Tag: Rethinking

  • Rethinking Technical Violations, Supervision in Prison Education

    Rethinking Technical Violations, Supervision in Prison Education

    In response to Joshua Bay’s recently published Inside Higher Ed article, the Consortium for Catholic Higher Education in Prison, a coalition of partnerships between Catholic universities and departments of corrections in 15 states across the country, is adding its voice to those of other leaders in the field alarmed by the piece’s misleading framing: a framing that flies in the face not just of decades of established literature on the subject, but of the study (as yet unpublished and unreviewed) itself.

    Since misleading titles and leads can have very real effects on people not versed in the field, it feels important to identify what exactly is misrepresentative in the article, and to invite a fuller discussion on the known and proven benefits of higher education in prison and the important questions around supervision policy and technical violations the study raises.

    The data analysis therefore provides important information on the challenges of work release for students in prison education programs but not arguments against prison education programs—if anything, calling for the release of these alumni “free and clear.” That is an issue for DOC re-entry and work-release programs, not education, and should be taken as such.

    The national evidence remains unequivocal: A RAND meta‑analysis still shows a 43 percent reduction in recidivism for those who participate in prison education, which remains the most comprehensive study in the field. Facilities with education programs report up to a 75 percent reduction in violence among participants, improving safety for staff, educators and incarcerated people alike. Campbell and Lee also confirm improved employment outcomes for program participants. Employment is one of the strongest predictors of long‑term desistance, so this alone is a key success indicator.

    It seems likely that not just the study’s authors, but Joshua Bay and the IHE editors, are aware of all this. The title’s amendment suggests as much, and the caption beneath the article’s lead photo reads like that of an article urging greater freedoms for formerly incarcerated students: “Incarcerated individuals who enroll in college courses are less likely to be released free and clear and more likely to be assigned to work release.” These points show that the Grinnell finding is not evidence of a flawed model—it is evidence of a local anomaly shaped by supervision practices, not by the educational intervention itself.

    Decades of research, Grinnell’s own admissions and the lived outcomes of our students and graduates across the country all affirm that the work of higher education in prison is effective, restorative and socially transformative. Thus, as the field draws attention to the tensions between the article’s substance and its misleading title, the study’s findings and the way those findings are framed, and as this working paper undergoes peer review and revision, we hope that fruitful conversations may grow from this around the obstacles that students face and the possibility for transformative changes to supervision policy that sets formerly incarcerated students up for failure rather than success.

    Thomas Curran, SJ, Jesuit Prison Education Network

    Michael Hebbeler, Institute for Social Concerns, University of Notre Dame

    The Consortium for Catholic Higher Education in Prison

    Source link

  • Rethinking Lead Quality for Marketing-Admissions Alignment

    Rethinking Lead Quality for Marketing-Admissions Alignment

    Why Quality Beats Quantity in Student Recruitment

    Many institutions measure enrollment success by the size of their funnel. However, lead volume alone doesn’t translate into student enrollments, and in many cases, it creates more friction than results.

    When marketing teams are tasked with generating as many student leads as possible, admissions teams are often left to sift through a flood of prospects who were never the right fit. The result is wasted effort, strained teams, and disappointing yield. A smarter approach focuses on lead quality, not volume, and requires marketing and admissions to work together from the very beginning.

    The Risks of a Volume-Driven Mindset

    A volume-driven approach creates several hidden risks that undermine enrollment goals.

    First, marketing may deliver impressive lead numbers that admissions teams simply can’t convert. When success is defined by quantity alone, campaigns are optimized for clicks and form fills, not for intent or fit. Admissions counselors then spend valuable time chasing prospects who lack academic readiness, program alignment, or enrollment urgency.

    Second, high lead volume increases operational burden. Admissions teams are forced into reactive mode — managing inboxes, repeating outreach attempts, and documenting interactions that rarely progress. Over time, this erodes morale and reduces the attention given to the strongest applicants.

    Finally, institutions often spend more on advertising without improving outcomes. Larger budgets drive more traffic, but without stronger targeting and messaging, enrollment yield remains flat. This cycle reinforces siloed operations rather than solving for them.

