Tag: Strategy

  • Online Enrollment Strategy in a Search-Driven Market

    Online Enrollment Strategy in a Search-Driven Market

    Online enrollment now happens in a national, search-driven market where visibility, clarity, and trust determine which programs students consider. This article explains how search, AI-driven discovery, and brand clarity shape how students find online programs—and what institutions must do to compete.

    Why “Build It and They Will Come” No Longer Works

    Online learners aren’t discovering programs by chance. They’re searching, comparing, and shortlisting in a national marketplace—and higher education institutions that rely on legacy enrollment assumptions are being left out of the conversation.

    If it feels like launching new online programs used to be easier, you’re not imagining it.

    For years, online growth was driven by access and availability. Institutions moved programs online because learners couldn’t get what they needed locally. Demand outpaced supply. If you built something credible and made it available, enrollment followed.

    That era is over.

    Today’s online market is crowded, sophisticated, and national by default. Learners have more choices than at any point in the history of higher education. And they’re not discovering online programs by accident.

    They’re searching.
    They’re comparing.
    They’re shortlisting.

    Scarcity is gone. Choice defines the market.This is the mindset shift many institutions haven’t fully made yet. Online enrollment no longer rewards availability. It rewards visibility, clarity, and trust.

    The National Online Market Is Coming to You—Whether You’re Planning for it or Not

    Online Programs Compete Nationally, Not Regionally

    One of the most common disconnects I see with higher ed enrollment leaders is how competition is defined.

    We still talk about “peer institutions,” “regional competitors,” or “schools we usually go up against.” That framing made sense when geography mattered.

    Online learning changes that completely.

    Online removes physical boundaries for learners.  Institutions are no longer compared only to nearby or familiar schools—they’re compared to whoever shows up and feels credible in the moment of search. 

    Search and AI Collapse the Market Into a Single Comparison Set

    Search engines, paid ads, review platforms, and now AI tools collapse the entire online market into a single results page. 

    From the learner’s perspective, everything sits side by side.

    They’re not just asking, Who’s nearby? Or who they already know?
     They’re asking, Who looks credible? Who fits me? Who’s going to help me achieve my goals? 

    Whether institutions plan for it or not, they’re competing nationally—not just with similar schools, but with whoever shows up first and feels trustworthy in the moment of search.

    That’s the reality. Ignoring it doesn’t protect you from it.

    AI is Redefining How Students Are Discovering Online Programs

    Search as the Virtual Campus Visit

    For years, search and institutional websites have functioned as the virtual campus visit for online learners.

    They’ve been where legitimacy is established.
    Where perceived risk is reduced.
    Where prospective students quietly decide whether an institution feels credible, relevant, and worth further consideration.

    That hasn’t changed.

    AI Systems as the New Gatekeepers

    What’s changing now isn’t whether that evaluation happens digitally—it’s how it happens.

    AI-powered search and large language models (LLMs) are reshaping how students discover online programs. Learners are no longer just comparing lists of results or clicking through multiple websites. 

    Increasingly, they’re asking questions directly to AI systems and receiving synthesized answers that compress research, comparison, and judgment into a single moment.

    In that environment, higher ed institutions don’t just compete for clicks, they compete to be understood, recommended, and trusted by systems that summarize the online market on the learner’s behalf.

    That raises the stakes for clarity, credibility, and differentiation. Search visibility still matters, but so does how clearly your programs, outcomes, and value proposition are articulated across your site and content ecosystem. AI models draw from what they can easily interpret. Generic language, outdated messaging, or unclear positioning makes it harder for an institution to surface meaningfully, even if the program itself is strong.

    Institutions that adapt by tightening messaging, strengthening authority signals, and aligning their digital presence with how modern search works, give themselves a chance to compete. Those that don’t risk being filtered out before a learner ever reaches a form, a conversation, or an application.

    The Shortlist Problem: Where Online Enrollment Is Actually Won or Lost

    Here’s the part that often gets missed.

    Learners don’t compare dozens of institutions in depth. They narrow quickly.

    Why Brand Clarity Determines the Shortlist

    They build a shortlist of online programs that feel safe, credible, and aligned with what they’re trying to accomplish. Everything else falls away.

    That shortlist is where enrollment is actually won or lost.

    And brand clarity is what helps learners navigate the complexity. Not flashy marketing. Not volume. Clarity.

    Learners consistently associate “top online institutions” with recognizable brands and clear program identities—not necessarily the biggest schools or the ones with the most programs.

    You Don’t Need to Win Nationally—You Need to Compete for Attention

    This is an important reframe for leaders:

    You don’t need to win nationally.
    You do need to compete nationally for attention.

