The current state of UK higher education in 2025 is marked by an existential crisis, rather than merely a series of difficult challenges.
This crisis comes from the inherent tension of attempting to operate a 20th century institutional model within the complex realities of the 21st century. This strain is exacerbated by complex socio-economic difficulties facing students, coupled with the immense pressures experienced by staff.
A city under siege
Conceptualising UK HE as a “city”, it becomes evident that while valuable as centres of learning, community and potential, this “city” is currently under siege and there is a “dragon at the gates”. The “dragon” represents a multifaceted array of contemporary pressures. These include, but are not limited to, funding reductions, evolving regulatory demands and the escalating cost-of-living crisis. Empirical research indicates that the cost-of-living crisis profoundly impacts students’ capacity for engagement.
Furthermore, this “dragon” is continuously evolving. With the rapid ascent of artificial intelligence (AI) and the distinct characteristics of Gen Z learners representing two of its newest and most salient “heads”. While AI offers opportunities for personalised learning, simultaneously, it presents substantial challenges to academic integrity and carries the risk of augmenting student isolation if not balanced with human connection. Concurrently, Gen Z learners have learned a state of “continuous partial attention” through constant exposure to multiple information streams. This poses a unique challenge to pedagogical design.
Defence, survival and the limits of future-proofing
In response to these multifaceted challenges, the prevalent institutional instinct is to defend the city. This typically involves retreating behind existing structures, consolidating operations, centralising processes, tightening policies and intensifying reliance on familiar metrics such as Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), National Student Survey (NSS) action plans, attendance rates and overall survey scores.
However, survival mode often means the sacrifice of genuine student engagement. This refers not to the easily quantifiable forms of engagement, but the relational, human dimension, wherein students develop a sense of belonging, perceive their contributions as meaningful and feel integrated into a valuable community. Research consistently demonstrates that this sense of belonging is paramount for psychological engagement and overall student success. Consequently, an exclusive focus on defending established practices, reliant on systemically imposed metrics, risks reinforcing barriers that actually impede connection, wellbeing and the institutional resilience that is critically needed.
While the concept of “future-proofing” is often invoked, it is imperative to question the feasibility of achieving perfect preparedness against unknowable future contingencies.
Attack strategies
Given the limitations of a purely defensive stance, a different strategic orientation is warranted: a proactive “attack” on the challenges confronting HE. Genuine engagement should be reconceptualised not merely as a student characteristic, but as an institutional design choice. Institutions cannot expect students to arrive with pre-existing engagement; rather, they must actively design for it.
This proactive engagement strategy aligns precisely with the University of Cumbria’s commitment to people, place, and partnerships. These themes are woven through the university’s new learning, teaching and assessment plan, providing a framework for institutional pedagogic transformation.
Relationships as the bedrock of community
The “citizens” of our HE “city” – students and staff – constitute its absolute bedrock. Strong relationships between these stakeholders are fundamental to fostering a resilient academic community. A critical institutional challenge lies in ensuring that existing systems, policies and workload models adequately support these vital connections. It is imperative to grant staff the requisite time, flexibility and recognition for their crucial relational work. This represents a shift in focus from a transactional interaction to a relationship-centric approach.
Understanding the distinct experiences of diverse groups of students (e.g. apprentices, online learners and commuter students) is of critical importance for building meaningful and authentic engagement. Fundamentally, ensuring that students feel “seen, heard and valued” is a key determinant of psychological engagement and a prerequisite for all other forms of learning to take root.
Designing for inclusive environments
The concept of “place” encompasses the entire physical and digital environment of the HE institution. Belonging, rather than being an abstract sentiment, possesses a strong spatial and environmental dimension. For institutions like the University of Cumbria, intentional design of consistent environments that cultivate a sense of “This is my place” is paramount. An important tactic in this regard is to build belonging by design, particularly at critical transition points such as induction.
This notion of “place” is particularly vital for commuter students, who often lack the built-in community afforded by residential halls. For this cohort, the physical campus serves as the primary site of their university experience. A critical assessment of their campus experience between scheduled classes is needed. Are institutional spaces designed to encourage students to remain, study and connect? When students choose to utilise them, these spaces facilitate spontaneous conversations, the formation of friendships, and the organic development of belonging.
This kind of intentionality is required for digital learning environments. Are virtual learning environments (VLEs) merely content repositories, or are they designed as welcoming community hubs? The creation of inclusive, supportive environments – both physical and virtual – where students feel genuinely connected, is absolutely fundamental to effective engagement. Moreover, clear opportunities exist to strengthen recognition of how an individual’s sense of place can positively impact learning experiences primarily delivered online.
Partnerships in fostering genuine student experiences
The final pillar, “partnerships,” refers to the cultivation of alliances within the HE “city”. While “student voice” is frequently championed, research strongly indicates a necessity to move beyond mere collection of voice towards fostering genuine student influence and co-creation. The distinction is crucial: “student voice” may involve an end-of-module survey, whereas “student influence” entails inviting students to co-design assessment questions for subsequent iterations of that module.
The University of Cumbria’s recent consistent module evaluation approach serves as an exemplary model. Achieving a 34.2% response rate in the first semester of 2024/25, which exceeds sector averages, and, critically, delivering 100% “closing the loop” reports to students, demonstrates a commitment to acknowledging and acting upon all feedback. This provides a concrete illustration of making student influence visible.
From strategy to action
This approach is a fundamental paradigm shift: from a reactive, defensive posture focused on metrics to a proactive engagement strategy. This “attack” on the challenges, framed by the University of Cumbria’s distinctive strategic approach, is predicated on three core actions: prioritising People by enabling relational work, designing a sense of Place to foster belonging, and building authentic Partnerships that transform student voice into visible influence. Translating this strategy into actionable practice does not necessitate additional burdens, but rather the integration of five practical tactics into existing workflows:
Rethink what you measure and why: Transition from a “data-led” to a “data-informed” approach. This involves utilising data for meaningful reflection and making deliberate choices to enhance the student experience, rather than reacting defensively to metrics such as KPIs, NSS scores and attendance data.
Build belonging at transitions: Recognising belonging as a critical component of psychological engagement and overall student success, this tactic underscores the importance of intentionally designing key junctures in the student journey, such as induction and progression points, to be inherently inclusive.
Enable relational work: Acknowledging that strong student-staff relationships form the “bedrock” of a resilient academic community, and that staff often face conflicts between fostering these connections and workload pressures, this tactic advocates for formally enabling “relational work”.
Turn voice into influence: Meaningful partnership necessitates moving beyond mere collection of student “voice” to cultivating their genuine “influence”. The critical determinant is not simply whether the institution is listening, but whether substantive changes are being implemented based on student feedback. This can be achieved through the establishment of “visible feedback loops” that demonstrate the impact of student input and leveraging technology to complement, rather than replace, human interaction.
Partnership by design: This final tactic advocates for embedding co-creation with students as an intrinsic element from the initial stages. Rather than being an occasional or supplementary activity, authentic partnership should be structurally integrated, with students actively involved in key decision-making processes.
