Tag: Leadership

  • Emerging leader of the year 2025 – Bimpe Femi-Oyewo

    Emerging leader of the year 2025 – Bimpe Femi-Oyewo

    The post Emerging leader of the year 2025 – Bimpe Femi-Oyewo appeared first on The PIE News.

    Source link

  • The leadership challenges embedded in the 2025 OECD report, Education at a Glance

    The leadership challenges embedded in the 2025 OECD report, Education at a Glance

    • Yesterday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press and Assessment jointly hosted the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. You can see the OECD’s slides here.
    • Here we publish a response to the OECD from Professor Sir Chris Husbands, who is a former Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University and also former Chair of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Panel. Chris is a Trustee of HEPI and spoke at the launch.

    There is one line in the 2025 OECD Education at a Glance report which should be in bright flashing lights for this and all governments. The supporting data is on page 112 of the main report. It is this: Individuals with greater educational attainment generally face a lower risk of unemployment and earn higher wages. Race, gender, deprivation, place, subjects studied all impact outcomes in different ways, but the overall conclusion is clear, and in his HEPI briefing on the report, the OECD’s chief analyst Andreas Schleicher got the summary down to just two words: education pays.

    The 2025 OECD Education at a Glance report comes in at 541 pages, and the annual appearance of the report has made it the definitive guide to education system performance and policy dynamics all around the world: in the now familiar graphs of compelling clarity, and crisp text judgements, the OECD team have made themselves indispensable to institutional leaders, policy analysts and decision makers.

    This year’s report has a specific focus on tertiary education, which in OECD terms includes, but stretches a bit further than, higher education. There are some familiar and unsurprising themes in the 2025 report, but they are nonetheless important for being set out so clearly. A few key findings stood out for me, all of them speaking clearly to the English and UK policy agendas.

    First, advantages are inherited: those who have at least one tertiary-educated parent are more than twice as likely to attain a tertiary qualification than those whose parents have below upper secondary attainment, though the gap is smaller in the UK than elsewhere (p.56).

    Secondly, life is getting tougher for those without qualifications: the employment rate for young adults without upper secondary qualifications fell by 6 points since 2019, and by 9 points for men (pp.82-3).

    Thirdly, at the same it’s getting better for the better qualified: the nearly one-in-six with a Master’s degree have higher employment rates and earnings than those with an undergraduate degree (p48).

    Fourthly, education is losing the battle for public funding as the costs of health, pensions and defence rise: between 2015 and 2022, government spending on education declined from nearly 11% of budgets to just over 10% (p.278).

    And fifthly, despite that decline, R&D is strengthening to drive growth and competitiveness. Where it is highest, government drives it: in the UK, Israel and Switzerland, government R&D expenditure is more than twice private expenditure (p.329).

    There is more fine-grained analysis about English higher education. England, on the OECD data, is an outlier in important respects.

    First: English HE is well-funded by comparison with the OECD, whatever it feels like in the sector just now.  The finding is important: total tertiary expenditure per student, including R&D, is $35,000, among the highest in the OECD and 65% above the average (p.327). 

    Secondly, however, in the UK government tertiary expenditure is $8,000, 48% below the OECD average (p.331). This is a result of high tuition fees:  undergraduate fees are three times the OECD average.

    The third way in which England is an outlier is that access to higher education and completion rates within it are high – fourteen percentage points above the OECD average (p.246): access to higher education is far more a consequence of maintenance support than fee levels, but high fee levels almost certainly disincentivise non-completion. Finally, while there is a gap between economic returns to science and technology disciplines on the one hand and arts and humanities on the other in all OECD countries, the gap is much higher in the UK than in almost all other countries (p.111). 

    Putting all this together poses some knotty challenges. England has a successful, relatively accessible higher education system, but one which is very expensive when budgets for education are getting tighter. And this is happening when the economic returns to high levels of qualification are strengthening: masters and doctoral graduates enjoy higher returns than those with undergraduate degrees, while the least qualified face more intense difficulties. These challenges go beyond the voluminous data in Education at a Glance.