    As explored in my recent article about why admissions and marketing collaboration matters, alignment across teams — not scale — is the real growth lever.

    How Discovery Shapes Lead Quality

    High-quality recruitment doesn’t start with campaigns — it starts with clarity. And clarity is the product of strong discovery paired with powerful and differentiated storytelling.

    Discovery is where marketing and admissions teams uncover what actually drives enrollment success: who thrives in the program, why they choose it, what doubts they need resolved, and what outcomes actually motivate action. Without this foundation, messaging tends to default to broad, generic claims that attract attention but fail to reach the right students.

    Strong brand strategies don’t try to appeal to everyone. They’re built around intentional differentiation and can clearly articulate who the institution is a right fit for, what it stands for, and what makes its experience distinct. This, in turn, creates deeper engagement that translates into more qualified prospects. 

    When institutional storytelling is rooted in discovery, messaging becomes more precise and authentic. Instead of overpromising or relying on broad aspirational language, marketing communicates real program strengths, expectations, and outcomes. This clarity acts as a filter. Prospective students who see themselves in the story lean in with higher intent, while those who are misaligned self-select out earlier in the funnel.

    For admissions teams, this translates into more productive conversations. Leads arrive with clearer expectations, stronger program fit, and greater readiness to move forward. 

    In short, discovery-led storytelling reduces friction across the funnel. Marketing attracts fewer but better-aligned prospects, admissions spends less time correcting misalignment, and institutions see stronger enrollment outcomes driven by relevance rather than volume.

    Building Marketing-Admissions Alignment

    True alignment requires more than good intentions. It demands shared definitions, shared metrics, and ongoing communication.

    Institutions must define key performance indicators (KPIs) that connect lead quality to enrollment outcomes — such as yield, time to application, and retention — rather than isolating marketing performance from admissions results. When teams agree on what “good” looks like, strategy becomes easier to execute.

    Messaging, targeting, and follow-up should also be aligned around program goals. Marketing sets expectations honestly and clearly; admissions reinforces those expectations through consistent conversations. Feedback loops allow teams to refine targeting and messaging based on real applicant behavior, not assumptions.

    This approach echoes the mindset shift outlined in my colleague Brian Messer’s recent article, which covered why institutions should stop chasing student leads and focus instead on sustainable enrollment strategies.

    Less Volume, More Conversions

    A smaller pipeline doesn’t mean weaker results. In fact, institutions that prioritize lead quality often see higher conversion rates, stronger retention, and less staff burnout.

    With fewer but better-aligned prospects, admissions teams can focus on meaningful engagement rather than time-consuming, low-yield outreach. Applicants receive clearer guidance, faster responses, and a more personalized experience. And marketing and admissions share accountability for outcomes rather than deflecting responsibility across teams.

    Key Takeaways

    • Lead quality drives stronger enrollment outcomes than raw volume.
    • Discovery is the foundation of high-quality recruitment and clearer positioning.
    • Collaboration between marketing and admissions reduces silos, increases efficiency, and improves yield.

    When marketers prioritize lead quality over lead volume, everyone wins. 

    Improve Lead Quality and Align Marketing and Admissions With Archer

    At Archer Education, we work with your marketing and admissions teams to build sustainable lead generation and enrollment strategies. Our approach focuses on establishing lasting capabilities so that your institution has the tools, training, and insights to operate with confidence. 

    Our enrollment marketing teams conduct deep discovery to inform your campaigns, while our admissions and retention teams provide personalized engagement support to prioritize student success.

    Contact us today to learn more. 

    Source link

  • New HEPI Report: Rethinking student voice: how can higher education design effective student governance?

    New HEPI Report: Rethinking student voice: how can higher education design effective student governance?

    Author:
    Darcie Jones

    Published:

    The new report Rethinking Student Voice: How higher education must design effective student governance (HEPI Report 195), written by Darcie Jones exposes a key issue within university governance: the marginalisation of student governors.