The fundamental question facing HE in 2025 – “What is a university for?” – is increasingly met with the unsettling realisation that conventional answers no longer suffice. However, a cautiously optimistic outlook prevails. The answer to this pivotal question lies not in defending existing paradigms, but in actively and courageously constructing a new institutional reality.
This article has been adapted from a keynote address delivered by Dr Helena Lim at the University of Cumbria Learning and Teaching Conference on 18 June 2025, and has been jointly authored with Dr Jonathan Eaton, Pro Vice Chancellor (Learning & Teaching) at the University of Cumbria.
For further insights into the research underpinning these arguments, the “Future-proofing student engagement” report is available here.
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 tohear our speakersexplore the key questions.
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Gary Jones, Dean of Student Success and Experience, Scholars School System, Dr Steve Briggs, Director of Learning, Teaching and Libraries, University of Bedfordshire, Professor Graeme Pedlingham, Deputy Pro-Vice Chancellor for Student Experience, University of Sussex, Dr David Grey, UKAT Chief Executive Officer and Professor Abigail Moriarty, Pro Vice-Chancellor Education & Students, University of Lincoln.
A recent analytic induction study (Grey & Bailey, 2020) defined personal academic tutoring in UK higher education as a “proactive, professional relationship between student and tutor sustained throughout the entire student journey.” This partnership involves “dialogue, metacognition, and a structured programme of activities” aimed at fostering student agency, self-efficacy, independent learning, and career and future goals.
Personal academic tutors play a crucial role by supporting students to “assimilate to the university environment”, facilitating learning and decision-making, reviewing progress, and providing essential information. They enhance both academic ability and emotional well-being through holistic support during one-to-one or group meetings at key academic moments. Personal academic tutors are described as “knowledgeable, approachable, helpful, patient, caring, reliable and non-judgmental” staff members who possess the skills to actively listen, instruct, and advise. They play a crucial role in supporting student success and outcomes.
HE size and shape is changing
The increasingly perilous position of economic sustainability in the UK higher education sector has meant that a growing number of institutions are instigating reviews of their ‘size and shape’. In turn, many providers face some tough decisions around what should be prioritised. We anticipate that multiple university senior leadership teams may review academic workload plan allocations during the 2025/26 academic year to ensure that academic staff time can be optimised. As such, consideration may be given to changing time allocations to prioritise teaching preparation and delivery, assessment, and research over personal academic tutoring. We argue that teaching and research should not be treated as more important than personal academic tutoring when allocating time. Nor should teaching and research time be reduced in favour of personal academic tutoring. Rather, we argue for equivalency and that time allocation for personal academic tutoring is an activity institutions should seek to protect, not cut.
The value of university education has become a sharper and often more critical question in media narratives, as well as for people considering studying in higher education. With the increasing cost of living and studying at university, the question of how universities can make the benefits to students as visible as possible is understandably at the forefront of many of our minds. We argue that personal academic tutoring is a critical part of achieving this through a strategic, purposeful, proactive, and student-centred approach that is informed by data rather than risking falling into a reactive approach.
The impact and benefit of personal academic tutoring
Personal academic tutoring plays a fundamental role in enhancing attainment and impacts the Office for Students’ metrics, which determine institutional success (such as the Teaching Excellence Framework, National Student Survey and Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey). Effective tutoring can be measured in many ways, but not least of these is the positive benefits for helping students to stay on course and be successful, directly supporting those key B3 continuation and completion rates. Effective personal academic tutoring is therefore a virtuous circle for improving student outcomes and experience, and can help give direct evidence of value to both current students and potential applicants.
Meaningful individualised relationships that encompass the entirety of a student’s learning journey are fostered through effective personal academic tutoring. Successful tutors nurture a sense of belonging and mattering, aid in navigating the complexities of the higher education study experience, cultivate vital analytical and transferable skills, and impact student career aspirations and employability. At its best, personal academic tutoring transcends traditional teaching methods by facilitating purposeful, structured interactions outside of learning, empowering student agency and promoting the holistic development of all students. As highlighted by NACADA, teaching beyond the curriculum and discipline can help to bring together and contextualise students’ educational experiences in terms of extending aspirations, abilities and lives beyond campus boundaries and timeframes.
Academic workload planning and personal academic tutoring
A recent UKAT senior leaders’ network group meeting provided a forum for discussions regarding allocating dedicated resources for personal academic tutoring in universities. Here, we explored the variation and inconsistencies across the sector regarding how universities operate their personal academic tutoring in terms of academic workload planning. Members reported that across institutions, resource allocation was often determined locally but was driven by central university policy. As the group engaged in thought-provoking dialogue, a critical question emerged: If we genuinely value the importance of learning beyond the traditional subject curriculum, why is personal academic tutoring often not prioritised to the same extent as other activities in the initial stages of academic workload allocation?
The case for a personal academic tutoring first mindset
Recognising there are institutional differences, possible common ways of addressing this challenge were discussed, considering the aforementioned financial constraints facing the HE sector. Abi presented to attendees a cup metaphor for academic workload planning based on her previous work. This suggests that, given the significance of personal academic tutoring on student outcomes, personal academic tutoring time should be the first thing built into an academic’s workload plan. She noted, however, that this is often not the case and time allocation for personal academic tutoring may be the last thing added into the workload ‘cup’ (behind teaching, assessment and research), in turn causing the cup to overflow and damaging the significance associated with personal academic tutoring. There was an overwhelming consensus that we should all adopt a personal academic tutoring first ethos in terms of academic workload planning. Accordingly, we encourage readers who will be undertaking academic workload plan reviews over the coming months to reflect on how they allocate personal academic tutoring time, particularly if personal academic tutoring has not historically been the first pour into the workload cup.
In a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, higher ed institutions say maintaining a consistent flow of international faculty and staff members is critical.
Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post/Getty Images
A number of higher education institutions and the associations that represent them are asking to be exempted from the new $100,000 H-1B visa application fee, saying the prohibitive cost could be detrimental to the recruitment and retention of international faculty, researchers and staff members.
In a letter to the Department of Homeland Security last week, the American Council on Education argued that such individuals “contribute to groundbreaking research, provide medical services to underserved and vulnerable populations … and enable language study, all of which are vital to U.S. national interests.” Without them, ACE and 31 co-signers said, key jobs in high-demand sectors such as health care, information technology, education and finance will likely go unfilled.
The letter came just days after U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services launched a new online payment website and provided an updated statement on policies surrounding the fee. UCIS clarified that the fee will apply to any new H-1B petitions filed on or after Sept. 21, and it must be paid before the petition is filed.
The update also referenced possible “exception[s] from the fee” but said those exceptions would only be granted in an “extraordinarily rare circumstance where the Secretary has determined that a particular alien worker’s presence in the United States as an H-1B worker is in the national interest.”
ACE said that H-1B visa recipients in higher education certainly meet those standards, citing data from the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources that shows that over 70 percent of international employees at colleges and universities hold tenure-track or tenured positions. The top five disciplines they work in are business, engineering, health professions, computer science and physical sciences.
