Tag: small

  • Reflective teaching: the “small shifts” that quietly change everything

    Reflective teaching: the “small shifts” that quietly change everything

    by Yetunde Kolajo

    If you’ve ever left a lecture thinking “That didn’t land the way I hoped” (or “That went surprisingly well – why?”), you’ve already stepped into reflective teaching. The question is whether reflection remains a private afterthought … or becomes a deliberate practice that improves teaching in real time and shapes what we do next.

    In Advancing pedagogical excellence through reflective teaching practice and adaptation I explored reflective teaching practice (RTP) in a first-year chemistry context at a New Zealand university, asking a deceptively simple question: How do lecturers’ teaching philosophies shape what they actually do to reflect and adapt their teaching?

    What the study did

    I interviewed eight chemistry lecturers using semi-structured interviews, then used thematic analysis to examine two connected strands: (1) teaching concepts/philosophy and (2) lecturer-student interaction. The paper distinguishes between:

    • Reflective Teaching (RT): the broader ongoing process of critically examining your teaching.
    • Reflective Teaching Practice (RTP): the day-to-day strategies (journals, feedback loops, peer dialogue, etc) that make reflection actionable.

    Reflection is uneven and often unsystematic

    A striking finding is that not all lecturers consistently engaged in reflective practices, and there wasn’t clear evidence of a shared, structured reflective culture across the teaching team. Some lecturers could articulate a teaching philosophy, but this didn’t always translate into a repeatable reflection cycle (before, during, and after teaching). I  framed this using Dewey and Schön’s well-known reflection stages:

    • Reflection-for-action (before teaching): planning with intention
    • Reflection-in-action (during teaching): adjusting as it happens
    • Reflection-on-action (after teaching): reviewing to improve next time

    Even where lecturers were clearly committed and experienced, reflection could still become fragmented, more like “minor tweaks” than a consistent, evidence-informed practice.

    The real engine of reflection: lecturer-student interaction

    Interaction isn’t just a teaching technique – it’s a reflection tool.

    Student questions, live confusion, moments of silence, a sudden “Ohhh!” – these are data. In the study, the clearest examples of reflection happening during teaching came from lecturers who intentionally built in interaction (eg questioning strategies, pausing for problem-solving).

    One example stands out: Denise’s in-class quiz is described as the only instance that embodied all three reflection components using student responses to gauge understanding, adapting support during the activity, and feeding insights forward into later planning.

    Why this matters right now in UK HE

    UK higher education is navigating increasing diversity in student backgrounds, expectations, and prior learning alongside sharper scrutiny of teaching quality and inclusion. In that context, reflective teaching isn’t “nice-to-have CPD”; it’s a way of ensuring our teaching practices keep pace with learners’ needs, not just disciplinary content.

    The paper doesn’t argue for abandoning lectures. Instead, it shows how reflective practice can help lecturers adapt within lecture-based structures especially through purposeful interaction that shifts students from passive listening toward more active/constructive engagement (drawing on engagement ideas such as ICAP).

    Three “try this tomorrow” reflective moves (small, practical, high impact)

    1. Plan one interaction checkpoint (not ten). Add a single moment where you must learn something from students (a hinge question, poll, mini-problem, or “explain it to a partner”). Use it as reflection-for-action.
    1. Name your in-the-moment adjustment. When you pivot (slow down, re-explain, swap an example), briefly acknowledge it: “I’m noticing this is sticky – let’s try a different route.” That’s reflection-in-action made visible.
    1. End with one evidence-based note to self. Not “Went fine.” Instead: “35% missed X in the quiz – next time: do Y before Z.” That’s reflection-on-action you can actually reuse.

    Questions to spark conversation (for you or your teaching team)

    • Where does your teaching philosophy show up most clearly: content coverage, student confidence, relevance, or interaction?
    • Which “data” do you trust most: NSS/module evaluation, informal comments, in-class responses, attainment patterns and why?

    If your programme is team-taught, what would a shared reflective framework look like in practice (so reflection isn’t isolated and inconsistent)?

    If reflective teaching is the intention, this article is the nudge: make reflection visible, structured, and interaction-led, so adaptation becomes a habit, not a heroic one-off.

    Dr Yetunde Kolajo is a Student Success Research Associate at the University of Kent. Her research examines pedagogical decision-making in higher education, with a focus on students’ learning experiences, critical thinking and decolonising pedagogies. Drawing on reflective teaching practice, she examines how inclusive and reflective teaching frameworks can enhance student success.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • What’s Actually Working for Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    What’s Actually Working for Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Editor’s Note By Dean Hoke: This winter, Small College America completed its most ambitious season yet—13 conversations with presidents, consultants, and association leaders who are navigating the most turbulent period in higher education history. What emerged wasn’t theory or wishful thinking. It was a working playbook of what’s actually succeeding on the ground. This article synthesizes the five insights that matter most.

    When Hope Meets Reality

    Jeff Selingo doesn’t mince words.

    “Hope is not a strategy,” he said bluntly in Season 3 of Small College America.

    Jeff Selingo, a Best Selling Author and higher education advisor, named what every small college leader knows but hates to admit: the old playbook is dead. The demographic cliff isn’t coming—it’s here. Traditional enrollment models are broken. And no amount of wishful thinking about “riding out the storm” will change that.

    But here’s what surprised me across 13 conversations this season: nobody was sugarcoating reality, yet the conversations weren’t depressing.

    They were energizing.

    From Frank Shushok describing how Roanoke College built a K-12 lab school that creates a pipeline from kindergarten forward, to Teresa Parrott explaining why Grinnell took over a failing daycare center instead of issuing a mission statement about community engagement, from Gary Daynes doubling down on Salem College’s women’s mission when conventional wisdom said to go co-ed, to Kristen Soares navigating 2,500 California bills every legislative session—Season 3 captured something rare.

    Leaders who have moved past denial and into action.

    What emerged wasn’t abstract strategy consulting. It was concrete, operational intelligence from people doing the work. Here are the five insights that separate institutions that will thrive from those that won’t.

    1. Stop Marketing, Start Building Pipelines

    The traditional enrollment model—recruit high school seniors, get them to visit campus, send them glossy viewbooks, hope they choose you over 47 other colleges—is dead. Small colleges know this. But most are still acting like better marketing will solve it.

    It won’t.

    As Selingo pointed out, “At some point you have to come up with another segment of students if you’re tuition dependent because there just aren’t enough of those students to go around.”

    Translation: You cannot market your way out of a demographic crisis.

    The institutions seeing results aren’t the ones with slicker viewbooks or better social media strategies. They’re the ones building actual infrastructure for new student populations.

    What does that look like in practice?

    At Roanoke College, President Frank Shushok has approached enrollment not as a marketing problem, but as a pipeline design problem.

    Roanoke’s lab school creates a K–12 pathway while simultaneously solving a community need. Students who attend the lab school encounter the college early, come to trust it, and see it as part of their educational journey long before senior year. That’s not recruitment—that’s ecosystem building.

    The same logic shows up in Roanoke’s employer partnerships. The T-Mite Scholars program flips the traditional internship model: students complete two internships, receive a guaranteed job interview upon graduation, and receive tuition support from the employer. That’s not workforce development with a side of enrollment. That’s workforce development with enrollment as the byproduct.

    This pipeline mindset also appears at scale in California, as described by Kristen Soares, President of the Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities. California’s Associate Degree for Transfer (ADT) program creates guaranteed, transparent pathways from community colleges into four-year institutions—no credit games, no hidden requirements, no “we’ll evaluate your transcript and get back to you.” Just clear bridges that actually work for the students who need them most.

    Notice what these examples have in common: they aren’t marketing campaigns. They are operational partnerships designed to reduce friction and create consistent flows of students.

    As Shushok observed, “I think what you’re starting to see is some incredibly creative, adaptive, and agile institutions—because it requires a level of courage and resilience and tenacity.”

    The bottom line is straightforward: if your enrollment strategy is still primarily marketing-driven, you’re playing the wrong game. Build infrastructure. Create pipelines. Solve real community problems.
    The students will follow.

    2. Is Your Mission Statement Hurting You

    Teresa Parrott, Principal TVP Communications dropped what might be the most important insight of the entire season: small colleges need to shift “from mission to impact.”

    What she means matters right now.

    Most small college websites lead with mission statements like “We develop well-rounded citizens who think critically and serve their communities.”

    It’s lovely. It’s inspiring to people who already work at the college. And it’s entirely unpersuasive to everyone else.

    Legislators don’t care about your mission. Prospective students’ parents don’t care about your mission. Community members wondering why they should support you don’t care about your mission.

    They care about what you actually do.

    Compare generic mission language to Grinnell College’s approach. When their town’s daycare center was failing, Grinnell didn’t release a statement about their commitment to the community. They took over the daycare center. When the community golf course struggled, they stepped in to sustain it.

    As Parrott put it, “They are so embedded in their community that they really are almost a second arm of the government.”

    That’s not rhetoric. That’s concrete, documentable community impact.

    Or take Gary Daynes, President of Salem College insight about resource sharing at Salem: “It makes zero cents to build a football field. Seems like you could share with the local high school.”