    With financial pressures intensifying across the sector, thee stakes for effective governance have never been higher. Yet, despite being core stakeholders within universities, many students on governing boards feel sidelined by opaque processes and exclusive norms. The evidence within this report reveals a persistent gap between symbolic representation and meaningful participation.

    However it’s not all bad news, the report also highlights what is possible when the student voice is taken seriously. Using examples of effective practice it demonstrates the transformation value of empowered student governance.

    Drawing on extensive evidence and sector insights, the report sets out clear, actionable reforms – from accessible governance culture, to improved recruitment, induction and development. They provide a pathway from why student perspectives and voices can be embedded at the heart of decision-making within universities.

    You can read the press release and access the full report here.

    Source link

  • Re-thinking research support for English universities: Research England’s programme of work during the REF 2029 pause

    Re-thinking research support for English universities: Research England’s programme of work during the REF 2029 pause

    In September, Science Minister Lord Vallance announced a pause to developing REF 2029 to allow REF and the funding bodies to take stock. Today, REF 2029 work resumes with a refreshed focus to support a UK research system that delivers knowledge and innovation with impact, improving lives and creating growth across the country.

    Research England has undertaken a parallel programme of work during the pause, intended to deliver outcomes that align with Government’s priorities and vision for higher education as outlined in the recently published Post-16 Education and Skills white paper. Calling this a pause doesn’t reflect the complexity, pace and challenge faced in delivering the programme over the last three months.

    Since September, we have:

    • explored the option of baseline performance in research culture being a condition of funding
    • considered how our funding allocation mechanisms in England could be modified to better reward quality, as part of our ongoing review of Strategic Institutional Research Funding (SIRF)
    • fast-tracked existing activity related to the allocation of mainstream quality-related research funding (QR).
    • developed our plans to consider the future of research assessment.

    Over the last three months to progress this work, we’ve engaged thoughtfully with groups across the English higher education and research sector, as well as with the devolved funding bodies, to help us understand the wider context and refine our approaches. Let me outline where we’ve got to – and where we’re going next – with the work we’ve been doing.

    Setting a baseline for research cultures

    Each university, department and team are unique. They have their own values, priorities and ways of working. I therefore like to think of ‘research cultures and environments’, using the term in plural, to reflect this diversity. The report of the REF People, Culture and Environment pilot, also published today, confirms that there is excellent practice in this area across the higher education sector. REF 2029 offers an opportunity to recognise and reward those institutions and units that are creating the open, inclusive and collaborative environments that enable excellent research and researchers to thrive.

    At the same time, we think there are some minimum standards that should be expected of all providers in receipt of public funding. To promote these standards, we will be strengthening the terms and conditions of Research England funding related to research culture. In the first instance, this will mean a shift from expecting certain standards to be met, to requiring institutions to meet them.

    We are very conscious not to increase burden on the sector or create unnecessary bureaucracy. This will only succeed by engaging closely with the sector to understand how this can work effectively in practice. To this end, we will be engaging with groups in early 2026 to establish rigorous standards that are relevant across the diversity of English institutions. As far as possible, we will use existing reporting mechanisms such as the annual assurance report provided by signatories to the Research Integrity Concordat. While meeting the conditions will not be optional, we will support institutions that don’t yet meet all the requirements, working together and utilising additional reporting to help with and monitor improvements. And because research cultures aren’t static, we will evolve our conditions over time to reflect changes in the sector.

    This will lead to sector-wide improvements that we can all get behind:

    • support for everyone who contributes to excellent and impactful research: researchers, technicians and others in vital research-enabling roles, across all career stages
    • ensuring research in England continues to be done with integrity
    • ensuring that is also done openly
    • strengthening responsible research assessment.

    Our next steps are to engage with the sector and relevant groups as part of the process of making changes to our terms and conditions of funding, and to establish low-burden assurance mechanisms. For example, working as part of the Researcher Development Concordat Strategy Group, we will collectively streamline and strengthen the concordat, making it easier for institutions to implement this important cross-sectoral agreement.