    First, and painful for English higher education, the challenge is not simply the level of current funding, but funding in relation to what is a high-cost operating and delivery model. That model secures strong results in terms of access for disadvantaged students and high completion rates, but it is relatively inflexible. It’s unclear whether a lower-cost and potentially more flexible operating model would put some of the successes of the English system at risk.

    Secondly, it is the economic, social and increasingly political costs of the plight of the lowest attaining young people, and especially young males without qualifications, which is attracting political attention. If money is tight, it’s more likely to go towards that problem, and the London government’s decision to move skills funding into the Department of Work and Pensions appears to be a signal of intent.

    These are the leadership challenges which emerge from this year’s report: how to reshape our successful HE system so that its strengths remain, but it can be more responsive and flexible. It needs to adapt to a changing labour market and to a society in which division and inequality are being reinforced with greater ferocity.

    Source link

  • Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

    Phones, devices, and the limits of control: Rethinking school device policies

    Key points:

    By now, it’s no secret that phones are a problem in classrooms. A growing body of research and an even louder chorus of educators point to the same conclusion: students are distracted, they’re disengaged, and their learning is suffering. What’s less clear is how to solve this issue. 

    Of late, school districts across the country are drawing firmer lines. From Portland, Maine to Conroe, Texas and Springdale, Arkansas, administrators are implementing “bell-to-bell” phone bans, prohibiting access from the first bell to the last. Many are turning to physical tools like pouches and smart lockers, which lock away devices for the duration of the day, to enforce these rules. The logic is straightforward: take the phones away, and you eliminate the distraction.

    In many ways, it works. Schools report fewer behavioral issues, more focused classrooms, and an overall sense of calm returning to hallways once buzzing with digital noise. But as these policies scale, the limitations are becoming more apparent.

    But students, as always, find ways around the rules. They’ll bring second phones to school or slip their device in undetected–and more. Teachers, already stretched thin, are now tasked with enforcement, turning minor infractions into disciplinary incidents. 

    Some parents and students are also pushing back, arguing that all-day bans are too rigid, especially when phones serve as lifelines for communication, medical needs, or even digital learning. In Middletown, Connecticut, students reportedly became emotional just days after a new ban took effect, citing the abrupt change in routine and lack of trust.

    The bigger question is this: Are we trying to eliminate phones, or are we trying to teach responsible use?

    That distinction matters. While it’s clear that phone misuse is widespread and the intent behind bans is to restore focus and reduce anxiety, blanket prohibitions risk sending the wrong message. Instead of fostering digital maturity, they can suggest that young people are incapable of self-regulation. And in doing so, they may sidestep an important opportunity: using school as a place to practice responsible tech habits, not just prohibit them.

    This is especially critical given the scope of the problem. A recent study by Fluid Focus found that students spend five to six hours a day on their phones during school hours. Two-thirds said it had a negative impact on their academic performance. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 77 percent of school leaders believe phones hurt learning. The data is hard to ignore.

    But managing distraction isn’t just about removal. It’s also about design. Schools that treat device policy as an infrastructure issue, rather than a disciplinary one, are beginning to implement more structured approaches. 

    Some are turning to smart locker systems that provide centralized, secure phone storage while offering greater flexibility: configurable access windows, charging capabilities, and even low admin options to help keep teachers teaching. These systems don’t “solve” the phone problem, but they do help schools move beyond the extremes of all-or-nothing.

    And let’s not forget equity. Not all students come to school with the same tech, support systems, or charging access. A punitive model that assumes all students have smartphones (or can afford to lose access to them) risks deepening existing divides. Structured storage systems can help level the playing field, offering secure and consistent access to tech tools without relying on personal privilege or penalizing students for systemic gaps.

    That said, infrastructure alone isn’t the answer. Any solution needs to be accompanied by clear communication, transparent expectations, and intentional alignment with school culture. Schools must engage students, parents, and teachers in conversations about what responsible phone use actually looks like and must be willing to revise policies based on feedback. Too often, well-meaning bans are rolled out with minimal explanation, creating confusion and resistance that undermine their effectiveness.