“H-1B visa holders working for institutions of higher education are doing work that is crucial to the U.S. economy and national security,” the letter reads.
Despite the clarification provided by UCIS, ACE still had several remaining questions about the fee. These included whether the $100,000 would be refunded if a petition was denied and whether individuals seeking a “change of status” from an H-1B to an F-1 or J-1 would still be required to pay the fee.
At least two lawsuits have been filed against DHS concerning these visa fees. Neither has been issued a ruling so far.
This blog was kindly authored by Professor Randall S Whittaker Principal and CEO Rose Bruford College.
London’s creative industries are not a cultural accessory; they are an economic engine. Around one in seven jobs in the capital sits within the creative industries, and if you include creative roles embedded across other sectors, that figure rises to nearly one in five. Almost a third of all UK creative businesses are based in London.
The UK’s creative success is no accident. It rests on a delicate, interdependent education ecosystem: specialist arts institutions; research hubs; and universities that together generate not only talent but innovation, identity and national soft power.
That ecosystem is under pressure. Rising costs, uneven funding, and the new fashion for mergers, the proposed “super university” being the latest example, are driving a wave of consolidation.
Why “super universities” miss the point
When two generalist universities merge, their academic portfolios may blend. When a small, practice-led arts institution is absorbed, it rarely blends; it dissolves. Studios become seminar rooms. Ensemble training becomes optional. Niche disciplines disappear in the name of efficiency. Scale rewards the generic; creativity thrives in the specific.
The Kent–Greenwich merger, planned for 2026, is being hailed as a pragmatic response to sector-wide financial stress. On paper, such consolidations look neat: shared back-office functions, pooled estates, a single regional brand. But higher education is not a spreadsheet exercise.
It’s understandable that, given Rose Bruford College’s geography — located between Kent and Greenwich — and a financial position that has been challenging but is now improving, some might assume that joining a “super university” is the logical next step.
Yet that assumption misunderstands what specialist colleges contribute. Rose Bruford’s strength lies precisely in what cannot be merged: its scale, its agility, its ensemble ethos, its craft-specific research culture, and its proven industry connectivity. The College’s recovery — from stabilised finances to a UKRI-funded research project and multiple national awards for both performance and technical excellence — shows that independence is not indulgence; it is impact.
The question is not whether Bruford can survive outside the merger, but whether the creative industries can afford to lose what institutions like Bruford uniquely provide. When specialist institutions disappear, we do not gain efficiency; we lose an entire mode of creativity.
There are, of course, examples where partnership has protected identity: the Royal Birmingham Conservatoire operates as an associate faculty of Birmingham City University, retaining its governance and character while sharing infrastructure. That balance, autonomy with alignment, is the exception not the rule. For most specialist creative institutions, a merger could mean absorption, not collaboration.
From curtain call to crucible
It remains true that it is a curtain call for the old, exclusionary model of time-intensive training that shuts out those without privilege or flexibility. What must be defended now is the right of specialist institutions to re-imagine rigorous training on equitable, sustainable terms.
Specialist creative higher education is not a conveyor belt. It is a crucible. To mistake it for a “skills pipeline” is to misunderstand its purpose. Specialist higher education institutions are not service departments for the creative industries; they are cultural forces — sites of disruption, experimentation and social imagination.
Graduates from these environments do not merely enter the creative industries; they redefine them. They found new companies, invent formats, challenge hierarchies, and expand who gets to tell Britain’s stories.
Research, re-imagined
Specialist arts institutions do not reject research; they redefine it. Practice is their laboratory. Performance, design and experimentation are their methodologies. Rose Bruford’s recently UKRI-funded research project exemplifies how specialist providers drive national innovation, producing knowledge that moves from rehearsal rooms to public discourse, from artistic experiment to policy impact.
The power of the specific
The reach of this work is visible every night on screens and stages.
Jessica Gunning, BAFTA, Emmy and Golden Globe winner for Baby Reindeer, trained at Rose Bruford.
Bernardine Evaristo, Bruford alumna and Booker Prize winner, saw her novel Mr Loverman adapted for television and a Women’s Prize Outstanding Contribution Award, recognising her “transformative impact on literature and her unwavering dedication to uplifting under-represented voices”.
Stephen Graham and Hannah Walters, who met as Bruford students, co-starred in Adolescence — proof that specialist institutions forge lifelong creative partnerships.
Sir Gary Oldman, Slow Horses, began his journey at Bruford and continues to define British performance worldwide.
Excellence extends far beyond the spotlight. At the Profile Awards, lighting design alumni Jessica Hung Han Yun, Sarah Readman, and Joshua Pharo, together with Joshie Harriette, all received national recognition. Hung Han Yun — also an Olivier Award winner for My Neighbour Totoro — shows how specialist training produces innovators whose artistry is both technical and conceptual. These achievements prove that excellence in production crafts is not ancillary to the arts; it is integral to Britain’s creative leadership.
Diversity and student choice
A healthy higher-education system depends on difference, in mission, in method, in who it serves.
If independent specialist higher education institutions disappear, the UK’s higher-education landscape flattens. The sector loses, not only training for performers and designers, but the pedagogical diversity that keeps higher education alive, the alternative modes of learning that reach students who may not thrive in traditional university structures.
For students, the consequences are immediate. Choice collapses from a landscape of craft pathways to a handful of broad “creative-arts” degrees. The student who might have trained as a lighting designer, scenographer or community-theatre facilitator is left with a single, generic option. In a system obsessed with “student choice”, consolidation removes the very choices that matter most — about identity, craft and form.
GuildHE’s recent Championing a Diverse Higher Education Sector manifesto underscores this point. It highlights the extra costs of small-class teaching and industry-standard facilities that specialist colleges cannot cross-subsidise, and calls for direct funding, reform of research and knowledge-exchange thresholds, and capital investment to secure the sector’s future. These are not indulgences; they are the practical conditions for diversity itself.
Funding reform is an investment in inclusion
What specialist institutions seek is not indulgence — and not simply more money to do the same thing. They seek resources that enable transformation: sustainable workloads, flexible modules, hybrid teaching, and equitable access, without sacrificing rigour.
As GuildHE notes, funding architecture must recognise that small specialist colleges cannot offset studio-based costs in the way comprehensive universities can. Reforming those systems is how government can genuinely champion diversity rather than merely declare it.
Starving specialist institutions into mergers is not efficiency; it is slow erasure.
A national imperative
Britain’s creative industries are a cornerstone of the economy and of international reputation. Yet the institutions that make that possible are treated as optional extras.
If independent, practice-led institutions vanish, we lose not only talent pipelines but the laboratories of imagination, the incubators of diversity, and the ability to renew what British creativity means.
Specialist creative institutions are not relics of the past. They are the crucibles of the future — where risk is rehearsed, difference made visible, and new worlds imagined into being. Fold them into super universities, and the loss will not be obvious at first. But over time, our screens, our stages and our stories will all start to look the same. And by then, it will be too late.
At all institution types, students living off campus reported a 16 percent higher sense of belonging than those living on campus.