    These changes will complement the assessment of excellent research environments in the REF and the inspiring practice we see across the sector. Championing vibrant research cultures and environments is a mission that transcends the REF — it’s the foundation for maintaining and enhancing the UK’s world-leading research, and we will continue to work with the devolved funding bodies to fulfil the mission.

    Modelling funding mechanisms

    The formula-based, flexible research funding Research England distributes to English universities is crucial to underpinning the HE research landscape, and supporting the

    financial sustainability of the sector. We are aware that that this funding is increasingly being spread more thinly.

    As part of the review of strategic institutional research funding (SIRF), we are working to understand the wider effectiveness of our funding approaches and consider alternative allocation mechanisms. Work on this review is continuing at speed. We will provide an update to the sector next year on progress, as well as the publication of the independent evaluation of SIRF, anticipated in early 2026.

    Building on this, we have been considering how our existing mechanisms in England could be modified to better reward quality of research. This work looks at how different strands of SIRF – from mainstream QR to specialist provider funding – overlap, and how that affects university finances across English regions and across institution types. We are continuing to explore options for refining our mainstream QR formula and considering the consequences of those different options. This is a complex piece of work, requiring greater time and attention, and we expect next year to be a key period of engagement with the sector.

    The journey ahead

    While it may seem early to start thinking about assessment after REF 2029, approaches to research assessment are evolving rapidly and it is important that we are able to embrace the opportunities offered by new technologies and data sources when the moment comes. We have heard loud and clear that early clarity on guidance reduces burden for institutions and we want to be ready to offer that clarity. A programme of work that maximises the opportunity offered by REF 2029 to shape the foundation for future frameworks will be commencing in spring 2026.

    Another priority will be to consider how Research England as the funding body for England, and as part of UKRI, can support the government’s aim to encourage a greater focus on areas of strength in the English higher education sector, drawing on the excellence within all our institutions. As I said at the ARMA conference earlier in the year, there is a real opportunity for universities to identify and focus on the unique contributions they make in research.

    The end of the year will provide the sector (and my colleagues in Research England and the REF teams) with some much-needed rest. January 2026 will see us pick back up a reinvigorated SIRF review, informed by the REF pause activity. We will continue to refine our research funding and policy to – as UKRI’s new mission so deftly puts it – advance knowledge, improve lives and drive growth.

    Source link

  • 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

  • New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    Author:
    Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson

    Published:

    The NHS faces a growing clinical placement crisis that threatens the future of its workforce. A new HEPI and University of London report calls for bold, system-wide reform to ensure students get the real-world experience they need to deliver safe, high-quality care.

    HEPI and the University of London’s new report, Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future, which has been published with the support of the Council for Deans of Health, warns that the NHS cannot meet its ambitious workforce goals without bold reform of how students gain real-world experience. Co-authored by Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson of the University of East London, the report calls for a shift from simply creating more placements to delivering better ones—equitable, flexible, digitally enabled and aligned with the future of healthcare.

    Drawing on innovation across London and beyond, the authors propose practical steps including simulation-based learning, new supervision frameworks and community-based models that can expand capacity without compromising quality. With over 106,000 vacancies across secondary care, the report urges policymakers, universities and NHS providers to act now to secure a sustainable, skilled and compassionate workforce for the next decade and beyond.

    You can read the press release and access the full report here.

    Source link

  • Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Rethinking Leadership Development in Higher Ed (opinion)

    Higher education is in the midst of a crisis of confidence that has long been building. In this time of volatility, complexity and uncertainty, the steady hand of leaders matters more than ever. Yet academia does—at best—a very uneven job of preparing academic leaders for steady-state leadership, much less for times when the paradigm is shifting. This moment is creating an opportunity to reconsider how we prepare leaders for what will come next.

    Why Is Leadership So Uneven in Higher Ed?