    Nor should we idealize “focus” as the only metric of success. Mental health, autonomy, connection, and trust all play a role in creating school environments where students thrive. If students feel overly surveilled or infantilized, they’re unlikely to engage meaningfully with the values behind the policy. The goal should not be control for its own sake, it should be cultivating habits that carry into life beyond the classroom.

    The ubiquity of smartphones is undeniable. While phones are here to stay, the classroom represents one of the few environments where young people can learn how to use them wisely, or not at all. That makes schools not just sites of instruction, but laboratories for digital maturity.

    The danger isn’t that we’ll do too little. It’s that we’ll settle for solutions that are too simplistic or too focused on optics, instead of focusing  not on outcomes.

    We need more than bans. We need balance. That means moving past reactionary policies and toward systems that respect both the realities of modern life and the capacity of young people to grow. It means crafting strategies that support teachers without overburdening them, that protect focus without sacrificing fairness, and that reflect not just what we’re trying to prevent, but what we hope to build.

    The real goal shouldn’t be to simply get phones out of kids’ hands. It should be to help them learn when to put them down on their own.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Serving to Lead: The Transformative Role of Servant Leadership in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Human connection still drives school attendance

    Human connection still drives school attendance

    Key points:

    At ISTE this summer, I lost count of how many times I heard “AI” as the answer to every educational challenge imaginable. Student engagement? AI-powered personalization! Teacher burnout? AI lesson planning! Parent communication? AI-generated newsletters! Chronic absenteeism? AI predictive models! But after moderating a panel on improving the high school experience, which focused squarely on human-centered approaches, one district administrator approached us with gratitude: “Thank you for NOT saying AI is the solution.”

    That moment crystallized something important that’s getting lost in our rush toward technological fixes: While we’re automating attendance tracking and building predictive models, we’re missing the fundamental truth that showing up to school is a human decision driven by authentic relationships.

    The real problem: Students going through the motions

    The scope of student disengagement is staggering. Challenge Success, affiliated with Stanford’s Graduate School of Education, analyzed data from over 270,000 high school students across 13 years and found that only 13 percent are fully engaged in their learning. Meanwhile, 45 percent are what researchers call “doing school,” going through the motions behaviorally but finding little joy or meaning in their education.

    This isn’t a post-pandemic problem–it’s been consistent for over a decade. And it directly connects to attendance issues. The California Safe and Supportive Schools initiative has identified school connectedness as fundamental to attendance. When high schoolers have even one strong connection with a teacher or staff member who understands their life beyond academics, attendance improves dramatically.

    The districts that are addressing this are using data to enable more meaningful adult connections, not just adding more tech. One California district saw 32 percent of at-risk students improve attendance after implementing targeted, relationship-based outreach. The key isn’t automated messages, but using data to help educators identify disengaged students early and reach out with genuine support.

    This isn’t to discount the impact of technology. AI tools can make project-based learning incredibly meaningful and exciting, exactly the kind of authentic engagement that might tempt chronically absent high schoolers to return. But AI works best when it amplifies personal bonds, not seeks to replace them.

    Mapping student connections

    Instead of starting with AI, start with relationship mapping. Harvard’s Making Caring Common project emphasizes that “there may be nothing more important in a child’s life than a positive and trusting relationship with a caring adult.” Rather than leave these connections to chance, relationship mapping helps districts systematically identify which students lack that crucial adult bond at school.

    The process is straightforward: Staff identify students who don’t have positive relationships with any school adults, then volunteers commit to building stronger connections with those students throughout the year. This combines the best of both worlds: Technology provides the insights about who needs support, and authentic relationships provide the motivation to show up.

    True school-family partnerships to combat chronic absenteeism need structures that prioritize student consent and agency, provide scaffolding for underrepresented students, and feature a wide range of experiences. It requires seeing students as whole people with complex lives, not just data points in an attendance algorithm.

    The choice ahead

    As we head into another school year, we face a choice. We can continue chasing the shiny startups, building ever more sophisticated systems to track and predict student disengagement. Or we can remember that attendance is ultimately about whether a young person feels connected to something meaningful at school.

    The most effective districts aren’t choosing between high-tech and high-touch–they’re using technology to enable more meaningful personal connections. They’re using AI to identify students who need support, then deploying caring adults to provide it. They’re automating the logistics so teachers can focus on relationships.