    The goal isn’t to be everything to everyone. The goal is to be unmistakably relevant to the right learners when they’re searching.

    Where “Build It and They Will Come” Still Shows Up

    None of this is about blame. The constraints are real.

    Budgets are flat. Teams are stretched. Expectations keep rising.

    The Gap Between Priority and Investment

    But when you look at how institutions are investing—or not investing—in online enrollment strategy, a pattern emerges.

    Only about 42% of leaders say strengthening brand is an online priority. Nearly three-quarters don’t use a dedicated online enrollment marketing partner. Close to 60% rely on general university marketing budgets to support online growth. And only about a quarter believe their staffing and budgets for online marketing are actually adequate.

    At the same time, more than 80% of leaders say online enrollment growth is a moderate or high priority. Nearly half say it’s a top institutional priority.

    That’s the contradiction.

    Online enrollment is strategically important, but investment hasn’t shifted to match how learners actually choose.

    In practice, many institutions are still operating with an implicit belief that strong online programs will eventually find an audience. That’s “build it and they will come”—just wearing modern clothes.

    What Competing in a National Online Market Actually Requires

    The good news is this: competing in a national, search-driven market doesn’t require unlimited budgets or national-scale ambition.

    It requires focus.

    Here’s what I’d do first.

    Compete on relevance, not reach.

    You don’t need to outspend national brands. You need to out-clarify them for specific learners. Relevance beats volume every time.

    Be explicit about who your online programs are for.

    If everyone is your audience, no one is. Clarity reduces friction for learners and improves performance across search, ads, and conversion.

    Align search, ads, and web strategies around learner and personalization.

    Marketing and enrollment can’t operate in silos here. What online learners search for, what they see in ads, and what they experience on your site all need to tell the same story.

    Treat brand clarity as enrollment infrastructure.

    Brand isn’t a “nice to have.” It’s what makes demand convert. If learners can’t quickly understand who you are and why you’re credible, efficiency breaks down across the funnel.

    National competition doesn’t require national ambition. It requires strategic focus.

    The New Reality of Online Enrollment

    Let’s be honest about what’s changed.

    The market has changed.
    Learners have changed.
    And online enrollment strategies have to change with them.

    Online growth used to be driven by access. Now it’s driven by discoverability and trust. Higher education institutions don’t get chosen because they exist. They get chosen because online learners can find them, understand them, and feel confident moving forward.

    You don’t have to do everything.
    But you do need an integrated plan that reflects how the online market actually works today.

    Because the era of “build it and they will come” is over. In a national, search-driven market, visibility and clarity aren’t marketing tactics. They’re enrollment fundamentals.

    If online enrollment growth is a priority, clarity has to start with how the market actually behaves. The Online Learner/Leader Analysis compares how prospective online learners search, evaluate, and shortlist programs with how institutional leaders are planning and investing today—revealing where alignment exists and where opportunity is being missed.

    Explore the analysis to see how your assumptions stack up against learner reality.

    Frequently Asked Questions About Online Enrollment Strategy

    How do students find online programs today?

    Students primarily discover online programs through search engines, paid ads, review platforms, and increasingly through AI-powered tools that summarize and compare options. Discovery happens nationally, not locally, and programs compete based on visibility, clarity, and credibility.

    What is an online enrollment strategy?

    An online enrollment strategy aligns search visibility, digital marketing, web experience, and brand clarity to help institutions compete for online learners in a national market. It focuses on helping the right students find, understand, and trust an institution’s programs.

    Why is visibility so important for online enrollment?

    Strong programs don’t succeed if learners can’t find or understand them. Visibility ensures institutions are present at the moment of search, while clarity and trust determine whether they make the learner’s shortlist.

    How is AI changing online enrollment marketing?

    AI-powered search tools are changing how learners research online programs by delivering synthesized answers instead of lists of results. Institutions now compete to be accurately understood and recommended by AI systems.

    How does Carnegie help institutions compete for online enrollment?

    Carnegie helps institutions compete by aligning enrollment strategy, brand clarity, search and digital marketing, and web experience—improving discoverability, credibility, and conversion across the online enrollment funnel.

    Source link

  • Where will growth come from in the UK’s international education strategy?

    Where will growth come from in the UK’s international education strategy?

    The long-awaited strategy, released today (January 20), outlines the UK government’s target to reach an annual education export target of £40bn by the end of the decade – up from £32.3bn in 2022. 

    Notably, it removes international student recruitment targets, signalling a break from the 2019 strategy, which targeted the 30% growth of international levels by 2030. 

