Tag: leaders

  • London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    London’s business leaders overwhelmingly support the UK’s international graduates

    As the UK prepares for the Graduate Route to be shortened from two years to 18 months, London’s business leaders have had their say on international graduates in the workforce, with 90% showing support.

    The results of London Higher‘s recent survey of 1,000 business leaders found that international talent is highly valued across London businesses – 62% of respondents view international talent as essential and a further 28% say it is important. Only 10% say foreign talent is not very important or not at all important.

    “Global graduates give London its competitive edge. Every sector of our economy benefits from the talent and energy they bring. This research shows that they don’t take opportunities away – they help create them,” said Liz Hutchinson, chief executive of London Higher – the membership organisation that promotes and acts as an advocate for higher education in the city.

    The majority of those surveyed believe that international talent plugs skills gaps (93%), drives innovation (89%) and supports London’s global competitiveness, while only a small minority of business leaders felt it reduced scope for domestic talent and innovation.

    Some 93% of respondents say that international talent helps address skills gaps in their industry, with only 4% saying that international workers reduce opportunities for UK talent.

    “By helping businesses expand, [global graduates] generate more jobs and opportunities for everyone. As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors,” added Hutchinson.

    As the government focuses on building domestic skills through its post-16 white paper, international graduates complement these efforts by addressing immediate skills gaps in critical growth sectors
    Liz Hutchinson, London Higher

    Elsewhere, 91% of those surveyed view international workers as essential or helpful for the city’s competitiveness against global cities such as New York, Singapore or Paris, with only 7% saying that their relevance is limited or non-existent.

    The survey shows that support for international talent is strongest in larger, growth sector companies – and in those that think they are outperforming their competitors.

    The survey comes as anti-immigration rhetoric in the UK intensifies and the government pushes ahead with stricter immigration rules.

    As domestic politics play out in headlines overseas and concerns grow around the UK’s stance as a welcoming destination for international talent, Harry Coath, head of the talent and skills programme at London’s growth agency, London & Partners, said he sees an opportunity for London to position itself as a city that truly embraces diversity – a factor he noted is central to why so many businesses choose to be here.

    Speaking at London Higher’s conference this week, alongside Coath, Ruth Arnold, executive director of external affairs at Study Group, said the latest research is arguably the most important report London Higher has ever produced, taking into consideration this political context and the importance of employability and post-study work to today’s international students.

    The UK government’s decision to cut the Graduate Route visa from two years to 18 months was first announced in May in the UK government’s white paper on immigration, and the change is set to to take effect from January 2027.

    The survey showed that business leaders think international students should be able to access work visas – 59% want to see easier access for international students to stay in the country 28% feel the current system works, while only 10% are vying for tighter controls.

    John Dickie, CEO of BusinessLDN, commented on the report’s findings, highlighting the importance that the UK “does all it can to remain attractive to highly skilled individuals from across the globe, particularly at a time when some of our rivals are closing their doors to international students”.

    Dickie noted the government’s proposed levy on international student fees, and urged ministers to scrap these “misguided plans” that he said would “hit growth, exacerbate the sector’s financial challenges and undermine [the UK’s] soft power”.

    Source link

  • 10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    10 reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 ASAP

    K-12 IT leaders are under pressure from all sides–rising cyberattacks, the end of Windows 10 support, and the need for powerful new learning tools.

    The good news: Windows 11 on Lenovo devices delivers more than an upgrade–it’s a smarter, safer foundation for digital learning in the age of AI.

    Delaying the move means greater risk, higher costs, and missed opportunities. With proven ROI, cutting-edge protection, and tools that empower both teachers and students, the case for Windows 11 is clear.

    There are 10 compelling reasons your district should make the move today.

    1. Harness AI-powered educational innovation with Copilot
    Windows 11 integrates Microsoft Copilot AI capabilities that transform teaching
    and learning. Teachers can leverage AI for lesson planning, content creation, and
    administrative tasks, while students benefit from enhanced collaboration tools
    and accessibility features.

    2. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    The statistics are alarming: K-12 ransomware attacks increased 92 percent between 2022 and 2023, with human-operated ransomware attacks surging over 200 percent globally, according to the 2024 State of Ransomware in Education.

    3. Combat the explosive rise in school cyberattacks
    Time is critically short. Windows 10 support ended in October 2025, leaving schools running unsupported systems vulnerable to attacks and compliance violations. Starting migration planning immediately ensures adequate time for device inventory, compatibility testing, and smooth district-wide deployment.

    Find 7 more reasons to upgrade to Windows 11 here.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • What college leaders should know about the $100K H-1B visa fee

    What college leaders should know about the $100K H-1B visa fee

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

    President Donald Trump caught the higher education world by surprise on Sept. 19, when he signed a proclamation announcing a new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas. Before the new policy, employers paid between $2,000 and $5,000 for new H-1B petitions, according to the American Immigration Council. 

    Colleges, especially large research universities, rely on H-1B visas to recruit foreign faculty, scholars and researchers. Stanford University, the University of Michigan and Columbia University all employed over 200 workers through H-1B visas in fiscal 2025. 

    The new fee could impede colleges’ ability to recruit those workers — potentially curtailing research, slowing scientific innovation and even leading to reduced course offerings for students, according to higher education experts. 