    Simple. Obvious. Rarely done.

    But when colleges actually do it—by sharing theaters, athletic facilities, cultural resources, and programming—they become infrastructure their communities can’t imagine losing. They become politically and economically essential.

    The shift is this: Stop leading with what you believe. Start leading with what you do.

    Not “We believe in service.” Try “We trained 45% of the nurses in this region.”

    Not “We value community.” Try “We operate the only daycare center in town.”

    Not “We develop leaders.” Try “Our graduates run 23 local businesses and employ 400 people.”

    The institutions sufficiently community-embedded to make these claims are politically protected. The ones still leading with inspirational language become vulnerable the moment budgets get tight.

    The takeaway: Your communications team shouldn’t be writing mission statements. They should be documenting measurable community impact and leading with it everywhere.

    3. Lean Into What Makes You Different

    Selingo said it most directly: “There is more differentiation in higher education than we care to admit, but the presidents haven’t leaned into that enough.”

    Translation: You’re already different. You’re just afraid to say it loudly.

    Daynes decided to reaffirm its commitment to educating girls and women. That’s not chasing the market—it’s the opposite. But Daynes explained they looked at their data and realized the women’s college identity was a strength, not a liability they needed to downplay.

    Faith-based institutions are deepening their religious identities rather than treating them as mere historical affiliations that make the college vaguely Methodist or nominally Catholic.

    Health-focused campuses are building employer pipelines instead of trying to be liberal arts generalists who happen to have a nursing program.

    The pattern is clear: institutions trying to be less distinctive are struggling. Institutions doubling down on what makes them unique are finding traction.

    But here’s the critical part Daynes emphasized: distinctiveness has to be operational, not just marketing.

    If you’re a “community-engaged college,” you need actual programs embedded in the community—shared facilities, pipeline programs, workforce partnerships—not just a tagline on your website.

    If you’re “career-focused,” you need employer partnerships with real job placement data and students who can point to specific outcomes.

    If you’re faith-based, that identity needs to shape curriculum, student life, residential programs, and institutional decisions in ways students and families can see and experience.

    When distinctiveness is only branding, students and families see through it immediately. When it’s operational, it becomes your competitive advantage.

    The takeaway: Generic positioning is a slow death. Find what makes you genuinely different, operationalize it across your institution, and communicate it relentlessly.

    4. Real Partnerships vs. Press Releases

    Shushok nailed the mindset shift small colleges need to make: “Partnerships are everything in this moment. And once you get past that you’re competing with any of these entities, you start to realize, no, these are partners.”

    K-12 schools. Community colleges. Employers. Local governments. Hospitals. These aren’t competitors or nice-to-haves anymore. They’re essential infrastructure for institutional survival.

    But Daynes offered the crucial warning: “It’s easy to sign MOUs. It’s harder to sustain them.”

    Read that again.

    Translation: Your partnership announcements don’t mean anything.

    What matters is actual student flow. What matters is shared staffing. What matters is programs that operate year after year, not photo ops at signing ceremonies where everyone shakes hands and nobody follows through.

    Ask yourself right now: Do you know how many students transferred in from your community college “partners” last year? Do you have dedicated staff managing those relationships, or is it an extra duty for someone already overwhelmed?

    If you don’t know those numbers or don’t have dedicated staff, you don’t have partnerships. You have press releases.

    The partnerships that work have dedicated staffing to manage relationships and smooth student transitions, clear metrics measuring student flow rather than signed agreements, operational integration where partner institutions actually share resources, and financial skin in the game from all parties.

    Roanoke’s “Directed Tech” program with Virginia Tech counts the senior year as both undergraduate completion and the first year of a master’s degree. That’s not a partnership; that’s structural integration that changes the economics and value proposition for students.

    California’s ecosystem, where UC, CSU, community colleges, and independent institutions work together on workforce development, isn’t an inspirational collaboration story. It’s an economic necessity backed by 2,500+ pieces of legislation every two years, as Soares noted.

    When the state is writing hundreds of bills requiring coordination, you can’t fake it with a handshake and a press release.

    The bottom line: Count your partnerships that produce actual student flow and resource sharing. If that number is zero or close to it, stop announcing new partnerships and start making the ones you have actually work.

    5. Liberal Arts is Workforce Development (Stop Being Defensive About It)

    The false choice between liberal arts and workforce preparation came up in nearly every conversation. And every single guest rejected it.

    Shushok’s framing was the clearest: “Technical skills get you the first job. Human capacity skills enable 15 career reinventions.”

    Think about that.

    In a world where AI can write code, analyze data, generate reports, and automate technical tasks, what becomes more valuable—technical skills that become obsolete in five years, or the ability to adapt, think critically, communicate clearly, work across differences, and solve novel problems?

    As Shushok put it, “We might find that the liberal arts, the humanities, the small colleges, if we allow ourselves to be shaped by this moment, are exactly what the doctor ordered for the 21st century.”

    The problem: small colleges are still communicating defensively about the liberal arts instead of offensively.

    Stop saying “The liberal arts are ALSO important for careers.”

    Start saying, “The liberal arts are the ONLY preparation for a 40-year career in an unpredictable economy.”

    Stop apologizing for not being pre-professional.

    Start explaining why pre-professional education is increasingly obsolete in an age of AI and constant technological disruption.

    And most importantly: build the bridges so students can actually see the connection.

    That means boards that understand finance, politics, and operations—not just fundraising. CFO leadership that addresses structural challenges honestly. Political engagement that mobilizes entire institutions, not just government relations staff. And communications teams that function as impact documenters, not mission statement writers.

    Kristen Soares noted that 92% of California’s clinical workforce is trained at private colleges. That’s not despite the liberal arts foundation—it’s because of it.

    Nurses need critical thinking to make life-and-death decisions in ambiguous situations.

    Mental health counselors need empathy and adaptability to serve diverse communities.

    Teachers need communication skills and the ability to think on their feet.

    The liberal arts aren’t tangential to workforce needs. They’re central. But you have to stop defending them and start operationalizing the connection in ways students, families, and employers can see.

    The takeaway: The liberal arts are perfectly suited for workforce needs. Stop defending. Start operationalizing. Build the bridges.

    So what do you actually DO with all this?

    Season 3 didn’t just surface problems—it revealed a working playbook. Here’s what leaders who are successfully navigating this moment have in common:

    • They’re building infrastructure for new student populations instead.
    • They’re documenting measurable community impact and leading with it.
    • They’re deepening what makes them genuinely distinctive.
    • They’re measuring student flow and resource sharing.
    • They’re operationalizing the connection to careers.

    Shushok’s insight about “recalibration versus balance” might be the most critical leadership lesson of the season. As he put it, “Balance is not a destination, but constant recalibration.”

    Small college leadership today isn’t about finding the right strategy and executing it for five years. It’s about continuous adjustment based on what’s actually working.

    That means:

    • Boards that understand finance, politics, and operations—not just fundraising

    • CFO leadership that addresses structural challenges honestly

    • Political engagement that mobilizes entire institutions, not just government relations staff

    • Communications teams that function as impact documenters, not mission statement writers

    As Daynes reflected, “I love small colleges. There are folks of intense gifts amongst the faculty and staff who have chosen to be the places that they are.”

    That’s the source of optimism throughout Season 3.

    Not naive hope that things will get better on their own.

    But grounded confidence in devoted people willing to do hard, creative work.

    Jeff Selingo’s blunt assessment—”Hope is not a strategy”—wasn’t meant to demoralize. It was meant to liberate.

    Small colleges that thrive in the next decade will  be the ones that:

    • Build operational infrastructure for new student populations

    • Document and communicate measurable community impact

    • Operationalize distinctiveness throughout the institution

    • Create partnerships that produce actual student flow

    • Connect liberal arts to career outcomes without defensiveness

    • Recalibrate constantly based on what’s working

    The leaders in Season 3 aren’t waiting for permission or hoping for a miracle. They’re building lab schools. They’re taking over daycare centers. They’re sharing facilities with high schools. They’re creating guaranteed pathways to graduate programs. They’re documenting their impact and leading with it.

    They’re doing the work.

    And they’re proving that hope—real, grounded hope based on action rather than wishful thinking—comes from building things that work.

    Looking Forward: Three Conversations to Start This Week

    If you’re a president, provost, trustee, or senior leader, here are three conversations you can start right now if you haven’t already done so :

    1. With your enrollment team: Ask them to map every actual pipeline you have for new students—not marketing campaigns, but structural pathways that produce consistent student flow. If the list is short or non-existent, that’s your answer. Start building infrastructure, not marketing plans.

    2. With your communications team: Ask them to document your measurable community impact in the last 12 months. Not what you believe or aspire to do—what you actually did. How many jobs did you create? How many nurses did you train? What facilities do you share? What problems did you solve? If the answer is vague or mission-statement-heavy, you have work to do.

    3. With your board: Present them with a simple question: “If we could only communicate three things about our institution to prospective students, legislators, and community members, what would they be?” If the answers are about mission and values rather than concrete impact and distinctive programs, you need to shift the conversation.