    A primary reason lies in how we select and develop leaders. In academia, searches for department chair, dean and provost often emphasize top-level scholarly and research credentials and only secondarily consider an individual’s experience, perspective and ability to influence and motivate others to support shared missions. Academics in general do not respond well to directives: They expect to be persuaded, not commanded. Additionally, it is often only after being hired that those in formal positions of authority are provided with leadership-development opportunities to help foster those interpersonal skills—too late for foundational growth.

    These approaches to recruiting formal leaders are rooted in flawed assumptions about how leadership works. True leadership is not about commanding compliance but about shaping unit culture through influence. Many leaders fail by not understanding the difference. An effective leader is a person of strong character who can build trusting relationships with others; these skills take time to develop and usually take root even before a person assumes a leadership role.

    Another important reason that leadership in higher ed is uneven arises from conceptualizing leadership as a “heroic” individual endeavor. The same skills that help a formal leader to be successful—such as understanding the alignment of their actions with the unit’s mission; strong communication skills, including listening; the ability to navigate conflict, negotiation and conflict resolution; and formulating and articulating clear collective goals— are equally crucial for others to exercise to be fully engaged participants.

    Leaders with formal roles and titles play a crucial role in promoting a productive and collegial culture. At the same time, they do not do so alone: It is equally important that participants who are not in formal administrative roles are also seen (and see themselves) as central in shaping these environments, and that they are aware of how their own actions and interpersonal dynamics contribute to their working and learning experiences.

    In short, leadership responsibility is not limited to administrators. There are layers of formal leadership roles embedded inside departments and schools, visible whenever faculty members and staff take on responsibilities for shared governance and advisory roles; lead team research or manage grant portfolios; and select (hire), supervise, evaluate and mentor colleagues and other early-career individuals. These faculty and staff are leaders, too, whether or not they see, accept or internalize those roles.

    When leadership is viewed simply as an individual attribute rather than a process that emerges from the relationships among people in teams, organizations miss the opportunity to develop cultures of excellence that support integrity, trust and collaboration at all levels. Thus, we argue that leadership ought to be understood as an ongoing process of character development and a responsibility shared by all members of an organization—not something that can be addressed in a one-off workshop, but as an integral dimension of the work.

    The Foundations of Leadership: Influence Before Authority

    Rather than framing leadership as something only people with formal authority do, a more productive model is to view leadership as influence. By influence we mean modeling the behaviors we seek to share and promote in our groups so that we can better shape the way we solve problems collectively. Leadership is not in essence a position; it is contributing to an ongoing process of shaping culture, norms and behavior within a unit.

    Social psychology shows that we influence each other constantly. The more time we spend with people, the more we become like them and vice versa. This means that bad habits can spread as easily as good ones. When everyone is given an opportunity to develop good habits, they are more likely to spread throughout the community. Our character affects how we influence others. We are much more likely to be influenced by a person who demonstrates integrity and curiosity than we are by someone who is demanding and unwilling to listen.

    Here are some areas of practice for developing better influence:

    • Self-awareness and self-management: Focusing on oneself first helps individuals identify their strengths and areas for growth, while encouraging them to recognize and respect their roles and responsibilities in the current situation. Understanding oneself, one’s values, habits and motivations, is foundational to recognizing how we affect and are affected by those around us.
    • Conflict resolution: Healthy debate is foundational to innovation and growth. Developing strong conflict-resolution skills contributes to increased perspective-taking, depersonalizing disagreement and yielding more effective discussion and problem solving.
    • Decision-making: Understanding how we make decisions, and more importantly how heuristics influence and bias our decision-making, can help people slow down to make more ethical and effective decisions.

    Opportunities for influence are available to everyone, not just those in formal leadership roles. Early-career faculty, staff and students can cultivate influence by setting examples for collaboration, through ethical behavior and by contributing to collective problem-solving. Leadership is not centrally about having authority over others; it is about shaping an environment in which ethical decision-making, respect and shared purpose flourish.