    “There’s no doubt that it will deter global talent that is not in the U.S.,” Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration. “We lose the benefit of their skills, expertise and talent. It is not only a loss for them, it is just clearly a loss for campuses and other employers.”

    Higher education and legal experts are still trying to understand some elements of the new policy, such as if colleges and other employers can secure exemptions to the $100,000 fee for workers they’d like to sponsor. However, they shared insights about who the policy impacts, what could change in the future and how colleges can navigate this moment. 

    Which workers are impacted by the $100,000 fee? 

    When the Trump administration first rolled out the policy, confusion abounded about which types of workers would trigger the fee. That’s in part because U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick initially said the fee would be paid annually, according to Reuters. 

    But a day after the policy’s rollout, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt walked back Lutnick’s remarks and said on social media that it would be a one-time free for new petitions only. Since then, the Trump administration has provided guidance further narrowing the policy’s impact. 

    U.S. Citizenship and Immigration and Services said in October that the fee would not apply to someone already in the U.S. that is requesting a change of status. According to Joshua Wildes, associate attorney at immigration law firm Wildes & Weinberg, that means that students on F-1 and J-1 visas may not be subject to the fee if they are in the U.S. and are seeking to switch to H-1B status. 

    However, they would have to stay within the U.S. until they secure H-1B status to avoid incurring the fee. 

    “They’re going to have to decide whether or not they are willing to stay put in the U.S.,” Wildes said. That could include forgoing traveling to see their families or taking vacation outside of the country, Wildes said. 

    Those who already have H-1B visas, however, can travel outside the U.S. and return without triggering the fee. 

    Even with the latest guidance, colleges are still reeling from the new policy, as it still applies to new petitions for workers who are outside of the U.S.

    No institution wants to pay the fee, “regardless of how small or big you are,” Wildes said. “The smaller ones that don’t have the funds, they simply cannot afford it. The bigger ones that do have the funds, they don’t want to do it because it’s a lot of money.”

    The guidance said the U.S. secretary for the Department of Homeland Security could grant exemptions to the fee for certain workers, though it added they will be “extraordinarily rare.” 

    To qualify, the secretary would have to determine a worker “is in the national interest,” doesn’t pose a security risk to the U.S. and that no American citizen is able to perform the role they would be brought in to fill. The secretary would also have to determine if requiring the new H-1B fee from the sponsoring employer would “significantly undermine” the nation’s interest.

    USCIS on Thursday referred Higher Ed Dive to the proclamation and existing guidance when asked for details about which workers would qualify for these exceptions. It added that those requests are handled by DHS and not USCIS. 

    Will the $100,000 fee stay in place for the higher education sector? 

    Source link

  • How college leaders can own the narrative about a major restructuring

    How college leaders can own the narrative about a major restructuring

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

    Ricardo Azziz has held numerous executive positions in higher education and led the merger that resulted in Georgia Regents University, now Augusta University. He is principal at Strategic Partnerships in Higher Education, or SPH, Consulting Group.

    He writes the regular Merger Watch opinion series on corporate restructuring in higher education.

    In today’s higher education environment, colleges often must be part of a bigger enterprise to either survive or grow.  This calls for greater and more radical major institutional restructuring, such as mergers, acquisitions or even closures. 

    Much rests on the college leaders who — willingly or not — undertake these initiatives. 

    In a recent book I coauthored with other higher education experts, we interviewed some 50 or so leaders who had undertaken, successfully or not, major institutional restructuring. Most of those leaders, as well as others with whom my colleagues and I work, voice concerns about being able to lead in higher education again. 

    Would anybody hire them after the initiative had succeeded or, worse, had failed? The answer to that question depends on the narrative that builds around the leader and the restructuring they undertook. 

    A headshot image of Ricardo Azziz

    Ricardo Azziz

    Permission granted by Ricardo Azziz

     

    Major changes at a college or university are always met with resistance. Whether the merger was successful or not —and that will take years to determine — many campus stakeholders will be angry and happy to turn to the media, often accusing leaders of selling out the college, not caring about its history or being poor negotiators.  Those comments will in turn color the perspective of any subsequent hiring committee, particularly scaring off its faculty members.

    In speaking with college leaders and observing recent news, I have been struck by the ability of some of them to present a positive narrative of their experiences in leading major restructuring. For example, Joseph Chillo, who led the 2019 closure of Newbury College, and Marcheta Evans, who helped lead the merger of Bloomfield College with Montclair State University, have both been able to highlight the necessity of these difficult decisions in a thoughtful, humble and compassionate manner. 

    However, it was also obvious that many leaders are less able to craft a positive narrative of the restructuring and their involvement. These examples summarize the various perspectives I’ve observed as leaders share their experiences: 

    The victim: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career.”

    The knowing but ignored leader: “I was pushed to do this despite the great risk to my career and the fact that I told them it was a bad idea.”

    The resistance fighter: “I was pushed to do this, and I told them it was a bad idea, so I resisted in as many ways as I could, despite the great risk to my career.”

    The good soldier: “Regardless of my views on the initiative, I diligently followed orders and undertook the initiative.”

    The unwilling hero: “I was tasked with the initiative and undertook it diligently, despite the great risk to my career.”

    The distant leader: “I was part of the initiative but was somewhat removed from or had a limited role in what was happening.” 

