Tag: Innovation

  • Is the Partnership for American Innovation Gone? (opinion)

    Is the Partnership for American Innovation Gone? (opinion)

    In January I wrote a piece asking whether America’s research universities would make it to their 100th birthday, marking their birth with the creation of the National Science Foundation in 1950—its 75th birthday was May 10. The article built on concerns that our research universities are in a precarious state, with their resources stretched thin supporting their dual missions of education and research. At the end I added a new concern: with the beginning of the Trump administration would these institutions survive the year?

    In only the first 100-odd days, the precipitous cancellation of grants and freezing of research support and now the proposed slashing of the budgets of the NSF and the National Institutes of Health and dramatic increase in the tax on university endowments have made my worst fears real. Are we really trying to end the partnership that has led to the greatest period of innovation in history?

    With the creation of the NSF, the government and universities established a research partnership to feed the American economy and national defense and to train the R&D labor force. The partnership was supported by funding from both sides, coupled with an unrelenting commitment to research excellence and impact. By any measure it has been wildly successful, generating new knowledge, inventions and cures and educating generations to lead our economy and society.

    In 2022 alone, the 174 Carnegie R-1—very research intensive—universities filed more than 20,000 patent applications and were granted nearly 6,000. But perhaps to understand why sustaining this partnership is vital to our future we only need to recall that the mRNA vaccines that spelled the end of the COVID-19 pandemic were built on research supported over decades by the NIH.

    The scale of the partnership is apparent in the data: In 2022, university research spending totaled $97.8 billion, with $54.1 billion coming from the federal government. What has not been widely acknowledged is that universities contributed $24.5 billion of this total in the form of self-supported research and cost sharing, especially supporting the misunderstood indirect costs of research. Many of these expenses are not so “indirect,” as they support specialized spaces, facilities and instruments—you cannot do research in a parking lot.

    Universities invested 45 cents for each federal research dollar received— this is the financing of the partnership. It seems like a bargain for the government to contribute only 0.2 percent of GDP (or less than 1 percent of the federal budget) to fuel innovation and the labor force of the world’s largest economy. Federal support of university research has grown only 44 percent since 2010. This compares to China’s threefold growth in investment in its universities.

    The Chinese investment highlights the increasing competition for research talent, and we risk falling behind. Other countries are emulating us, building research universities and trying to attract the stream of talent that has come to the U.S. to learn, work and live. Our chilling climate for immigrants is making it much easier to lure this talent abroad.

    American universities have done what they can to stay in front, with their own support of research growing twice as fast as federal funding, up from 30 cents to a federal dollar in 2010. It will be difficult for universities to continue to grow this investment. Following the pandemic, inflation has taken its toll. Now the funding cuts already imposed, and the enormous ones in the administration’s proposed budget, will shift billions in research costs to universities—costs they cannot afford. The proposed 15 percent cap on indirect costs alone—spread across all federal support—could cost the R-1 universities more than $10 billion, doubling their support relative to the federal government.

    The result will be catastrophic, with universities retreating from research, essentially destroying in a few months the innovation ecosystem built over three-quarters of a century. The long-term impact will be devastating for all Americans, as measured in undiscovered inventions and cures, the global competition for ideas and people, and the country’s future economic prosperity.

    Our innovation ecosystem will be hamstrung by the loss of a generation or more of research talent, who are either not trained or who go elsewhere. Already our talent pipeline is being constricted by cutting in half the number of NSF fellowships awarded to the most promising scientists and engineers. Reports also are mounting of scientists moving to countries where they are warmly welcomed with substantial government support. Is this our national strategy to strengthen America’s knowledge-based economy?

    We are on the verge of an innovation winter that will last decades when we can ill afford it as we respond to demands to improve health care, compete for global dominance in AI and other critical technologies, and create a secure and peaceful world. Universities do face important challenges, such as expanding access, educating more Americans to be informed and thoughtful citizens, and giving them the skills to thrive in an AI-driven world. Universities can meet these challenges if they are supported.

    We must avoid the innovation winter by continuing the partnership so our research universities remain the beacons for innovation and education that they have been for three-quarters of a century. This is the only way to keep America at the forefront, not at the back of the pack.

    This choice is what is at stake for all of us.

    Robert A. Brown is president emeritus of Boston University.

    Source link

  • Banking on Human Capital: How RBC Sees the Future of Talent, Innovation, and the Role of Post-Secondary Institutions

    Banking on Human Capital: How RBC Sees the Future of Talent, Innovation, and the Role of Post-Secondary Institutions

    Canada’s heading into some pretty choppy waters in 2025. For a century or so, we’ve had a one track economic strategy, closer integration with the United States. Now, the Trump administration with its faith in tariffs as an instrument of both power and corruption, has essentially nuked that strategy, at least as far as the trading goods is concerned. There’s a lot of change coming to Canada, and it’ll be costly. In much the same way that diplomatic evolution and defense needs are forcing European countries to look at higher education in a different light, Canadian universities are looking around at their new situation very nervously too.

    In Canada right now, a few people are making the case for change as strongly as John Stackhouse. John’s the ex editor-in-chief of the Global Mail. He’s now a Senior Vice President at the Royal Bank of Canada, leading that organization’s economics and thought leadership group. He’s the lead author of a recent report called “A Smarter Path, the Case for Post-Secondary Reform.” This report makes a number of, shall we say, uncomfortable observations about the relationship between Canadian higher education and the Canadian knowledge economy, in particular, between high spending and high graduate numbers on the one hand, and low productivity and significant levels of graduate underemployment on the other.

    Though the report does not directly address the issue of Trump or tariffs — it was released 48 hours before Liberation Day — it has added to the sense in Canada that the higher education sector is headed for and indeed needs a shakeup. And just to come clean for a moment, we here at Higher Education Strategy Associates are in a partnership with John and RBC and the Business Higher Education Roundtable, putting together a series of events culminating in a policy summit on post-secondary education in late September of this year.

    In the interview today, I talked to John about what the Canadian system’s biggest challenges are, how universities and businesses can more effectively partner with one another, and why Canadian political parties are increasingly shy about betting on the knowledge economy. But enough for me. Let’s turn it over to John.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.30 | Banking on Human Capital: How RBC Sees the Future of Talent, Innovation, and the Role of Post-Secondary Institutions

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Okay, John, why does a bank care so much about post-secondary education?

    John Stackhouse (JS): That’s a fair question, Alex—and thank you for including us in the podcast. If I can put it in terms of capital, maybe that’s what people would expect from a bank. Our economy, and the society that depends on it, relies on different kinds of capital. We have natural capital, technology capital, and of course, financial capital—which you’d expect from a bank. But just as critical is human capital. That’s core to the economy.

    There’s nothing new in saying that, except to emphasize that from RBC’s perspective, when we look at Canada’s prospects through the 2030s and the prosperity we hope to achieve, we need to think seriously about how we harness all these forms of capital: natural, financial, technological—and critically—human capital.

    We need to develop a more prosperous economy and society, but also the kind of vibrant communities that companies want to be part of, and that we as individuals want to contribute to. As a bank, that matters to us. Our purpose is to help clients thrive and communities prosper—and both of those depend on human capital. We hear that from our clients, our community partners, and our employees. So those are just some of the reasons why RBC is leaning into the post-secondary conversation.

    AU: In the paper you co-wrote, you describe Canada’s post-secondary education system as being slow, costly, and often out of sync with the economy. I think those are fairly common criticisms of higher education around the world. Do you think there’s something specific to Canada in that critique? Or is this more of a general observation about modern higher ed?