Daniel de la Hoz/iStock/Getty Images Plus
A new study from the American Indian College Fund and National Native Scholarship Providers found that Indigenous students report a stronger sense of belonging on campus when their college provides “perceptions of a sense of acceptance, inclusion and identity.”
They call this “institutional support,” and it’s the primary predictor of belonging, trailed by peer support, campus climate and tribal support, the study showed.
The “Power in Culture Report,” released Wednesday, examined Indigenous students’ sense of belonging at the institutional and state level. NNSP surveyed more than 560 students enrolled at 184 institutions across multiple sectors, including tribal colleges and universities, predominantly white institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions. The survey was conducted between March and April of 2024.
Unsurprisingly, tribal colleges foster a greater sense of institutional belonging among Indigenous students than other institution types. At nontribal institutions, Indigenous students must create belonging via “informal networks and cultural resilience amid institutional neglect or performative inclusion.” Indigenous students at nontribal campuses also report experiencing more microaggressions and cultural isolation. Students at institutions with larger populations of Indigenous students report a 14 percent higher sense of belonging than those at schools with fewer Native peers.
When looking at Indigenous student belonging at the state level, students attending college in states with larger tribal populations actually report a lower sense of belonging and say they feel less supported than students in states with smaller tribal populations, “suggesting that population size alone does not equate to meaningful support,” the study noted. Students in states with a tribal college or university reported an 18 percent lower sense of belonging than students in states without a tribal institution.
At all institution types, students living off-campus reported a 16 percent higher sense of belonging than those living on-campus.
The report includes several policy recommendations to bolster Indigenous student belonging, including recruiting Indigenous faculty and staff, funding Native language revitalization courses, and establishing meaningful relationships with local tribal nations.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The higher education sector saw several notable examples of college president turnover in September, at a time when the position is becoming increasingly fraught.
In some cases, presidents announced their intention to retire or move on to a new institution with ample lead time. But in others, they stepped down abruptly after facing pressure campaigns from politicians or from within their college.
Below, we’re rounding up some of last month’s most significant college leadership changes.
President: Mark Welsh Institution: Texas A&M University Coming or going?: Going
Mark Welsh stepped down as president of Texas A&M University on Sept. 19 after the content of one of the institution’s classes created a political maelstrom. Earlier in the month, a conservative state lawmaker shared a video of a Texas A&M professor teaching about gender identity and called for the instructor to be fired. Welsh quickly complied, but the lawmaker then began calls for the president to be fired as well.
The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents authorized a settlement with Welsh on Sept. 26 but declined to share specifics until the details are finalized, The Texas Tribune reported.
President: Michael Schill Institution: Northwestern University Coming or going?: Going
On Sept. 4, Michael Schill announced he would step down as president of Northwestern University, pending the selection of an interim leader. Northwestern named Henry Bienen, who previously led the university for over two decades, as interim president on Sept. 16.
Schill’s departure followed a three-year tenure marked by increased federal scrutiny.
Last May, conservative lawmakers opened an investigation into Northwestern’s handling of pro-Palestinian protests on its campus and ordered the private Illinois university to turn over extensive paperwork related to student and employee discipline and conduct cases. Schill, along with other college leaders, was also called to testify regarding campus protest responses.
Schill and Northwestern’s board chair announced in April that the university would self-fund vital research that has been threatened by the Trump administration cuts.
President: Andrés Acebo Institution: New Jersey City University Coming or going?: Coming
Andrés Acebo became New Jersey City University’s permanent president on Sept. 10, after serving as the institution’s interim president since January 2023. He will be the youngest known president to lead a public New Jersey university, according to NJCU.
Acebo joined NJCU at a turbulent time for the beleaguered university. A year into his tenure, a state-appointed monitor directed NJCU to find an academic partner to help stabilize its finances. NJCU is now on track to become part of fellow public institution Kean University.
In its announcement, NJCU credited Acebo with helping orchestrate “a remarkable financial and academic recovery.”
President: Sean Huddleston Institution: Martin University Coming or going?: Going
Martin University announced on Sept. 11 that President Sean Huddleston will step down this fall. Huddleston has led Indiana’s only predominantly Black institution for six years.
Martin has faced a number of financial and organizational challenges in recent years, including declining enrollment, increased borrowing and a 2022 cyberattack that affected its transcripts. All these factors were cited in a 2023 audit that found that “substantial doubt exists about the university’s ability to continue.”
Since then, Huddleston has overseen a number of new initiatives, including a forthcoming “virtual campus,” a significant tuition reset, and a tuition forgiveness program that erased up to $10,000 in debt for qualifying students.
Huddleston’s last day is set for Nov. 28.
President: Kimberly Espy Institution: Wayne State University Coming or going?: Going
The announcement came after the Detroit News reported the Michigan university’s board of governors intended to oust Espy, citing disapproval of her management style and her decision to put the dean of the university’s medical school on paid leave with little communication.
As part of her separate agreement, Espy relinquished her contractual right to remain with Wayne State as a faculty member and vacated the university president’s residence by the end of the month, Detroit Free Press reported. Espy’s husband, a senior administrator at the university, also resigned as part of the agreement. In exchange, Espy received $760,499 — about a year’s pay — and two years of health care for herself and her husband.
The university’s board named Richard Bierschbach, Wayne State’s dean of law, as interim president.
President: Marlene Tromp Institution: The University of Vermont Coming or going?: Coming
The University of Vermont formally installed Marlene Tromp as president on Sept. 30, following her assumption of the office over the summer. Tromp came to the institution from Boise State University, where she was president from 2019 to 2025.
President: Bethami Dobkin Institution: Westminster University Coming or going?: Going
Westminster University President Bethami Dobkin announced on Sept. 4 that she will retire at the end of the 2025-26 academic year. During her eight-year tenure, she oversaw the institutional transition from college to university and became the longest-serving university president in Utah,according to Westminster. Dobkin was also the only Utah university leader to join more than 400 college leaders in signing an April letter condemning President Donald Trump’s “unprecedented” attempts to control higher education, The Salt Lake Tribune reported.
President: Emir Caner Institution: Truett McConnell University Coming or going?: Going
Truett McConnell University “decided to part ways with” President Emir Caner on Sept. 25, per a vote from the Georgia institution’s board. Caner had been on leave since June following a sexual misconduct scandal involving a former faculty member and allegations of an administrative cover-up.
The board’s vote came the same day during a closed meeting at which a third-party auditor orally reported his findings into the allegations. Truett McConnell did not publish or share further details.
John Yarbrough, who has served as acting president during Caner’s leave, will remain on as interim president while the private university finds a permanent replacement.
President: Garnett Stokes Institution: The University of New Mexico Coming or going?: Going
The University of New Mexico announced on Sept. 16 that President Garnett Stokes would retire in July 2026.Stokes joined the public institution in 2018, becoming the first woman to hold the role.
The U.S. Department of Educationis ending funding to several grant programs for minority-serving institutions, calling them racially discriminatorybecause colleges must enroll certain shares of underrepresented students to qualify for the awards.
