Tag: Leadership

  • Rethinking icebreakers in professional learning

    Rethinking icebreakers in professional learning

    Key points:

    I was once asked during an icebreaker in a professional learning session to share a story about my last name. What I thought would be a light moment quickly became emotional. My grandfather borrowed another name to come to America, but his attempt was not successful, and yet our family remained with it. Being asked to share that story on the spot caught me off guard. It was personal, it was heavy, and it was rushed into the open by an activity intended to be lighthearted.

    That highlights the problem with many icebreakers. Facilitators often ask for vulnerability without context, pushing people into performances disconnected from the session’s purpose. For some educators, especially those from historically marginalized backgrounds, being asked to disclose personal details without trust can feel unsafe. I have both delivered and received professional learning where icebreakers were the first order of business, and they often felt irrelevant. I have had to supply “fun facts” I had not thought about in years or invent something just to move the activity along.

    And inevitably, somewhere later in the day, the facilitator says, “We are running out of time” or “We do not have time to discuss this in depth.” The irony is sharp: Meaningful discussion gets cut short while minutes were spent on activities that added little value.

    Why icebreakers persist

    Why do icebreakers persist despite their limitations? Part of it is tradition. They are familiar, and many facilitators replicate what they have experienced in their own professional learning. Another reason is belief in their power to foster collaboration or energize a room. Research suggests there is some basis for this. Chlup and Collins (2010) found that icebreakers and “re-energizers” can, when used thoughtfully, improve motivation, encourage interaction, and create a sense of safety for adult learners. These potential benefits help explain why facilitators continue to use them.

    But the promise is rarely matched by practice. Too often, icebreakers are poorly designed fillers, disconnected from learning goals, or stretched too long, leaving participants disengaged rather than energized.

    The costs of misuse

    Even outside education, icebreakers have a negative reputation. As Kirsch (2025) noted in The New York Times, many professionals “hate them,” questioning their relevance and treating them with suspicion. Leaders in other fields rarely tolerate activities that feel disconnected from their core work, and teachers should not be expected to, either.

    Research on professional development supports this skepticism. Guskey (2003) found that professional learning only matters when it is carefully structured and purposefully directed. Simply gathering people together does not guarantee effectiveness. The most valued feature of professional development is deepening educators’ content and pedagogical knowledge in ways that improve student learning–something icebreakers rarely achieve.

    School leaders are also raising the same concerns. Jared Lamb, head of BASIS Baton Rouge Mattera Charter School in Louisiana and known for his viral leadership videos on social media, argues that principals and teachers have better uses of their time. “We do not ask surgeons to play two truths and a lie before surgery,” he remarked, “so why subject our educators to the same?” His critique may sound extreme, but it reflects a broader frustration with how professional learning time is spent.

    I would not go that far. While I agree with Lamb that educators’ time must be honored, the solution is not to eliminate icebreakers entirely, but to plan them with intention. When designed thoughtfully, they can help establish norms, foster trust, and build connection. The key is ensuring they are tied to the goals of the session and respect the professionalism of participants.

    Toward more authentic connection

    The most effective way to build community in professional learning is through purposeful engagement. Facilitators can co-create norms, clarify shared goals, or invite participants to reflect on meaningful moments from their teaching or leadership journeys. Aguilar (2022), in Arise, reminds us that authentic connections and peer groups sustain teachers far more effectively than manufactured activities. Professional trust grows not from gimmicks but from structures that honor educators’ humanity and expertise.

    Practical alternatives to icebreakers include:

    • Norm setting with purpose: Co-create group norms or commitments that establish shared expectations and respect.
    • Instructional entry points: Use a short analysis of student work, a case study, or a data snapshot to ground the session in instructional practice immediately.
    • Structured reflection: Invite participants to share a meaningful moment from their teaching or leadership journey using protocols like the Four A’s. These provide choice and safety while deepening professional dialogue.
    • Collaborative problem-solving: Begin with a design challenge or pressing instructional issue that requires participants to work together immediately.

    These approaches avoid the pitfalls of forced vulnerability. They also account for equity by ensuring participation is based on professional engagement, not personal disclosures.

    Closing reflections

    Professional learning should honor educators’ time and expertise. Under the right conditions, icebreakers can enhance learning, but more often, they create discomfort, waste minutes, and fail to build trust.

    I still remember being asked to tell my last name story. What emerged was a family history rooted in migration, struggle, and survival, not a “fun fact.” That moment reminds me: when we ask educators to share, we must do so with care, with planning, and with purpose.

    If we model superficial activities for teachers, we risk signaling that superficial activities are acceptable for students. School leaders and facilitators must design professional learning that is purposeful, respectful, and relevant. When every activity ties to practice and trust, participants leave not only connected but also better equipped to serve their students. That is the kind of professional learning worth everyone’s time.

    References

    Aguilar, E. (2022). Arise: The art of transformative leadership in schools. Jossey-Bass.

    Chlup, D. T., & Collins, T. E. (2010). Breaking the ice: Using ice-breakers and re-energizers with adult learners. Adult Learning, 21(3–4), 34–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/104515951002100305

    Guskey, T. R. (2003). What makes professional development effective? Phi Delta Kappan, 48(10), 748–750.

    Kirsch, M. (2025, March 29). Breaking through. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/29/briefing/breaking-through.html

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • What Faith-Based Higher Ed Leadership Looks Like (opinion)

    What Faith-Based Higher Ed Leadership Looks Like (opinion)

    There are moments in leadership when no one is watching but everything is at stake.

    Not because a policy is in question or a metric is missing, but because our moral compass is being tested in the quiet. In these moments, we do not lean on politics or public opinion. We ought to lean on what we believe to be true and on moral principles that will benefit the community we serve.

    As someone who has spent more than two decades leading within both faith-based and secular institutions, I’ve learned that leadership is rarely defined in the spotlight. It is shaped in the gray, those murky places where values and pressures collide, and where courage often whispers instead of roars. The stakes can feel even higher for those who lead while navigating systems not originally designed with their perspective or presence in mind. From these grey spaces, I’ve learned that faith-based leadership is not about dogma or doctrine—it is about discernment.

    Faith, for me, has always been an anchor. It is the lens through which I evaluate the tension between institutional demands and human dignity. It is what helps me pause before I act, reflect before I speak and evaluate performance through the lens of humanity. Especially now, in a time when higher education is under ideological, financial and political attack, we must ask: What anchors our decisions when accountability fades?

    Years ago, I found myself at one of those crossroads. The enrollment numbers were tight. The budget even tighter. Unspoken pressure from senior leadership grew to admit students who didn’t meet our standards. No one explicitly said it, but every conversation implied it: “Make the numbers work.”