    That ISTE administrator was right to be grateful for a non-AI solution. Because while artificial intelligence can optimize many things, it can’t replace the fundamental human need to belong, to feel seen, and to believe that showing up matters.

    The solution to chronic absenteeism is in our relationships, not our servers. It’s time we started measuring and investing in both.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    Black Women’s Leadership in Higher Education: The Remaking of Academic Power

    I
    Dr. Tina M. King     n the storied halls of higher education, Black women who ascend to the presidency do so while carrying the weight of history, community, and the unspoken expectation that we will be both miracle workers and scapegoats. Black women in higher education leadership navigate a complex matrix of anti-Blackness and misogynoir —a reality where their expertise is simultaneously appropriated and undermined. Research reveals that more than most Black women executives in predominantly white institutions (PWIs) experience racelighting (racialized gaslighting), characterized by dehumanizing scrutiny. We endure identity taxation, where we are expected to carry the unsustainable burden of single-handedly solving institutional race problems, often where we are the target of the attack while comforting white fragility. Simultaneously, we experience racelighting where people of color receive racialized messages and question their thoughts and experiences. This racelighting is perpetuated by the institution’s willingness to tokenize Black women’s identities for diversity optics while suppressing our agenda for transformative anti-racist praxis. The narrative of Black women’s leadership in PWIs is not simply a tale of individual achievement but also reflects the deep, persistent anti-Blackness embedded in the academy’s very structure.

    The attacks, swift and severe, are often cloaked in the familiar rhetoric of “governance, academic integrity, or collegial concern,” but the subtext is unmistakably racial. They are orchestrated not as a response to policy but as a rebuke of Black authority daring to reshape the institution’s priorities. In such attacks, we are called incompetent, corrupt, and unwilling to do the hard work (lazy), echoing tropes that have long been used to undermine Black people in general and Black women in leadership specifically. The most insidious move, however, is often the elevation of a single Black or Brown person to be the messenger or carrier of the attack, serving as a shield to deflect accusations of racism and to lend legitimacy to the movement or campaign t o disparage and discredit Black women’s leadership.Dr. Regina Stanback StroudDr. Regina Stanback Stroud

    This dynamic is not new. Dr. Patricia Hill Collins (2000), in her foundational work on Black Feminist Thought, describes how Black women in leadership are subjected to controlling images— stereotypes that are deployed to police the boundaries of acceptable Blackness. In the academy, these images manifest as relentless questioning of competence, insinuations of aggression, and the expectation that Black women will perform emotional labor to maintain white comfort. The token messenger, perhaps unwittingly, becomes complicit in this system, their proximity to whiteness granting her temporary power even as it reinforces the very structures that marginalize leaders of color—in other words, they become complicit in using the academic tools of white supremacy to join in the assault on Black women’s leadership.

    What begins to emerge is a spectator sport where people at all levels of influence remain silent in the face of orchestrated attacks. Please make no mistake: silence does not represent neutrality; it represents complicity. By refusing to address the racialized nature of the attacks, the institution is signaling that Black women leaders are ultimately expendable, their contributions contingent upon their willingness to placate white interests and prioritize white comfort. This is the reality of what Breonna Collins (2022) calls “epistemic violence” –the systematic invalidation of Black knowledge and leadership under the guise of procedural fairness.

    Yet Black women leaders have always found ways to resist and reimagine the academy. Drawing on the tradition of Black feminist resistance, we create counterspaces within hostile institutions, mentoring the next generation and insisting on the legitimacy of their vision. We redefine “institutional fit” not as assimilation into white norms but as the capacity to transform the institution in service of justice.

    Despite these acts of resistance and reimagination, the very presence and leadership of Black women in academic spaces often disrupts entrenched power structures and exposes the discomfort many have with authentic Black excellence. A threat to many, Black excellence in leadership prioritizes the needs of marginalized students and communities over the preservation of the status quo.