    Reimagining Leader Development in Higher Ed

    Now more than ever, individuals need support in managing their careers with integrity and purpose—aligning their personal values and goals with those of their institutions. Leadership development should not be viewed as a costly add-on. In fact, it can be integrated into the everyday fabric of academic life through accessible and scalable methods, including:

    • Peer-learning cohorts that provide space for discussion and reflection on leadership challenges.
    • Guided personal reflections on workplace dynamics, communication and decision-making.
    • Structured mentoring programs that cultivate leadership skills through real-world interactions.
    • Deliberative conversations around such themes as research ethics, authorship and collaboration to build trust and integrity within teams.
    • Conflict-resolution training embedded in routine professional development activities.

    Our experience at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics shows that even modest efforts—like those above—can spark essential conversations between mentors and mentees, improve communication, and positively influence both unit climate and individual well-being. To support this work, we offer a free Leadership Collection—an online collection of tools, readings and practical exercises for anyone seeking to lead more effectively, regardless of their title or career stage.

    When leadership development is embraced as a core part of academic life—not just a formal program or a luxury for a few—it can become a catalyst for healthier, more purpose-driven institutions.

    Conclusion: Leadership Development as a Cultural Foundation

    Reserving leadership-development programming only for when people reach formal leadership roles is a missed opportunity to develop broader and more inclusive working cultures. Such cultures emerge from the relationships among the members of a group. Building better relationships starts with personal growth, self-awareness and emotional intelligence for each member. Taking responsibility for one’s own professional growth and for one’s influence on others is also an important kind of leadership.

    True leadership, therefore, is not about directing others but about fostering environments in which good habits, strong ethics and meaningful engagement flourish. If universities want to build sustainable cultures of excellence, in which leadership is no longer an individual endeavor but a shared commitment to collaboration, they should start embedding it in professional development and routine practice for all. As uncertainty prevails, budgets are cut and people are navigating deep change, now is the moment to reconsider how we shape leaders in higher education.

    Elizabeth A. Luckman is a clinical associate professor of business administration with an emphasis in organizational behavior and director of leadership programs at the National Center for Principled Leadership and Research Ethics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    C. K. Gunsalus is the director of NCPRE, professor emerita of business and research professor at the Grainger College of Engineering’s Coordinated Sciences Laboratory at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Nicholas C. Burbules is the education director of NCPRE and Gutgsell Professor Emeritus in the Department of Education Policy, Organization and Leadership at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

    Source link

  • Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Rethinking the OPM Model: Shifting from Outsourcing to Enablement

    Higher education is rapidly evolving, and so are institutional approaches to online program growth. We’re consistently finding that schools are no longer interested in handing over full control to third-party vendors. Rather, they want to build and enhance the internal capabilities of their teams, maintain ownership over their data and brand, and deliver a student experience uniquely aligned with their mission.

    This approach requires a flexible partner that’s focused on enablement vs. the traditional black-box outsource model.

    The traditional OPM model is flawed

    In my conversations with institutional leaders across the country, a common theme that keeps emerging is the frustration with traditional OPMs and the diminishing viability of this model. Leaders feel boxed in by long-term contracts, inequitable financial terms, a lack of visibility into performance data, and limited control over the student experience.

    What many institutions seek is a partner who will deeply integrate with their teams, augmenting their talent and resource gaps. An ideal partner will enhance the institution’s strengths, not replace them. In many cases, schools have ambitions to in-source certain areas of expertise over time and need support, guidance, and best practices to achieve this.

    More simply stated, many schools are seeking an enablement partner.

    What is enablement?

    At Collegis, we define enablement as helping institutions build their own internal strengths. It’s about equipping campus teams with the data, technology, and operational expertise they need to grow. This sets them up to thrive long after our work is done.

    Instead of taking the reins, we help institutions empower themselves to take ownership and control of their future over time. That distinction matters.

    Our model is intentionally modular and tech-agnostic, allowing partners to engage only the services they need, when they need them. There are no bundles to untangle or one-size-fits-all solutions to force-fit. In practice, we integrate ourselves in lockstep with the institutional teams and work alongside them as trusted collaborators. This contrasts with other models where external vendors operate in a black box.

    For us, enablement is about delivering lasting value, strengthening internal capacity, and helping institutions move forward and own their futures.