    The (overly) enthusiastic leader: “I took on the initiative, as I saw only positives to its undertaking.”  

    The servant leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks and undertook it, as was my responsibility.”

    The growing leader: “I was part of the initiative, understood its importance and risks, and undertook it, as was my responsibility, and have learned much about what we did right and, more importantly, what we did wrong.”

    In fact, leaders involved in restructuring should only embrace the last two narratives — and perhaps only the last one. Those perspectives present their role with a degree of humility, recognizing that they must assume the responsibility for making difficult decisions for their students and community but also acknowledging that they have continued to learn from the experience. 

    Leaders are indelibly tied to any major restructuring they’ve overseen — these initiatives become part of their professional and life stories. A narrative will be crafted around an initiative that impacts heritage, history, community and the future as much as a major college restructuring does. Leaders can choose to actively and diligently manage that narrative — or others will craft it for them. 

    How can college leaders build a positive narrative when undertaking major restructuring? Here is a six-step plan:

    Be prepared: Have a clear narrative about the initiative and your role in it. Make it short, to the point and practiced. 

    Be consistent: Ensure you present your narrative consistently, regardless of the audience.

    Be positive: While some initiatives will succeed and others will fail, it is important to remain positive about why you needed to explore the initiative, as well as the continuing need for proactive and future-oriented action in today’s higher ed environment — for the sake of our students and our internal and external communities. 

    Be humble: Be clear that you have learned much when undertaking the initiative and that you believe successful leadership is about continued growth and addressing any mistakes responsibly.

    Source link

  • Student Success Leaders Worry About Affordability, AI, DEI

    Student Success Leaders Worry About Affordability, AI, DEI

    After yet another rocky year for higher education, student success administrators retain high confidence in their institution’s core mission: Some 95 percent rate the quality of undergraduate education delivered as good or excellent, according to Inside Higher Ed’s second annual Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators with Hanover Research.

    About the Survey

    On Wednesday, Dec. 10, at 2 p.m. Eastern, Inside Higher Ed will present a free webcast to discuss the results of the 2025 Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators. Please register here—and plan on bringing your questions about student success going into 2026.

    This survey was conducted Aug. 20–Oct. 6 with Hanover Research. Respondents number 204 student success leaders, most of whom work in student affairs at the executive level at public and private nonprofit institutions. The survey’s margin of error is plus or minus seven percentage points. A copy of the free report can be downloaded here.

    This independent editorial survey was made possible by support from the Gates Foundation and Studiosity.

    Most student success administrators (85 percent) also report strong feelings of connection to students served, and nearly as many say they’re satisfied in their roles. Yet leaders continue to worry about the forces holding students back. Selecting up to three options from a longer list, administrators cite mental health challenges (51 percent describe this as a top challenge), financial constraints (49 percent) and lack of adequate preparation before college (48 percent) as the top barriers to student success at their institution. Community college leaders are disproportionately concerned about students needing to work while enrolled (67 percent).

    Just about half of all administrators believe their institution is highly responsive to student needs for flexibility, such as in times of personal or academic crises.

    A larger share of respondents, 61 percent, believe their institution is highly effective in prioritizing student success. Just 35 percent say it’s highly effective in using student success data to drive decisions, however. Both of these figures are similar to last year’s survey, meaning the gap between aspiration and data-driven change remains.

    Student affairs leaders who responded to NASPA’s own annual Top Issues in Student Affairs survey this year flagged “using dashboards and other data communication tools to help senior administrators translate data into actionable insights for decision-making” as a top issue for institutions, behind only “protecting the institution against cyberattacks” and “navigating political and legislative pressures affecting institutional policies and practices.”

    Colleges can certainly do more to harness the extraordinary number of student data points available to them every day. But Amelia Parnell, NASPA’s president, told Inside Higher Ed that she’d give student success leaders “a little more credit” for their use of data—especially the qualitative kind.

    “We need both quantitative data to see scale and impact and qualitative data to understand the nuances,” including around learning and engagement, she said. “I think professionals have quite a bit of qualitative context about students’ experiences because they spend a lot of time connecting directly with them.”

    Other top areas of concern for student success administrators include affordability, artificial intelligence and policy impacts on campus life, finds Inside Higher Ed’s survey.

    Affordability and Value

    A third of student success administrators say that their trust in higher education has waned in recent years, and many point to concerns about affordability (64 percent) and long-term value of a degree (62 percent) as top drivers of declining public confidence. Leaders also highlight tighter alignment between academic programs and career pathways as a key lever for rebuilding trust.

    About six in 10 respondents are highly confident that their institution is actively working to keep costs affordable, with public institution leaders especially likely to say so (69 percent versus 49 percent of private nonprofit peers).

    But just 11 percent of leaders think students at their institution clearly understand the total cost of attendance, beyond tuition. They raise similar concerns about students’ awareness and understanding of emergency funding resources at their institution.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s main Student Voice survey this year, just 27 percent of students said they understand the total cost of attendance fully and can budget appropriately. More than three in five didn’t know if their college offers emergency aid. Yet 61 percent of student success administrators say this kind of help is available at their institution.