    JS: There’s probably some parchment from a thousand years ago where an education critic wrote, “You’re too slow, too costly, and out of touch with the economy.” -Signed, the monks of higher education. But yes, it’s fair to say that Canada isn’t alone in facing these challenges. That said, there are a few things that may be more pronounced here. One is that we’ve been a bit of a victim of our own success. We have a lot of post-secondary education in this country, but we haven’t differentiated enough within the system.

    Continental Europe, for example, continues to differentiate in ways we haven’t. So we end up producing graduates with degrees and diplomas that are too similar—and not always aligned with specific needs.

    We also haven’t allowed the business model to evolve at the pace of the economy or society, or even the expectations of students and educators. Many of them know the world is moving faster than our institutions are.

    And then on the research side—which I’m sure we’ll get to—we really lag behind. As an advanced economy, a G7 country, we’re not where we should be in post-secondary research. Part of the issue lies with the private sector—we haven’t integrated research and business to the degree that an advanced economy will need to in the 2030s.

    AU: RBC has been a really strong voice on the education–work connection. What are employers still not getting from the current system? And what responsibility do you think they have in helping to improve it?

    JS: There’s definitely a shared responsibility—and thanks for mentioning RBC’s commitment to work-integrated learning. One of the reasons we’re so invested in this is because our CEO, Dave McKay, is a product of the co-op system at Waterloo. He has a deep belief that work-integrated learning not only improves the student experience, but also strengthens the education system itself.

    When students return to the classroom after applying their knowledge in the real world, it deepens their learning. And it also improves the organizations they work with. At RBC, we hire a couple thousand co-op students every year—not just programmers from Waterloo, but fantastic interns from TMU and a wide range of colleges and universities across the country.

    We benefit from that. It improves how we work. Yes, it creates a talent pipeline—but we’ve also seen something more transformative. Over the past decade, we’ve started giving our co-op students real challenges to solve. We form teams, provide some management support, and tell them: here are some of our biggest problems—see you in August. Then they present their ideas to senior leadership in what’s essentially a competitive showcase. We’ve had around a hundred patents come out of that system.

    Students bring critical thinking, fresh perspectives, and a collaborative mindset that they develop in post-secondary. They often arrive with stronger teamwork skills than we could teach them from scratch, and they’re able to apply those skills to real problems.

    So what do employers need to do? They need to treat this as a serious investment in their own businesses. It’s a way to drive change, but it requires resources. You have to hire people who are good at managing these programs. Students don’t just walk in and figure it out on their own—it’s not Lord of the Flies. It takes organizational effort.

    AU: Let’s talk about what educational institutions are doing. I got the impression from the report that you think they still need to do more to align educational outputs with labor market needs. That said, there’s been a lot of progress over the last decade: growth in work-integrated learning, the rise of microcredentials, experiments with competency-based learning. But it sounds like you don’t think that’s enough. What more needs to happen?

    JS: Sadly—or depending on your perspective, maybe excitingly—none of us are doing enough. That’s partly because of technology, but also because of broader global forces. The world around us is changing faster than most of us are able to keep up with—including large organizations, small businesses, and educational institutions.

    The pace of change is accelerating, and it will only continue to do so. Institutions need to become much more change-minded in how they operate. That’s hard in education, for all the reasons your listeners will understand.

    One major challenge is the business model. It’s becoming a crisis. Post-secondary institutions aren’t getting the funding they need. Everyone knows that—but they’re losing the argument in the public square when it comes to making the case for new funding. And given the pressures society is under, I don’t see that changing in a meaningful way anytime soon.

    So institutions need more freedom to change—to evolve their business models, including how they generate revenue. And that means becoming more connected to, and responsive to, the broader economy around them. That’s where many of the new opportunities lie.

    AU: John, we’ve been talking mostly about human capital, which you’ve said is a key concern for RBC. But what about research and the co-production of knowledge? What are the respective roles of post-secondary institutions and businesses? Why don’t we see the kind of close connection between enterprises and universities that exists in parts of Europe or the U.S.? What’s the missing link?

    JS: That’s a tough nut to crack—and one that people far smarter than me have studied and debated for decades. But part of the challenge lies in the private sector itself. In many ways, we’ve become too much of a “branch plant” and “hinterland” economy—living off the wealth of the land, our access to the U.S. market, and the dividends of an innovation economy.

    I wouldn’t say that’s coming to an end—because that would be overly dramatic—but we’re clearly experiencing a sharp shift. In an odd way, the Trump challenge to Canada is a bit of a gift. It’s forcing us to acknowledge that we can’t be so dependent on the U.S. market. That’s become a broadly shared Canadian view. We need to build stronger connections with other parts of the world—and that’s going to require more serious investment in R&D from our businesses.

    If we want to transform branch plants into independent, globally competitive facilities, especially ones that can succeed in European and Asian markets—despite the distance—we need to invest in research and development in a way we haven’t for a generation.

    New governments—federal and provincial—need to act with urgency. They should bring business leaders together and ask, “What do we need to build?” And not just through one-off tax incentives. We need to foster a culture of collaboration and dynamism between universities, colleges, polytechnics, and businesses to shape what I’d call a post-Trump Canadian economy.

    That’s not going to happen by copying Germany’s Fraunhofer model or Japan’s approach—those are deeply rooted in specific cultural contexts. We need to develop something uniquely Canadian.

    And we can’t afford to spend years on a Royal Commission or slow-moving studies. This needs to happen quickly. A new federal government could seize this moment to bring together the provinces and private sector with a sense of urgency—and maybe even a crisis mindset.

    AU: I’ll come back to the Trump issue in a moment, but going back to the report—you lay out a number of challenges in the sector: outdated budget models, over-credentialed but under-skilled graduates, and so on. What do you think is the most pressing reform Canadian post-secondary needs right now? What’s the weakest link in the system?

    JS: That’s a great question—and a hard one to answer. But I’d go back to the funding model. Post-secondary institutions need more flexibility to innovate with how they’re funded. They need to move beyond the constraints of provincial funding and develop new approaches to tuition and fees—ones that are more closely tied to performance, outputs, and outcomes.

    There also needs to be more competition within the sector. Most people I know in post-secondary are pretty enthusiastic about that idea—though, understandably, they’d like the model to be structured so they have a good shot at succeeding.

    I think provinces need to be nudged—and maybe not even that much—to open the door to more innovation, more competition, and a bit more daring on the institutional side.

    AU: I think the words you used in the report were “reasonable deregulation.” Tell me more about increased competition—are there things we could do to incentivize more new players in the system who might be more disruptive?

    JS: There’s nothing quite like new players. I’ve studied enough sectors over the years to see that when it comes to innovation, nothing works quite as well as a vibrant, well-funded new entrant. Encouraging that kind of disruption would move us forward significantly—and it would give creative people across the sector permission to come up with ideas they’re not even thinking about yet. That’s the power of competition.

    So one key step is reducing the regulatory barriers that prevent those new players from entering the space.

    I also think employers can play a bigger role by sending clearer market signals. That could be as simple as hiring differently. We tend to recruit from the same institutions over and over—often for good reasons—but “like hires like.” If we want to encourage new entrants, we have to show that their graduates will have good job prospects. That kind of signal travels fast—even down to the high school level, where students are making decisions about their future.

    AU: Outside the scope of the report, you’ve been very outspoken in recent months about the gravity of the threat Canada faces from the U.S. under Trump. You spoke at the Business + Higher Education Roundtable event, and I know people who heard your remarks were quite sobered by them.

    There are clearly big changes coming to the country as a whole. What are the implications for universities? What changes do you think are now baked into the systems of government subsidy and regulation because of the shifting geopolitical situation?