    A real-world example of enablement in action

    When institutions embrace this model, the outcomes are real and measurable.

    One example comes from a public institution that was working with an OPM on some of its online programs. They brought Collegis in to help build a foundation they could truly own, starting with data strategy and enrollment support tailored to their internal goals.

    Throughout our partnership, we’ve worked closely with their teams to refine processes, optimize student experience, openly share best practices, and enhance internal capabilities. The outcome? A 59% year-over-year increase in new online enrollments in the programs we support.

    It’s a powerful reminder of what institutions can achieve when they choose a partner who builds alongside them, not in place of them.

    Why ownership matters

    When institutions retain ownership of their tech stack, data, and student experience, they stay agile and in control. They’re able to pivot when needed, maintain high standards for compliance and privacy, and continuously improve outcomes across the student lifecycle.

    Our job at Collegis is to make that ownership attainable. We integrate with existing systems, design transparent reporting, and support processes that campus teams can run and refine on their own. True enablement means recommending and implementing sustainable practices that align with the mission and objectives of the institution.

    Redefining “partnership” in a new digital era

    Partnership today should mean transparency, collaboration, and shared purpose. And it should be built on trust.

    When institutions evaluate potential partners, I encourage them to ask:

    • Will we retain control of our data and decisions?
    • Is this a flexible relationship or a one-size-fits-all model?
    • Does this partner strengthen our internal teams?
    • How will this approach improve and enhance the impact of our staff?
    • Will this partnership contribute to the betterment of our student experience?

    Let’s build something that lasts

    Your institution shouldn’t have to choose between doing it all alone or giving it all away. There’s a better way forward that can empower your team, adapt to changing needs, and help you thrive in a competitive, fast-moving environment.

    You deserve a partner who helps you lead on your terms with clarity, control, and confidence. That’s the path Collegis is committed to support.

    Innovation Starts Here

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

    Matt Lachey is Associate Vice President of Partner Solutions at Collegis Education, where he leads strategic partnerships and custom solution design to help institutions address challenges in enrollment, operations, and technology. With 16+ years of higher education experience, Matt focuses on aligning institutional goals with scalable, performance-driven strategies. He works closely with senior leaders to design programs and processes that balance innovation with practicality, helping colleges improve experience, efficiency, and growth.

    Source link

  • When AI Meets Engineering Education: Rethinking the University 

    When AI Meets Engineering Education: Rethinking the University 

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by James Atuonwu, Assistant Professor at the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering (NMITE). 

    Where machines of the past multiplied the strength of our hands, AI multiplies the power of our minds – drawing on the knowledge of all history, bounded only by its training data. 

    We are living through a moment of profound transition. The steam engine redefined labour, the computer redefined calculation, and now AI is redefining thought itself. Unlike earlier technologies that multiplied individual workers’ power, AI, particularly large language models (LLMs), multiplies the collective intelligence of humanity. 

    For engineering practice and universities alike, this shift is existential. 

    AI as Servant, Not Master 

    The old adage is apt: AI is a very good servant, but a very bad master. 

    • As a servant, AI supports engineers in simulation, design exploration, and predictive maintenance. For students, it provides on-demand access to resources, enables rapid testing of ideas, and helps them reframe problems.  
    • As a master, AI risks entrenching bias, undermining judgment, and reshaping educational systems around efficiency rather than values. 

    The challenge is not whether AI will change engineering education, but whether we can train engineers who command AI wisely, rather than being commanded by it. 

    This logic resonates with the emerging vision of Industry 5.0: a paradigm where technology is designed not to replace humans, but to collaborate with them, enhance their creativity and serve societal needs. If Industry 4.0 was about automation and efficiency, Industry 5.0 is about restoring human agency, ethics, and resilience at the heart of engineering practice. In this sense, AI in engineering education is not just a technical challenge, but a cultural one: how do we prepare engineers to thrive as co-creators with intelligent systems, rather than their servants 

    Beyond ‘AI Will Take Your Job’ 

    The phrase ‘AI won’t take your job, but a person using AI will’ has become a cliché. It captures the competitive edge of AI literacy but misses the deeper truth: AI reshapes the jobs themselves.  