    Some additional context—and evidence of misalignment between student experience and administrator perception: In Inside Higher Ed’s 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers, most CBOs (88 percent) said that their institution is transparent about the full, net cost of attendance, including tuition discounts and counting fees and other expenses—though just 42 percent said this of colleges and universities as a whole. Most CBOs also said that their institution’s net price is sufficiently affordable.

    Parnell of NASPA noted that financial aid “is but one part of the cost of attendance discussion for some students.” But she added that financial aid offers represent an opportunity for colleges to improve clarity and transparency around total cost—something the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators and others have urged.

    Preparing Students for an AI Future

    Just 2 percent of student success leaders say their institution is very effective in helping students understand how, when and whether to use generative artificial intelligence in academic settings. On promoting academic integrity, specifically, 77 percent endorse educating students about ethical AI use rather than emphasizing punitive measures. Faculty and staff development and efforts to standardize use policies also rank high.

    In the Student Voice survey, just 13 percent of students said they didn’t know when, how and whether to use generative AI for coursework—but most of the remainder attributed their knowledge to individual faculty efforts rather than broader institutional ones.

    Student success administrators also describe a gap between the extent to which high-impact teaching practices, such as those endorsed by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, are highly encouraged at their institution and widely adopted (65 percent versus 36 percent, respectively). And while 87 percent agree that students graduate from their college ready to succeed in today’s job market, half (51 percent) believe their institution should focus more on helping students find paid internships and other experiential learning opportunities.

    Tawnya Means, an innovation consultant who recently joined Bowling Green State University and its Schmidthorst College of Business as a strategic innovation and AI adviser, said that all three of these concerns—lack of institutional guidance on AI, high-impact teaching practices and other opportunities for experiential learning and internships—are connected.

    “Schools treating AI as a catalyst for pedagogical redesign are simultaneously increasing high-impact practices and preparing students for AI-augmented careers,” she said. And institutions doing this well are using some common strategies: making faculty development about pedagogy, not just “AI compliance,” and designing assignments where AI supports real learning. Unpacking the latter point, Means praised approaches that are experiential, teach discipline-specific or contextual AI use versus abstract rules, and mirror actual workplaces.

    While business schools have long understood the power of “messy real-world case studies,” Means said they’re ripe for use across undergraduate education in the generative AI era and “resist simple AI shortcuts.”

    Parnell suggested on-campus employment as yet another way to provide “work experience and support students in their learning journey.”

    On AI specifically, Asim Ali, executive director of the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at Auburn University, who’s worked with many institutions on faculty development, said the “biggest gap I see is not engaging students in the process.”

    At Auburn, he said, student government leaders have taken a “focused interest directly in shaping how we support GenAI learning.” And in discussions between student leaders and faculty, “both groups emphasized that students must also take responsibility for learning the ethics and appropriate use of GenAI.”

    The biggest gap I see is not engaging students in the process.”

    —Asim Ali, executive director of the Biggio Center for the Enhancement of Teaching and Learning at Auburn University

    Financial worries and uncertainty about the future top the list of students’ postcollege stressors, as ranked by student success administrators. And just a quarter of these leaders say their institution makes postgraduate outcomes are easily accessible.

    Policy Impacts and Campus Climate

    Almost all leaders say students feel welcomed, valued and supported on their campuses, and 87 percent say their institution is doing a good or excellent job promoting a positive campus climate. Yet regional differences emerge: Leaders in the South are somewhat less likely than peers elsewhere to say their institution is highly effective in encouraging diverse perspectives among students.

    Nearly two in three leaders (62 percent) say recent federal restrictions on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives have negatively impacted students, and the rate is higher among public institution leaders than their private nonprofit peers.

    In the Student Voice survey, 48 percent of students said such changes had negatively impacted their college experience or that of peers; most of the remainder saw no change, rather than a positive one.

    Most administrators also believe new student aid policies, such as those included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, will limit access to college rather than expand it. And many already report moderate (39 percent) or significant (29 percent) declines in international student enrollments tied to recent federal actions, such as visa appointment restrictions and targeted actions at specific institutions.

    Leaders estimate that 40 percent of students participate in no extracurricular activities, a figure that rises to 67 percent among community college administrators. Respondents are mostly like to say involvement would increase if students saw a clear connection between activities and their career goals.

    For institutions struggling to get students in involved, Parnell highlighted the importance of effectively communicating and delivering available activities to students: Are any activities at community colleges, which serve many working students, available after 5 p.m., for example, she asked?

    Source link

  • “we can’t leave education to political leaders” 

    “we can’t leave education to political leaders” 

    “Politics is for short-term cycles, education is for the long-term,” said Baroness Usha Prashar, independent member of the UK House of Lords, speaking at the Reinventing Higher Education conference 2025, led by IE University, in London. 

    Prashar told university leaders in the room that institutions must not get “buffeted by the political pressures of the day,” urging them to think creatively to find ways of preserving core values.  

    Prashar pointed to cases in the US where she said universities were being “creative” and giving equality initiatives different names to save them from abolition under Trump’s anti-DEI crusade.  

    The US is perhaps the most striking current example of education coming under political pressure as the Trump administration attempts to reshape American higher education.  

    Earlier this month, the government rolled out its so-called “compact” for higher education to all US colleges, promising preferential federal funding for institutions that agree to a slew of commitments widely seen as an attack on academic research and institutional autonomy.  