    JS: It’s unfortunate that colleges and universities aren’t more central to the Trump-related conversation. We’re hearing a lot about pipelines, export infrastructure, and ports—which are all important. We’re also hearing a lot about trade-exposed sectors: autos, steel, aluminum, even pharmaceuticals. Guess what? All of those sectors depend on post-secondary institutions.

    So how are we thinking about the steel plant of the future that might be exporting more to Europe or Asia? It’s going to need incentives to retool. The same goes for auto plants that may need to shift into different kinds of manufacturing—including, potentially, defense production as we scale up defense spending. What kind of talent will be needed for that? How are schools in those regions adapting? And to your point about research—how can we better integrate the research side of those institutions into this transformation?

    They’ll need to develop new models—and we need to incentivize that shift. The good news is, I think there will be more money on the table. But it will be different kinds of research and institutional funding than what we’ve seen in the past. And that could be a good thing.

    So how do colleges and universities rise to that challenge? There could be tens of billions of dollars available to support economic transition. They’ll need to step up and play a leading role—and if they do, they’ll be rewarded for it.

    Interestingly, there’s already growing enthusiasm to attract academic talent from the U.S.—what some are calling “Trump intellectual refugees.”

    I’ve seen similar cycles before. After 9/11, during the Bush years, there was a similar kind of excitement. Star academics moved here as a sort of cultural vote for Canada. But that kind of movement doesn’t tend to be sustainable—or even all that interesting—from a long-term perspective.

    So how do we make it sustainable and interesting? One idea, from someone else, is to create a kind of Canada Research Chairs 2.0 for the late 2020s.

    Not a play to say “Come escape Trump,” but rather to say: if you’re an entrepreneurial, ambitious academic working in areas that matter to Canada, there’s no better place in the world to be right now than here.

    AU: One of the points you touched on earlier is that political parties seem to be responding to aggressive tariffs on exports by doubling down on producing goods. I find that kind of strange—surely one of the answers is to pivot more toward services. We’re not especially strong in that area, and in theory, that’s where universities should have an advantage. Why do you think we’re pushing so hard on goods while letting the services side drift?

    JS: That’s a great observation. We’ve become more of a services—or maybe better put, an intangibles—economy. A knowledge economy. That was a popular thing to say a decade ago, though it’s become a bit derided since.

    But we need both. You can have intangibles on their own, but the best ones tend to emerge from tangible activities.

    We need to play to our strengths, and that includes our resource economy. One of the things we noted in our study is that post-secondary doesn’t align with the resource economy as well as it should. That doesn’t mean just producing miners and rig operators—though those roles will still matter for years to come. There’s a whole spectrum of science and discovery we’ve long excelled at, and we need to scale that up if we want to lead in critical minerals, for example.

    It’s not just about having critical mineral mines or processing plants. We’ve shut down many of our best mining schools in this country, while China has established far more than we have—far more than you’d expect based on population size alone.

    So yes, we need to invest in the intangible—knowledge—side of that tangible sector. It’s not just manufacturing, as you said. It’s also processing and resource extraction, which are highly sophisticated fields. Those have earned Canada substantial academic recognition over the decades.

    We need to ensure that the intangible capacity we’re building in our universities and colleges remains closely tied to the real economy—especially to manufacturing and resource development.

    AU: Best case scenario—ten years from now—what does the Canadian post-secondary system look like? How is it different from today?

    JS: It would have much more variation. In fact, we might see something entirely new emerge—something that’s not quite a college, university, or polytechnic, but a distinct Canadian model.

    Just as Canada pioneered community colleges in the 1950s and ’60s, we have a chance to create a new tier. And this wouldn’t be at the expense of the existing systems—but something more suited to evolving needs.

    We’d have institutions that reflect and respond to the economy across all regions, including the far North. We don’t need to be physically present everywhere—we can do a lot of this remotely—but we do need our institutions to better reflect the realities of the country and the economy. And they need to be more connected to the world.

    You and I have talked a lot about the situation with international students. The real tragedy of what’s happened over the last decade would be if we abandoned the whole model. We had something that was largely good—it got mucked up—but that doesn’t mean we throw it out.

    We need to fix what went wrong. And we need to remain a destination for the best and most ambitious students from around the world. Ideally, we want them to stay—but even if they go back home, they can help connect us to the world.

    Because if we’re being honest with ourselves, what we’re really saying as Canadians—though maybe not quite this explicitly—is that we want to be a more global country. And our post-secondary system is one of the best tools we have to make that happen. But it will take a deliberate effort to reach out to the world—and there’s no sector better positioned to do that than post-secondary.

    AU: John, thanks so much for being with us today.

    JS: Thanks, Alex. I’ve really enjoyed it.

    Alex Usher: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan, Sam Pufek, and you, our viewers, listeners, and readers for following us. If you have any questions or concerns about today’s episode or suggestions for future ones, please don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. Run, don’t walk to our YouTube page and hit subscribe. That way you’ll never miss an episode of the World of Higher Education Podcast.

    Join us next week when our guest will be Rómulo Pinheiro. He’s a professor at the University of Agder in Norway, and we’ll be talking about university’s role in the economic development strategies of rural and remote regions. Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • From going it alone to sharing university research and innovation services

    From going it alone to sharing university research and innovation services

    Unless you’ve been living under a rock, readers are likely to be very aware of the current financial challenges facing universities across the UK.

    The situation is no different in Scotland where several Scottish universities have reported an adjusted operating deficit position for academic year 2023–24 – although it’s important to note that this position can also reflect the stage of the institution’s investment cycle or actions being taken to restructure as well as reflecting the current year financial performance of an institution.

    These are difficult times for the sector. But a silver lining, if there were one to be found, could be that challenging times present an opportunity to do things differently. Approaches that would have previously been deemed too complicated to undertake can find themselves on the table because they have the potential to drive essential efficiencies and promote sustainability.

    Looming large

    With 18 universities receiving Scottish Funding Council (SFC) core funding for research – “Scottish QR”, the Research Excellence Grant (REG) – the Scottish system is of the size and scale where SFC can regularly have discussions with every vice principal for research. These discussions help us better understand the state of play and the pressures and challenges being faced.

    When we most recently spoke with vice principals, as you’d expect, financial sustainability loomed large. Challenges are having a real impact on how many institutions are considering their R&I activity.

    One of the things we heard is that an increasing number of institutions are exploring sharing back-office services between institutions to create efficiencies.

    This makes sense. Scotland is a small country with a largesse of universities, all of which undertake world-leading research as determined by the REF. We’re also a country of concentrated geography with many of our institutions focused in the same places.

    While these are moves in the right direction for sustainability, there are benefits from things happening sooner rather than later, given that there’s no quick fix for university finances. Here SFC has a role to play, by helping catalyse activity.

    This is the thinking behind the funding opportunity we launched this week – a new R&I Shared Services Collaboration Fund.

    Getting together

    The fund will allow Scottish universities to apply for funding to develop sustainable models and steps to implement sharing services, including but not limited to sharing tech transfer offices (TTOs) and research offices. It will allow:

    • The consolidation of existing distinct functions by replacing them with a single shared function.
    • Institutions with smaller research portfolios to work with larger institutions to gain access to expertise and capability that they don’t currently have.
    • The creation of shared capacity between groups of institutions where limited functions currently exist but new shared capability would drive efficiencies.

    It will kick-start longer-term collaboration by supporting the initial costs of change, enabling institutions to navigate the difficult proof of concept stage and de-risk the exploration of new approaches in a financially constrained environment.

    Our intention is to precipitate and fund a different way of working, investing in change which will enable the change to carry on.