    While some may wish to uphold privilege and power for themselves, others may be well-intentioned but unable to recognize Black excellence. They may interpret Black leadership as arrogance or see Black Leaders simply as flaunting their positions or being opinionated. Still others may believe they are doing good but fail to recognize their own deep biases. Those who consider themselves allies may suffer fatigue along with Black leaders, but that mutual suffering does not, an ally make. It must be accompanied by one’s willingness to use their white privilege and capital to actively combat anti-Blackness and misogynoir at play.

    Studies of HBCU leadership reveal how Black women executives subvert PWI pathologies through radical self-definition, where we reject white-normed leadership frameworks to implement culturally grounded approaches and ethical care (prioritizing community needs over respectability politics). We create counter-spaces that center Black epistemologies, such as mentorship programs that affirm Black women’s intellectual sovereignty. Black women leaders engage in institutional truth-telling where we document systemic racelighting through critical race methodology.

    True transformation requires more than performative allyship. It demands redistribution of resources, independent accountability structures, and a commitment to centering Black epistemologies in institutional decision-making. There is a growing recognition that Black leadership is not incidental— it is essential to the future of higher education. The time has come for institutions to choose: will they cling to the master’s tools, or will they finally make room for the radical imagination and power of Black women’s leadership?

    Until higher education is willing to confront its foundational anti-Blackness, it will continue to sacrifice its most visionary leaders on the altar of white comfort. The question is not whether another attack will come but who will have the courage to stand in solidarity and say, “Enough.” The future of academia depends on this shift. Ultimately, we must move beyond the white gaze and demand for our pain, and instead, embrace the Black radical imagination and the remaking of power in the academy.

    Dr. Tina M. King is president of San Diego College of Continuing Education 

    Dr. Regina Stanback Stroud is the chief executive officer of RSSC Consulting

    Dr. Jennifer Taylor Mendoza serves as the 13th president of West Valley College.

     

     

     

     

    Source link

  • Preventing harm by connecting the dots in school safety

    Preventing harm by connecting the dots in school safety

    Key points:

    Swatting–false reports of school violence intended to trigger a police response–continues to increase across the country. During the 2022–2023 school year, nearly 64 percent of reported violent incidents in K–12 schools were linked to swatting. That’s over 440 incidents in one year–a more than 500 percent jump from just four years prior.

    Each call pulls officers from genuine emergencies, disrupts classrooms, and leaves students and staff shaken. While emergency protocols are essential, when swatting becomes routine, it’s clear that response plans alone won’t solve the problem.

    Unpacking the early signals

    Swatting rarely emerges out of thin air. It’s often the final act following a series of compounding behaviors, such as:

    • Online harassment
    • Peer conflicts
    • Risky social media challenges
    • Unaddressed behavioral concerns

    These warning signs exist, but are typically scattered across multiple school departments.

    Counselors might log escalating incidents. Teachers may notice changes in student behavior, and school resource officers (SROs) might track repeated visits involving the same individuals. Without a unified way to connect these observations, critical warning signs go unnoticed.

    Operationalizing early intervention

    Districts are reimagining how they capture and coordinate behavioral data. The goal isn’t surveillance or punitive action. It’s about empowering the right people with the right context to align and intervene early.

    When schools shift from viewing incidents in isolation to seeing behavior patterns in context, they are better positioned to act before concerns escalate. This can mean initiating mental health referrals, alerting safety teams, or involving families and law enforcement partners at the appropriate moment with comprehensive information.

    Technology that enables teams

    The process requires tools that support secure, centralized documentation and streamline communication across counselors, administrators, safety staff, and other stakeholders. These systems don’t replace human judgment, but create conditions for clearer decisions and more timely coordination.

    Swatting is just one example of how fragmented behavioral data can contribute to high-risk outcomes. Other incidents, such as escalating bullying, persistent mental health concerns, or anonymous threats often follow recognizable patterns that emerge over time. When schools use a centralized system to document and track these behaviors across departments, they can identify those patterns earlier. This kind of structured coordination supports proactive interventions, helping prevent larger issues before they unfold and reinforcing a culture of safety and awareness.

    Consider Washington State, where swatting affected more than 18,000 students last year, costing schools over $270,000 in lost instructional time. These figures illustrate the operational and human costs when coordination breaks down.