    My team had worked tirelessly to bring in a strong incoming class, but there was a gap we couldn’t close without compromising. The students in question showed promise, but our institution lacked the resources to support them adequately. To admit them would have appeared like we were giving these students access but, in reality, we would have been abandoning them.

    I wrestled deeply with this dilemma. The pressure of “just this once” was real. I had built my career on delivering results, but I couldn’t betray the very students we were claiming to serve. In the stillness of that decision, I chose to hold the line.

    I didn’t know then how that choice would shape me. It didn’t earn applause. But it allowed me to become the kind of leader I could live with.

    Leadership in higher education has always been complex. But today, it feels more fragile than ever.

    The visible dismantling of DEI, the silencing of courageous faculty and staff, and the marginalization of people of color, immigrants and international students have left many campuses in moral freefall. While we cannot always name these tensions politically, we must acknowledge them ethically.

    What we’re witnessing isn’t just a crisis of policy; it’s a crisis of conscience.

    Who protects students when there’s no legal mandate?

    Who ensures inclusion when there’s no board directive?

    Who speaks up when accountability becomes optional?

    Without a guiding light, institutions can drift into decisions that prioritize image over impact. In these moments, faith-based leadership is not about quoting scripture or invoking theology. It is about rooting decisions in dignity, humanity and justice. It is about remembering that our roles are not just managerial; they are moral.

    This kind of leadership also requires what I’ve come to call inner work. It asks us to slow down in a culture of acceleration. To pause and reflect, even when the next decision is already overdue. In my own journey, that has meant cultivating space for prayer, silence and spiritual grounding. For others, it might mean mindfulness, meditation or journaling. The practice doesn’t matter as much as the posture: a willingness to look inward before leading outward.

    This is the discipline that prepares us to lead in the gray. And in those quiet moments, when we must choose between what is convenient and what is right, it reminds us who we are.

    For women of color, the cost of courage is often compounded. The gray areas we navigate are more scrutinized. We are expected to perform flawlessly, represent perfectly and resist quietly. Yet, in the face of these impossible expectations, holding to our values is more than leadership. It is resistance. It is testimony.

    I’ve learned that some of the most powerful leaders don’t lead by title, but by presence. They embody something steady in an era of volatility. Many of them began by following, listening and learning. They lead with service. At its best, faith-based leadership is a return to that posture. One that centers care over control, humility over hierarchy and courage over convenience.

    The challenge is not whether faith belongs in higher education. It’s whether we can afford leadership without it, especially now.

    This is not a call for religiosity. It’s a call for reflection. A call to return to the moral interior that higher education was once known for cultivating, not just in students, but in leaders. A call to build not only institutional credibility, but institutional character.

    Discernment is what helps us pause when the world demands urgency. It reminds us that justice is not always expedient, that compassion is not always visible in key performance indicators, and that leadership is not measured solely by who follows you but on what you refuse to compromise.

    So, when the pressures mount, when budgets are cut, policies shift and accountability weakens, we must ask: What must we still protect?

    Higher education doesn’t just need bold visionaries. It needs quiet stewards. Leaders who can sit in the gray and still choose light. Leaders who understand that faith is not the opposite of reason, but the companion of moral clarity.

    Because when the spotlight fades, and the metrics change, what remains is the integrity of our decisions, and the dignity of the people for whom we serve.

    Denise Williams Mallett, Ed.D., is a higher education consultant, former vice president for enrollment management and student affairs, and author of The Village Effect: Leadership, Faith, and The Power of Community (July 2025).

    Source link

  • The digital advantage in schools 

    The digital advantage in schools 

    Key points:

    When I first stepped into my role overseeing student data for the Campbell County School District, it was clear we were working against a system that no longer served us.

    At the time, we were using an outdated platform riddled with data silos and manual processes. Creating school calendars and managing student records meant starting from scratch every year. Grade management was clunky, time-consuming, and far from efficient. We knew we needed more than a patchwork fix–we needed a unified student information system that could scale with our district’s needs and adapt to evolving state-level compliance requirements. 

    Over the past several years, we have made a full transition to digitizing our most critical student services, and the impact has been transformational. As districts across the country navigate growing compliance demands and increasingly complex student needs, the case for going digital has never been stronger. We now operate with greater consistency, transparency, and equity across all 12 of our schools. 

    Here are four ways this shift has improved how we support students–and why I believe it is a step every district should consider:

    How centralized student data improves support across K-12 schools

    One of the most powerful benefits of digitizing critical student services is the ability to centralize data and ensure seamless support across campuses. In our district, this has been a game-changer–especially for students who move between schools. Before digitization, transferring student records meant tracking down paper files, making copies, and hoping nothing was lost in the shuffle. It was inefficient and risky, especially for students who required health interventions or academic support. 

    Now, every plan, history, and record lives in a single, secure system that follows the student wherever they go. Whether a student changes schools mid-year or needs immediate care from a nurse at a new campus, that information is accessible in real-time. This level of continuity has improved both our efficiency and the quality of support we provide. For districts serving mobile or vulnerable populations, centralized digital systems aren’t just convenient–they’re essential.

    Building digital workflows for student health, attendance, and graduation readiness

    Digitizing student services also enables districts to create customized digital workflows that significantly enhance responsiveness and efficiency. In Campbell County, we have built tools tailored to our most urgent needs–from health care to attendance to graduation readiness. One of our most impactful changes was developing unified, digital Individualized Health Plans (IHPs) for school nurses. Now, care plans are easily accessible across campuses, with alerts built right into student records, enabling timely interventions for chronic conditions like diabetes or asthma. We also created a digital Attendance Intervention Management (AIM) tool that tracks intervention tiers, stores contracts and communications, and helps social workers and truancy officers make informed decisions quickly. 

    These tools don’t just check boxes–they help us act faster, reduce staff workload, and ensure no student falls through the cracks.

    Digitization supports equitable and proactive student services

    By moving our student services to digital platforms, we have become far more proactive in how we support students–leading to a significant impact on equity across our district. With digital dashboards, alerts, and real-time data, educators and support staff can identify students who may be at risk academically, socially, or emotionally before the situation becomes critical. 

    These tools ensure that no matter which school a student attends–or how often they move between schools–they receive the same level of timely, informed support. By shifting from a reactive to a proactive model, digitization has helped us reduce disparities, catch issues early, and make sure that every student gets what they need to thrive. That’s not just good data management–it’s a more equitable way to serve kids.

    Why digital student services scale better than outdated platforms

    One of the most important advantages of digitizing critical student services is building a system that can grow and evolve with the district’s needs. Unlike outdated platforms that require costly and time-consuming overhauls, flexible digital systems are designed to adapt as demands change. Whether it’s integrating new tools to support remote learning, responding to updated state compliance requirements, or expanding services to meet a growing student population, a digitized infrastructure provides the scalability districts need. 