    A total of £3m will be available over academic years 2025–26 and 2026–27 with grants of between £250,000 and £750,000 on offer through open competition. Grants will help to promote system sustainability by supporting increased inter-institutional operational collaboration.

    As well as promoting financial viability, where grants are focused on the sharing of technology transfer office (TTO) services, the fund will increase Scotland’s research commercialisation pipeline by expanding access to key facilities across institutions.

    This provides an opportunity to further Scottish government innovation ambitions as outlined in the National Innovation Strategy. University research commercialisation is central to the strategy and ensuring that world-leading research from across all of Scotland’s universities can be successfully commercialised requires access to critical expertise. The UK government’s spin-out review, published in November 2023, also highlights the value of shared technology transfer expertise across universities.

    And it’s not necessarily just about sharing research offices and TTOs – we’re interested in other proposals for sharing R&I services which meet our criteria.

    Small but mighty

    We’re under no illusions that the R&I Shared Services Collaboration Fund will solve or even make a significant dent in the financial challenges currently being faced by universities. No, doing that will require multi-factored activity across many stakeholders.

    But we hope that this funding will go some way to promoting sustainability and making Scotland’s small but mighty research system function in a way that reflects the opportunities of scale and collaboration we have on our doorstep.

    Source link

  • Otus Wins Gold Stevie® Award for Customer Service Department of the Year

    Otus Wins Gold Stevie® Award for Customer Service Department of the Year

    CHICAGO, IL (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Otus, a leading provider of K-12 student data and assessment solutions, has been awarded a prestigious Gold Stevie® Award in the category of Customer Service Department of the Year at the 2025 American Business Awards®. This recognition celebrates the company’s unwavering commitment to supporting educators, students, and families through exceptional service and innovation.

    In addition to the Gold award, Otus also earned two Silver Stevie® Awards: one for Company of the Year – Computer Software – Medium Size, and another honoring Co-founder and President Chris Hull as Technology Executive of the Year.

    “It is an incredible honor to be recognized, but the real win is knowing our work is making a difference for educators and students,” said Hull. “As a former teacher, I know how difficult it can be to juggle everything that is asked of you. At Otus, we focus on building tools that save time, surface meaningful insights, and make student data easier to use—so teachers can focus on what matters most: helping kids grow.”

    The American Business Awards®, now in their 23rd year, are the premier business awards program in the United States, honoring outstanding performances in the workplace across a wide range of industries. The competition receives more than 12,000 nominations every year. Judges selected Otus for its outstanding 98.7% customer satisfaction with chat interactions, and exceptional 89% gross retention in 2024. They also praised the company’s unique blend of technology and human touch, noting its strong focus on educator-led support, onboarding, data-driven product evolution, and professional development.

    “We believe great support starts with understanding the realities educators face every day. Our Client Success team is largely made up of former teachers and school leaders, so we speak the same language. Whether it’s during onboarding, training, or day-to-day communication, we’re here to help districts feel confident and supported. This recognition is a reflection of how seriously we take that responsibility and energizes us to keep raising the bar,” said Phil Collins, Ed.D., Chief Customer Officer at Otus.

    Otus continues to make significant strides in simplifying teaching and learning by offering a unified platform that integrates assessment, data, and instruction—all in one place. Otus has supported over 1 million students nationwide by helping educators make data-informed decisions, monitor progress, and personalize learning. These honors reflect the company’s growth, innovation, and steadfast commitment to helping school communities succeed.

    About Otus

    Otus, an award-winning edtech company, empowers educators to maximize student performance with a comprehensive K-12 assessment, data, and insights solution. Committed to student achievement and educational equity, Otus combines student data with powerful tools that provide educators, administrators, and families with the insights they need to make a difference. Built by teachers for teachers, Otus creates efficiencies in data management, assessment, and progress monitoring to help educators focus on what matters most—student success. Today, Otus partners with school districts nationwide to create informed, data-driven learning environments. Learn more at Otus.com.

    Stay connected with Otus on LinkedIn, Facebook, X, and Instagram.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)



    Source link

  • Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    One of the biggest, but least remarked upon trends in European higher education in recent years is the growth of private for-profit, higher education. Even in countries where tuition is free, there are hundreds of thousands of students who now prefer to take courses at private for-profit institutions.

    To me, the question is, why? What sort of institutions are these anyway? Interestingly, the answer to that second question is one which might confuse my mostly North American audience. Turns out a lot of these private institutions are relatively small, bespoke institutions with very narrow academic specializations. And yet they’re owned by a few very large international conglomerate universities. That’s very different from North America, where institutions tend to be either small and bespoke, or part of a large corporation, but not both.

    Today my guest is Nicolas Badré. He’s the Chief Operating Officer of the Galileo Group, which operates a number of universities across Europe. I met him a few months ago at an OECD event in Jakarta. When I heard about some of Galileo’s initiatives, I knew I’d have to have him on the show. 

    There are three things which I think are most important about this interview. First is the discussion about Galileo’s business model and how it achieves economies of scale across such different types of institutions. Second, there’s how the network goes about collectively learning across all its various institutions. And third, specifically how it’s choosing to experiment with AI across a number of institutions and apply the lessons more globally. 

    Overall, it’s a fascinating chat. I hope you enjoy it too. But now, let’s turn things over to Nicolas.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.27 | Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Nicolas, Galileo Global Education has grown significantly over the years. I think the group is, if I’m not mistaken, 13 or 14 years old now. Some of the universities it owns might be a bit older, but can you walk us through the origins of the group? How did you grow to be as big as you are? I think you’ve got dozens of institutions in dozens of countries—how did that growth happen so quickly?

    Nicolas Badré (NB): Thank you, Alex, for the question. It’s an interesting story. And yes, to your point, the group was created 13 and a half years ago, with an investment by Providence Equity Partners into Istituto Marangoni, a fashion school in Italy. That dates back to 2011. Since then, we’ve made 30 acquisitions.

    The growth started primarily in Europe, especially in France and Germany. Then, in 2014, we took our first steps outside of Europe with the acquisition of IEU in Mexico. Significant moves followed in 2018 and 2019, particularly into the online learning space with Studi in France and AKAD in Germany.

    There’s been a very rapid acceleration over the past five years. For context, I joined the group at the end of 2019. At that time, Galileo had 67,000 students across nine countries. Today, we have 300,000 students in 20 countries.

    Back then, the group was primarily focused on arts and creative schools, as well as business and management schools. Now, we’ve expanded into tech and health, and even into some professional training areas—like truck driving, for instance.

    What does this reflect? Two things. First, very strong organic growth from our existing schools and brands. Take ESG in France as an example. It’s been around for 40 years and is a well-known entry-level business school. Over the past five years, it’s diversified considerably creating ESG Luxury, ESG Tourism, you name it. It’s also expanded its physical presence from just a few cities to now being in 15 or 16 cities across France.

    So it’s really been a combination of strong organic growth and selective acquisitions that have helped us more than quadruple our student numbers in just five years.

    AU: It’s interesting— I think a lot of our listeners and viewers might be surprised to hear about such a strong for-profit institution coming out of France. When you think of French higher education, you think of the Grandes Écoles, you think of free education. So why would so many people choose to pay for education when they don’t have to? It’s a pretty strong trend in France now. I think over 26% of all students in France are in some form of private higher education. What do you offer that makes people willing to give up “free”?

    NB: It’s a good question, and you’re right—it’s not just about France. In many places across Europe, including Germany, the Nordics, and others, you see similar dynamics.

    That said, yes, in France in particular, there’s been a growing share of private players in higher education over the past few years. That probably reflects the private sector’s greater ability to adapt to new environments.