    Reducing risk, not just reacting to it

    Swatting is a symptom of a larger issue. Building safer schools means moving upstream from reactive emergency response to proactive coordination. It requires shared insight across teams, strengthened behavioral threat assessment protocols, and the right supports in place well before crisis calls occur.

    Early intervention isn’t about adding complexity. It’s about reducing risk, improving situational clarity, and equipping school communities to act with confidence–not simply responding when harm is imminent.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Why student engagement starts with teacher clarity

    Why student engagement starts with teacher clarity

    Key points:

    In Alpine School District, we serve a wide range of students, from Title I to highly affluent communities. While our population has traditionally been predominantly white and middle income, that’s changing. In response to this growing diversity and shifting needs, one of my missions as professional learning and curriculum director for secondary schools has been to provide needs-based professional learning, just in time for educators, and to give them a real voice in what that looks and feels like.

    I lead a team of full-time educator equivalents across every discipline: math, science, social studies, ELA, the arts, health, and PE. Together, we guide professional learning and instructional support. Over the past several years, we’ve had to take a hard look at how we teach, how we engage students, and how we prepare educators for long-term success.

    Where we started: Tier 1 challenges and high turnover

    When I first became curriculum director, I noticed in our data that our schools were not making much progress, and in some cases had stagnated in growth scores. We were leaning heavily on Tier 2 interventions, which told us that we needed to shore up our Tier 1 instruction.

    At the same time, we were hiring between 400 and 500 teachers each year. We’re located near several universities, so we see a continuous flow of new educators come and go. They get married, they relocate, or a spouse gets into medical school, which translates to a constant onboarding cycle for our district. To meet these challenges, we needed professional learning that was sound, sustainable, and meaningful, especially early in a teacher’s career, so they could lay a strong foundation for everything that would come after.

    Teacher clarity and engagement by design

    Several years ago, we joined the Utah State Cohort, doing a deep dive into the Teacher Clarity Playbook. That experience was a real turning point. We were the only team there from a district office, and we took a train-the-trainer approach, investing in our strongest educators so they could return and lead professional learning in their content areas. Since then, we’ve used Engagement by Design as the framework behind much of our PD, our classroom walkthroughs, and our peer observations. It helped us think differently: How do we support teachers in crafting learning intentions and success criteria that are actually meaningful? How do we align resources to support that clarity? We’ve embedded that mindset into everything.

    Coming out of the pandemic, Alpine, like many districts around the country, saw decreased student engagement. To focus deeply on that challenge, we launched the Student Engagement Academy, or SEA. I co-designed the Academy alongside two of our content specialists, Anna Davis and Korryn Coates. They’re both part-time teacher leaders at the district office and part-time visual arts teachers in schools, so they live in both worlds. That was important because we believe professional learning should always be contextualized. We don’t want teachers burning extra bandwidth trying to translate strategies across subject areas.

    SEA is a yearlong, job-embedded learning experience. Teachers participate in PLCs, conduct peer observations, and complete a personalized learning project that showcases their growth. Our PLC+ coaches work directly with our lead coach, Melissa Gibbons, to gather and analyze data that shapes each new round of learning. We also included classroom observations, not for evaluation, but to help teachers see each other’s practice in action. Before observations, Anna and Korryn meet with teachers in small groups to talk through what to look for. Afterward, they debrief with the teachers: What did we see? What evidence did we see of student engagement? What did we learn? What are we still wondering? As we answer these questions about teaching, we’re also asking students about their experience of learning.

    Learning from student surveys

    Hearing from our students has been one of the most powerful parts of this journey. With the support of our Director of Student and Educator Well-eing, we created a student survey. We asked a random group of students questions such as:

    • What are you learning?
    • How are you learning it?
    • How do you know how you’re doing?
    • Why does it matter?

    The responses were eye-opening. Many students didn’t know why they were learning something. That told us our teachers weren’t being as clear or as intentional as they thought they were. One specific question we asked was based on the fact that attendance in world language classes stayed high during the pandemic, while it dropped in other subjects. We asked students why. The answer? Relationships, expectations, and clarity. They said their world language teachers were clear, and they knew what was expected of them. That led other disciplines to reflect and recalibrate.