    This future-proofing means districts aren’t locked into rigid processes but can customize workflows and add modules without disrupting day-to-day operations. For districts like ours, this adaptability reduces long-term costs and supports continuous improvement. It ensures that as challenges evolve–whether demographic shifts, policy changes, or new educational priorities–our technology remains a reliable foundation that empowers educators and administrators to meet the moment without missing a beat.

    Digitizing critical student services is more than a technical upgrade–it’s a commitment to equity, efficiency, and future readiness. By centralizing data, customizing workflows, enabling proactive support, and building scalable systems, districts can better serve every student today and adapt to whatever challenges tomorrow may bring.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Gender disparity in university leadership: what lessons can East Africa learn from the UK and Europe?

    Gender disparity in university leadership: what lessons can East Africa learn from the UK and Europe?

    This blog was kindly authored by Naomi Lumutenga, Executive Director and co-founder of Higher Education Resource Services (East Africa).

    Despite commendable interventions in recent decades, a gendered leadership gap persists at varying levels within higher education institutions. In 2024, women led 27% of the top 200 universities in the US; 36% in the top UK universities; 55% in the Netherlands’ top 11; and 29% in Germany’s top 21. In contrast, female leadership was far less common in Sub-Saharan Africa: only two of Ethiopia’s 46 universities, two of Tanzania’s 60, and six of South Africa’s 26 public universities were headed by women. While some may argue that comparisons with Western institutions are unfair due to their longstanding systems, the disparity highlights persistent structural barriers to gender parity in university leadership. Shifting focus from individual to organisational transformation can deliver change. As an example, long-standing financial systems have been leapfrogged. Currently, it is quicker to wire money to and within many African countries, compared to Europe or the USA. Linear comparisons along time periods, to effect change, do not, therefore, tell the full story; the real focus should be on the political will from within universities to acknowledge the value in and shift leadership towards gender parity.

    Our organisation, (Higher Education Resource Services East Africa) addresses gender equality in universities, as these institutions shape future leaders. Prestigious institutions like the University of Oxford have produced multiple prime ministers and policymakers across the globe, as the recent HEPI / Kaplan Soft Power Index demonstrates. In East Africa, notable alumni of Uganda’s Makerere University include past and serving national leaders like veteran Mwalimu Julius Nyerere and Benjamin Mkapa (Tanzania); Mwai Kibaki (Kenya); Paul Kagame (Rwanda); Milton Obote (Uganda); and Joseph Kabila (Democratic Republic of Congo). However, Makerere University (unlike the University of Oxford) has never had a female Vice Chancellor.

     The structure and landscape of such institutions matter because they model frameworks and practices for the communities they serve. The persistent unequal representation triggered the work of HERS-EA that culminated, in part, in our recent publication.

    Findings from our unpublished study conducted in 2024 across 35  universities in East Africa illustrated the situation starkly.  This study was conducted by Makerere University in collaboration with HERS-East Africa, supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The aim was to analyse the underlying barriers that prevent women from progressing into leadership and, for those who advance, from thriving. While some of the findings might be culturally unique to East African contexts, the majority were acknowledged, at the annual Engagement Scholarship Consortium conference in Portland, USA (October 2024), as being relevant to any higher education institution. In Japan, for example, there is evidence of cultural pressure exerted differently when women seek promotion; as Kathy Matsui asserts, women decline promotional offers for fear of how they might be treated when/if they get pregnant.

    Our study of premier universities in East Africa found that, despite gender equality policies, female leadership remains rare: only two of seven top universities had a female Chancellor (a ceremonial role), none had a female Vice Chancellor, and just one had a female Deputy Vice Chancellor (who was nearing retirement). With respect to enrolment, while most institutions claimed gender parity at admission, few tracked or reported gender disaggregated data at graduation or PhD completion, and evidence of tracking progress was limited.

    PhDs, research leadership, and grant management are important for university leadership, so we highlighted these areas and addressed implicit institutional norms.   Drawing on these lived experiences, we concluded that gender discrimination in university leadership persists through biased job criteria, age limits, and interview questions. Other barriers include a lack of accountability, inadequate strategies against sexual harassment, and poor support for women to complete PhDs.

    Co-created recommendations included trialling an adapted equivalent of the non-punitive Athena Swan Charter, which develops a culture of self-assessment while mitigating potential backlash. The Athena Swan Charter was initiated in the UK in 2005, and it is gaining global traction. It provides a sliding scale of progression towards gender equality, from bronze to silver and gold. Other proposed interventions included providing writing bootcamps with childcare and research advisors present, away from family and other distractions. Aspects of the quota system and structural frameworks in Scandinavian countries were discussed, but while lessons can be learnt from these transformational shifts, the real stumbling block is the lack of political will for changing norms rather than individual women within East African institutions. However, change is possible. Rwanda’s post-1994 Genocide national policies include quotas, and they are revised every three years to assess progress towards gender equality in all sectors. Currently, women hold 61.3% of the total seats in parliament, and they occupy 66% of the total seats in cabinets. Overall, Rwanda is now considered one of the best achievers in the world for gender equality. Perhaps lessons can be learnt from Rwanda’s progress that can give us all reason to hope.

    Source link

  • Truth vs. risk management: How to move forward

    Truth vs. risk management: How to move forward

    Key points:

    In the world of K-12 education, teachers are constantly making decisions that affect their students and families. In contrast, administrators are tasked with something even bigger: making decisions that also involve adults (parents, staff culture, etc.) and preventing conflicts from spiraling into formal complaints or legal issues. Therefore, decisions and actions often have to balance two competing values: truth and risk management.

    Some individuals, such as teachers, are very truth-oriented. They document interactions, clarify misunderstandings, and push for accuracy, recognizing that a single misrepresentation can erode trust with families, damage credibility in front of students, or most importantly, remove them from the good graces of administrators they respect and admire. Truth is not an abstract concept–it is paramount to professionalism and reputation. If a student states that they are earning a low grade because “the teacher doesn’t like me,” the teacher will go through their grade-book. If a parent claims that a teacher did not address an incident in the classroom, the teacher may respond by clarifying the inaccuracy via summarizing documentation of student statements, anecdotal evidence of student conversations, reflective activities, etc.

    De-escalation and appeasement

    In contrast, administrators are tasked with something even bigger. They have to view scenarios from the lens of risk management. Their role requires them to deescalate and appease. Administrators must protect the school’s reputation and prevent conflicts or disagreements from spiraling into formal complaints or legal issues. Through that lens, the truth sometimes takes a back seat to ostensibly achieve a quick resolution.

    When a house catches on fire, firefighters point the hose, put out the flames, and move on to their next emergency. They don’t care if the kitchen was recently remodeled; they don’t have the time or desire to figure out a plan to put out the fire by aiming at just the living room, bedrooms, and bathrooms. Administrators can be the same way–they just want the proverbial “fire” contained. They do not care about their employees’ feelings; they just care about smooth sailing and usually softly characterize matters as misunderstandings.