    I’d highlight three main factors that help explain why we’ve been successful in this space.

    First, we’re obsessed with employability and skills-based education. And that’s true across all levels and backgrounds. When we worked on our group mission statement, everyone agreed that our mission is to “unleash the potential of everyone for better employability.” 

    Because of that focus, we maintain very strong ties with industry. That gives us the ability to adapt, create, and update our programs very quickly in response to emerging demands. We know competencies become obsolete faster now, so staying aligned with job market needs is critical. That’s probably the strongest unifying driver across all of Galileo.

    Beyond that, we also offer very unique programs. Take Noroff, for example—a tech school in Norway, which is even more tuition-free than France. It’s one of the very few fee-paying institutions in the country. But the program is so strong that students are willing to pay around 15,000 euros a year because they know they’ll get a top-tier, hands-on experience—something that might be slower to evolve in the public system.

    So that’s the first point: employability and unique, high-impact programs.

    Second, we put a strong emphasis on the student experience. How do we transform their education beyond just delivering content? That’s an area we continue to invest in—never enough, but always pushing. We’re focused on hybridizing disciplines, geographies, and pedagogical approaches.

    And we’ve systematized student feedback—not just asking for opinions, but making sure we translate that feedback into tangible improvements in the student experience.

    And third, I’d say there’s a values-based dimension to all of this. We focus heavily on innovation, entrepreneurship, and high standards. Those are the core values that we’re driven by. You could say they’re our obsessions—and I think that kind of vision and energy resonates with our students. Those are the three main things I’d point to.

    AU: I have a question about how you make things work across such a diverse set of institutions. I mean, you’ve got design schools, drama schools, law schools, medical schools. When people think about private education, there’s often an assumption that there’s some kind of economies of scale in terms of curriculum. The idea that you can reuse curriculum across different places. But my impression is that you can’t do that very much. It seems like you’re managing all these different institutions, each of them like their own boutique operation, with their own specific costs. How do you make it work across a system as large and diverse as yours? Where are the economies of scale?

    NB: Well, that’s also a very good point—and you’re absolutely right. We have a very diverse network of schools. We have a culinary arts school in Bordeaux, France, with maybe 400 students, and we have universities with more than 10,000 students, whether in medical or business education.

    So yes, you might wonder: why put these institutions together?

    The answer is that we really built the group’s development around the entrepreneurial DNA of our school directors. They’re responsible for their own development—for their growth, diversification, and how they respond to the job market.

    We’re not obsessed with economies of scale. What we really value is the network itself. What we focus on is shared methodology—in areas like sales and marketing, finance, HR, and student experience.

    There are also some opportunities for synergies in systems. In some cases, for instance, yes—we use a similar CRM across several countries. But I think the real value of the network lies in its ability to share experiences and experiment with innovation throughout, and then scale up those innovations appropriately across the other schools.

    So I’d say it’s more about shared practices than about forcing economies of scale across borders—because that doesn’t always make sense.

    AU: Am I correct in thinking that you don’t necessarily present yourself as a chain of institutions to students? That each institution actually has a pretty strong identity in and of itself—is that right? Is there a fair bit of autonomy and ability to adapt things locally at each of your schools?

    NB: Yes, I think that’s true. In terms of branding, we believe that each of our schools generally has a stronger brand than Galileo itself. And that’s how it should be, because each school has its own experience, its own DNA, its own momentum and development.

    So, we see ourselves more as a platform that supports the development of all these schools, rather than a chain imposing the same standards and practices across the board.

    Of course, we do have certain methodologies—for example, how to run a commercial campaign. We provide guidance, but it’s ultimately up to each school to manage that process and use the methodology in a way that works best for their own development.

    That doesn’t mean there’s no value in having the Galileo name—there is. But the value is in being a platform that supports the schools, rather than overshadowing them.

    AU: Nicolas, I know Galileo is testing a lot of AI-driven approaches across its various institutions. What I found interesting in a discussion we had offline a few weeks ago is that you’re experimenting with AI in different parts of the institution—some of it around curriculum, some around administration, and some around student services. Can you give us an overview? What exactly are you testing, and what are the goals of these experiments?

    NB: I think we first need to frame how we’re using AI, and it’s important to look at our strategy globally. We believe there are three major trends shaping higher education.

    First, student expectations are evolving quickly—they’re demanding more flexibility and personalization. Second, there’s a rapid emergence of new competencies, which challenges our ability to adapt and update programs quickly. And third, we need to go beyond boundaries and be agile in how we approach topics, address new skills, and serve diverse learners. These are the three starting points we see as opportunities for Galileo to differentiate itself. Now, we’re not trying to become a leading AI company. Our goal remains to be a recognized leader in education—improving employability and lives. That’s our benchmark.

    With that in mind, our AI vision is focused on four areas:

    1. How do we deliver a unique experience to our students?
    2. How do we connect educators globally who are trained in and comfortable with AI?
    3. How do we develop content that can be adapted, localized, translated, and personalized?
    4. And how do we improve operational productivity?

    AI is clearly a powerful tool in all four areas. Let me walk through some of the things we’re doing. 

    The first area we call AI for Content. We’re using AI to more quickly identify the competencies required by the job market. We use tools that give us a more immediate connection to the market to understand what skills are in demand. Based on that, we design programs that better align with those needs.

    Then the next step is about course and content creation. Once we’ve defined the competencies, how do we design the courses, the pedagogical materials? How do we make it easier to localize and adapt that content?

    Take Studi, an online university in France with 67,000 students and around 150 different programs. A year ago, it would take them about four months to design a bachelor’s or master’s program. Now, it takes one to two months, depending on the specifics. The cost has been cut in half, and development speed has increased by a factor of two, three, even four in some cases. This also opens up opportunities to make programs more personalized because we can update them much faster. 

    The second area is AI for Experience. How do we use AI to enhance the student experience?

    We’ve embedded AI features in our LMS to personalize quizzes, generate mind maps, and create interactive sessions during classes. We’ve also adapted assessments. For example, in Germany, for the past two years, our online university AKAD has let students choose their own exam dates. That’s based on an AI approach that generates personalized assessments while staying within the requirements of German accreditation bodies. This wouldn’t be possible without AI. The result is higher engagement, faster feedback, and a more personalized learning experience.

    Lastly, beyond content and experience, we’re seeing real gains in AI for Operations. In sales and marketing, for example, we now use bots in Italy and Latin America to re-engage “dead” leads—contacting them again, setting up meetings, and redirecting them through the admissions funnel. It’s proven quite efficient, and we’re looking to expand that approach to other schools.

    We’re also seeing strong results in tutoring. Take Corndel, a large UK-based school focused on apprenticeships. They’re using AI tools extensively to improve student tracking, tutoring, and weekly progress monitoring.

    So, we’re seeing a lot of momentum across all these dimensions—and it’s really picked up speed over the last 18 months.

    AU: So, you’ve got a network of institutions, which gives you a lot of little laboratories to experiment with—to try different things. How do you identify best practices? And then how do you scale them across your network?

    NB: Well, first of all, we have lots of different pilots. As you’ve understood, we’re quite decentralized, so we don’t have a central innovation team of 50 people imposing innovations across all our schools.

    It’s more about scouting and sharing experiences from one school to another. It’s a combination of networks where people share what they’re learning.

    Just to name a few, we have a Digital Learning Community—that’s made up of all the people involved in LMS design across our schools. They exchange a lot of insights and experiences.

    We also hold regular touchpoints to present what’s happening in AI for content, AI for experience, and AI for operations. We’ve created some shared training paths for schools as well. So there are a lot of initiatives aimed at maximizing sharing, rather than imposing anything top-down. Again, as you pointed out, the schools are extremely diverse—in terms of regulations, size, content, and disciplines. So there’s no universal recipe.