    “Success will mean hitting the target while operating sustainable levels of international student recruitment,” the document states, doubling down on the government’s overall aim of reducing net migration, as laid out in last year’s immigration white paper. 

    In an exclusive interview with The PIE News, Sir Steve said a focus on transnational education (TNE) was the “biggest change” in the sector in recent years, welcoming the “commitment across government for that pivot to TNE” and the importance of other areas including skills, early years, schools, edtech and special educational needs.

    “The first strategy was a child of that world. Now, it’s much more about moving towards bringing the strength of the UK’s education system across the board to the international market,” said Sir Steve.

    The strategy states the £40bn aim will be achieved across the “full breadth of the sector”, including TNE, English language training (ELT), and edtech, while broadly referencing existing trade missions, soft power networks and boosting financial support mechanisms.  

    It highlights the success of existing TNE initiatives, with exports across all sectors reaching £3bn in 2022. But it doesn’t set out the financials of how much TNE will contribute to the overall growth plan.  

    It recognises the “strong potential” of further overseas expansion and hails the “significant achievement” of Southampton University establishing the UK’s first India campus last year – though the financial impact of the expansion is yet to be realised.  

    The UK’s international education champion Sir Steve is spearheading many of the IES’ objectives, with the government prioritising partnerships in India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam, and recognising the “strategic importance” of China and Hong Kong.

    Sir Steve said the cost of travelling to study abroad in the UK was only accessible to a small percentage of students, and that the demand for TNE was coming from international governments.

    “What these governments want is UK quality, but at a price point that is more inclusive for their society, and what we do is work with the government of each of the countries where TNE is growing to make sure that fulfils the needs,” he told The PIE.

    Now, it’s much more about moving towards bringing the strength of the UK’s education system across the board to the international market

    Sir Steve Smith, UK international education champion

    Beyond higher education and TNE, the strategy spotlights the “dynamic” ELT sector, which generated £560m in 2022. It praises the quality of the UK’s English language teaching, assessment and teacher training, though doesn’t explicitly state how growth will be boosted. 

    Meanwhile, edtech and other educational services added £3.89bn to the UK economy in 2022, the strategy states, identifying online learning as another opportunity for growth.  

    While making clear that growth will not come from increased international recruitment targets, the strategy sets out measures to promote the UK as a study and research destination, including through the Study UK campaign partly funded by the British Council. 

    It makes much of leveraging the British Council’s existing diplomatic network “to build bridges across cultures and sectors, deepen global ties, and support strategic collaboration”, vowing to expand such partnerships across global trade, study abroad and skills.  

    The strategy highlights the value of previously announced policies, including the launch of the British Council’s new TNE strategy last year, the UK’s rejoining of Erasmus+, and existing scholarships including the renowned Chevening program. 

    “The UK is taking a new diplomacy-led approach,” states the strategy, which is co-owned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Education and the Department for Business and Trade (DBT). 

    As such, soft power is central to the strategy’s growth objectives, which looks ahead to the upcoming of the Soft Power Strategy that it says will support the IES, though it gives no details of the publication timeline.  

    Source link

  • A new international education strategy

    A new international education strategy

    The Westminster government’s newest iteration of the international education strategy commits the UK to three ambitions: to increase the UK’s international standing through education, to recruit high quality international higher education students from a diverse range of countries, and to grow education exports to £40bn a year by 2030.

    Last time we got an International Education Strategy from the government was back in 2019 – famously it committed the government to increase education exports to £35bn per year, and to increase the number of international HE students studying in the UK to 600,000 per year, again: both by 2030.

    The government’s current best estimate for performance against those targets – which deals with the 2022 calendar year – suggests income from education exports was £32.3bn for that year – with around three quarters of that being derived from higher education activity. For a variety of reasons, it isn’t great data.

    And HESA tells us that there were 758,855 international higher education students during the 2022-23 academic year, though numbers have fallen since.

    Diversification across sub-sectors

    Within the higher education sector the perception has been that this decline in international student numbers has been a political choice in the face of wider public concerns around immigration rather than any failing among universities: changes to dependant visa access, a reduction in the length (from 24 months to 18 months) of the graduate visa for postgraduate taught students, reported difficulties in obtaining student visas, and the onset of price rises linked to the forthcoming international student levy.

    Though a lot of the UK’s historic strengths in international education come via its higher education providers, the strategy is at pains to emphasis the full spectrum of what is on offer, noting:

    We see diversification across sub-sectors as key to long-term success

    Accordingly much of the strategy deals with early years and schools, non-HE tertiary education, English language training, special educational needs, and education technology. But, as with higher education, there is little detail: this will be filled in via an action plan developed by a reconstituted Education Sector Action Group (ESAG). This ministerially-chaired forum will bring together government, industry, and sector representative bodies: each representative will lead on a sub-sector action plan to be published within 100 days of appointment.