    To a classroom teacher who has carefully documented the truth, this injustice can feel like a bow tied around a bag of garbage. Administrators usually err on the side of appeasing the irrational, volatile, and dangerous employee, which risks the calmer employee feeling like they were overlooked because they are “weaker.” In reality, their integrity, professionalism, and level-headedness lead administrators to trust the employee will do right, know better, maintain appropriate decorum, rise above, and not foolishly escalate. This notion aligns to the scripture “To whom much is given, much is required” (Luke 12:48). Those with great abilities are judged at a higher bar.

    In essence, administrators do not care about feelings, because they have a job to do. The employee with higher integrity is not the easier target but is easier to redirect because they are the safer, principled, and ethical employee. This is not a weakness but a strength in the eyes of the administration and that is what they prefer (albeit the employee may be dismissed, confused, and their feelings may be hurt, but that is not the administration’s focus at all).

    Finding common ground

    Neither perspective (truth or risk management) is wrong. Risk management matters. Without it, schools would be replete with endless investigations and finger-pointing. Although, when risk management consistently overrides truth, the system teaches teachers that appearances matter more than accountability, which does not meet the needs of validation and can thus truly hurt on a personal level. However, in the work environment, finding common ground and moving forward is more important than finger-pointing because the priority has to be the children having an optimal learning environment.

    We must balance the two. Perhaps, administrators should communicate openly, privately, and directly to educators who may not always understand the “game.” Support and transparency are beneficial. Explaining the “why” behind a decision can go a long way in building staff trust, morale, and intelligence. Further, when teachers feel supported in their honesty, they are less likely to disengage because transparency, accuracy, and an explanation of risk management can actually prevent fires from igniting in the first place. Additionally, teachers and administrators should explore conflict resolution strategies that honor truth while still mitigating risk. This can assist in modelling for students what it means to live with integrity in complex situations. Kids deserve nothing less.

    Lastly, teachers need to be empathetic to the demands on their administrators. “If someone falls into sin, forgivingly restore him, saving your critical comments for yourself. You might be needing forgiveness before the day’s out. Stoop down and reach out to those who are oppressed. Share their burdens, and so complete Christ’s law. If you think you are too good for that, you are badly deceived” (Galatians 6:1-3). This scripture means that teachers should focus less on criticizing or “keeping score” (irrespective of the truth and the facts, and even if false-facts are generated to manage risk), but should work collaboratively while also remembering and recognizing that our colleagues (and even administrators) can benefit from the simple support of our grace and understanding. Newer colleagues and administrators are often in survival mode.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • AI in Higher Education: Academic Thought Leadership

    AI in Higher Education: Academic Thought Leadership

    How Faculty Expertise Boosts AI Search Results in Higher Ed

    Many higher education enrollment teams assume that the key to growth is spending more on paid leads. It feels logical: increase visibility, boost inquiries, fill the pipeline. Yet, too often, they end up paying for quantity, not quality — resulting in higher budgets that fail to yield students who are a good fit. They see short-term spikes in inquiries, followed by low conversion rates and retention challenges from mismatched students. 

    Achieving sustainable enrollment growth doesn’t have to mean spending more. What’s needed instead is smarter strategies that enable institutions to attract the right students earlier in the decision process — when they’re still exploring their options, defining their goals, and forming impressions of institutions’ credibility. 

    Shifting the focus of enrollment strategies from paid acquisition to earned attention — building organic visibility, authority, and trust with prospects before they fill out an application form — is the key to true growth. This approach is increasingly important as more and more students use artificial intelligence (AI) to navigate their higher education journey. 

    Building Organic Demand with AI and GEO 

    AI is reshaping how students discover institutions and their programs. While Google used to dominate prospective students’ search efforts, they are increasingly using AI-powered search assistants such as ChatGPT and Gemini to find, summarize, and compare higher education offerings. A 2025 study by the Online and Professional Education Association (UPCEA) found that roughly 50% of prospective students use AI tools at least weekly to research programs, including about 24% who use them on a daily basis. 

    As AI’s role in higher education marketing expands, institutions have begun to adopt generative engine optimization (GEO) strategies to improve their visibility in AI-driven search results. Unlike standard search engine optimization (SEO) — which focuses on keywords and backlinks — GEO prioritizes structured, authoritative content that AI systems can easily understand, cite, and incorporate into their responses. 

    When institutions feed these systems with content featuring faculty-driven subject matter expertise and clearly structured information, they train the AI algorithms to view them as authoritative and credible, and to surface them in students’ search results more often. This makes it easier for these institutions to engage high-intent students earlier in their enrollment journey.

    The Role of Faculty in Building Authority 

    No one conveys academic quality and institutional credibility better than the people who embody them. Faculty members represent some of an institution’s most trusted — yet often underutilized — marketing assets. Their expertise not only validates the institution and its programs but also humanizes them. 

    When faculty voices appear in thought leadership articles, Q&A features, or explainer videos, they do more than share knowledge — they strengthen confidence in the institution among both prospective students and their families. 

    Leveraged strategically, faculty expertise can enhance multiple facets of an institution’s marketing ecosystem:

    • Public relations: Faculty insights can position schools as trusted commentators in media coverage on industry trends. 
    • Search: Content that highlights subject matter expertise is seen as more credible by both traditional search engines and AI assistants, improving the content’s organic rankings and GEO performance. 
    • Enrollment marketing: Faculty-driven content that targets prospective students — such as video Q&As, informative blog posts, and interactive webinars — can help bridge the gap for these prospects between aspiration and application.

    When institutions center faculty in their marketing efforts, they connect academic storytelling with enrollment strategy, transforming their outreach from promotion into education.  

    Improving Efficiency and Results

    Today, higher ed enrollment growth depends on smarter strategy — not higher spending. Institutions can achieve greater success by balancing their paid and organic channels, building durable content engines, and aligning their marketing spend with actual enrollment outcomes.

    Balance Paid and Organic Marketing               

    Paid campaigns still have great value. But overreliance on them can drive up cost-per-enrollment (CPE) while producing prospective students who are a weaker fit. According to data from UPCEA, the average cost per enrolled student is more than $2,800. By mixing organic channels — faculty thought leadership pieces, GEO-friendly content — with paid efforts, institutions can achieve lower long-term costs while improving the fit and retention of their prospects.

    Create a Long-Term Content Engine               

    Temporary campaigns can deliver short-term boosts, but real authority that leads to sustainable enrollment growth stems from consistent, faculty-led content. Building a content engine anchored in faculty expertise and optimized for AI and GEO is essential, allowing institutions to maintain their visibility and credibility. Over time, this strategy can lower acquisition costs, boost engagement, and support retention.