    Faith Abiodun, executive director of United World Colleges (UWC) international, echoed Prashar’s advocacy, stating: “We can’t leave education to political leaders”, and warning that isolated institutions were more likely to be targeted.  

    He highlighted the dilemma faced by many US universities, compelled to choose between following the “pseudo kings” or lose access to vital federal funding. 

    Abiodun said the US previously attracted 60% of UWC’s school graduates, funded by the world’s largest privately funded tertiary education scholarship, but that students were fast turning away from the destination.  

    While Europe has stepped up efforts to attract talent pivoting away from the US – evident in the European Commission’s recent “Choose Europe for Science” campaign – IE University president Santiago Iñiguez de Onzoño emphasised international education wasn’t a “zero-sum game”. 

    “A number of continental European universities have benefitted from these increased barriers to mobility, but I don’t think it’s good news because in the end it puts up barriers to cross border mobility and good globalisation,” he told The PIE.  

    “Disruptions in the US are negative for all players.”

    Amid heightened visa restrictions and increased compliance measures across all of the ‘big four’ study destinations, western universities are ramping up efforts to establish branch campuses to reach students in traditional source destinations.  

    While providing “rich educational opportunities” for students who otherwise might be unable to access an international education, as well as allowing students and faculty to travel between campuses, Iñiguez warned that TNE was “at once an opportunity and a threat” which in some ways represents a step backwards from globalisation.  

    Politics is for short-term cycles, education is for the long-term

    Baroness Usha Prashar CBE, UK House of Lords

    In the US, the impact of declining international enrolments has not been felt uniformly across institutions, with the University of Notre Dame seeing “almost exactly the same yield of international undergraduate and postgraduate students” this semester, Notre Dame vice president and associate provost, David Go, told delegates.  

    “As a research university in the pursuit of truth we can position ourselves as nonpartisan and independent.”  

    “Universities can and should be the place for difficult conversations, which is at the root of diplomatic activity,” said Go, highlighting a recent event at Notre Dame which hosted two governors – one democratic and one republican – to discuss how to disagree well. 

    “While the broader political discourse in the US favours disagreeing poorly, to have two of our leaders come and have that conversation helped at least reset some of that discourse,” he said.  

    Elsewhere, speakers emphasised the importance of institutional neutrality to create spaces where people can disagree, at a time when universities are under increased pressure to take a political stance.  

    Julie Sanders, vice chancellor of Royal Holloway University in the UK, highlighted the necessity of institutions fostering debate when the political sphere is becoming more binary.  

    For Sanders, universities should be places for intellectual debate but also places of refuge for migrant students, highlighting the UK’s Chevening Scholarship which is one of the routes through which the UK opened its doors to Gazan students fleeing the war.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed Tech Leaders Pursue Consolidation and Savings

    Higher Ed Tech Leaders Pursue Consolidation and Savings

    NASHVILLE, Tenn.—Talk of what’s possible with AI permeated conversations this week among the 7,000 attendees at Educause, the sector’s leading education-technology conference. But amid the product demos, corporate swag and new feature launches, higher ed’s technology and data leaders expressed caution about investing in new tech. 

    They said that budget constraints, economic uncertainty and understaffed technology teams were forcing them to seek a clear return on investment in new tools rather than quick-fix purchases. And as tech leaders look to the coming year, they say the human side of data, cybersecurity and AI will be the focus of their work.

    Educause researchers at the event announced the 2026 Educause Top 10, a list of key focus areas they compiled based on interviews with leaders, expert panel recommendations and a survey of technology leaders at 450 institutions. The results underline how uncertainty around federal funding, economic instability and political upheaval is making it hard for leaders to plan.

    The 2026 Educause Top 10

    1. Collaborative Cybersecurity
    2. The Human Edge of AI
    3. Data Analytics for Operational and Financial Insights
    4. Building a Data-Centric Culture Across the Institution
    5. Knowledge Management for Safer AI
    6. Measure Approaches to New Technologies
    7. Technology Literacy for the Future Workforce
    8. From Reactive to Proactive
    9. AI-Enabled Efficiencies and Growth
    10. Decision-Maker Data Skills and Literacy

    For example, No. 6 on the list is “Measured Approaches to New Technologies.” Leaders say they intend to “make better technology investment decisions (or choosing not to invest) through clear cost, ROI and legacy systems assessments.”

    Presenting the top 10 in a cavernous ballroom in the Music City conference center, Mark McCormack, senior director of research and insights at Educause, said leaders feel pressure to make smart investments and stay on top of rapid advancements in technology. “The technology marketplace is evolving so quickly and institutions feel a pressure to keep up, but that pressure to keep up can lead to less optimal approaches to technology purchasing and implementation,” he said.

    “From some of our other Educuase research we know that quick fixes and reactive purchases often lead to technical debt and poor interoperability and additional strains on our technology teams,” he added. “That’s just not sustainable, especially with our tight budgets and our capacity, so we need to make decisions based on a clear understanding of cost and value.”

    No. 3 on the list, “Data Analytics for Operational and Financial Insights,” indicated technology leaders will respond to intensifying financial pressures through better data analysis. “Cuts to federal funding, enrollment trends, public skepticism about the value of a degree—so many of us are feeling that weight right now, and in this kind of environment our institutions are turning to data as a guide to help them navigate some complicated decisions,” McCormack said.