    These aren’t theoretical exercises. They’re diagnostic tools that reveal whether your institution is still operating from the old playbook or building the new one.

    Selingo was right: hope is not a strategy. But action, infrastructure, partnerships, impact, and constant recalibration is a playbook that works.

    —

    Season 3 of Small College America featured conversations with 13 leaders in the field of higher education. Thanks to everyone who participated, and especially my co-host Kent Barnds and my Producer and lovely wife Nancy Hoke.

    • Raj Bellani, Chief of Staff, Denison College
    • Gary Daynes, President, Salem College
    • Josh Hibbard, Vice President of Enrollment Management, Whitworth University
    • Dean McCurdy, President, Colby Sawyer College
    • Jon Nichols, Faculty member and author
    • Teresa Parrott, Principal TVP Communications
    • Karen Petersen, President, Hendrix College
    • Michael Scarlett, Professor of Education, Augustana College
    • Jeff Selingo, Best Selling Author and higher education advisor
    • Frank Shushok, President, Roanoke College
    • Kristen Soares, President, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities
    • Gregor Thuswaldner, Provost, La Roche University
    • Jeremiah Williams, Professor of Physics, Wittenberg University

    The conversations continue.

    Small College America returns in February with a new season featuring candid discussions with presidents, faculty, and leaders navigating the most consequential moment in higher education.

    Hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds, the series explores the evolving role of small colleges, their impact on communities, and the strategies leaders are using to adapt and endure.

    Listen or watch past episodes on Apple, Spotify, YouTube, and many others, or preview what’s coming next, and follow the series at www.smallcollegeamerica.net.

    Source link

  • How Can Small Colleges Survive in an Era of Consolidation? – Edu Alliance Journal

    How Can Small Colleges Survive in an Era of Consolidation? – Edu Alliance Journal

    January 5, 2026 – Editor’s Note: Last week we published a synthesis of insights from Small College America’s 2025 webinar series, featuring voices from seven leaders navigating change, partnerships, and strategic decisions. Here, two expert panelists from the December webinar on mergers and partnerships provide a deeper analytical examination of the economic forces and partnership models reshaping small colleges.

    By Dr. Chet Haskell and Dr. Barry Ryan. During a recent national webinar titled Navigating Higher Education’s Existential Challenges: From Partnerships and Mergers to Reinvention, in which we served as panelists, we were struck by both the familiarity and the seriousness of the questions raised by senior higher education leaders—particularly those concerning the growing consideration of mergers and partnerships. Most were no longer asking whether change is coming, but which options remain realistically available.

    This article builds on conversations from that webinar and complements the recent synthesis of insights shared by our fellow panelists and the college presidents who participated in Small College America’s fall webinar series. Here we examine more systematically the economic forces and partnership models small colleges must now navigate. This article represents our attempt to step back from that conversation and examine more deliberately the forces now reshaping higher education.

    Anyone involved with higher education is both aware and concerned about the struggles of small, independent colleges and the challenges to their viability. Defined as having 3000 or fewer students, more than 90% of these institutions lack substantial endowments and other financial assets and thus are at risk.

    For many of these institutions, the risk is truly existential. Many simply are too small, too under-financed, too strapped to have any reasonable path to continuity. The result is the almost weekly announcement of a closure with all the pain and loss that accompanies such events.

    Why is all this happening? Most of the problems are well known and openly discussed. Since almost all of these institutions are tuition revenue dependent, the biggest threat is declining enrollments. Demographic changes leading to fewer high school graduates are central, a situation exacerbated in many cases by Federal policy changes that discourage international students. But there are many others: excessive tuition discounting leading to reduced net tuition revenue, rising operating costs for everything from facilities to insurance to employee salaries, changes in state and Federal policies, especially student aid policies and restrictions on international students are just some examples.

    The reality is that higher education is in a period of consolidation. After decades of growth beginning after the Second World War, the basic economic drivers of the private, non-profit residential undergraduate institutions are slowing down or even reversing. There simply are not enough traditional students to make all institutions viable. The basic financial model no longer works. If it did work, one could expect to see new institutions springing up. This has not happened except in the for-profit sphere, a totally different model known mostly for its excesses and failures. While there is a place for the for-profit approach, it is not in the small liberal arts college world. This is true for the same reason that the small institutions are under stress: the economics do not work.

    One crucial challenge is simple scale or, rather, lack thereof. Small institutions have fewer opportunities for achieving economies of scale. Unlike larger public institutions (that have different challenges of their own) these colleges cannot have large classes as a significant characteristic of their modes of delivery. Their basic model assumes a relatively comprehensive curriculum provided through small classes, giving a wide variety of choices and pathways to a degree for undergraduates. But the broader the curriculum, the fewer students per program, almost always without commensurate faculty reductions. The economic inefficiency of the current model is clear.

    And there are certain base personnel costs beyond the faculty. Every institution needs a range of administrative personnel (often required by accreditors) regardless of size. Attracting experienced personnel to such institutions is neither easy nor inexpensive.

    The undergraduate residential model is both a key element in the American higher education ecosystem and a beloved concept for those fortunate enough to have experienced it. These schools are often cornerstones of small communities. They have produced an inordinate number of future professors and scholars. For example, a 2022 NCSES study provided evidence of doctoral degree attainment being at higher ratios for graduates of baccalaureate arts and science institutions than for baccalaureate graduates of R1 research universities.* The basic matter of scale is central to the liberal arts institutions’ attractiveness for students who may go on to doctoral study: small classes with high levels of faculty interaction; a focus on teaching instead of research; the sense of intimacy and a clear mission.

    With proper planning and courage, some of these colleges may yet find ways to survive through some form of merger with – or acquisition by – a larger and stronger institution. Further, with sufficient foresight, many other seemingly more solid colleges may find ways to assure survival through other forms of partnerships.

    However, the fact is that only the wealthiest 10% of institutions are not at immediate risk, even though prudence would suggest even they should be considering possible changes in their paths.

    What can be done?

    There have been multiple efforts to reimagine higher education. Some have been based on technology and have led to the growth of various distance or remote models, some quite successful, other less so. MOOCs were going to take over education generally, but have faded. For-profit models have all too often led to abuses, especially of poorer students. Artificial intelligence is at the forefront of current change concepts, but it is too early to assess outcomes. But small residential colleges have resisted such innovations, in part because they are clear about their education model and in part because they often lack the expertise or the resources to take advantage of change.

    Some institutions have sought to mitigate the impacts of their scale limitations through consortia arrangements with other institutions. While significant savings may be achieved through the sharing of administrative costs, such as information technology systems or certain other “back office” functions, these savings are unlikely to be more than marginal in impact.

    Other impacts for a consortium may come from cost sharing on the academic side. Small academic departments (foreign languages, for example) may permit modest faculty reductions while providing a wider range of choices for students. Athletic facilities and even teams may be shared, as well as some academic services such as international offices or career services operations. In the case of two of the most successful consortia, the Claremont Colleges and the Atlanta University Center, the schools share a central library. Access to electronic databases certainly creates an easier and less expensive pathway to increased economically efficient use of critical resources.

    While the savings in expenses may be considered marginal, the true potential in such arrangements is the chance to grow collective student enrollments by offering more options and amenities than would be possible for a single institution.

    However, there are other challenges to the consortium model. A primary one relates to location. Institutions near each other likely can find more ways to take advantage of the contiguity than those widely separated. Examples might be the Five Colleges in Western Massachusetts, the previously noted Claremont Colleges or the Atlanta University Center that links four HBCU institutions in the same city. New examples of cooperation include the recently announce CaliBaja Higher Education Consortium, a joint effort of both private and public institutions reaching across the border in the San Diego/Baja California region.

    A different kind of sharing arrangement is represented by initiatives to share academic programs though arrangements where one institution provides courses and programs to others through licensing agreements and the like. An example would be Rize Education, an initiative that seeks to enable undergraduate institutions to expand and enhance academic offerings through courses designed elsewhere that can be readily integrated into existing curricula, thus avoiding the costs of time and money needed to build new programs.

    At the other end of the spectrum are straightforward mergers and acquisitions. One institution takes over another. Sometimes this is accomplished in ways that preserve at least parts of the acquired school, even if only for political reasons related to alumni, but the reality is that one institution swallows another.

    Another version is a true merger of rough equals. There are numerous examples, one of the best known being Case Western Reserve University in Ohio. In this situation, two separate institutions decided they could both be better together and, over time, they have built an integrated university of quality. A recent example may be the announced merger of Willamette University and Pacific University in Oregon. Such arrangements are quite complex, but may provide a model for certain institutions.

    A third model might be the new Coalition for the Common Good. Initially a partnership of two independent universities, Antioch and Otterbein Universities, the Coalition is built on three principles: symbiosis, multilateralism and mission. The symbiosis involves Antioch taking on and expanding Otterbein’s graduate programs for the shared benefit of both institutions. Multilateralism refers to the Coalition basic concept of being more than two institutions as the goal: a collection of similar institutions. Mission is central to the Coalition. The initial partners share long histories of institutional culture and mission, as reflected in the name of the Coalition itself.