    Align Marketing Spend With Enrollment Outcomes               

    Too often, marketing dollars are funneled toward maximizing the volume of leads rather than focusing on actual outcomes. True budget efficiency comes from aligning spend with each stage of the student life cycle — supporting strategies that move prospects from application to enrollment to persistence. When institutions’ budgets prioritize quality, engagement, and long-term fit over volume, they can strengthen both their conversion rates and their retention outcomes. 

    Key Takeaways

    • More leads don’t always translate to real growth. Sustainable enrollment comes from reaching the right students — not just more of them. 
    • By embracing GEO, leveraging AI in their higher education marketing strategy, and elevating faculty expertise, institutions can deliver content that builds organic authority and attracts qualified prospects earlier in their decision journey. This approach reduces institutions’ reliance on paid efforts, improves their cost efficiency, and enhances their credibility. 
    • Schools that invest in faculty-led content strategies can gain stronger conversions, better retention, and enduring brand trust — the foundation of meaningful, measurable enrollment growth.

    Drive Enrollment With Faculty Voices

    At Archer Education, we partner with accredited institutions to help them leverage AI and faculty thought leadership to build their credibility and drive their enrollment growth. Contact our team to learn how our tech-enabled marketing and enrollment solutions can help your institution attract the right students more efficiently. 

    Sources

    Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business, “Greater Impact Through Faculty Thought Leadership”

    Online and Professional Education Association, “AI Tools Are Driving Prospective Student Decisions, UPCEA and Search Influence Research Shows”

    Online and Professional Education Association, “How Higher Education Marketing Metrics Help You Boost Enrollment”

    Source link

  • Adopting AI across an institution is a pressing leadership challenge

    Adopting AI across an institution is a pressing leadership challenge

    Artificial intelligence is already reshaping higher education fast. For universities aiming to be AI-first institutions, leadership, governance, staff development, and institutional culture are critical.

    How institutions respond now will determine whether AI enhances learning or simply reinforces existing inequalities, inefficiencies and, frankly, bad practices. This is not only an institutional or sector question but a matter of national policy: government has committed to supporting AI-skills at scale, and the UK has pledged an early ambition that a “fifth of the workforce will be supported with the AI skills they need to thrive in their jobs.” Strategic deployment of AI is therefore a pressing HE leadership question.

    Whole institution AI leadership and governance

    Universities will benefit from articulating a clear AI-first vision that aligns with their educational, research and civic missions. Leadership plays a central role in ensuring AI adoption supports educational quality, innovation and equity rather than focusing purely on operational efficiency or competitiveness. Cultivating a culture where AI is viewed as a collaborative partner helps staff become innovators shaping AI integration rather than passive users (as the jargon frames it, “makers” not “takers”). Strategic plans and performance indicators should reflect commitments to ethical, responsible, and impactful AI deployment, signalling to staff and students that innovation and integrity go hand in hand.

    Ethical and transparent leadership in AI-first institutions is vital. Decision-making, whether informed by student analytics like Kortext StREAM, enrolment forecasts, budgeting, or workforce planning, should model responsible AI use. The right governance structures need to be created. Far be it from us to suggest more committees, but there needs to be governance oversight through ethics and academic quality boards to oversee AI deployment across the education function.

    Clear frameworks for managing data privacy, intellectual property, and algorithmic bias are essential, particularly when working with third-party providers. Maintaining dialogue with accreditation and quality assurance bodies including PSRBs and OfS ensures innovation aligns with regulatory expectations, avoiding clashes between ambition and oversight. This needs to be at individual institution, but also at sector and regulator level.

    Capability and infrastructure development

    Staff capability underpins any AI-first strategy. This needs to be understood through taking a whole institution approach rather than just education-facing staff. Defining a framework of AI competencies will help to clarify the skills needed to use AI responsibly and effectively, and there are already institutional frameworks, including from Jisc, QAA, and Skills England, that do this. Embedding these competencies into recruitment, induction, appraisal, promotion and workload frameworks can ensure that innovation is rewarded, not sidelined.

    Demonstrating AI literacy and ethical awareness could become a requirement for course leadership, or senior appointments. Adjusting workload models to account for experimentation, retraining, and curriculum redesign gives staff the space to explore AI responsibly. Continuous professional development – including AI learning pathways, ethics training, and peer learning communities – reinforces a culture of innovation while protecting academic quality.

    Investment in AI-enabled infrastructure underpins an AI-first institution. We recognise the severe financial challenges faced by many institutions and this means that investments must be well targeted and implemented effectively. Secure data environments, analytics platforms, and licensed AI tools accessible to staff and students are essential to provide the foundation for innovation. Ethical procurement practices when partnering with edtech providers promote transparency, accessibility, and academic independence. Universities should also consider the benefits and risks of developing their own large language models alongside relying on external platforms, weighing in factors such as cost, privacy, and institutional control. See this partnership between Kortext, Said Business School, Microsoft and Instructure for an example of an innovative new education partnership.

    Culture and change management

    Implementing AI responsibly requires trust. Leaders need to communicate openly about AI’s opportunities and limitations, critically addressing staff anxieties about displacement or loss of autonomy. Leadership development programmes for PVCs, deans, heads of school, and professional service directors can help manage AI-driven transformation effectively.

    One of the most important things to get right is to ensure that cross-functional collaboration between IT, academic development, HR, and academic quality units supports coherent progress toward an AI-first culture. Adopting iterative change management – using pilot programs, consultation processes, and rapid feedback loops well – allows institutions to refine AI strategies continuously, balancing innovation with oversight.

    AI interventions benefit from rigorous quantitative and qualitative evaluation. Indicators such as efficiency, student outcomes, creativity, engagement, and inclusion can offer a balanced picture of impact. Regular review cycles ensure responsiveness to emerging AI capabilities and evolving educational priorities. Publishing internal (and external) reports on AI impacts on education will be essential to promote transparency, sharing lessons learned and guiding future development. It almost goes without saying that institutions should share practice (what has worked and what hasn’t) not only within their organisations, but also across the sector and with accrediting bodies and regulators.

    An AI-first university places human judgment, ethics, and pedagogy at the centre of all technological innovation. AI should augment rather than replace intellectual and creative capacities of educators and students. Every intervention must benefit from assessment against these principles, ensuring technology serves learning, rather than it becoming the master of human agency or ethical standards.

    Being an AI-first institution is certainly not about chasing the latest tools or superficially focusing on staff and student “AI literacy.” It is about embedding AI thoughtfully in every part of the university. Leaders need to articulate vision, model ethical behaviour, build staff capacity and student ability to become next generation AI leaders. Staff and students need time, support and trust to experiment responsibly. Infrastructure and external partnerships must be strategic and principled. There must also be continuous evaluation to ensure that innovation aligns with strategy and values.