    That said, in some cases it’s more about developing a methodology. For example, how do you design and implement a pedagogical chatbot? The experiments we’re running now are very promising for future scale-up, because we’re learning a lot from these developments.

    AU: I know that, in a sense, you’ve institutionalized the notion of innovation within the system. I think you’ve recently launched a new master’s program specifically focused on this question—on how to innovate in education systems. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

    NB: Yeah, I’m super excited to talk about this, because it’s where I’m focusing most of my energy these days.

    We’ve been working on this project for a year with four Galileo institutions. It’s called Copernia, and the name, like Galileo, is intentional—these are people who changed perspectives. That’s exactly what we want to do: change the perspective on education and truly put the student at the center.

    Copernia started the initiative, Galileo confirmed it, and it’s no coincidence we’re focusing on this.

    The first program we’re launching under Copernia is a Master of Innovation and Technology for Education. The idea is to bring together and leverage expertise from several fields: neurocognitive science, tech, AI and data, educational sciences, innovation, design, and management. The goal is to offer students a unique experience where they not only learn about innovation—but also learn to develop and apply it.

    One of the major assets we want to leverage is the Galileo network. With over 120 campuses, we can offer students real, hands-on opportunities to experiment and innovate. So the value proposition is: if you want to design and test educational innovation, we’ll give you the tools, the foundational knowledge, and, most importantly, the chance to apply that in practice—within our network, with our partners, and with other institutions.

    The goal is to help the whole ecosystem benefit—not just from Galileo’s environment, but also from the contributions of tech partners, academic collaborators, and business partners around the world. I’m convinced this will be a major tool to develop, share, and scale practical, applied innovation.

    And importantly, this isn’t meant to be just an internal initiative for Galileo. It’s designed to be open. We want to train people who can help transform education—not only in higher education, but also in K–12 and lifelong learning. Because we believe this kind of cross-disciplinary expertise and hands-on innovation experience is valuable across the entire education sector.

    AU: I’m really impressed with the scale and speed at which you’re able to experiment. But it did make me wonder—why can’t public higher education systems do the same? I mean, if I think about French universities, there are 70 or 80 in the public system—though it’s hard to keep track because they keep merging. But theoretically, they could do this too, couldn’t they? It’s a moderately centralized system, and there’s no reason institutions couldn’t collaborate in ways that let them identify useful innovations—rolling them out at different speeds in different areas, depending on what works. Why can’t the public sector innovate like that?

    NB: First of all, I wouldn’t make a sweeping judgment on this. I think there is innovation happening everywhere—including within public institutions. So I wouldn’t describe it in black-and-white terms.

    That said, it’s true that as a private organization, we face a certain kind of pressure. We need to prove that we operate a sustainable model—and we need to prove that every month. In other words, we rely on ourselves to develop, to test, and to optimize how we grow. 

    The second is that we have an asset in being able to test and learn in very different environments. Take the example I mentioned earlier, about Germany and the anytime online assessments. We were able to implement that model there because it was online and because the regulatory environment allowed it.

    Now, when we approach accreditation bodies in other countries, we can say: “Look, it works. It’s already accepted elsewhere. Why not consider it here?” That ability to move between different contexts—academic and professional, vocational and executive—is really valuable. It allows us to promote solutions that cross traditional boundaries.

    That’s not something all public universities can do—and frankly, not something all universities can do, period. But it’s an advantage we’ve built over the past several years by creating this large field for experimentation.

    AU: Nicolas, thank you so much for being with us today.

    NB: Alex, thank you very much. It’s been a pleasure.

    AU: It just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions about today’s podcast, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at podcast@higheredstrategy.com. And don’t forget—never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education Podcast. Head over to YouTube and subscribe to our channel. Join us next week when our guest will be Noel Baldwin, CEO of the Future Skills Centre here in Canada. He’ll be joining us to talk about the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. See you then.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • 5 AI tools for classroom creativity

    5 AI tools for classroom creativity

    Key points:

    • AI tools enhance K-12 creativity and innovation through interactive projects
    • A new era for teachers as AI disrupts instruction
    • Report details uneven AI use among teachers, principals
    • For more news on AI and creativity, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub

    As AI becomes more commonplace in classrooms, it gives students access to creative tools that enhance learning, exploration, and innovation. K-12 students can use AI tools in various ways to boost creativity through art, storytelling, music, coding, and more.

    More News from eSchool News

    HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.

    Data shows growing GenAI adoption in K-12

    Almost 3 in 5 K-12 educators (55 percent) have positive perceptions about GenAI, despite concerns and perceived risks in its adoption, according to updated data from Cengage Group’s “AI in Education” research series.

    Unlocking potential: The power of online courses in our school

    Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.

    Strategies to help girls stay engaged in STEM learning

    Ensuring that girls feel supported and empowered in STEM from an early age can lead to more balanced workplaces, economic growth, and groundbreaking discoveries.

    5 vocabulary strategies powered by technology

    In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.

    The power of goal setting: A skill for lifelong success

    For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.

    The importance of teacher-student relationships

    Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.

    Virtual art meets language learning: A tech-enhanced ESL experience

    Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.

    Leadership is key to protecting student data privacy in 2025

    In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.

    Ethical PD: Doing right by the teachers who do right by the world

    Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.

    Want to share a great resource? Let us know at submissions@eschoolmedia.com.

    Source link

  • How a Napkin Sketch Can Unlock Higher Ed Innovation at Your Institution

    How a Napkin Sketch Can Unlock Higher Ed Innovation at Your Institution

    In higher education, it’s easy to feel stuck.

    You know something isn’t working — maybe enrollment processes are clunky, or student support services feel disconnected. You’ve tried new tools, updated systems, created initiatives to create change, and added staff, but the problem persists.  It’s like there’s a giant boulder in your way, and no matter how hard you push, it doesn’t budge.

    It turns out, you don’t need a bulldozer – just a napkin sketch to start building momentum to move the boulder standing in the way.

    It’s a surprisingly simple concept, using visual design thinking exercises to help colleges and universities get unstuck. Not with more tech, or a fancy AI solution, but with more clarity to understand how things work today to create a framework for change tomorrow.

    Because real innovation in higher education doesn’t come from software or a technology — it starts with understanding the systems and the processes you already have so you can visualize what they could be.

    What is a napkin sketch?

    The napkin sketch is exactly what it sounds like: a back-of-the-napkin-style drawing that quickly maps out how a particular process actually works in your institution so it can be reimagined.

    It’s low-tech, but high-impact.

    Think of it as building a gameboard for players to play. Like a Monopoly board, everyone knows the players, the rules, and the steps. It makes the choices that need to be made for each player’s turn clear.  When these choices are laid out visually, it becomes much easier to pinpoint where the real opportunities (and challenges) are.

    What does the napkin sketch exercise entail?

    I usually start these sessions by asking one simple questions with a key follow-up

    • What’s the opportunity for ‘impact’? (What are you trying to accomplish?)
    • What’s preventing progress?

    Then we get to work. Together, we sketch out the entire process: from first interaction to the final outcome. We account for every step, system, and stakeholder that’s involved. We highlight the costs, the tools and technology handoffs, potential delays, and where things might be falling through the cracks.

    We typically conduct the sketch in a virtual drawing space, where we can collaborate in real time to map out the full process. It’s not about polished visuals — it’s about building a shared understanding of how things operate today.