    Other partnership models are possible and should be encouraged. While it is rare to see a partnership of true equals, as one partner is usually dominant, this middle ground between a complete merger or acquisition and consortia should be fertile ground for innovation for forward thinking institutions not in dire straits. Since there is no single approach to such structures, the benefits to participating partners should be at the core of the approach. These partnerships may be able to address the challenge of scale and provide opportunities for shared costs. Properly presented, they should be attractive to potential students and provide a competitive edge in a highly competitive environment.

    The importance of mission and culture

    While the root cause of most college declines and failures is economic in nature, it is all too easy to forget the role of an institution’s mission and culture. Many colleges look alike in terms of academic offerings, yet institutions usually have a carefully defined and defended mission or purpose. These missions are important because they help define the college as more than just a collection of courses. Education can serve many different missions and thus mission clarity is crucial to institutional identify. And identity is one way for institutions to differentiate themselves from competition, while also helping to attract students.

    Mission is also tied to institutional culture. Colleges have different subjective cultures that serve to attract certain students, as well as faculty and staff members. Spending four years of one’s life ought not to be spent in an impersonal organizational setting. There are multiple individual personal reasons for attending one institution instead of another. Most of these reasons are not entirely objective, but instead depend on an individual’s sense of ‘fit’ in the college setting.

    What should institutions be doing?

    The stark reality is that for many smaller institutions the alternative to some sort of partnership is likely to be closure. But closure is not to be taken lightly. The impact of these institutions is far-reaching and the human, educational and community costs are very real.

    All institutions, regardless of financial assets, should be openly discussing their futures in a changing world. As noted, a few may be able to simply proceed with what they have been doing for years. But this luxury (or blindness) is not a viable or attractive option for most.

    Every institution should be looking into the future at its basic model. Is there a realistic path to assuring enrollment and revenue growth in excess of expenses over time? Is there a budget model that provides regular surpluses that can provide a cushion against unanticipated challenges or can enable investment in new initiatives? Are there alternative paths to revenues that can augment tuition, such as fundraising, auxiliary enterprises or the like? And in looking at such questions, an institution should be asking how it can be better off over time with a partner or partners.

    Even institutions that examine such matters and conclude it would be advantageous to engage a partner are faced with daunting challenges. First is determining what is desired in a partner and then identifying one. Some colleges feel bound by geography, so can only think about like institutions nearby. Others are more creative, looking to use technology to enable a more widely dispersed partnership.

    Once a partner is identified, the path to an agreement is arduous, complex, lengthy and costly. Accreditors, the Department of Education, state boards of higher education, alumni, and all manner of other interested parties must be addressed. This requires external legal and financial expertise. This process is excessively demanding of an institution’s leaders, especially presidents, provosts and chief financial officers. Boards must be deeply involved and internal constituencies of faculty and staff must be brought along.

    And once a final agreement is reached, signed and approved, the work has only begun. The implementation of any partnership is also arduous, complex, lengthy and costly. Furthermore, implementation involves deep human factors, as institutional cultures must be aligned and new personal professional partnerships must be developed.

    The fact is that many institutions will either enter into some form of partnerships in the coming years, as the alternative will be closure. Unfortunately, the clock is ticking, and unnecessary delays create limitations on available options and increase risks. Every institution’s path into partnerships will vary, as will the particulars of each arrangement. It is incumbent upon boards of trustees and institutional leaders to face such facts realistically and to devise practical plans to move forward. Not doing so would be a dereliction of duty.

    Dr. Chet Haskell is an experienced higher education consultant focusing on existential challenges to smaller nonprofit institutions. and opportunities for collaboration. Dr. Haskell is a former two-time president and, most recently, a provost directly involved in three significant merger acquisitions or partnership agreements. including the coalition. for the common good, the partnership of Antioch and Otterbein University.

    Barry Ryan is an experienced leader and attorney. has served as a president and provost for multiple universities. He helped guide several institutions through mergers, acquisitions, and accreditation. Most recently, he led Woodbury University through its merger. with the University of Redlands. He also serves on university boards and is a commissioner for WASC.

    Haskell and Ryan are the Co-Directors of the Center for College Partnerships and Alliances, launched by Edu Alliance Group in late 2025. It is dedicated to helping higher education institutions explore and implement college partnerships, mergers, and strategic alliances designed to strengthen sustainability and mission alignment.

    Source link

  • Bill Would Require More Small Businesses to Give Paid Family Leave – The 74

    Bill Would Require More Small Businesses to Give Paid Family Leave – The 74


    Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

    A state Senate panel advanced a bill Monday that would expand New Jersey’s family leave law to businesses with at least 15 workers, a change from the current threshold of 30 employees.

    The bill has seen some changes since it passed the Assembly in February. It had initially lowered the worker threshold to five, to widespread criticism from the business community. Business groups remain opposed, saying that encompassing businesses with fewer than 30 employees would deter hiring and potentially force small businesses to close their doors.

    “New Jersey small businesses are already shouldering some of the highest operating costs in the country, including labor, insurance, property taxes, and compliance obligations,” said Amirah Hussain of the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce. “Imposing these mandates introduces a new layer of risk and unpredictability.”

    Yarrow Willman-Cole, with consumer advocacy group New Jersey Citizen Action, testified in favor of the bill, saying 1.7 million workers are not covered by the state’s current family leave law.

    “We passed paid family leave 17 years ago. It took us 10 years to improve it. It should not take another decade to get this right,” Willman-Cole said. “Our laws should reflect our society’s growing caregiving needs. New Jersey is, in fact, not keeping up.”

    The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Republicans and Sen. Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen), the panel’s chair, voted against advancing the bill.

    New Jersey law requires that businesses provide eligible workers with up to 12 weeks of paid leave to bond with a new child or to care for a loved one. Workers pay into the fund that pays out benefits, and the benefits are based on a worker’s earnings. Workers’ jobs are protected until their leave ends.

    The committee amended the bill Monday to include employees who have worked for a company for six months — current law says 12 months — and for 500 hours, down from 1,000 hours. The bill would take two years to phase in.

    Elizabeth Zuckerman of the state chapter of the National Employment Lawyers Association said that whatever “small burden” the bill puts on an employer is justified to keep parents from choosing between bonding with their children or keeping their job.

    “We are a pro-family country. We should support our families by allowing employers or encouraging employers to give employees time off when they need to care for a child or a family member,” Zuckerman said.

    Businesses remain concerned that the bill would put an “unsustainable burden” on small employers, said Frank Jones with Big I New Jersey, which advises independent and locally owned insurance agencies.

    Jones said he supports the goal of the bill to give more workers access to family leave, but when businesses with 15 employees lose one person, it’s difficult for the remaining workers to juggle the work. He also said it would drive up liability insurance costs. He stressed that paid benefits and job-protected reinstatement should be separate issues.

    “The mandatory reinstatement requirement, regardless of business conditions, removes the flexibility small business employers need to survive,” Jones said. “Agencies may be forced to permanently restructure or hire to maintain client service, only to face liability for not reinstating later, even if decisions were made in good faith.”

    New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • One Small Idea Can Have A Big Impact #EdChat

    One Small Idea Can Have A Big Impact #EdChat

    I’ve been very lucky to have been part of many different EdTech Communities over the years. From my time spent with amazing educators at Adobe, Google, Raspberry Pi, Sphero, TED-Ed, and my first EdTech Community, Evernote, I’ve loved how you get what you put into a community. It can be what you need it to be when you want it to be. I’ve taken all of these experiences I use them to help me craft the community experience for educators in the SchoolAI Community. 

    One of the things I have loved from the different communities was the effort to give the community members a platform to share their story. There is so much we can all learn from each other, but educators are not always given the chance to share or they do not have the ability to attend a conference and share their story. Sometimes the keynote circuit is the same few names and it can be tough to break into those conversations. That’s why I have started the SchoolAI Lightning Talks. 

    Open to any educator who has an idea worth sharing, I want to give as many educators as possible a chance to share something that matters to them. You can find all of the details here and the submission page here. Do not let “I’m sure everyone already knows this.” or “It probably doesn’t make that big of a difference.” stop you from sharing. Do not let the imposter syndrome take over and prevent you from sharing your idea. If you have any questions, feel free to send me an email at [email protected] or find me on my socials. @TheNerdyTeacher

    Hugs and High Fives to everyone!

    NP

    Source link

  • How a small Oregon district turns data into action

    How a small Oregon district turns data into action

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

    Lessons In Leadership is an ongoing series in which K-12 principals and superintendents share their best practices as well as challenges overcome. For more installments, click here.

    Umatilla School District — a 1,500-student school system in eastern Oregon with a 72% Latino student population, 54% English learners and a 45% student poverty rate —  is setting the standard for effective, streamlined data management.

    As an educator in the district since 2000 and superintendent since 2007, Superintendent Heidi Sipe has seen Umatilla’s data systems evolve from pivot tables and spreadsheets to a mix of digital platforms tracking myriad data points for each student.

    This is a headshot of Heidi Sipe, superintendent of Umatilla School District in Umatilla, Ore.