    When implemented carefully, AI can become a collaborative partner in enhancing learning, facilitating creativity and reinforcing the academic mission rather than undermining it.

    This article is published in association with Kortext. Join Janice and Rachel for Kortext LIVE on 11 February in London, on the theme of “Leading the next chapter of digital innovation” to continue the conversation on AI and data. Keynote speakers include Mark Bramwell, CDIO at Said Business School. Find out more and secure your spot here. 

    Source link

  • Rural teacher shortages could get worse thanks to Trump’s visa fee

    Rural teacher shortages could get worse thanks to Trump’s visa fee

    by Ariel Gilreath, The Hechinger Report
    November 7, 2025

    HALIFAX COUNTY, N.C. — When Ivy McFarland first traveled from her native Honduras to teach elementary Spanish in North Carolina, she spent a week in Chapel Hill for orientation. By the end of that week, McFarland realized the college town on the outskirts of Raleigh was nowhere near where she’d actually be teaching.

    On the car ride to her school district, the city faded into the suburbs. Those suburbs turned into farmland. The farmland stretched into more farmland, until, two hours later, she made it to her new home in rural Halifax County.

    “I was like, ‘Oh my God, this is far,’” McFarland said. “It was shocking when I got here, and then I felt like I wanted to go back home.”

    Nine years later, she’s come to think of Halifax County as home.

    In this stretch of rural North Carolina, teachers hail from around the globe: Jamaica, the Philippines, Honduras, Guyana. Of the 17 teachers who work at Everetts Elementary School in the Halifax County school district, two are from the United States. 

    In this rural school district surrounded by rural school districts, recruiting teachers has become a nearly impossible task. With few educators applying for jobs, schools like Everetts Elementary have relied on international teachers to fill the void. Districtwide, 101 of 156 educators are international. 

    “We’ve tried recruiting locally, and it just has not worked for us,” said Carolyn Mitchell, executive director of human resources in the eastern North Carolina district of about 2,100 students. “Halifax is a rural area, and a lot of people just don’t want to work in rural areas. If they’re not people who are from here and want to return, it’s challenging.” 

    Around the country, many rural schools are contending with a shortage of teacher applicants that has ballooned into a crisis in recent years. Fewer students are enrolling in teacher training programs, leading to a shrinking pipeline that’s made filling vacancies one of the most challenging problems for school leaders to solve in districts with smaller tax bases and fewer resources than their suburban and urban peers. In certain grade levels and subject areas — like math and special education positions — the challenge is particularly acute. Now, some of the levers rural schools have used to boost their teacher recruitment efforts are also disappearing.

    This spring, the federal Department of Education eliminated teacher residency and training grants for rural schools. In September, President Donald Trump announced a $100,000 fee on new H-1B visa applications — visas hundreds of schools like Everetts Elementary use to hire international teachers for hard-to-staff positions — saying industries were using the visas to replace American workers with “lower-paid, lower-skilled labor.” A lawsuit filed by a coalition of education, union, nonprofit and other groups is challenging the fee, citing teacher shortages. Rural schools are also bracing for more cuts to federal funding next year.

    “We’re not only talking about a recruitment and retention problem. We’re talking about the collapse of the rural teacher workforce,” said Melissa Sadorf, executive director of the National Rural Education Association.

    Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

    Most of Halifax’s international teachers arrive on H-1B visas, which allow them to work in the U.S. for about five years with the possibility of a green card at the end of that period. About one-third of the district’s international teachers have J-1 visas, which let them work in the country for three years with the possibility of renewing it for two more. At the end of those five years, educators on J-1 visas are required to return to their home countries.

    A few years ago, Halifax County Schools decided to shift from hiring teachers on J-1 visas in favor of H-1B, hoping it would reduce teacher turnover and keep educators in their classrooms for longer. The results have been mixed, Mitchell said, because within a few years, some of their teachers ended up transferring to bigger, higher-paying districts anyway. 

    There are trade-offs for the teachers, too. Mishcah Knight came to the U.S. from Jamaica both to expand her skills and increase her pay as an educator. In the rural North Carolina county, finding transportation has been the biggest challenge for Knight, who teaches second grade. 

    She lacks a credit history needed to buy a car, leaving her reliant on carpooling to work. A single taxi driver serves the area, which doesn’t have public transit, Uber or Lyft. “Sometimes, he’s in Virginia,” Knight said. “It’s lucky when we actually get him to take us somewhere.”

    Being away from family also takes its toll on teachers. Nar Bell Dizon, who has taught music at Everetts Elementary since 2023, had to leave his wife and son back home in the Philippines. He visits in the summer, but during the school year, he sees them only through video calls. 

    “This is what life is — not everything is smooth,” Dizon said. “There will always be struggles and sacrifices.”

    Dizon’s first year in Everetts Elementary School was hard — it took time adapting to a different teaching style and classroom management. Now that he’s in his third year, he feels like he’s gotten his feet beneath him. 

    “When you can build a rapport with your students, things become easier,” Dizon said.

    When her international teachers are able to stay for longer, the students perform better, said Chastity Kinsey, principal of Everetts Elementary. “I know the benefit the teachers bring to the classroom,” Kinsey said. “After the first year or two, they normally take off like rock stars.” 

    Related: Trump’s cuts to teacher training leave rural school districts, aspiring educators in the lurch 

    Trump’s new fee does not address any of the challenges the Halifax district had with the H-1B visa, and it effectively slams the door on future hires. Now, the district will have to rely on J-1 visas to recruit new international teachers, meaning the educators will have to leave just as they’ve acclimated to their classrooms.

    “We just can’t afford to,” Mitchell said of paying the $100,000 fee. Other districts, she said, might turn to waivers allowing them to increase class sizes and hire fewer teachers, among other strategies.

    Since the applicant pool began drying up about a decade ago, the make-up of the district’s teaching staff has slowly shifted to international teachers. 

    At the heart of the problem is that when a position opens up, few, if any, citizens apply, said Katina Lynch, principal of Aurelian Springs Institute of Global Learning, an elementary school in Halifax County. 

    When Lynch had to hire a new fourth grade teacher this summer, she received three applications: Only one was a licensed teacher from the U.S.

    Nationally, about 1 in 8 teaching positions are either vacant or filled by teachers who are not certified for the position, according to data from the nonprofit Learning Policy Institute, published in July. In addition to fewer college students graduating with degrees in education, diminished public perception of the teaching profession and political polarization of schools are to blame, school leaders said. In some states, the growth of charter and private school options has made competing for teachers even harder. On top of a widening pay gap between rural and urban districts, it’s a perfect storm for schools in more remote parts of the country, said Sadorf.