    Data can also help colleges identify priority areas for investment, such as enrollment targets, compliance requirements or areas of programmatic growth, he noted. “But our data can also guide conversations about where to scale back, and we need to be able to distinguish between high-impact priorities and areas that may no longer align with the institution’s direction.”

    Commenting on the top 10, Brandon Rich, director of AI enablement at the University of Notre Dame, said his institution is using AI to navigate tight budgets. “With the budget challenges we face, we see AI as a possible way to move forward and create efficiencies,” he said during a mainstage panel.

    Speaking with Inside Higher Ed, Nicole Engelbert, vice president of product strategy for student systems at Oracle, said colleges are reviewing their tech ecosystems more critically. “Institutions are looking to streamline, consolidate, shop their closet, because any dollar spent on extraneous technology is a dollar that isn’t going to be spent for research, student aid, recruitment, classes, faculty—all the things that make an institution healthy and vibrant,” she said.

    She expects the current political and economic climate will dissuade institutions from taking on expensive, transformational projects. “Making big changes on your payroll, on your general ledger, on your student enrollment takes huge amounts of psychic energy from a large population, and that population right now is very weary. They’re exhausted by the last year,” she said.

    One silver lining of higher ed’s financial uncertainty could be a shift toward more tactical forward planning, Engelbert said. “I hope there’s this new period where we look at transformation projects or technology projects more strategically, more critically,” she said.

    Collective Will, Individual Capabilities

    Other priorities on the Educause top 10 look similar to those from previous years: Improved cybersecurity, better data and data governance, and harnessing the power of AI are issues that have appeared on the list for the past five years.

    But Educause researchers say this year’s study shows leaders’ focus has shifted from infrastructure and platforms to the humans working with these systems. They break the list into two themes: collective will—connecting resources and knowledge across departments to “shape a shared institutionwide perspective”—and individual capabilities, or training and empowering people to realize the “net benefits” of the technologies and data on campus.

    “The thing that we saw that was very different is that … even as technology is skyrocketing, changing everything we do, we as higher education need to remember our humanity and lead with that because that’s what makes us resilient,” said Crista Copp, vice president of research at Educause.

    No. 1 on the list is “Collaborative Cybersecurity,” reflecting institutions’ urgency to safeguard their expanding digital borders.

    “The ecosystem is becoming a lot more distributed across devices and locations. That person who’s using their device logging in to that system from, you know, a coffee shop or wherever, they’re becoming more and more important to be educated and equipped to do that safely,” McCormack told Inside Higher Ed.

    “The other thing that did come up is an acknowledgment that as our tools are becoming more sophisticated … those threat actors are becoming more sophisticated as well.”

    Institutional data and how it is managed will also be a priority for technology leaders in 2026, according to the list. “Data Analytics for Operational and Financial Insights” is No. 3, “Building a Data-Centric Culture Across the Institution” is No. 4, and “Decision-Maker Data Skills and Literacy” comes in at No. 10.

    Copp said these issues suggest institutions will be tackling data from different angles. “It’s this triad of ‘Oh my gosh, we have all this information. And we don’t have it organized properly. We don’t know how to interpret it properly. And then we don’t know what to do with it,” she said. “I found it really interesting that … we saw three sides of the same thing.”

    AI-related issues also appear three times on the list: “The Human Edge of AI” at No. 2, “Knowledge Management for Safer AI” at No. 5 and “AI-Enabled Efficiencies and Growth” at No. 9. The growing focus on improving AI across institutions also represents a shift in what’s needed in the higher education workforce.

    “I think everyone, regardless if you’re in higher education or not, [is] facing workforce changes. And part of that is, who do we want to be? And we need to define [that],” she said. “No. 2 [on the list] … is the human edge of AI and it’s, ‘Although we expect you to use AI, we want you to come as a person first, because that’s what education is all about.’”

    Source link

  • More College Leaders Speak Out Against Trump’s Compact

    More College Leaders Speak Out Against Trump’s Compact

    More universities are signaling opposition to the Trump administration’s compact for higher education, which would require institutions to make changes to their policies and practices in order to receive an unspecified edge in grant funding.

    In comments to faculty groups and student journalists, a handful of university leaders have made clear that they won’t sign on to the compact in its current form. But those comments don’t amount to a formal rejection of the agreement, several university spokespeople told Inside Higher Ed. Each said that because their institution hasn’t been formally asked to sign, they haven’t officially considered the administration’s proposal.

    For instance, at Miami University in Ohio, Provost Chris Makaroff told the University Senate that “right now, there is no appetite to even consider joining it,” according to the Miami Student.

    “The administration is totally against it in every way possible, and probably the only way that it would possibly go through is if somehow or another, they threaten to cut off all funding to the university,” Makaroff added.

    When asked about those comments and whether that constituted a rejection, Seth Bauguess, the university’s senior director of communications, noted that Miami wasn’t part of the first group of universities asked to sign, so “therefore we have not formally considered it.”

    When the administration initially invited nine universities to give feedback on the document, Trump officials sent each institution a signed cover letter and a copy of the agreement. Another three universities were invited to an Oct. 17 White House meeting to discuss the compact.