    Heidi Sipe

    Permission granted by Heidi Sipe

     

    Part of the key, she says, is ensuring that there’s a common platform that consolidates student data points from other tools being used. This allows educators to look for trends and actionable data so they can identify students who may be at risk or need intervention plans, Sipe said.

    “We can check the efficacy of those supports and see if we need to make an adjustment or if we need to keep that going for that student to ensure their success,” Sipe told K-12 Dive.

    We recently caught up with Sipe to learn more about how the district uses that data to organize interventions, manages data anxiety, and helps parents understand the numbers.

    Editor’s Note: The following interview has been edited for brevity and clarity.

    K-12 DIVE: For many people, the idea of using data and processing data can be kind of daunting. When you’re introducing any sort of data tool to educators or school leaders or even parents, how do you get them comfortable with the idea of working with that data if they have any sort of anxiety about it or are overwhelmed?

    HEDI SIPE: I think part of the overwhelm is it’s kind of “Data, data everywhere, and not a drop to use.”

    The data points we’re using every month in our data team meetings are attendance — we track historical and last 30 days — and we also track disciplinary incidents, whether it be referrals or in-school suspension, out-of-school suspension, detentions.

    We also track grades in students’ core classes, as well as overall GPA and course pass rate. And then we track our MAP data in English reading, Spanish reading, mathematics, and English language usage. We track DIBELS at the elementary level — K-3 — for progress monitoring of students in their literacy development. We use a dyslexia screener through DIBELS, and then we also have some of our intervention programs that again are supplying more data.

    So when we have all of those various pieces at play, it can be really hard for a teacher to go platform to platform to platform to check the status of a student. But when all of that’s consolidated into one place, it goes from a situation of overwhelm to a quick snapshot based off of all those various pieces, which helps us make better-informed decisions for students.

    Let’s say you’re the classroom educator or the school principal, and you see in your data tools that a student is chronically absent or disengaged or their test scores are slipping, what are the first steps that you then take to put that data into action and figure out how to help that student?

    SIPE: We have a color-coded intervention list. So, anything that’s green, a teacher team can assign a student without any admin approval. If they’ve tried at least a few green interventions and they have monitored those for at least a couple of months, then they can move up and assign an orange level intervention, again without any admin approval.

    If that’s not working, they can assign a red intervention, and that would require admin approval. And then we also have various interventions where the admin can add it, and those are gray in our category. That’s things like an attendance letter to parents, a home visit an admin has done, etc., so the staff knows, “OK, here’s what the admin’s already doing for the student.”

    There may be nursing services and things like that which are happening, and they can also refer students for those types of things. If they notice a student is, perhaps, chronically absent, but it’s a student who keeps having ear infections or earaches, we have a partnership with a local doctor. If the parents are participating in that partnership, we can actually run the student to the doctor during school hours, with the parents’ permission, and make sure the kids are getting to those appointments and that we’re able to work with parents as partners in supporting that student and getting the medical attention they need so they can stay in school.

    Those types of partnerships happen because we can see that data. Those types of partnerships happen because families and teachers know these are the interventions available, and they can either request them from us or we can assign them. That’s really a helpful tool.

    It’s also really empowering to staff to be able to make those decisions. They’re working with the kids every day. They know what’s up.

    When staff — whether it’s school and district leaders or the classroom educators — are working with parents to help them make sense of their children’s data, what are some of the most effective ways they can help them do that?

    SIPE: So, my children are grown now. However, when they were younger, whatever they were experiencing seemed normal to me at the time, and wherever they were at seemed normal to me, because I wasn’t in any way comparing them to another child.

    But it’s another thing to realize, “Oh, goodness. My child’s really behind in this,” because they can see that comparative data.

    That helped me get more onboard when one of my children needed some interventions. And then it was very helpful for me to see those interventions work and see that child really take off as a really strong reader after those interventions. The teachers were able to show me, “Hang on, this is different than peers,” and then, “Here’s what we’re going to do about it.”

    That really helped me build trust in the teachers who were supporting my child.

    Source link

  • Why Small Private Colleges Matter More Than Ever – Edu Alliance Journal

    Why Small Private Colleges Matter More Than Ever – Edu Alliance Journal

    Opinion Piece by Dean Hoke — Small College America and Senior Fellow, The Sagamore Institute

    A Personal Concern About the Future of Public Education

    It’s impossible to ignore the rising level of criticism directed at our nation’s public schools. On cable news, social media channels, political stages, and in school board meetings, teachers and administrators have become easy targets. Public schools are accused of being ineffective, mismanaged, outdated, or, in some corners, ideologically dangerous. Some commentators openly champion the idea of a fully privatized K–12 system, sidelining the public institutions that have educated the vast majority of Americans for generations.

    For those of us who have spent our lives in and around education, this rhetoric feels deeply personal. Public schools aren’t an abstraction. They are the places where many of us began our education, where our children discovered their strengths, where immigrants found belonging, where students with disabilities received support, and where caring adults changed the trajectory of young lives.

    Behind every one of those moments stood a teacher.

    Amid this turbulence, there is one group of institutions still quietly doing the hard work of preparing teachers: small private nonprofit colleges.

    Small Private Colleges: An Overlooked Cornerstone of Teacher Preparation

    Despite the noise surrounding public education, small private colleges remain committed to the one resource every school depends on: well-prepared, community-rooted teachers.

    They rarely make national headlines. They don’t enroll tens of thousands of students. But they are woven into the civic and human infrastructure of their regions—especially in the Midwest, South, and rural America.

    This reality became even clearer during a recent episode of Small College America, in which I interviewed Dr. Michael Scarlett, Professor of Education at Augustana College. His insights provide an insider’s view into the challenges—and the opportunities—facing teacher preparation today. Note to hear the entire interview click here https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/28

    I. The Teacher Shortage: A Structural Crisis

    Much has been written about the teacher shortage, but too often the conversation focuses on symptoms rather than causes. Here are the forces shaping the crisis.

    1. Young people are turning away from teaching

    Data from the ACT show that only 4% of students express interest in becoming teachers—down from 11% in the late 1990s. Bachelor’s degrees in education have fallen nearly 50% since the 1970s. Surveys show that fewer than 1 in 5 adults would recommend teaching as a career.

    The message is clear: Teaching is meaningful, but many no longer see it as sustainable.

    As Dr. Scarlett told us: “The pipeline simply is not as wide as it needs to be.”

    Recent data offers a glimmer of hope: teacher preparation enrollment grew 12% nationally between 2018 and 2022. However, this modest rebound is almost entirely driven by alternative certification programs, which increased enrollment by 20%, while traditional college-based programs grew by only 4%. This disparity underscores a critical concern: the very programs that provide comprehensive, relationship-based preparation—including those at small colleges—are not recovering at the same rate as faster, less intensive alternatives.

    2. Burnout and attrition have overtaken new entrants

    The pandemic accelerated an already-existing national trend: teachers are leaving faster than new ones are entering.

    Reasons include:

    • Student behavior challenges
    • Standardized testing pressure
    • Emotional fatigue
    • Inequities across districts
    • Lack of respect
    • Political and social media hostility

    As Scarlett notes, these realities weigh heavily on early-career teachers: “What new teachers face today goes far beyond content knowledge. They face inequities, discipline issues, emotional exhaustion… and they’re expected to do it all.”

    3. Alternative certification can’t fill the gap

    Alternative routes help—but they cannot replace the traditional college-based pipeline. Many alt-cert teachers receive less pedagogical training and leave sooner.

    Scarlett captures the trend: “Teaching has always attracted people later in life… we’ve definitely seen an uptick.”

    And while alternative routes have seen growth in recent years—increasing 20% between 2018 and 2021—this expansion has not translated into solving the shortage. As of 2025, approximately 1 in 8 teaching positions nationwide remains either unfilled or filled by teachers not fully certified for their assignments. The shortcut approach cannot substitute for comprehensive preparation.

    “The national teacher shortage is real… and retention is just as big a challenge as recruitment.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

    II. The Quiet Backbone: How Small Private Colleges Sustain the Teacher Workforce

    Small private colleges graduate fewer teachers than large public institutions, but their impact is disproportionately large—especially in rural and suburban America.

    1. They prepare the teachers who stay

    About 786 private nonprofit colleges offer undergraduate education degrees—representing roughly 20% of all teacher preparation institutions in the United States. Together, they produce approximately 25,119 graduates per year, an average of 32 per institution.

    These numbers may seem modest, but these graduates disproportionately:

    • Student-teach locally
    • Earn licensure in their home state
    • Take jobs within 30 miles of campus
    • Stay in the profession longer

    Public schools desperately need these ‘homegrown’ teachers who understand the communities they serve.

    2. Small colleges excel at the one thing teaching requires most: mentoring

    Teacher preparation is not transactional. It is relational. And this is where private colleges excel. Scarlett put it plainly: “Close relationships with our students, small classes, a lot of direct supervision… we nurture them throughout the program.” In a profession that relies heavily on modeling and mentorship, this matters enormously.

    3. Faculty—not adjuncts—supervise student teachers

    One of the most striking differences: “Full professors… working with the students in the classrooms and out in field experiences. Other institutions outsource that.”