    In engineering practice, repetitive calculations, drafting, and coding are already being automated. What remains – and grows in importance – are those tasks requiring creativity, ethical judgment, interdisciplinary reasoning, and decision-making under uncertainty. Engineering workflows are being reorganised around AI-enabled systems, rather than human bottlenecks. 

    Universities, therefore, face a central question: Are we preparing students merely to compete with each other using AI, or to thrive in a world where the very structure of engineering work has changed? 

    Rethinking Assessment 

    This question leads directly to assessment – perhaps the most urgent pressure point for universities in the age of AI. 

    If LLMs can generate essays, solve textbook problems, and produce ‘good enough’ designs, then traditional forms of assessment risk becoming obsolete. Yet, this is an opportunity, not just a threat. 

    • Assessment must shift from recalling knowledge to demonstrating judgment. 
    • Students should be evaluated on their ability to frame problems, critique AI-generated answers, work with incomplete data, and integrate ethical, social, and environmental perspectives. 

    A further challenge lies in the generational difference in how AI is encountered. Mature scholars and professionals, who developed their intellectual depth before AI, can often lead AI, using it as a servant, because they already possess the breadth and critical capacity to judge its outputs. But students entering higher education today face a different reality: they arrive at a time when the horse has already bolted. Without prior habits of deep engagement and cognitive struggle, there is a danger that learners will be led by AI rather than leading it. 

    This is why universities cannot afford to treat AI as a mere technical add-on. They must actively design curricula and assessments that force students to wrestle with complexity, ambiguity, and values – to cultivate the intellectual independence required to keep AI in its rightful place: a servant, not a master. 

    Rediscovering Values and Ethics 

    AI forces a rediscovery of what makes us human. If algorithms can generate correct answers, then the distinctive contribution of engineers lies not only in technical mastery but in judgment grounded in values, ethics, and social responsibility. 

    Here the liberal arts are not a luxury, but a necessity. 

    • Literature and history develop narrative imagination, allowing engineers to consider the human stories behind data. 
    • Philosophy and ethics cultivate moral reasoning, helping engineers weigh competing goods. 
    • Social sciences illuminate the systems in which technologies operate, from environmental feedback loops to economic inequities. 

    In this light, AI does not diminish the need for a broad education – it intensifies it. 

    Reimagining the University 

    Yet, values alone are not enough. If universities are to remain relevant in the AI era, they must reimagine their structures of teaching, learning, and assessment. Several approaches stand out as particularly future-proof: 

    • Challenge-based learning, replacing rote lectures with inquiry-driven engagement in authentic problems. 
    • Industry and community co-designed projects, giving students opportunities to apply knowledge in practical contexts 
    • Interdisciplinary integration across engineering, business, and social perspectives. 
    • Block learning, enabling sustained immersion in complex challenges – a counterbalance to the fragmenting tendencies of AI-enabled multitasking. 
    • Professional skills and civic engagement, preparing graduates to collaborate effectively with both people and intelligent systems. 
    • Assessment through projects and portfolios, rather than traditional exams, pushing learners to demonstrate the judgment, creativity, teamwork and contextual awareness that AI can only imitate but not authentically embody. 

    These approaches anticipate what the AI era now demands of universities: to become sites of creation, collaboration, and critique, not simply repositories of content that AI can reproduce at scale. Some newer institutions, such as NMITE, have already experimented with many of these practices, offering a glimpse of how higher education can be reimagined for an AI-enabled world. 

    Closing Reflection 

    AI may be the greatest machine humanity has ever built – not because it moves steel, but because it moves minds. Yet, with that power comes a reckoning. 

    Do we let AI master our universities, eroding integrity?  
    Or do we make it serve as a co-creator, multiplier of human intelligence, and a tool for cultivating wise, ethical, creative engineers? 

    The answer will define not just the future of engineering training and practice, but the very shape of university education itself. 

    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