In fiscal 2025, the department had been expected to award $350 million in grants to benefit institutions serving large shares of Alaska Native, Asian American,Black, Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander students.The agency said on Wednesday it will redirect the funding to other programs “that advance Administration priorities.”
The announcement quickly drew criticism from college leaders, lawmakers and higher education organizations, who argued that cutting the grants would harm students and damage colleges that rely on the funding.
Dive Insight:
The cut grants have supported myriad initiatives at MSIs, such as purchasing laboratory equipment, improving buildings and classrooms, supporting student services like tutoring, and establishing endowment funds.
Eliminating the funding will irreparably harm students, Mildred García, chancellor of the California State University system, said in a Wednesday statement. She panned the move, noting that all but one of the CSU system’s 22 universities are Hispanic-serving institutions.
“Without this funding, students will lose the critical support they need to succeed in the classroom, complete their degrees on time, and achieve social mobility for themselves and their families,” García said.
Higher education leaders also said the funds benefit all students.
“The funds granted to HSIs have never supported only Latino students,” David Mendez, interim CEO of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities, said in a statement on Wednesday. “These funds strengthen entire campuses, creating opportunities and resources that benefit all students, especially those pursuing STEM fields, as well as enhancing the communities where these colleges and universities are located.”
University of Hawaiʻi President Wendy Hensel voiced concernsspecifically about the impact the move would have across the public 10-campus system.
“It will affect all of our students, the programs that support them and the dedicated staff who carry out this work,” Hensel said in a Wednesday statement.
However, the Education Department took issue with the eligibility requirements for colleges to receive grants.
For instance, to be eligible for grants for the Developing Hispanic-Serving Institutions program, colleges must have student bodies where at least 25% of learners are Hispanic. For grants under the Minority Science and Engineering Improvement program, which is meant to encourage underrepresented students to enter STEM fields, colleges must have student bodies where 50% of learners belong to underrepresented racial or ethnic minority groups.
“To further our commitment to ending discrimination in all forms across federally supported programs, the Department will no longer award Minority-Serving Institution grants that discriminate by restricting eligibility to institutions that meet government-mandated racial quotas,” U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement on Wednesday.
McMahon said the department wants to work with Congress to “reenvision these programs to support institutions that serve underprepared or under-resourced students without relying on race quotas.”
The Education Department’s decision Wednesday targets some of the very grants over which it is currently being sued by the state of Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions, the anti-affirmative action group that successfully sued to end race-conscious admissions at colleges.In a lawsuit filed in June, the plaintiffs argued that grants for HSIs are discriminatory due to their eligibility requirements.
In a July memo, the U.S. Department of Justice said it would not defend the grant programs. Solicitor General D. John Sauer said the agency determined that they violated the constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
The Education Department said it will still disburse roughly $132 million in grant funding for fiscal year 2025 that Congress has mandated to be spent for MSIs. “The Department continues to consider the underlying legal issues associated with the mandatory funding mechanism in these programs,” the agency added.
The Education Department did not answer Higher Ed Dive’s questions Thursday but cited a Wednesday article from online news publication RealClearPolitics.
A senior administration official told RealClearPolitics that the changes would not impact historically Black colleges and universities.The federal designation of HBCU does not include any enrollment criteria. Instead, a college must have been established prior to 1964 and have a principal mission that “was, and is, the education of Black Americans,” according to federal statute.
Email remains one of the most effective ways for colleges and universities to connect with their audiences. Unlike social platforms that limit reach through algorithms, email marketing for educational institutions provides a direct line to prospects, parents, students, alumni, and partners, people who have already chosen to hear from you. It’s measurable from start to finish, integrates easily with CRMs and student information systems, and can be automated to deliver timely, relevant messages.
The numbers back it up: across industries, email consistently produces one of the strongest returns on investment of any channel. In higher education, the impact is even greater when schools combine clean data with thoughtful segmentation, personalization, and creative storytelling. In practice, email often becomes the foundation of a recruitment strategy, supporting everything from initial outreach to alumni engagement.
This guide brings together proven email marketing best practices for educational institutions. Alongside examples and trusted resources to help your team build campaigns that not only perform but also feel authentic and meaningful to the people you’re trying to reach.
Struggling with enrollment and retention?
Our email marketing services can help you generate more leads!
Where Email Fits in the Student Journey
Email plays a role at every stage of the student journey, from the first moment of discovery through to lifelong alumni engagement. What makes it so effective is its ability to deliver the right message to the right person at the right time.
Awareness: Introduce programs, highlight scholarships, and showcase campus life with engaging stories that spark curiosity.
Consideration: Share degree guides, student experiences, faculty spotlights, and invitations to virtual or in-person events.
Decision: Provide deadline reminders, financial aid instructions, advisor booking links, and follow-up checklists that help prospects commit with confidence.
Onboarding & Retention: Support new students with orientation details, academic advising reminders, wellness resources, and career services updates that strengthen their connection to your institution.
Alumni & Advancement: Keep graduates engaged with mentorship opportunities, continuing education offers, impact reports, and giving campaigns that showcase the value of staying involved.
Example in practice:The University of Alberta has built a structured email journey for international prospects, connecting them with advisors and surfacing key requirements at each stage of the process. This ensures that students receive timely, relevant information tailored to their current stage in the decision-making process.
Best Practices for Higher Education Email Marketing
To make email marketing for educational institutions truly effective, schools need more than just frequent sends; they need strategy, structure, and respect for their audience. The best-performing campaigns are built on trust, relevance, and timing.
That means starting with a clean, permission-based list, segmenting by intent, and delivering value at every step of the journey. Each best practice below focuses on how colleges and universities can move beyond “batch and blast” tactics to create meaningful, high-ROI conversations with students, parents, alumni, and partners.
1. Build a Permission-Based, High-Intent List
The strength of your email marketing starts with the quality of your list. Buying addresses might look like a shortcut, but it usually leads to poor engagement and deliverability issues. Instead, focus on capturing leads through owned, value-driven channels.
Program pages with downloadable guides, open house registrations, scholarship calculators, and career snapshots are all proven ways to attract high-intent prospects. Keep sign-up forms short, just name, email, and one preference field, then use progressive profiling to enrich data over time.
Example: George Brown College attracts prospective students by offering downloadable program guides in exchange for email sign-ups. Because students self-select the guide they want, the college immediately knows their area of interest and can trigger tailored follow-up campaigns. This approach builds a fully permission-based list where every contact has explicitly indicated their intent, making subsequent outreach more relevant and effective.
Segmentation is the most consistent way to boost engagement and conversions in higher ed email marketing. Instead of sending broad blasts, divide your audiences by lifecycle stage, program interest, geography, or even behaviour, for example, attending a webinar or abandoning a form. This allows every recipient to receive content that feels timely and relevant. Segmentation also prevents fatigue by cutting down on irrelevant sends, which in turn protects your sender reputation and keeps unsubscribe rates low.
How can segmentation improve the effectiveness of email marketing for higher education? Segmentation makes emails more relevant, which increases engagement. For example, international prospects segmented by country can receive updates on visas and housing, while domestic students see local funding options. Segmenting by lifecycle stage, program, and behaviour helps improve click-throughs and leads to better-qualified student interactions.