    This is not a trivial distinction. Faculty supervision affects:

    • Preparedness
    • Confidence
    • Classroom management
    • Retention

    Where larger institutions rely on external supervisors, small colleges invest the time and human capital to do it right.

    4. They serve the regions hit hardest by shortages

    Rural districts have the highest percentage of unfilled teaching positions. Many rural counties rely almost exclusively on a nearby private college to produce elementary teachers, special education teachers, and early childhood educators.

    When a small college stops offering education degrees, it often leaves entire counties without a sustainable teacher pipeline.

    5. They diversify the educator workforce

    Small colleges—especially faith-based, minority-serving, or mission-driven institutions—often enroll first-generation students, students of color, adult career-changers, and bilingual students. These educators disproportionately fill shortage fields.

    “What we have here is special… students understand the value of a small college experience.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

    III. Should Small Colleges Keep Offering Education Degrees? The Economic Question

    Let’s be direct: Teacher preparation is not a high-margin program.

    Costs include:

    • Intensive field supervision
    • CAEP or state accreditation
    • High-touch advising
    • Small cohort sizes

    Education majors also often have lower net tuition revenue compared to business or STEM.

    So why should a small college continue offering a program that is expensive and not highly profitable?

    Because the alternative is far worse—for the institution and for the region it serves.

    1. Cutting teacher-prep weakens a college’s identity and mission

    Many private colleges were founded to prepare teachers. Teacher education is often central to institutional mission, community trust, donor expectations, and alumni identity.

    Removing education programs sends the message that the college is stepping away from public service.

    2. Teacher-prep strengthens community partnerships

    Education programs open doors to:

    • District partnerships
    • Dual-credit pipelines
    • Grow Your Own initiatives
    • Nonprofit and state grants
    • Alumni involvement

    These relationships benefit the entire institution, not just the education department.

    3. Education majors support other academic areas

    Teacher-prep indirectly strengthens:

    • Psychology
    • English
    • Sciences
    • Social sciences
    • Music and arts

    When teacher education disappears, these majors often shrink too.

    4. The societal mission outweighs the limited revenue

    There are moments when institutional decisions must be driven by mission, not margins. Producing teachers is one of them.

    5. Addressing concerns about program quality and scale

    Some critics question whether small programs can match the resources and diversity of perspectives available at large universities. This is a fair concern—and the answer is that small colleges offer something different, not lesser.

    Graduation and licensure pass rates at small private colleges consistently match or exceed those of larger institutions. What smaller programs may lack in scale, they compensate for through personalized mentorship, faculty continuity, and deep community integration. These are not peripheral benefits—they are the very qualities that predict long-term teacher retention.

    IV. Why Students Still Choose Teaching—and Why Small Colleges Are Ideal for Them

    Despite all the challenges, students who pursue teaching are deeply motivated by purpose.

    Scarlett described his own journey: “I wanted to do something important… something that gives back to society.”

    Many education majors choose the field because:

    • A teacher changed their life
    • They want meaningful work
    • They value community and service
    • They thrive in supportive, intimate learning environments

    This makes small colleges the natural home for future teachers.

    V. What Small Colleges Can Do to Strengthen Their Programs

    Below are the strategies that are working across the country.

    1. Build Grow Your Own (GYO) teacher pipelines

    Districts increasingly partner to:

    • Co-fund tuition
    • Support paraeducator-to-teacher pathways
    • Provide paid residencies
    • Guarantee interviews for graduates

    2. Develop dual-credit and “teacher cadet” high school programs

    Scarlett sees this as a major reason for hope: “We’re seeing renewed interest in teaching through high school programs… This gives me hope.”

    3. Offer specialized certifications (ESL, special ed, early childhood, STEM)

    These areas attract students and meet district needs.

    4. Create 4+1 BA/M.Ed pathways

    Parents and students love the value.

    5. Provide flexible programs for career-changers

    The rise of adult learners presents a major opportunity for private colleges. “We prepare our students for the world that exists.” — Dr. Michael Scarlett

    VI. Why Small Colleges Must Stay in the Teacher-Prep Business

    If small private colleges withdraw from teacher preparation, the consequences will be immediate and dramatic:

    • Rural and suburban schools will lose their primary source of new teachers.
    • Teacher diversity will shrink.
    • More underprepared teachers will enter classrooms.
    • Districts will become more dependent on high-turnover alternative routes.
    • Student learning will suffer.

    And the profession will lose something even more important: the human-centered preparation that small colleges provide so well.

    • The teacher shortage will not be solved by legislation alone.
    • It will not be solved by fast-track certification mills.
    • It will not be solved by online mega-universities.
    • It will not be solved by market forces.
    • It will be solved in the classrooms, hallways, and mentoring relationships of the small colleges that still believe in the promise of teaching.

    If we want public schools to remain strong, we must support the institutions that prepare the teachers who keep them alive. Small private colleges aren’t just participants in the teacher pipeline—they are its foundation.

    When these colleges thrive, they produce educators who stay, who care, and who transform communities. That’s not just good for education—it’s essential for American democracy.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy firm. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean has worked with higher education institutions worldwide. With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America and a Senior Fellow at the Sagamore Institute based in Indianapolis, Indiana.

    Source link

  • Consultant spend ‘relatively small,’ inquiry hears – Campus Review

    Consultant spend ‘relatively small,’ inquiry hears – Campus Review

    The head of consultant firm Nous Group told a federal inquiry into university governance that most institutions have hired his firm, spending just under $40 million total.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • The Economic and Social Impact of Small Colleges in Rural Communities – Edu Alliance Journal

    The Economic and Social Impact of Small Colleges in Rural Communities – Edu Alliance Journal

    By Dean Hoke, October 13, 2025 – In the small towns of America, where factories have closed and downtowns often stand half-empty, a small college can be the heartbeat that keeps a community alive. These institutions—sometimes enrolling only a few hundred students—serve as economic anchors, cultural centers, and symbols of hope for regions that might otherwise face decline.

    From the farmlands of Indiana to the mountain towns of Appalachia, small colleges generate economic energy far beyond their campus gates. They attract students, faculty, and visitors, stimulate local business, and provide the trained workforce that rural economies desperately need. They also embody something deeper: a sense of identity and connection that sustains civic life.

    Economic Impact: Anchors in Fragile Economies

    Small colleges are powerful, if often overlooked, economic engines. Their presence is felt in every paycheck, every restaurant filled with students and parents, and every local business that relies on their purchasing power.

    Across the United States, nearly half of all public four-year colleges, over half of all public two-year colleges, and a third of private four-year colleges make up the 1,100 rural-serving institutions as identified by the Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC). These colleges educate 1.6 million students, accounting for more than a quarter of total U.S. enrollments. Yet their role extends far beyond classrooms and degrees.

    Rural-serving institutions are frequently among the largest employers in their counties, especially where other industries have faded. In areas where 35% or more of working-age adults are unemployed, 83% of local colleges are rural-serving, making them pillars of economic stability. Unlike large universities in metropolitan areas, their spending is highly localized—on utilities, food service, maintenance, and partnerships with small vendors.

    Economic models underscore their importance. The Brookings Institution found that high-performing four-year colleges contribute roughly $265,000 more per student to local economies than lower-performing institutions, while two-year colleges add about $184,000. In many rural towns, every institutional dollar recirculates multiple times, magnifying its effect.

    Beyond direct payroll and procurement, small colleges attract outside dollars. Students and visitors rent housing, dine locally, and shop downtown. Athletic events, alumni weekends, and summer programs bring tourists who fill hotels and restaurants. The IMPLAN consulting group estimated that when a college closes, the average regional loss equals 265 jobs, $14 million in labor income, and $32 million in total economic output—a devastating hit in thin rural economies.

    Human Capital and Workforce Development

    If small colleges are the economic engines of rural communities, they are also the primary producers of human capital. They educate the teachers, nurses, business owners, and civic leaders who sustain local life.

    The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond describes community colleges as “anchor institutions” that shape regional labor markets. Many partner with local employers to design training programs that meet specific workforce needs—often at minimal cost to businesses. In one case study, a rural college collaborated with an advanced manufacturing firm to tailor instruction for machine technicians, ensuring a steady local labor supply and convincing the company to expand rather than relocate.

    Rural-serving colleges are also critical in addressing educational disparities. Only 22% of rural adults hold a bachelor’s degree, compared with 37% of non-rural Americans. This gap translates directly into income inequality: according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service, nonmetro workers with a bachelor’s degree earned a median of $52,837 in 2023, compared with substantially higher earnings for their urban counterparts. In states such as Indiana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, rural degree attainment lags 10 to 15 percentage points behind state averages.

    Beyond Economics: RSIs as Equity Infrastructure

    Rural-serving institutions are more than economic engines—they are critical equity infrastructure, often providing the only realistic pathway to higher education for students the system has historically marginalized.

    RSIs enroll far higher proportions of high-need students than their urban counterparts. Nearly 50% of undergraduates at RSIs receive Pell Grants, compared to 34% nationally. These institutions also serve disproportionate numbers of first-generation students, working adults, and students from underrepresented communities who lack access to flagship universities.