    And in about 60-90 minutes, we always have at least one person in the group say out loud “I didn’t realize that’s how it actually works.” And another will inevitably ask “You’re going to send us this napkin sketch, right? I want to print it out.”

    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.

    What can the napkin sketch reveal?

    In our experience working with hundreds of institutions of all shapes and sizes, we’ve found that many face surprisingly similar challenges. This exercise consistently shines a light on hidden opportunities, creating a blueprint for change.

    Common things we uncover include:

    • Manual, repetitive tasks that could be automated or streamlined
    • Workarounds that have become permanent fixtures without anyone questioning them
    • Disconnects between departments, systems, or technologies
    • Operational silos that prevent teams from seeing the full picture or collaborating effectively
    • Missed opportunities to better track, analyze, or act on data
    • Unclear ownership of key steps in the process

    In short, the napkin sketch helps institutions see what’s really going on — and what needs to change to move forward.

    Why does it work?

    Higher ed innovation often stalls because teams are too close to the problem or too deep in their own silo to see the bigger picture. The napkin sketch breaks through that by creating a space for everyone involved to step back and collaborate.

    Here’s why it’s effective:

    • It’s fast — most sessions take an hour or two.
    • It’s visual — helping teams align quickly and clearly.
    • It’s collaborative — bringing together voices from across departments.
    • It’s actionable — revealing next steps that are grounded in reality.

    Most importantly, it shifts the focus away from jumping to solutions and toward understanding the system. Once you understand the system, smart solutions become much more obvious — and effective.

    Real examples of the napkin sketch in action

    Whether it’s enrollment workflows, transcript processing, student communications, or data handoffs between systems or teams, the napkin sketch exercise can help untangle a wide variety of operational challenges. No two institutions are exactly alike, but many face similar complexities — manual processes, siloed teams, and unclear ownership that stall progress.

    Here are a few discoveries we uncovered in recent napkin sketch sessions I’ve led:

    • One institution realized how many steps were involved in processing transcripts — with staff toggling between platforms, uploading the same file in multiple places, and doing manual comparisons. Once the process was mapped, we explored how AI could handle the course match evaluations — saving hours of staff time each week.
    • Another team sketched out their enrollment outreach process and discovered they were sending multiple conflicting messages to students at the same time. The sketch helped them realign their communications and reduce student confusion.
    • A third school wanted to integrate a new tool into their tech stack, but the sketch revealed that the underlying workflow was broken — and that no tool would help until the foundational process was improved.

    In each case, the aha moment didn’t come from buying something new — it came from clearly seeing what was already happening so it could be improved upon.

    What could your napkin sketch uncover?

    If you’re wrestling with outdated processes, disconnected systems, or unclear handoffs — you’re not alone. Many institutions are trying to drive higher ed innovation with limited resources and overwhelming complexity.

    But you don’t need to have all the answers right now. You just need a clearer view of the problem so you can develop a thoughtful solution.

    That’s what the napkin sketch offers: a simple, collaborative way to map your reality, uncover opportunity, and take a smarter next step forward.

    Let’s sketch it out — and see what we find!

    Ready to uncover what’s holding you back?

    Reach out to schedule your own session and take the first step toward smarter solutions.

    Source link

  • Strategies to help girls stay engaged in STEM learning

    Strategies to help girls stay engaged in STEM learning

    Key points:

    • When girls participate in STEM learning, the future is more inclusive
    • 5 practical ways to integrate AI into high school science
    • Linking STEM lessons to real-world applications
    • For more news on STEM learning, visit eSN’s STEM & STEAM hub

    Encouraging girls to engage in STEM is vital for fostering diversity, innovation, and equal opportunities in these fields. Women remain underrepresented in STEM degrees and in careers, often due to societal stereotypes, lack of representation, and limited access to resources.

    More News from eSchool News

    HVAC projects to improve indoor air quality. Tutoring programs for struggling students. Tuition support for young people who want to become teachers in their home communities.

    Data shows growing GenAI adoption in K-12

    Almost 3 in 5 K-12 educators (55 percent) have positive perceptions about GenAI, despite concerns and perceived risks in its adoption, according to updated data from Cengage Group’s “AI in Education” research series.

    Unlocking potential: The power of online courses in our school

    Our school has built up its course offerings without having to add headcount. Along the way, we’ve also gained a reputation for having a wide selection of general and advanced courses for our growing student body.

    5 AI tools for classroom creativity

    When it comes to visual creativity, AI tools let students design posters, presentations, and digital artwork effortlessly. Students can turn their ideas into professional-quality visuals, sparking creativity and innovation.

    5 vocabulary strategies powered by technology

    In my work with middle school students, I’ve seen how critical that period of development is to students’ future success. One area of focus in a middle schooler’s development is vocabulary acquisition.

    The power of goal setting: A skill for lifelong success

    For students, the mid-year stretch is a chance to assess their learning, refine their decision-making skills, and build momentum for the opportunities ahead.

    The importance of teacher-student relationships

    Middle school marks the transition from late childhood to early adolescence. Developmental psychologist Erik Erikson describes the transition as a shift from the Industry vs. Inferiority stage into the Identity vs. Role Confusion stage.

    Virtual art meets language learning: A tech-enhanced ESL experience

    Art has a unique power in the ESL classroom–a magic that bridges cultures, ignites imagination, and breathes life into language. For English Language Learners (ELLs), it’s more than an expressive outlet.

    Leadership is key to protecting student data privacy in 2025

    In the year 2025, no one should have to be convinced that protecting data privacy matters. For education institutions, it’s really that simple of a priority–and that complicated.

    Ethical PD: Doing right by the teachers who do right by the world

    Teachers are superheroes. Every day, they rise to the challenge, pouring their hearts into shaping the future. They stay late to grade papers and show up early to tutor struggling students.

    Want to share a great resource? Let us know at submissions@eschoolmedia.com.

    Source link

  • Could Trump’s tariffs end up spurring green innovation?

    Could Trump’s tariffs end up spurring green innovation?

    U.S. President Donald Trump has never been a champion of the environment. From gutting climate policies to rolling back crucial environmental protections, the track record of the U.S. president speaks for itself. 

    But his announcement this month of steep tariffs on a sweeping range of foreign-made goods intended to boost U.S. production may also inadvertently fuel a global shift toward green innovation and a more sustainable future.

    During his first term, Trump pulled the United States out of the Paris Agreement, slashed pollution regulations and gave the fossil fuel industry a free pass. One of his most controversial moves was opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling — a pristine, ecologically-sensitive area home to polar bears, caribou and Indigenous communities that depend on the land.

    Now, he’s back — and this time, his weapon of choice is tariffs. The Trump administration has imposed tariffs on all imports from China, Mexico and Canada, as well as on steel, aluminium and cars from around the world.

    By targeting key imports like clean energy components and critical minerals, Trump’s latest trade war threatens to derail climate progress, drive up costs for renewable energy and push the United States further into fossil fuel dependence. The damage is real and the consequences could be catastrophic.

    Tariffs could hamper climate change efforts.

    The implementation of broad tariffs is poised to significantly hinder efforts against climate change and weaken environmental legislation. Here’s how:​

    Disruption of clean energy supply chains: The tariffs, particularly those targeting imports from China like steel, aluminium and lithium directly affect the availability and cost of clean technology components. For instance, the United States imports a substantial amount of lithium batteries from China — $1.9 billion worth in December 2024 alone. Increased tariffs on these imports could raise costs for renewable energy projects and electric vehicles, slowing the transition to cleaner energy sources. ​

    The energy sector is already grappling with shortages of essential parts. New tariffs exacerbate this issue, making it more challenging to procure necessary components for renewable energy infrastructure. This could delay projects and increase reliance on fossil fuels, counteracting efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. ​

    Strain on environmental initiatives: The stock market’s negative reaction to the tariff announcements, with the Dow Jones dropping nearly 1,700 points and erasing approximately $3.1 trillion in market value, indicates broader economic instability. Such financial turmoil can lead to reduced funding and support for environmental programs, as both public and private sectors may prioritize immediate economic concerns over long-term environmental goals. ​

    As Trump imposes tariffs, his administration is also rolling back environmental protections. His Environmental Protection Agency is now questioning a key 2009 ruling that classifies greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide as harmful to human health. If the courts overturn it, this could weaken U.S. climate laws and make it harder to fight climate change.