    Today, teachers across subjects like ELA, math, and social studies have participated in a SEA cohort or aligned learning. We’re seeing them plan more intentionally, better target skills, and align instruction with assessment in thoughtful ways. They’re starting to see how mirroring instruction with how learning is measured can shift outcomes. It’s been truly exciting to witness that change. Engaging students through improved teacher clarity, positive classroom relationships (with each other, the teacher, and the content), and providing the students with appropriate levels of rigor has been a game changer.

    Building teacher leadership teams

    Next year, we’re focusing on developing teacher leadership skills, knowledge, and dispositions across the full geographic area of our district. We’re building professional capacity through leadership teams using the PLC+ model, with an emphasis on facilitation skills, research-based practice, and advocacy for strong instruction in every discipline.

    If you’re a district leader looking to boost student engagement through professional development, my advice is simple: You can’t do it alone. You need a team that shares your values and your commitment to the work. You also have to be guided by research–there’s too much at stake to invest in strategies that don’t hold water. Finally, this is a marathon, not a sprint. Aim for small, incremental changes. There’s no silver bullet, but if you stay the course, you’ll see real transformation.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis – Edu Alliance Journal

    Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis – Edu Alliance Journal

    First in Leadership Series by Barry Ryan, PhD, JD August 11, 2025

    It is hard to think of a time when higher education was swimming in a pool filled with a greater number of shark-like threats than at present.

    Some of these were predictable (in hindsight), some not so much. Let’s set aside blame, however, on either an institutional level or on a more global basis. The vital thing now is for genuine leaders to help chart courses that will lead higher education, not just to mere survival, but to new and meaningful purposes that will benefit this generation and the next.

    When situations are “normal,” we may be tempted to imagine that we need leadership that can keep the legacy intact, turn the crank, not rock the boat. But normal no longer exists, does it?

    I remember a senior university leader, who admonished me, as I began a new presidency: “everything’s going great—just don’t mess it up” (using slightly more colorful language). One year later, seismic changes in higher ed created an unexpected crisis and necessitated major changes in the institution. Almost everything that had contributed to its prior success turned, overnight, into a liability.

    There is, of course, more than one crisis in which higher ed is being buffeted. The sheer number of colleges and universities that have ceased to exist at all, or have been merged to various extents with others, or are currently teetering on the brink, appears in news stories almost every day. The root causes are legion and often woven together: financial shortfalls, a shrinking number of students, reductions in state and federal support, the disappearance of many international students, families, and prospective students increasingly unable to justify the cost of a degree, the “value” of which is seriously questioned. The list goes on.

    Of the three large “types” of higher education in the United States—public (state) colleges and universities, private not-for-profit colleges and universities, and for-profit entities—the vast majority are struggling in meaningful ways.

    If you find yourself in a leadership role in this age of crisis, what are some key things you can do to keep becoming a better leader and more effectively serve your institution and your colleagues? Here are three suggestions that you may find helpful.

    First, don’t panic.

    And even if you do feel panic welling up inside you, do your best to keep it from becoming obvious. Phil Slott, who was involved in the Dry Idea marketing campaign in the 1980s, seems to have coined a relevant phrase: “Never let them see you sweat.” It just stresses you out more and does little to inspire confidence in those who are looking to you for leadership.

    Once you’ve steadied yourself, the next critical realization is that leadership in crisis cannot be solitary work.

    Second, remember every day, you can’t do this alone.

    A 19th-century lawyer by the name of Abe Lincoln is credited with the adage: “A person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client.” That rings true for any leader who tries to do everything and assumes they have sufficient knowledge (or wisdom or experience or insight) to solve every problem on their own. No one does—no matter how experienced.

    So where do you turn for help? The answer is two-fold: internally and externally. You need to draw on both circles and find confidential, experienced, and reliable counsel.

    Choose very carefully with whom you share the issues internally. Depending on the nature of the problem you’re trying to address, success might well be thwarted if there is a lapse of absolute confidentiality. At the starting point of the process, you need to be able to rely on one other person, or perhaps a very small circle, with which you will be able to expand bit by bit as the timeline moves along.