    For many rural students, the local college isn’t a choice—it’s the only option. Geographic isolation, family obligations, and financial constraints make residential college attendance impossible. Research shows that every ten miles from the nearest college reduces enrollment probability by several percentage points. For students without transportation, without broadband for online learning, or without family support to relocate, the local institution is existential.

    When rural colleges close, equity suffers most. Displaced students, if they re-enroll at all, face higher debt burdens and lower completion rates. Wealthier students can transfer to distant institutions; low-income students stop out. Communities of color, already underserved, lose ground.

    Policymakers often evaluate colleges through narrow metrics: completion rates and graduate earnings. But this ignores mission differentiation. RSIs serve students that flagship universities would never admit, in places that for-profit colleges would never enter, at prices that private colleges could never match. Investing in rural-serving institutions isn’t charity—it’s infrastructure investment in equity, ensuring every region has pathways to economic mobility. If America is serious about educational equity, it must recognize RSIs as essential public infrastructure, not discretionary spending.

    Despite these barriers, rural institutions remain lifelines for upward mobility. They offer affordable tuition, flexible programs for working adults, and pathways for first-generation students who might otherwise forgo higher education.

    However, the pressures are real. Rural students face tighter finances, higher borrowing costs, and fewer grant opportunities. Nearly half of rural undergraduates receive Pell Grants, but average aid remains lower than that at urban institutions. Many graduates leave rural areas to find higher-paying jobs, a “brain drain” that weakens local economies. Yet for those who stay—or return later—their impact is outsized, driving new business formation, civic leadership, and generational stability.

    Example: Goshen College and Elkhart County, Indiana — A Model of Mutual Benefit

    The following example illustrates the positive interdependence of a small college and its surrounding community—how shared growth, service, and opportunity can strengthen both the institution and the region it calls home.

    Few examples better demonstrate this relationship than Goshen College in northern Indiana. Founded in 1894 by the Mennonite Church, Goshen sits in Elkhart County, a region best known for its manufacturing and recreational vehicle industries. While the area has long been an economic hub, its continued success depends heavily on education and workforce development—both areas where Goshen College has quietly excelled for more than a century.

    Goshen employs more than 300 full-time and part-time faculty and staff, making it one of the city’s largest private employers. Its local purchasing—from food services to maintenance and printing—injects millions of dollars annually into the county’s economy. The student body, drawn from across the Midwest and around the world, supports rental housing, restaurants, and small businesses throughout the region.

    According to the 2024 Independent Colleges of Indiana Economic Impact Study, Goshen College contributes roughly $33 million each year to the regional economy through employment, operations, and visitor spending. Beyond the numbers, the college enriches community life. The Goshen College Music Center and Merry Lea Environmental Learning Center are regional treasures, hosting performances, lectures, and research programs that attract thousands of visitors annually. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the college partnered with local health officials to serve as a testing and vaccination site—further demonstrating its civic commitment. Its nursing, environmental studies, and teacher preparation programs continue to meet critical workforce needs across Elkhart County and beyond.

    Goshen College stands as a model of how a small private college and its community can thrive together. Its example underscores a broader truth: when rural colleges remain strong, the benefits extend far beyond campus—bolstering jobs, sustaining income, and enriching the civic and cultural life that define their regions.

    Social and Cultural Role: The Heart of Civic Life

    Beyond numbers, the social and cultural influence of rural colleges may be their most irreplaceable contribution. In many counties, the college auditorium doubles as the performing arts center, the gym as the public gathering space, and the library as a community hub.

    Rural colleges host art shows, festivals, lectures, and athletics that bring people together across generations. They sponsor service projects, tutoring programs, and food drives that connect students with their neighbors. For residents who might otherwise feel isolated or overlooked, the local college provides a sense of belonging and civic pride.

    Research from the National Endowment for the Arts underscores that local arts participation strengthens community bonds and well-being. Rural colleges amplify that effect by providing both venues and expertise. Their faculty often lead community theater, music ensembles, or public workshops—bringing culture to places that might otherwise lack access.

    The COVID-19 pandemic vividly demonstrated this social bond. While large universities shifted to remote learning with relative ease, small rural colleges had to improvise with limited broadband access and fewer resources. Yet many became essential service providers—hosting testing centers, distributing food, and maintaining human contact in otherwise isolated communities.

    In these moments, small colleges revealed what they have always been: not just educators, but neighbors and caretakers.

    Challenges: Fragility and the Risk of Decline

    Despite their immense value, small rural colleges operate under fragile conditions. Their scale limits efficiency, their funding sources are volatile, and demographic shifts threaten their enrollment base.

    Enrollment Declines and Demographic Pressures.

    A steep decline in traditional-age students is projected to start by 2026, with the number of new high school graduates expected to fall by about 13 percent by 2041, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education, March 3, 2025, article “What is the Demographic Cliff”. For rural colleges already competing for a shrinking pool of students, this decline threatens their enrollment base and financial viability. Many have already experienced double-digit enrollment drops since the Great Recession. Rural public bachelor’s/master’s institutions enroll 5% fewer students today than in 2005, while community colleges struggle to recover from pandemic-era losses.

    Financial Constraints.
    Small colleges rely heavily on tuition revenue and relatively modest endowments. According to the Urban Institute, the median private nonprofit four-year college holds about $33,000 in endowment assets per student, compared with hundreds of thousands of dollars per student at elite universities such as Amherst or Princeton. For many rural private colleges, endowment resources are often well below this national median. Their financial models depend heavily on tuition and auxiliary income, leaving them vulnerable when enrollment softens. Fundraising capacity is also limited: alumni bases are smaller and often less affluent than those of major research universities, making sustained growth in endowment and annual giving more difficult to achieve.

    Operational Challenges.
    Compliance, accreditation, and technology costs weigh disproportionately on small staffs. Many rural colleges lack the personnel to pursue major grants or expand programs quickly. Geographic isolation compounds difficulties in recruiting faculty and attracting external partnerships.

    Brain Drain and Opportunity Gaps.
    Even when colleges succeed in educating local students, retaining them can be difficult. Many leave for urban areas with higher wages and broader opportunities. The irony is painful: the better a rural college fulfills its mission of empowerment, the more likely it may lose its graduates.

    Closures and Community Fallout.
    When a small college shuts its doors, the ripple effects are severe. Studies estimate average regional losses of over $20 million in GDP and hundreds of jobs per closure. Local businesses—cafés, landlords, bookstores—suffer immediately. Housing markets soften, municipal tax revenues drop, and cultural life diminishes. It can take a decade or more for a community to recover, if it ever does.

    Reversing the Talent Flow: Retention Strategies That Work

    The brain drain challenge is not insurmountable. Several states and institutions have pioneered retention strategies that show measurable results.

    Loan forgiveness programs specifically targeting rural retention have gained traction. Kansas’s Rural Opportunity Zones offer up to $15,000 in student loan repayment for graduates who relocate to designated counties. Maine provides annual tax credits up to $2,500 for graduates who live and work in-state. Early data suggests these programs can shift settlement patterns, particularly in high-demand fields like nursing and teaching.

    The most effective models involve tri-party partnerships: colleges provide education and career counseling, employers offer competitive wages and loan assistance, and municipalities contribute housing support or tax relief. In one Ohio example, a regional hospital, community college, and county government created a “stay local” nursing pathway that reduced turnover by 40% over five years.

    Place-based scholarships are also emerging as retention tools. “Hometown Scholarships” provide enhanced aid for students from surrounding counties who commit to working regionally after graduation. When paired with community-engaged learning and local internships throughout the curriculum, these programs cultivate regional identity—shifting the narrative from “I have to leave to succeed” to “I can build a meaningful career here.”

    Federal policy could amplify these efforts. A Rural Talent Corps modeled on the National Health Service Corps could leverage student loan forgiveness to address workforce shortages while stabilizing rural economies. The brain drain will never disappear entirely, but intentional investment can shift the calculus from inevitable loss to manageable flow.

    Policy Pathways and Strategies for Resilience

    Sustaining small colleges—and the communities they support—requires creativity, collaboration, and policy attention.

    1. Deepen Local Partnerships.
    Rural colleges thrive when they align closely with regional needs. Employer partnerships, dual-enrollment programs, and apprenticeships can connect education directly to local labor markets. In Indiana and Ohio, several colleges now co-design health care and manufacturing programs with regional employers, ensuring steady pipelines of skilled workers.

    2. Form Regional Alliances.
    Small institutions can collaborate rather than compete. Shared academic programs, cross-registration, and joint purchasing agreements can reduce costs and expand offerings. Examples such as the New England Small College Innovation Consortium show how collective action can extend capacity and visibility.

    3. Diversify Revenue and Mission.
    Rural colleges can strengthen financial resilience by expanding adult education, microcredentials, and workforce training. Many are converting underused buildings into community hubs, co-working spaces, or conference centers. Others are developing online and hybrid programs to reach place-bound learners in neighboring counties.