Example:Humber College’s international portal structures content by region and need, ensuring students see information on study permits, housing options, and support services tailored to their home country. This kind of geo-segmentation can be mirrored in email journeys, for instance, sending region-specific pre-arrival checklists or visa guidance, so that communications land with stronger relevance for each subgroup of students.
True personalization goes deeper than inserting a first name in the subject line. In higher education, it means dynamically adjusting content blocks based on program interest, geography, or behaviour.
For example, prospective Nursing students should see different resources than prospective Business students. International applicants may need tuition estimates in local currency or immigration guidance. Behavioural triggers, like a reminder to finish an application, show prospects you’re paying attention to their journey.
Why is personalization important in higher education email marketing? Personalization helps students see themselves at your institution. Tailoring emails by program, start term, or action, such as reminding them of an unfinished application, makes communication feel relevant and timely. This reduces fatigue and unsubscribes while guiding students toward conversion more effectively than generic messages.
Example:Arizona State University has invested in dynamic email content that highlights degree options, campus resources, and next-step reminders based on each student’s profile data. ASU’s own email marketing guidelines encourage the use of personalized fields and scripting for tailored messaging, ensuring that outreach feels individually relevant and helpful rather than generic.
4. Write Subject Lines and Previews That Earn the Open
Subject lines and preview text are the most decisive factors in whether an email gets opened. In higher education, a few consistent principles stand out:
Specificity: call out the program or event directly (“Early Childhood Education: Virtual Info Session Tomorrow”).
Urgency and utility: use time-sensitive reminders, but avoid spammy tactics (“Last 48 hours for residence priority”).
Length: keep subject lines to 45–50 characters, and use preview text to complete the thought and front-load value.
Testing: run A/B tests where possible: subjects, preheaders, and sender names (e.g., “Admissions at Seneca”) are all worth experimenting with. Emoji can work sparingly for student audiences.
Example:The University of Arizona’s marketing team advises keeping subject lines concise (30–50 characters) and imbued with a sense of urgency, while still indicating the email’s content. Their guidelines echo what many have found: clear, direct subject lines (often including deadlines or event details) tend to lift open rates, because recipients immediately grasp the email’s value.
In a nutshell, what are the best practices for creating engaging subject lines in higher education email marketing?Keep subject lines clear, specific, and under 50 characters. Highlight benefits like deadlines, outcomes, or events, and use preheaders to expand the message. Test frequently with A/B experiments, and consider humanized sender names (e.g., “Admissions at [School]”) to increase open rates without relying on gimmicks.
5. Design Mobile-First and Accessible
Most students and parents first open emails on their phones, so mobile-first design isn’t optional. Use responsive templates, 16-pixel body text, and tappable CTAs with enough space to avoid errors. Break content into scannable blocks with headings and subheads, and avoid image-only buttons.
Accessibility should be built in: add alt text, maintain contrast ratios, and caption videos. Keeping one clear CTA helps prevent distraction while making the path forward obvious. Load times matter, too. Opt for system fonts, compressed images, and videos hosted externally.
Example:The University of Toronto’s Future Students portal provides a good model for digestible, mobile-friendly content blocks. Information is organized in concise sections and bullet points that mirror best practices for responsive email design. By structuring content for quick scanning on a small screen, U of T ensures that key messages (from program highlights to “Apply Now” links) remain prominent and actionable even on mobile devices.
How often you email matters as much as what you send. A thoughtful cadence keeps your audience engaged without overwhelming them. Consider these practical benchmarks:
Prospects: 1–2 emails per week; increase frequency near application deadlines or events, then cool down.
Applicants/Admitted Students: Send transactional updates and personalized nudges; shield them from generic blasts.
Enrolled Students: A weekly digest from student affairs or the registrar is usually sufficient, plus urgent communications when needed.
Alumni: monthly updates with stories, impact reports, and targeted appeals tied to affinity or giving campaigns.
Example:The University of Rochester balances its email frequency by audience: it sends all current students, faculty, and staff a brief daily bulletin for campus-wide announcements, but for undergraduates, it also delivers a focused weekly newsletter highlighting only the most important deadlines and updates for the coming week. This approach keeps students informed and on track (e.g., keeping current on scholarship deadlines or add/drop dates) without inundating them with multiple emails per day, illustrating how strategic timing and pacing can improve engagement.
The best emails guide students toward small, progressive steps that build confidence and commitment. Think of calls-to-action (CTAs) as a series of micro-conversions leading to the big one: enrollment.
Early stage: “Download the Business Degree Guide.”
Mid stage: “Register for the Sept 12 Virtual Info Session.”
Late stage: “Finish Your Application” or “Book a 1:1 with Admissions.”
Example: Concordia University encourages one-on-one engagement by making it easy for prospects to connect with recruitment advisors. In their outreach and on their website, Concordia invites prospective students to “Speak with a recruiter” and provides direct contact links for regional advisors.
By embedding advisor contact/booking links in recruitment emails, they effectively turn email into a two-way channel, and prospects can immediately take the next step of scheduling a conversation, which is often a key conversion on the path to enrollment. This kind of CTA (e.g., “Book a 1:1 Advising Appointment”) helps move students from interest to action at the decision stage.
Automation ensures no student falls through the cracks. It also frees staff time by replacing one-off sends with structured flows. At a minimum, schools should build:
Welcome or nurture series by program cluster (3–5 emails over 10–14 days).
Event workflows: registration confirmation → reminder emails (24 hours and 2 hours before) → post-event follow-up with recording and next step.
Application rescue: reminders for incomplete applications, missing documents, or deposits.
Example:The University of Georgia’s admissions office uses automated “incomplete application” emails to prompt action from applicants. About 10–15 days after a student applies, if any required materials are still missing, UGA’s system sends a notification to alert the student. This kind of trigger-based outreach (in UGA’s case, coupled with a status portal for real-time updates) helps increase completion rates by nudging students at the right moment. Ensuring more prospects finish their applications and none are unknowingly left behind due to missing paperwork.
Testing makes email performance predictable. Without it, you’re guessing. To get reliable insights, follow a structured method:
Hypothesis: define what you’re testing and why (e.g., “Clearer subject line → higher open rate”).
Minimal variable: test one change at a time: subject, CTA wording, or design. Not everything at once.
Sample & duration: send to enough recipients for statistical significance, and let the test run its course.
Centralize learnings: record results in a shared log and bake winners into future templates.
This discipline helps schools turn experimentation into ongoing optimization, rather than one-off guesswork.
Example: Arizona State University’s email marketing team bakes A/B testing into its processes and training. In fact, ASU’s internal Marketing Academy offers specific sessions on email A/B testing best practices. By systematically experimenting, for instance, testing whether an email from “Admissions at ASU” versus a personal advisor name yields a higher open rate, or which subject line phrasing drives more clicks, universities like ASU turn anecdotal hunches into data-backed decisions. The result is a cycle of learning where each campaign performs better than the last, based on real audience insights.