    In rural Bunker Hill, Illinois, where more than 500 students attend two schools, some positions have gone unfilled for years. “We’ve posted for a school psychologist for years, never had anybody apply. We posted for a special ed teacher — have not had anybody apply. We’ve posted for a high school math teacher two years in a row,” said Superintendent Todd Dugan. “No applicants.”

    As a result, students often end up with a long-term substitute or an unlicensed student teacher. 

    When teachers do arrive in the district, Dugan works hard to try to get them to stick around. He pairs new teachers with experienced mentors, and uses federal funding to help those who want master’s degrees to afford them. 

    He also formed a calendar committee to give teachers input on which days they get off during the year. “More than pay, having at least a little bit of involvement, control and say in your work environment will cause people to stay,” said Dugan. It seems to be working: Bunker Hill’s teacher retention rate is more than 92 percent. 

    Related: Schools confront a new reality: They can’t count on federal money 

    Schools across the country face the same challenges to varying degrees. Several years ago, the Everett Area School District in southern Pennsylvania would receive 30 to 50 applications for a given position at its elementary schools, Superintendent Dave Burkett said. Now, they’re lucky if they get three or four.

    Last year, the district learned that a middle school science teacher would retire that summer. Just three people applied for the opening, and only one was certified for the role.

    “We offered the job before that person even left the building,” Burkett said. The candidate accepted it, but when it was time to fill out paperwork that summer, the teacher had taken a different job in a bigger district.

    One way Burkett has tried to address the shortage is to hire a permanent, full-time substitute teacher in each of its buildings. If a vacancy opens up that they haven’t been able to fill, the full-time substitute can step in until a permanent replacement is found. The permanent substitute makes more than a traditional sub and also receives health insurance. 

    Sadorf, with the National Rural Education Association, says other ways to help include introducing students to teacher training pathways starting in high school, building “grow-your-own” programs to train local people for teaching jobs, and offering loan forgiveness and housing support.

    Sadorf’s organization is in favor of creating an educator-specific visa track that would allow international teachers to be in communities for longer. The group is also in favor of exempting schools from the $100,000 H-1B fee. “Stabilizing federal support is something that really needs to be focused on at the federal level,” Sadorf said.

    At Everetts Elementary in Halifax County, McFarland, the educator from Honduras, is among the most senior teachers in the school. She has adapted to the rural community, where she met and fell in love with her now-husband. She gets asked sometimes why she hasn’t moved to a bigger city.

    “Education has taken me places I’ve never expected,” McFarland said. “For me, being here, there’s a reason for it. I see the difference I can make.”

    Contact staff writer Ariel Gilreath on Signal at arielgilreath.46 or at [email protected].

    This story about the visa fee was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/federal-policies-risk-worsening-an-already-dire-rural-teacher-shortage/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=113282&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/federal-policies-risk-worsening-an-already-dire-rural-teacher-shortage/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Securing educational excellence may demand a new leadership compact

    Securing educational excellence may demand a new leadership compact

    When education leaders describe their institutions as being in “existential crisis” or on a “wartime footing,” you know that something important is happening.

    A new report, “Securing educational excellence in higher education at a time of change,” from Wonkhe and Advance HE, based on roundtable discussions with 11 institutional leaders, 15 principal fellows of Advance HE, and three student representatives held in March 2025, explores institutional interpretation of and responses to change, and asks what measures should be taken to secure educational excellence for what could be quite a different future.

    While institutions are understandably focused on managing their immediate pressures, with, in some cases, institutional survival at stake, sustainability means little without the long-term mission of inclusive, high-quality learning that prepares students for their future lives. While financial security would help, the changes higher education is navigating require a deeper consideration of how institutions make decisions, deploy expertise, and engage their communities.

    The report maps four critical tensions that leaders are navigating across the political, economic, social and technological domains: public trust versus sector autonomy; public good versus private return on investment; traditional academic community versus new student models; pace of technological change versus institutional capacity. A fifth tension emerges from this complex environment: a need for distributed leadership that allows for a deep knowledge of the issues versus clear lines of accountability for decisions. These tensions play out daily in everything that higher education institutions do.

    A wave of change

    In the political dimension, higher education is implicated in broader losses of confidence in institutions. Though not technically public services, universities occupy a distinctive position in British civic life: historically connected to the state, still partly publicly funded, yet operating with considerable autonomy. That hybrid status leaves higher education uniquely vulnerable to simultaneous public and policymaker scrutiny.

    Higher education institutions are not insulated from the broader political landscape. Student representatives in the research raised questions about institutional awareness: “Universities believe that students are exempt from the effects of public austerity…they believe we are creating a community of highly educated people, therefore they cannot fall for the tricks and stories that the media or certain political parties are trying to tell.”

    The economic tension is similarly complex. Universities are expected to deliver public benefits without reliable public funding, creating what one participant called a “competing interest” space where higher education struggles for resources against health and compulsory education. Meanwhile, students increasingly question whether their investment yields genuine value. “Students are being taught how to meet learning objectives, but they’re not being taught how to transfer the skills that they get during their time at university, or sometimes it feels like they’re not even being taught the skills that they need just by meeting the learning objectives,” one student representative observed.

    Principal fellows echoed some of this anxiety: “Students, particularly those from a widening participation background, can put generational money into getting an education which then doesn’t give them a job.” When the compact between investment and outcome seems to break down, trust may fracture, not just between students and institutions but also between society and the higher education project.

    Socially, traditional higher education campus communities are under pressure, with students increasingly time-poor, working to afford their studies, and many commuting rather than living on campus. Participants observed that many students approach higher education more transactionally – not necessarily because they’re mercenary, but possibly because they’re exhausted. As one principal fellow observed, “student” seems to have shifted from being a core identity to something people do alongside other things.

    Meanwhile, technology raises a host of strategic questions, not only in mustering the “right” response to generative AI but also in confronting how the pace of technological change reshapes the collective imaginary of how humans and machines interact in physical and digital spaces. This has implications for curriculum and pedagogy, equity and inclusion, and infrastructure and resources.

    Staff communities appear to have fractured, too. Professional services are “somewhere else in the university,” quick informal conversations have disappeared, and academics feel “fed up and tired and exhausted.” One principal fellow described what they saw as a vicious cycle: “We do not have communities in our universities anymore, and that then impacts the students as well…we don’t have engagement from the students. But also we don’t have engagement from the academics, because they’re in a mood all the time.”

    This fragmentation has strategic implications. When communities fragment, institutions may lose the collective capacity to sense problems, develop solutions, and sustain change. Everyone risks becoming reactive rather than proactive, protective rather than collaborative.

    Change as a capability

    Rather than seeking solutions or silver bullets, our conversations explored the institutional capabilities required to navigate these complex tensions and map out a sustainable way forward.