    4. Increase State and Federal Support.
    Federal recognition of Rural-Serving Institutions within the Higher Education Act could unlock targeted funding similar to programs for Minority-Serving Institutions. States should adapt funding formulas to reflect mission-based outcomes—rewarding colleges that serve low-income, first-generation, and local students rather than penalizing them for small scale.

    5. Encourage Philanthropic Investment.
    Foundations and donors have historically overlooked rural institutions in favor of urban flagships. Increasing awareness of their impact could mobilize new giving streams, particularly from community foundations and regional philanthropists.

    6. Invest in Infrastructure.
    Broadband access, housing, and transportation are essential to sustaining rural higher education. Expanding digital infrastructure allows colleges to deliver online learning, attract remote faculty, and connect to global markets.

    Looking Ahead: The Role of Small Colleges in Rural Renewal

    As rural America seeks to reinvent itself in the 21st century, small colleges are uniquely positioned to lead that renewal. They combine local trust with national expertise, and they possess the physical, intellectual, and moral infrastructure to drive change from within.

    Their future will depend on adaptability. Colleges that align programs with regional industries, embrace digital learning, and form strategic alliances can thrive despite demographic headwinds. Institutions that cling to older models may struggle.

    Yet the measure of success should not be enrollment size alone. A rural college’s value lies in its multiplier effect—on jobs, community life, and civic identity. For many counties, it is the last remaining institution still rooted in the public good.

    Conclusion: Investing in Irreplaceable Infrastructure

    Small colleges in rural America are far more than schools. They are community builders, employers, cultural anchors, and symbols of local resilience. Their closure can hollow out a county; their success can revive one.

    The rural-serving institutions identified by ARRC represent a quarter of U.S. enrollments but touch nearly half the nation’s geography. They serve regions facing population loss, persistent poverty, and limited opportunity—yet they continue to educate, employ, and inspire.

    The choice facing policymakers, philanthropists, and citizens is simple: either we invest in these engines of opportunity, or we risk watching the lights go out in hundreds of rural towns.

    The question is no longer whether we can afford to support small rural colleges but whether America can afford not to.

    Sources and References

    • Alliance for Research on Regional Colleges (ARRC). Identifying Rural-Serving Institutions in the United States (2022).
    • Brookings Institution. The Value of Higher Education to Local Economies (2021).
    • Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. Community Colleges as Anchor Institutions: A Regional Development Perspective (2020).
    • National Student Clearinghouse Research Center. High School Benchmarks 2022: National College Progression Rates.
    • National Endowment for the Arts. Rural Arts, Design, and Innovation in America (2017).
    • Lumina Foundation. Stronger Nation: Learning Beyond High School Builds American Talent (2024).
    • National Skills Coalition. Building a Skilled Workforce for Rural America (2021).
    • IMPLAN Group, LLC. Measuring the Economic Impact of Higher Education Institutions (2023).
    • U.S. Census Bureau. Educational Attainment in the United States: 2023 (American Community Survey Tables).
    • Bureau of Labor Statistics. Employment and Earnings by Educational Attainment, 2023.
    • Goshen College. Economic Impact Report 2022 and institutional data from the Office of Institutional Research.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow for the Sagamore Institute located in Indianapolis, Indiana. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). Dean is a champion for small colleges in the US. and is committed to celebrating their successes, highlighting their distinctions and reinforcing how important they are to the higher education ecosystem in the US. Dean is the creator and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.

    Source link

  • Small District to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse Decades Ago – The 74

    Small District to Pay $7.5 Million to Settle Lawsuit Over Sexual Abuse Decades Ago – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    On the eve of what was expected to be a long and gut-wrenching trial, a small school district in Santa Barbara County has settled a sexual abuse lawsuit for $7.5 million with two brothers, now 65 and 68 years old, who claimed a long-dead principal molested them in the 1970s.  

    The brothers had sought $35 million for the harm they said they suffered, an attorney for the youngest brother said.

    The settlement equals about 40% of the 350-student district’s 2025-26 budget, although the district did not disclose the terms and timetable for the payment. The district’s superintendent acknowledged in a statement that there would be an impact on the budget. 

    Board members of the Montecito Union School District announced the settlement over the weekend. The trial was scheduled to start Monday.

    The case was brought under a 2019 state law, Assembly Bill 218, that removed a statute of limitations for filing claims that employees of public agencies, including school districts and city and county governments, sexually abused children placed in their care.

    Estimates suggest settlements and jury awards could cost California school districts as much as $3 billion by one projection, and possibly a lot more. Los Angeles County alone has agreed to pay $4 billion to settle abuse claims with more pending, mostly involving plaintiffs who were once in foster care.

    With many larger lawsuits with multiple victims yet to be settled or go to trial, the financial impacts are hard to predict. Small districts are worried that multimillion-dollar verdicts could devastate budgets, if not lead to insolvency. Insurance costs, meanwhile, have soared by more than 200% in five years, according to a survey of districts.

    In the Montecito case, the brothers were seeking $35 million in damages combined, John Richards, a lawyer representing one of them, said outside of court Monday.

    Montecito is not alone in facing decades-old accusations. The San Francisco Unified School District is embroiled in an ongoing suit involving a teacher who allegedly molested a student in the mid-1960s, records show.

    School boards association helps with legal fees

    The Montecito case drew the attention of the California School Boards Association, which gave the district a $50,000 grant to help with legal costs, said spokesman Troy Flint.

    Flint said Montecito Union Superintendent Anthony Ranii has “been a staunch advocate for AB 218 reform because he understands how this well-intentioned law carries such significant unintended consequences that compromise the educational experience of current and future students.”

    Montecito Union “is just one example of what potentially awaits school districts and county offices of education statewide,” Flint added.

    The settlement came just weeks after state Assembly members let a measure that would have restored a statute of limitations to such cases, Senate Bill 577, go without a vote in the final days of the legislative session. Its sponsor, Sen. John Laird, D-Santa Cruz, said he would bring it back next year.

    At a brief hearing Monday, Santa Barbara County Superior Court Judge Thomas P. Anderle called the Montecito matter “a case of real consequence.” He had scheduled 17 days for trial, court records show. The district’s lawyers did not attend the hearing.

    The brothers’ lawsuit was filed in 2022 and alleged that Montecito Union’s former superintendent and principal, Stanford Kerr, molested them in the early 1970s, including raping one of them. Kerr died in 2013 at 89. He never faced criminal charges.

    A third plaintiff who also claimed Kerr abused him settled earlier with the district for $1 million. He had described a full range of abuse covering many types of conduct, which included rape, court filings state.

    Just recompense for years of suffering

    The brothers, identified in court documents as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2, pushed forward, Richards said, hoping to be compensated for years of agony. The younger of the two, Richards said, has suffered a lifetime of substance abuse, which is blamed on Kerr’s assaults. 

    “The money is nice,” Richards said, but the younger brother also seeks “social acknowledgment that what happened to (him) was terrible. He has a long way to go,” in recovering.

    The district admitted no liability in making the settlement.

    Montecito Union has no insurance coverage going back to the period the brothers said the abuse occurred — 1972 to 1978, Ranii said in a statement.

    “We were prepared to mount a vigorous defense,” he said. But the possibility of a jury awarding far more than the district could afford pushed the idea of a settlement after years of pretrial maneuvering.

    The superintendent’s statement did not directly address the brothers’ claims. It also did not mention Kerr.

    “We are deeply mindful of the enduring pain caused by sexual abuse and feel for any person who has experienced such abuse,” Ranii said in the statement.

    A large award in the event of a trial would have “diminished our ability to serve students now and well into the future,” Ranii said. “Continued litigation created exceptional financial vulnerability. Settling now allows us to stabilize operations and remain focused on today’s students.”

    Montecito is an unincorporated oceanfront community just south of Santa Barbara in the shadows of the Santa Ynez Mountains. Its residents include Oprah Winfrey and Prince Harry and Meghan Markle. The district is one of the state’s richest, with more than $40,000 per student in funding due to tax receipts from high-value properties. 

    The district will manage the costs through a hiring freeze, staff reductions “when natural attrition occurs,” and redirecting “funds previously designated for capital repair,” Ranii said. The settlement allows the district to avoid layoffs, he said.

    The brothers’ case was built around the testimony they would have given about Kerr’s abuses, Richards said. There was no physical evidence. At one point, a district employee went to the brothers’ home and forced their parents to sign a document requiring them to make sure the boys came right home after school and avoided Kerr, according to court filings.

    Richards said the district did not produce such a document in discovery. It had no records that the boys ever attended the school, he said, although their photos appear in yearbooks. The district also had no records that Kerr ever faced accusations of abuse or sexual misconduct.

    Two school board members from Kerr’s time as superintendent said in depositions taken for the brothers’ suit that they would have taken action had they known he was abusing students, Richards said. But with the case settled, the elderly former members won’t be called to testify.

    All that remains is a final hearing that the judge scheduled for Nov. 19 to make sure the payment has been received “and that the check’s been cashed,” he said.

    Editor-at-Large John Festerwald contributed to this story.

    This story was originally published by EdSource. Sign up for their daily newsletter.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link