    Beyond those overtures, President Donald Trump wrote on social media platform he owns, Truth Social, that universities that prefer to “return to the pursuit of Truth and Achievement” are “invited to enter into a forward looking Agreement with the Federal Government to help bring about the Golden Age of Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” Officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, told media outlets that the post was an invitation to all colleges to sign on to the compact.

    So far, nearly a dozen universities have publicly rejected the deal, and White House officials are reportedly planning to update the document in response to the feedback from universities. Only New College of Florida has said that it’s ready to sign, though it hasn’t yet been formally asked. The White House hasn’t said how interested universities can join, but officials have threatened the federal funding of institutions that don’t sign the compact.

    Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education, said the mixed messages from universities likely stem from “the general confusion around how the administration is handling this.”

    “Even the statement by New College raises the question of how would anyone actually sign up if they wanted to?” he said, adding that the compact’s terms don’t appear to be final and there’s no form or website where colleges and universities can go to sign it.

    Fansmith said he’s not surprised that some campus leaders are seeking to make their concerns clear while not definitively turning down something they haven’t been offered.

    “Why pick an unnecessary fight?” he said.

    The growing cohort of presidents and leaders speaking out about the compact includes Arizona State University president Michael Crow, who told the State Press on Oct. 24 that the compact is no “longer a viable thing” and that he’s “been trying to guide people in a different direction.”

    Crow was invited to the Oct. 17 White House meeting to discuss the compact, which also included representatives from Dartmouth College, the University of Arizona, the University of Kansas, the University of Texas at Austin, the University of Virginia, Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis. After that meeting, an ASU spokesperson said the university was engaging in dialogue with Trump’s team.

    After the State Press published its interview with Crow, Inside Higher Ed followed up to see if “no longer a viable thing” meant “no.”

    “It’s important to note that ASU has not been asked to sign the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” an ASU spokesperson responded. “So we can’t be ‘reviewing’ or ‘negotiating’ or ‘weighing’ it. ASU has long been a voice for change in higher education, something the university has been pushing for more than 20 years. If the administration looks for new and innovative approaches to serve the needs of the country, ASU is likely one to be consulted. President Crow is happy to share his vision for the future of higher education with anyone, if asked, whether they’re students, parents, alums, members of the public, or the administration.”

    But some universities, including Emory and Syracuse, have chosen to reject the compact before receiving a formal ask. And on Thursday, University of Kansas provost Barbara Bichelmeyer told The Kansan, “Fundamentally, there’s no way, with the compact as it is written and sent out to other institutions, that KU could sign that.”

    Bichelmeyer also noted that KU wasn’t asked to sign the compact.

    Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, said there’s no reason for colleges to say no at this moment.

    “The basic tenet of college administration is don’t make a decision until you have to,” he said. “No one is forcing their hand right now … and they don’t want to antagonize the administration, particular donors or state officials. If I wasn’t explicitly invited, I wouldn’t explicitly decline to participate.”

    Cantwell added that the president’s social media post and other communications from Trump officials have created a lot of ambiguity, and institutions are using that to their advantage.

    “What the president has said, by saying that anyone can apply, but not specifically inviting anyone beyond the 12, has created an opportunity for campuses to message ‘no’ to students and ‘not yes’ to everyone else,” he said.

    Source link

  • How Windows 11 is powering the next generation of K-12 innovation

    How Windows 11 is powering the next generation of K-12 innovation

    Key points:

    As school districts navigate a rapidly evolving digital landscape, IT and academic leaders face a growing list of challenges–from hybrid learning demands and complex device ecosystems to rising cybersecurity threats and accessibility expectations. To stay ahead, districts need more than incremental upgrades–they need a secure, intelligent, and adaptable technology foundation.

    That’s the focus of the new e-book, Smarter, Safer, and Future-Ready: A K-12 Guide to Migrating to Windows 11. This resource takes an in-depth look at how Windows 11 can help school districts modernize their learning environments, streamline device management, and empower students and educators with AI-enhanced tools designed specifically for education.

    Readers will discover how Windows 11:

    • Protects district data with built-in, chip-to-cloud security that guards against ransomware, phishing, and emerging cyberattacks.
    • Simplifies IT management through automated updates, intuitive deployment tools, and centralized control–freeing IT staff to focus on innovation instead of maintenance.
    • Drives inclusivity and engagement with enhanced accessibility features, flexible interfaces, and AI-powered personalization that help every learner succeed.
    • Supports hybrid and remote learning with seamless collaboration tools and compatibility across a diverse range of devices.

    The e-book also outlines practical strategies for planning a smooth Windows 11 migration–whether upgrading existing systems or introducing new devices–so institutions can maximize ROI while minimizing disruption.

    For CIOs, IT directors, and district technology strategists, this guide provides a blueprint for turning technology into a true driver of academic excellence, operational efficiency, and district resilience.

    Download the e-book today to explore how Windows 11 is helping K-12 districts become smarter, safer, and more future-ready than ever before.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Trending Higher Ed Marketing Terms: A Glossary for Institutional Leaders

    Trending Higher Ed Marketing Terms: A Glossary for Institutional Leaders

    The pace of change in marketing technology can be dizzying, particularly for colleges and universities that are navigating enrollment challenges, digital transformation, and shifting student expectations. As your institution evaluates its tech stack, partners, and strategic priorities, fluency in key marketing technology (MarTech) terms isn’t just helpful. It’s essential.