    One key insight emerging was about the diversity and richness of knowledge and expertise held within institutions that may not be routinely accessed in efforts to think about the future. Small executive teams may struggle to retain a grip on every aspect of the changing landscape or simply become bogged down in maintaining the day-to-day flow of decisions that keep institutions running. Under this kind of pressure, it might not be surprising that, as one principal fellow put it, “Leaders often talk too much and listen too little.”

    The report suggests leaders need to become curators of inclusive processes rather than authorities on every challenge. This would require the confidence to admit when situations are difficult and to seek help – a cultural shift that, if modelled from the top, could potentially reduce pressure on others to hide their struggles.

    Student representatives echoed this sense that efforts to consult or engage, if not well conceived, can sometimes be more alienating than empowering. One student leader suggested involving students in shaping the collective understanding of problems from the beginning, at which their experience and knowledge are most likely to make a meaningful contribution, rather than asking student representatives to comment on pre-developed expert solutions. The same principle could apply to higher education staff and stakeholders.

    There were also clear themes of the need for authenticity when professing an appetite for change and a pragmatic approach to resourcing it. Participants noted that institutions advertise for “innovators” and “change agents” but may not truly want them, or don’t adequately support them when they arrive. Change might require investment: stable contracts, professional development, and time for pedagogic innovation. “You can’t shift pedagogy if you don’t create time,” observed one principal fellow.

    In the technological domain, where there may be a belief that the issues are fundamentally about resourcing and retaining technical expertise, part of the question has to be about how technology reshapes staff and student experience and sustains or fragments human connection. One principal fellow observed that higher education’s “killer service” might be personal connection, not consumer-grade content production in an attention economy. However, delivering that would require investing in people, not just platforms.

    A question of purpose

    Among education leaders, there was a real recognition that higher education staff are “the most precious resource,” as one put it. Yet the changing landscape for higher education seems to be broadening the range of possible purposes for higher education, along with the range of stakeholders who feel entitled to a view about what educational excellence looks like.

    It is not hard to see how this changing dynamic can alienate academics working in disciplines who may perceive some of their core “knowledge stewardship” values and purposes as being under threat from political, economic, social, and technological changes in the external landscape driving different expectations of higher education.

    With an unknowable future, the answer is less about seeking certainties to cling to as about finding collective ways to navigate uncertainty. That might open up some uncomfortable propositions: that higher education’s purpose itself may need rearticulating; that trade-offs between competing goods must be explicitly managed; that excellent pedagogy might require resource investment even when budgets are tight; and that sustainable change may emerge more from dialogue than from executive decision-making.

    The full report repays careful reading, not just for its PEST analysis framework, which could help guide your own institutional conversations about change, but for the candour of participants grappling with genuine complexity. Higher education may face a “pivot point” – though the sector’s breadth, diversity, and expertise remain a considerable strength. Weathering the changes here right now and those on the horizon will depend to no small degree on institutional leadership capability to draw on that expertise to build a shared and collectively owned sense of educational excellence.

    This article is published in association with Advance HE. You can read and download the full Securing educational excellence at a time of change report here.

    Source link

  • Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Funding technology initiatives in uncertain times

    Key points:

    Recent policy shifts have caused significant uncertainty in K-12 education funding, especially for technology initiatives. It’s no longer business as usual. Schools can’t rely on the same federal operating funds they’ve traditionally used to purchase technology or support innovation. This unpredictability has pushed school districts to explore creative, nontraditional ways to fund technology initiatives. To succeed, it’s important to understand how to approach these funding opportunities strategically.

    How to find funding

    Despite the challenges, there are still many grants available to support education initiatives and technology projects. Start with an online search using key terms related to your project–for example, “virtual reality,” “virtual field trips,” or “career and technical education.”

    Explore national organizations like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation or Project Tomorrow and consider potential local funding sources. Local organizations such as Rotary or Kiwanis clubs can be powerful allies in helping to fund projects. The local library and city or county government may also offer grants or partnership opportunities. Schools should also reach out to locally-headquartered businesses, many of which have community outreach or corporate social responsibility goals that align with supporting local education.

    Colleges and universities are another valuable resource. They may be conducting research that aligns with your school’s technology project. Building relationships with these institutions and organizations can put your school “in the right place at the right time” when new funding opportunities arise.

    Strategies to win the grant

    Once potential funding sources are identified, the next step is crafting a compelling proposal. Consider the following strategies to strengthen your application.

    1. Focus on the “how and why,” not just the “what.” If your school is seeking funds to buy hardware, don’t simply say, “Here’s what we want to buy.” Instead, frame it as, “Here’s how this project will improve student learning and why it matters.” Funders want to see the impact their support will have on outcomes. The more clearly a proposal connects technology to learning gains, the stronger it will be.

    2. Highlight the research. Use evidence to validate your project’s value. For example, if a school plans to purchase virtual reality headsets, cite studies showing that VR improves knowledge retention, engagement, and comprehension compared to traditional instruction. Demonstrating that the technology is research-backed helps funders feel confident in their investment.

    3. Paint a picture. Bring the project to life. Describe what students will experience and how they’ll benefit. For example: “When students put on the headset, they aren’t just reading about ancient civilizations, they’re walking through them.” Vivid descriptions help reviewers visualize the impact and believe in your vision.

    Eight questions to consider when applying for a grant

    Use these guiding questions to sharpen your proposal and ensure a strong foundation for implementation and long-term success.

    1. What is the goal? Clearly define what students will be able to do as a result of the project. Use action-orientated language: “Students will be able to…”
    2. Is the technology effective? Support your proposal with evidence such as whitepapers, case studies, or research that can demonstrate proven impact.
    3. How will the technology impact these specific students? Emphasize what makes your school or district unique, whether it’s serving a rural, urban, or high-poverty community and how this technology addresses those specific needs.
    4. What is the scope of the application? Specify whether the project involves elementary school, secondary school, or a specific subject or program like a STEM lab.
    5. How will success be measured? Too often schools reach the end of a project without a plan to track results. Plan your evaluation from the start. Track key metrics such as attendance, disciplinary data, academic performance, or engagement surveys, both before and after implementation to demonstrate results.
    6. What are your budgetary needs? Include all associated costs, including professional development and substitute coverage for teacher training.
    7. What happens after the grant is over? If you plan to use the technology for multiple years, apply for a multi-year grant rather than assuming future funding will appear. Sustainability is key.
    8. How will success be celebrated and communicated to stakeholders? Share results with the community and stakeholders. Host events recognizing teachers, students, and partners. Invite local media and highlight your funding partners–they’re not just donors, but partners in student success.

    Moving forward with confidence

    Education funding will likely remain uncertain in the years ahead. However, by being intentional about where to look for funds, how to frame proposals, and how to measure and share impact, schools can continue to implement innovative technology initiatives that elevate teaching and learning.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link