assessments. We document and analyze every step of the applicant journey, from inquiry through registration, to uncover inconsistencies, delays, and points of friction that may be limiting your enrollment funnel. We often find that a student’s experience varies widely depending on who they interact with or when they enter the process, revealing a need for greater consistency and coordination.

    In many cases, we find students getting stuck at multiple points across the enrollment journey, starting with the application itself. Lengthy or confusing questions, lack of helpful guidance, and irrelevant fields can all create unnecessary complexity early on. Students may also encounter inconsistent or impersonal communication, making it unclear what to expect next or where they stand in the process.

    Further down the funnel, delays often occur during application review, sometimes taking a week or more due to internal handoffs or manual processes. In some cases, applications sit idle because there’s no system in place to move files forward or flag them for outreach. These gaps add up, slowing momentum and causing potential students to disengage.

    When you can see the entire process visualized, it becomes easier to ask the right questions:

    • Is the application process intuitive and easy to navigate, or are we introducing unnecessary complexity?
    • Are there clear next steps and calls to action for students at each stage?
    • Do students receive consistent, timely communication that reflects where they are in the journey?
    • Is the messaging and cadence of our marketing and operational emails aligned with what students hear from admissions counselors?
    • Are there opportunities to streamline handoffs, automate manual steps, or standardize the process to ensure every student receives a cohesive experience?

    Process mapping isn’t just a troubleshooting exercise. It’s a strategic investment in institutional agility and student-centered design. Institutions that complete this type of review often uncover both quick wins and opportunities for deeper transformation.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Rethink the rules: Policies that reduce friction and drive results

    Some of the most impactful improvements we’ve seen don’t require major investments or cutting-edge technologies. More often, they come from rethinking the policies that shape your admissions process and how those policies either support or hinder the student experience.

    When we conduct policy reviews with our partner institutions, we often find that some admissions requirements add more complexity than value. It’s crucial to determine whether each requirement is truly essential to making an informed admissions decision. By removing or refining requirements that no longer serve a clear purpose (such as excessive documentation or overly rigid review criteria) institutions can streamline internal workflows and reduce avoidable delays. These targeted adjustments not only improve operational efficiency but also create a more accessible and student-centered experience.

    Impact in action: Practical examples of enrollment transformation

    These are not just hypothetical improvements. We’ve worked directly with institutions to implement these strategies and have seen the tangible impact they can deliver. Here are a few real-world examples that show how practical adjustments have translated into measurable results:

    • Waiving letters of recommendation for applicants who meet a defined GPA threshold. This eliminates a common bottleneck while maintaining admissions rigor.
    • Simplifying transcript requirements by only requesting documentation that includes a conferred degree and any prerequisite coursework required for program entry. Additional transcripts are collected later if necessary, which speeds up the initial review process.
    • Automating workflows that trigger application reviews as soon as all checklist items are complete. This ensures students move through the process without unnecessary delays.
    • Setting up notifications to ensure timely engagement. For example, alerts can be set when a new inquiry or applicant hasn’t received contact from an admissions counselor within 24 hours, or when application reviews are taking longer than expected.

    These types of changes create a more efficient, student-centered process that helps institutions convert interest into enrollment more effectively.

    Don’t just tweak the process, transform it

    If your institution is still relying on outdated processes and rigid policies, now is the time to reevaluate. The enrollment environment is only becoming more competitive. But with the right changes, your institution can become more efficient, more agile, and more appealing to today’s students.

    This isn’t about cutting corners or lowering standards. It’s about rethinking how your process serves students. Process mapping helps uncover ways to simplify steps, ensure consistency, and build trust through clear communication and meaningful staff connections. The result is an experience that’s more efficient, more personal, and better aligned with your institution’s goals.

    Let’s break the bottleneck together

    A process mapping assessment is a powerful starting point. At Collegis, we go beyond identifying issues. We work side by side with our partners to solve them. Our approach is collaborative, our recommendations are practical, and our focus is always on impact.

    If your institution is ready to accelerate enrollment growth, strengthen internal operations, and deliver a more consistent and personalized experience for your students, let’s talk.

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Jim Callinan leads enrollment strategy and operational excellence at Collegis Education, where he partners with higher education institutions to design and deploy data-informed admissions and student-journey models. With nearly 20 years of higher education experience, Jim brings deep expertise in aligning cross-functional teams across technology, marketing, analytics, enrollment, and student success to drive growth, streamline operations, and elevate the student and staff experience. His collaborative approach helps institutions align strategy, process, and performance to achieve sustainable success.

    Source link