    There are difficult audiences and stakeholders in the life of an academic institution, and ultimately, all must be included in the process of working through a crisis. The sequencing of sharing information and inviting input, though, must be very carefully structured. If you’re a president, oftentimes the first person you seek is a senior member of the administration—a provost, vice president, or someone in a similar position. At times, it could be the chair of the board or a wise and thoughtful alum. But whoever the person(s) may be, the timing of sharing the situation and seeking input for solutions is everything.

    It’s very important not to neglect external assistance as well. It is all but impossible to generate a sufficient perspective on a crisis from only one (your) vantage point, or even from that of your small, trustworthy group. You’re very likely not the first institution to face these problems, and consulting with trusted external leaders can provide not only perspective but also ideas you may not have thought of on your own.

    Some of these leaders may be in academic institutions, but not necessarily. It is always helpful to have relationships with leaders in other professional fields as well, who may be particularly helpful in providing fresh perspectives and ideas. For example, in my own experience, I’ve found such people in leadership of non-profit organizations or boards, key corporate positions, government at various levels, and experienced friends with whom I served long ago, and could provide input on both my institution’s situation and also my own strengths and weaknesses. In addition, external folks don’t have the same emotional investment as someone internal, so the chances of a more neutral observation point are increased significantly.

    There is a temptation—and often a prudent one—to seek external input from lawyers. There are, of course, a fair number of attorneys and firms with expertise in higher education, which can be a plus. Higher education is a very specialized field, and, frankly, most lawyers have a huge knowledge deficit in terms of the operational realities of a college or university. Their tendency is to think, “Well, I know higher ed—after all, I went to college and law school” (or maybe even taught a course or two). Beware the well-intentioned lawyer who does not have directly relevant practice experience.

    This, of course, does not at all preclude seeking competent legal advice for certain aspects of the problems you may be facing. For example, most institutions have or will need counsel in employment matters. Even if not the center of your challenge, these issues will likely arise as part of the need for a solution to your challenges. If it appears you will have to make difficult financial decisions that might impact faculty or staff, you should seek excellent employment counsel much sooner rather than later. With students, Title IX requirements, for example, may dictate the need for specialized counsel, as might certain types of accreditation issues.

    Third, leadership is not “one size fits all.”

    Every leader has different abilities and personalities. Even though many institutions experience similar types of crises, the circumstances of each call for a bespoke solution.

    However, some very important leadership characteristics can increase the probability of success in these situations. In part two, we’ll examine these and how to cultivate them.

    Dr. Barry Ryan invested the first half of his career in higher education in teaching and the second half in administration. During that same timeframe, he pursued a parallel career in law and legal education. He​ served as the Supreme Court Fellow in the chambers of Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and is a​ member of numerous federal and state bars. He has been appointed as the president of five universities and provost and chief of staff at three others. Among the institutions he served have been state, private non-profit, and private for-profit universities. Included in his academic experience were two terms as a Commissioner of the regional accreditor WASC​ (WSCUC).

    He has been appointed as the president of five universities and provost and chief of staff at three others. Among the institutions he served have been state, private non-profit, and private for-profit universities. Included in his academic experience were two terms as a Commissioner of the regional accreditor WASC​ (WSCUC). Dr. Ryan has led institutions through mergers, acquisitions, and affiliations that have preserved academic​ quality, expanded access, and strengthened long-term viability. His leadership has been marked by​ transparency, shared governance, and a commitment to stakeholder engagement at every stage of these processes.

    He earned his Ph.D. from the University of California, Santa Barbara, his J.D. from the University of​ California, Berkeley, and his Dipl.GB in international business from the University of Oxford.

    Edu Alliance Journal provides expert commentary and practical insights on U.S. and international higher education, focusing on innovation, policy, and institutional growth. Published by Edu Alliance, a consulting firm with offices in the United States and the United Arab Emirates, the Journal reflects the organization’s mission to help colleges, universities, and educational organizations achieve sustainable success through strategic partnerships, market intelligence, and program development.

    Source link