    This glossary highlights 33 of the most relevant MarTech buzzwords for 2025 and beyond. Each term is defined with higher ed in mind, helping you decode the jargon and focus on what matters: reaching, enrolling, and retaining students more effectively.

    The language of modern higher ed marketing

    Consider this your cheat sheet for decoding today’s higher ed marketing terminology. Browse the buzzwords below, organized by topic.

    Data & identity terms

    First-party data
    Information collected directly through your institution’s digital properties — like your website, CRM, or application portal — used for personalized and compliant outreach.

    Zero-party data
    Data students or prospects intentionally share, such as preferences, interests, or intended major, often gathered via forms or surveys.

    Third-party data
    Data acquired from external providers to supplement internal profiles, which is increasingly less reliable due to privacy regulations and cookie deprecation.

    Cookieless tracking
    Alternatives to third-party cookies, using first-party data or contextual signals to measure behavior and personalize experiences.

    Student digital twin
    A virtual representation of a student that consolidates academic, behavioral, and engagement data to personalize support and anticipate needs. Learn more.

    Unified data architecture
    An integrated framework that brings together siloed systems (CRM, SIS, LMS) into a cohesive data environment for analytics and action.

    Data pipeline / ETL
    “Extract, transform, load” (ETL) processes that move and prepare data between systems, ensuring accurate and timely flow across platforms.

    Data trust/data hygiene
    Ensuring your data is clean, consistent, and reliable — a foundation for accurate analytics and effective campaigns.

    Data compliance
    Adhering to legal and ethical standards for data collection, usage, and storage, which is critical for maintaining trust and avoiding penalties.

    Data governance
    The policies and standards that ensure institutional data is accurate, secure, and compliant with regulations like FERPA and GDPR.

    GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation)
    A European Union regulation that sets strict guidelines for collecting and managing personal data, influencing privacy standards worldwide.

    AI & automation terms

    Generative AI
    Artificial intelligence that creates content (text, video, imagery) based on prompts and data inputs, increasingly used for marketing and student engagement.

    Predictive analytics
    Data models that forecast future behaviors, such as enrollment likelihood or student success risk, using historical and behavioral inputs.

    Predictive modeling
    A subset of predictive analytics that builds statistical models to anticipate outcomes, such as course success, stop-out risk, or inquiry-to-application conversion.

    Lead scoring
    Assigning values to prospective students based on behaviors and attributes to prioritize outreach and improve conversion.

    Marketing automation
    Tools that automate tasks like email sends, lead nurturing, and retargeting to deliver timely, personalized communication at scale.

    Conversational AI
    Chatbots and virtual assistants that engage users in real time, guiding inquiries and collecting data while reducing staff workload.

    AI-driven personalization
    Using machine learning to tailor experiences (like web content or email) based on user data and behavior.

    Engagement scoring
    Measuring how actively a student or lead is interacting with content to gauge interest and inform next steps.

    Retention risk scoring
    Modeling that identifies students likely to stop out based on early indicators, enabling timely support and intervention.

    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.

    Performance & optimization terms

    Attribution modeling
    Techniques for assigning credit to marketing touchpoints across the funnel, helping determine what’s driving conversions.

    Return on investment (ROI)
    Measuring the effectiveness of marketing efforts by comparing cost to revenue or outcomes generated.

    Funnel optimization
    Improving each stage of the enrollment funnel (from awareness to application) to increase yield and reduce friction.

    A/B testing
    Running controlled experiments between two versions of content or creative to identify what performs best.

    Lift analysis
    A method of measuring the incremental impact of a campaign or intervention by comparing it to a control group.

    Real-time analytics
    Instant access to performance data, allowing teams to adjust campaigns or communications on the fly.

    Brand equity
    The perceived value and trustworthiness of your institution’s brand, which influences enrollment decisions and marketing ROI. Learn about its importance in higher ed.

    Experience, search & strategy terms

    System integration
    Connecting technology platforms (CRM, SIS, LMS, CMS) so data can flow across systems and support a seamless user experience.

    Program viability modeling
    Using market, enrollment, and financial data to assess which academic programs to invest in, optimize, or sunset. Learn more about academic portfolio strategy.

    Behavioral segmentation
    Grouping users based on their actions (like clicks, visits, or engagement) to enable more precise targeting.

    Semantic search
    Search engines increasingly rely on meaning and intent rather than keywords, making content structure and clarity more important than ever.

    Structured data/schema markup
    Code that helps search engines understand and categorize your content, improving visibility in search engines and AI search.

    Cross-lifecycle marketing
    Coordinating engagement strategies across the entire student lifecycle (from prospect to alumni) to build long-term relationships and lifetime value.

    Looking ahead

    Understanding MarTech terms isn’t about chasing trends. It’s about equipping your institution to make informed, future-ready decisions about technology, data, and strategy. Use this glossary as a reference point as you audit your tech stack, plan campaigns, or vet potential partners.

    Ready to go deeper? Partner with Collegis to unlock the full power of your data and technology. Our marketing services and data expertise enable institutions to build smarter strategies, streamline their systems, and drive measurable growth in enrollment and student success.

    Innovation Starts Here

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

    Source link