A great email program doesn’t just send, it learns. Schools should define KPIs at each stage of the student journey and connect systems so results tie back to outcomes that matter.
Top of funnel: track deliverability, open rates (adjusted for privacy changes), and click-through rates (CTR).
Mid-funnel: measure landing-page engagement, event registrations, and advisor bookings.
Bottom of funnel: monitor application starts and completions, offers accepted, and deposits paid.
Lifetime value: go further with retention term-to-term, alumni engagement, and giving participation.
Tools make this possible. Google Analytics 4 allows schools to set and track conversion goals across web and email touchpoints. Marketing automation platforms like HubSpot, Mailchimp, and HEM’s Mautic provide email-level reporting, lifecycle attribution, and integration with CRMs or student information systems.
The real power comes when those metrics are connected—so you can see not just who opened, but who enrolled. That’s how email proves its ROI in higher education.
Example: UMass Amherst provides a powerful case study in data-driven email marketing. After consolidating campus communications onto a single platform, they now rigorously track email performance and outcomes. In 2022, UMass separated its email sends into transactional vs. commercial categories to better gauge effectiveness. The university sent 6.7 million marketing (commercial) emails with a 61% open rate and only a 0.10% unsubscribe rate, about half the industry benchmark.
These granular metrics (including year-over-year improvements in opens and clicks) are tied back to student engagement and enrollment outcomes. By monitoring and sharing such results, the UMass team can conclusively demonstrate email ROI in higher education, for instance, showing that automated, targeted campaigns directly led to more applicants completing their files and more students registering for classes
Deliverability, Privacy, and Compliance Essentials
Even the best-designed email is wasted if it never reaches the inbox. To protect deliverability and ensure compliance, schools need to focus on three pillars: technical health, consent, and governance.
Authenticate your domain with SPF, DKIM, and DMARC. Align subdomains for bulk mail so your institution sends with a verifiable identity.
Maintain list hygiene by removing hard bounces automatically and applying “sunset rules” for long-inactive contacts. This keeps the sender’s reputation strong.
Comply with Canadian Anti-Spam Law (CASL): capture express opt-in, include your institution’s physical mailing address, and provide a one-click unsubscribe.
Offer preference centres so subscribers can opt out of specific program streams rather than unsubscribing from all communications.
Monitor sender reputation and complaint rates across platforms. Coordinate centrally across departments to avoid overlap that leads to over-messaging.
Schools that treat deliverability and compliance as core practices, not afterthoughts, protect both their brand and their audience’s trust, while ensuring every message has a fair chance of being read.
Content Strategy: What to Send (And When)
The most effective email marketing calendars are tied to the academic cycle. By planning content around what matters most to students at each stage, schools can stay relevant, reduce last-minute scrambles, and guide prospects and current learners smoothly from interest to enrollment, and beyond.
September–October: Focus on discovery. Send “Explore Programs” series, scholarship primers, and fall open house invitations to capture interest early in the cycle.
November–December: Support applications. Share step-by-step application checklists, portfolio preparation guides, and alumni career stories that reinforce outcomes.
January–February: Address financial and career considerations. Feature financial aid tutorials, co-op or internship spotlights, and “Ask an Advisor” live chats to build trust and reduce barriers.
March–April: Drive urgency. Countdown emails for application deadlines, residence selection reminders, and campus life reels or shorts work well here.
May–June: Transition from admission to enrollment. Focus on onboarding with orientation sign-ups, registrar instructions, and personalized next-step communications.
July–August: Provide last-mile support. Send guidance on IDs, transit, and housing, plus international arrival instructions to prepare students for day one.
A calendar like this ensures that your emails are not just timely, but also aligned with the emotional and practical needs of your audience throughout the year.
Turning Best Practices Into Results
Email remains one of the most powerful tools available to higher education marketers, but only when strategy and technology work hand in hand. The best practices outlined here are: permission-based lists, segmentation, personalization, accessibility, automation, and compliance. Ensure every message is not just delivered but resonates with the right audience at the right time.
This is where Higher Education Marketing (HEM) makes the difference. With deep sector expertise, we help schools design and execute email strategies that align with recruitment, retention, and advancement goals.
Central to this is our use of Mautic CRM, an open-source higher education email marketing automation platform customized for educational institutions. Mautic allows institutions to manage campaigns, segment audiences, automate journeys, and integrate seamlessly with student information systems, all while keeping data governance and compliance front and center.
By combining best-practice strategy with the flexibility of Mautic CRM, HEM enables institutions to run smarter, more personalized campaigns that drive measurable ROI across the student lifecycle. The result is simple: stronger engagement, higher conversion rates, and a more connected experience for every student, from prospect to alumni. Do you need help crafting an effective marketing strategy for student recruitment for your institution? Contact HEM for more information.
Struggling with enrollment and retention?
Our email marketing services can help you generate more leads!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question:How can segmentation improve the effectiveness of email marketing for higher education? Answer: Segmentation makes emails more relevant, which increases engagement. For example, international prospects segmented by country can receive updates on visas and housing, while domestic students see local funding options. Segmenting by lifecycle stage, program, and behaviour helps improve click-throughs and leads to better-qualified student interactions.
Question: What are the best practices for creating engaging subject lines in higher education email marketing? Answer: Keep subject lines clear, specific, and under 50 characters. Highlight benefits like deadlines, outcomes, or events, and use preheaders to expand the message. Test frequently with A/B experiments, and consider humanized sender names (e.g., “Admissions at [School]”) to increase open rates without relying on gimmicks.
Question: Why is personalization important in higher education email marketing? Answer: Personalization helps students see themselves at your institution. Tailoring emails by program, start term, or action, such as reminding them of an unfinished application, makes communication feel relevant and timely. This reduces fatigue and unsubscribes while guiding students toward conversion more effectively than generic messages.
The departure and replacement of school principals represents one of the most significant organizational changes within educational institutions, creating ripple effects that permeate every aspect of school operations. This phenomenon, increasingly prevalent in contemporary education systems, deserves thorough examination for its profound impact on institutional effectiveness, academic achievement, and organizational stability.
When a principal exits an educational institution, the immediate effects reverberate throughout the entire school system. The administrative vacuum extends far beyond mere personnel changes, as new principals invariably bring distinct leadership philosophies, strategic priorities, and management approaches that can fundamentally reshape the school’s operational framework. Current research in educational leadership suggests that schools typically require between three to five years to fully stabilize following leadership transitions, indicating that frequent turnover can trap institutions in continuous cycles of adjustment and reorganization.
The principal’s role transcends traditional administrative leadership, functioning as the cultural architect of the school community. During leadership transitions, the delicate fabric of established relationships between administration, faculty, and staff enters a period of uncertainty and realignment. The school’s cultural identity, carefully constructed through years of shared experiences and mutual understanding, often undergoes substantial transformation as new leadership implements alternative approaches to community building and professional collaboration. This cultural shift can significantly impact teacher motivation, student engagement, and overall school climate.