    Unintended consequences

    While Trump’s tariffs largely threaten climate progress in the United States, they could have unintended environmental benefits elsewhere.

    Boosting green manufacturing in other countries: If U.S. tariffs make Chinese solar panels, batteries and EV components more expensive, other countries — especially in Europe, India and Latin America — may ramp up their own clean energy production. China itself may increase investment and focus on domestic EV adoption, hydrogen technology or battery recycling. 

    This could lead to a more diversified and resilient global supply chain for renewable technologies, while also strengthening domestic energy resilience by encouraging countries to develop and secure their own clean energy resources, reducing reliance on foreign imports.

    Strengthening regional trade alliances for green tech: With the imposing trade barriers, countries looking to avoid tariffs might strengthen regional partnerships, such as the EU-India green energy collaboration or China’s push to supply African and Latin American markets with solar and wind technology. This could decentralize the clean energy economy, reducing reliance on any single country.

    Reducing export-driven deforestation: If tariffs make U.S. imports of commodities like beef, palm oil and timber more expensive, countries that export these products (e.g., Brazil, Indonesia) may face declining demand. Less demand equals less incentive to clear forests for agriculture.

    On the other hand, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), adopted in June 2023, aims to block imports of commodities linked to deforestation unless they can be verified as deforestation-free. The EU is a huge consumer of these commodities. 

    With two major markets (U.S. and EU) becoming less profitable for deforestation-linked goods, exporters might change their practices to comply with stricter regulations. This could encourage more sustainable supply chains.

    However, this would depend on whether other countries, like China, pick up the slack and implement EUDR-like regulations.

    Backing off petroleum

    If trade wars escalate and tariffs disrupt global markets, long-term investments in fossil fuel projects could become riskier due to economic uncertainty. Tariffs on fossil fuel-related goods — like equipment, machinery or raw materials — can increase production costs for oil and gas companies. 

    As the cost of extraction, refining and transportation rises, companies could face shrinking profit margins, making fossil fuel investments less appealing. This, and shifting focus to clean energy, might push investors toward renewables, which are increasingly seen as more stable and future-proof.

    There’s a catch: These benefits depend on how other countries respond. If the U.S. tariffs cause economic slowdowns, some nations might double down on fossil fuels to stabilize their economies. So while tariffs could have some green silver linings, they’re more of a chaotic wildcard than a deliberate climate strategy.

    While the tariffs imposed by the Trump administration present significant challenges to global climate efforts, they also create opportunities for positive change. The disruptions in the clean energy supply chain, economic instability and rollbacks of environmental protections are certainly concerning. However, the unintended side effects of these actions might just catalyze a shift in global energy dynamics.

    In the long run, this “chaotic wildcard” could make fossil fuel investments riskier and accelerate the global pivot toward renewables. Countries and industries could be forced to innovate and adapt faster than expected. 

    While the path ahead may seem uncertain, there’s a silver lining: resilience, innovation and adaptability are key to overcoming these challenges. As the world adjusts to these new realities, the opportunity to cultivate a cleaner, more sustainable future is within reach — if leaders recognize this moment and take bold action to seize it. 

    So, while the road ahead may be bumpy, there is still reason to hope and act. 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. How can governments turn the economic disruptions caused by tariffs into opportunities for advancing clean energy and climate goals?

    2. How can a decentralization of green energy technology be a good thing? 

    3. How can government intervention combined with market forces, like the rising cost of fossil fuels, accelerate the transition to renewable energy?

     

    Source link

  • 3 takeaways on higher education innovation from the ASU+GSV Summit

    3 takeaways on higher education innovation from the ASU+GSV Summit

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

     SAN DIEGO — The higher education sector is facing an onslaught of challenges, including attacks from the Trump administration, fading public confidence and the demographic cliff. But higher education leaders didn’t shy away from these issues at the annual ASU+GSV Summit, an education and technology conference held this week in San Diego. 

    “The moment is actually a productive moment for us, because we can and should and will use some of the chaos in order to build new kinds of institutions, new infrastructures, new ways of thinking,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, during a discussion Wednesday. 

    Below, we’re rounding up three key takeaways from higher education leaders on where the sector needs to go and how it can be more innovative. 

    Higher ed needs to refocus on student success

    Mitchell pointed to multiple threats converging in the higher education sector, including eroding public confidence in colleges and universities. That forces the sector to grapple with important questions. 

    “What are we delivering? Is it the right thing? Is it being delivered to the right people? And is it being delivered to the right people in the right way?” Mitchell said. “I think that the answer to all of those is, ‘Not quite,’ and so that’s the existential threat.”

    He pointed to the national college completion rate, which measures the share of first-time students at degree-granting institutions who complete their credentials within six years. That rate has risen slightly above 60% in recent years. 

    “One hundred percent of the people who come to our doors want a degree,” Mitchell said. “But we disappoint 40% of them. And over time, that has accreted into a group of people in America — Americans who are our community — who say it didn’t work.”

    But centering student success can reverse that trend, Mitchell suggested. Carnegie Classifications, a popular system for categorizing colleges and universities that’s housed at ACE, is using that focus to bring changes to its framework. 

    For example, the system plans to release new classifications in the coming weeks based on student access and earnings, with an emphasis on measuring whether colleges have student bodies representative of their regions. 

    “We’re going to look at institution by institution — are you serving the students in the communities that you serve?” said Timothy Knowles, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. 

    A crisis can spur innovation

    Fear can be a motivator to embrace innovation, said Kathleen deLaski, founder of the nonprofit Education Design Lab. 

    “Let’s not waste a good crisis,” deLaski said during a panel Tuesday. 

    She pointed to enrollment challenges at community colleges. In 2023, The Hechinger Report found that they had shed just over one-third of their students since 2010. However, after years of declines, fall enrollment has been ticking up at public two-year colleges since 2022, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. 

    Community college leaders began looking for new educational models amid the enrollment crunch, deLaski said. And recently, interest in short-term credentials have been fueling some of the sector’s enrollment gains. 

    “It’s in the new kinds of short-term pathways, certificates, even dual enrollment in high school,” deLaski said. 

    That’s also been a focus at Education Design Lab. Since 2021, the nonprofit has worked with over 100 community colleges to create “micro-pathways” —  two or more stackable credentials that can be completed in under a year. The pathways are intended to result in jobs at or above the local region’s median wage and put students on track to earn an associate degree. 

    Innovation could come from unexpected places

    Disruption to higher education is more likely to come from certain areas of the sector than others, Paul LeBlanc said Tuesday. LeBlanc is the co-founder of Matter and Space, an artificial intelligence and education company, and he previously led Southern New Hampshire for two decades.

    “Where it is hardest are institutions that are first with sterling reputations and big endowments,” he said. “That’s a huge impediment to innovation.” 

    Public systems with strong unions may also struggle to be disruptive, LeBlanc said, though he added he was not anti-union. 

    On the other hand, colleges often seen as innovative don’t typically fall into those buckets. 

    Source link