Academic program integrity and student achievement metrics frequently experience fluctuations during principal transitions. New leaders typically introduce fresh perspectives on curriculum implementation, instructional methodologies, and resource allocation strategies. While innovation and new approaches can catalyze positive change, frequent shifts in academic direction may disrupt educational continuity and student progress. Empirical studies have consistently demonstrated that schools experiencing frequent principal turnover often exhibit temporary declines in student achievement metrics, with particularly pronounced effects in high-poverty areas where stability serves as a crucial factor for student success.
The impact extends deep into stakeholder relationships and community partnerships. Parents, community organizations, and local partners must adapt to new leadership styles, communication protocols, and institutional priorities. The critical process of building and maintaining trust, essential for effective school-community partnerships, frequently requires renewal with each leadership change. This cyclical process can affect various aspects of school operations, from volunteer program effectiveness to community support for school initiatives and funding proposals.
Professional development trajectories and staff retention patterns often undergo significant changes during principal transitions. Different leaders may emphasize various areas of professional growth or implement modified evaluation systems, directly affecting teacher satisfaction and career advancement opportunities. Research indicates a strong correlation between principal turnover and increased teacher attrition rates, creating compound effects on institutional stability and educational continuity. This relationship suggests that leadership stability plays a crucial role in maintaining a consistent and experienced teaching staff.
The challenges of strategic planning become particularly acute in environments characterized by frequent leadership changes. Multi-year improvement initiatives risk interruption or abandonment as new principals implement different priorities and approaches. This instability can affect various aspects of school development, from technology integration plans to curriculum development initiatives, potentially compromising the institution’s ability to achieve long-term educational objectives and maintain consistent progress toward established goals.
Educational institutions can implement various strategies to minimize the negative impacts of principal turnover, including developing comprehensive transition protocols, maintaining detailed documentation of ongoing initiatives, creating strong distributed leadership teams, establishing clear communication channels during transitions, and building robust institutional memory through systematic record-keeping. These mitigation strategies prove essential for maintaining organizational stability and educational effectiveness during periods of leadership change.
The implications of principal turnover extend throughout the educational ecosystem, influencing everything from daily operations to long-term strategic initiatives. Understanding these complex dynamics becomes increasingly crucial for educational stakeholders, policymakers, and administrators in developing effective strategies to maintain institutional stability and educational quality during leadership transitions. As educational institutions continue to evolve in response to changing societal needs and expectations, the ability to manage leadership transitions effectively becomes paramount for ensuring consistent, high-quality education for all students.
This comprehensive analysis of principal turnover effects provides valuable insights for educational professionals, administrators, and policymakers working to create more stable and effective learning environments. The ongoing challenge lies in balancing the potential benefits of new leadership perspectives with the fundamental need for institutional stability and continuous educational improvement, all while maintaining focus on the ultimate goal: providing optimal learning opportunities for students in an ever-changing educational landscape.
Dr. Jason Richardson, Garden City Elementary School & the International University of the Caribbean
Dr. Jason Richardson is a Teacher Leader at the Garden City Elementary School in Savannah, Georgia and a Professor of Graduate Studies at the International University of the Caribbean (Jamaica). He holds a Diploma in Principalship from the National Leadership College of Jamaica, Bachelor of Education from the International University of the Caribbean, Master of Science in Counseling and Consulting Psychology from the International University of the Caribbean, Educational Specialist Degree and a Doctor of Education Degree in Leadership and Management from the William Howard Taft University.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
Jin Hee LeeColleges and universities play a critical role in American democracy. By bringing together young adults, faculty, and employees to live and learn in a shared educational setting, higher education institutions shape the future citizens and leaders of our country. But they can only achieve this mission if their campuses reflect the multiracial society that we all live in. Unfortunately, Columbia’s recent settlement with the Trump administration calls into question whether it can fulfill its educational mission to foster a dynamic learning environment for its campus community. Given longstanding problems with unfair underrepresentation and academic exclusion, Black students and faculty likely will bear the brunt of this troubling settlement. Other colleges and universities must not make the same mistake.
Columbia’s settlement agreement with the Trump administration gives the federal government unprecedented oversight into the university’s operations. Under the agreement, Columbia will allow administration officials to review, and potentially reject, any effort by the university to advance equal opportunity through admissions, hiring, and promotion. Notably, these conditions advance the administration’s express agenda to suppress and ban efforts to ensure an inclusive and welcoming educational environment for Black students and faculty, thereby preventing them from fully contributing their expertise and lived experiences to the larger campus community.
Such unprecedented scrutiny by the federal government is especially troubling given the administration’s flawed interpretation of our constitution and civil rights laws in recent guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Justice. For example, the Trump administration believes that programs open to people of all races, such as those geared towards first-generation college students or rural areas, are unlawful if they are intended to break down unfair barriers to equal access and opportunities for disadvantaged students, including disadvantaged students of color. Thus, according to the administration, higher admissions or hiring rates of Black students and faculty, following the implementation of more equitable practices that do not rely on any applicant’s race or ethnicity, could expose Columbia to legal sanctions pursuant to the Department of Justice’s inaccurate interpretation of equal protection and civil rights laws.
The settlement also causes Columbia to be subsumed into the Trump administration’s campaign to silence lawful protest and target immigrant communities. It requires Columbia to increase the number of employees trained and authorized to arrest and remove students for protesting in ways that the administration or Columbia, in their full discretion, deem inappropriate. Based on the settlement, student groups are subject to “sanction . . . including by defunding, suspending, or de-recognizing them” for “discriminatory conduct,” which threatens erasure of affinity spaces for underrepresented groups given the administration’s inaccurate understanding of “discrimination.”Student groups that express views disfavored by the Trump administration or Columbia’s leadership are particularly at risk. If an international student is arrested during a protest, the agreement requires Columbia to notify the Department of Homeland Security and disclose their identity.
Such government interference with campus protest, which has been integral to expressions of dissent and the free exchange of ideas throughout American history, undoubtedly will chill the speech of many students and faculty, thus eroding their First Amendment rights. It is particularly ironic that the settlement agreement requires student protesters, including those wearing masks, to identify themselves upon request,while masked ICE officers can abduct and detain college students without even charging them with a crime. As a consequence of the agreements’ terms, Columbia’s campus will become less welcoming to students, including Black students, who already struggle with discrimination and exclusion. This, in turn, will deter many talented students and faculty from joining Columbia’s campus, thereby degrading the university’s reputation and academic scholarship.
Other colleges and universities must not follow Columbia’s capitulation. Instead of being centers of learning, where people from diverse backgrounds can engage in a free flow of ideas, opinions, and perspectives, the current administration seeks to use these institutions to actualize an undemocratic vision of an America, where dissent is silenced and resources and opportunities are hoarded for the wealthy and powerful. In many ways, this cynical vision of America aims to turn back the clock to an era, not so long ago, when institutions of higher learning were reserved for the privileged few and either explicitly or implicitly excluded Black students and faculty as unwelcome and undeserving outsiders.
___________
Jin Hee Lee is director of strategic initiatives at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), where she leads a department that integrates litigation, policy, organizing, communications, research, and public education to advance community-centered racial justice advocacy—most notably through the Pro Truth Initiative.