    Of course, we don’t even know which minister will chair the forum yet – the strategy is owned jointly by the Department for Education, the Department of Business and Trade, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Development Office. We do know that Steve Smith retains his role as international education champion, and that the strategy will be supported by a range of existing tools and programmes: notably for higher education these include research and technology partnerships including Horizon Europe, plus things like Erasmus+ (from 2027) and Turing (newly confirmed for 2026-27).

    The British Council will play a prominent role too – most notably in the expansion of transnational education provision across every part of the sector. Here robust quality assurance will play a key part – we get detail on schools-level accreditation and oversight, but the parallel section on higher education quality assurance and international standards is missing (despite case studies on the University of London, and the India campus of the University of Southampton). The section on the work of the British Council-led Alumni UK programme (launched in 2022) offers recognition of the value of alumni as international ambassadors.

    And what’s in it for higher education?

    The meat of the strategy for higher education providers concerns a “strategic approach to sustainable international student recruitment”. The key words are “well-managed” and “responsible” recruitment, and a quality student experience should lead to world-class outcomes. It is very encouraging to see that support systems and infrastructure (including local housing) are on the radar too.

    Institutions will be “encouraged to diversify their recruitment”, moving away from reliance on any single country”. There’s support for the sector-owned Agent Quality Framework to tackle poor practices, and a suggestion that government will:

    work closely with the sector to ensure that our institutions recruit international higher education students in a way that maintains quality and student experience. This includes considering factors such as skills and entry requirements, adequate infrastructure, local housing, and support systems

    A section on “maintaining a competitive offer” flags the retention of the (18 month) graduate route, the high potential individual route for those graduating from top 100 institutions (nothing to do with helping UK international education expand, but it is in there), and the change in visa conditions enabling graduates to start businesses while transferring to the “investor founder” route. The international student levy clearly does not help to maintain a competitive offer but we get details of that here too:

    The levy will be fully reinvested into higher education and skills, including the reintroduction of targeted maintenance grant for disadvantaged domestic students, helping to break down barriers to opportunity as part of the government’s Plan for Change and making our higher education system more inclusive for the benefit of all students

    However this ends up benefitting home students, there is no detail on how the policy might discourage (via higher prices, for example) international recruitment.

    Indeed, throughout the strategy there is nothing that deals with the restrictions being placed on higher education as the largest single contributor to educational exports, and how that situation will cause problems (despite warm words about “unlocking the full potential of our education sector”) in meeting this expanded and challenging financial target.

    Source link

  • UK unveils new international education strategy

    UK unveils new international education strategy

    • Government aims to grow education exports to £40 billion per year by 2030, growth to come from TNE, ELT, skills and edtech
    • New strategy removes targets on international student numbers with focus on sustainable recruitment
    • Ministerial group known as the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) to work with sector to deliver action plans tackling key concerns and identifying partnership opportunities

    The long-awaited document marks the first new UK international education strategy (IES) since 2019, which at the time revealed goals to grow international student numbers by 30% by 2030. Education is already one of the UK’s most important exports, bolstering the economy by £32bn per year, with the IES building on 2019’s stated ambition to grow its export value to £35 bn.

    However, after a post-pandemic boom, with international student numbers in the UK reaching 732,285 in 2023/24, the government has moved away from targetting increased enrolments, instead making clear that growth should come from areas such as English language training (ELT), transnational education (TNE) and edtech sectors – worth some £560m, £3bn and £3.89bn in exports respectively.

    The revamped IES outlines three main priorities for UK international education; to grow education exports to a collective $40bn per year, oversee sustainable overseas student recruitment and amplify the UK’s international standing through education – including a focus on cutting red tape for TNE partnerships abroad.

    Elsewhere, the government is drawing on expertise from the international education sector through a reformed ministerial group known as the Education Sector Action Group (ESAG) – a collective tasked with tackling key concerns and identifying partnership opportunities, as well as smoothing the path towards international alliances.

    Each representative will develop an action plan drawing on how its members will support the IES’s three main goals to be published within the first 100 days of their accession to ESAG. As yet it is unclear who will be included in the group.

    Meanwhile, Sir Steve Smith will stay on as the UK’s international education champion, with a remit to “remove barriers to education partnerships” by continuing to engage with India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Vietnam. Sir Steve is also looking into opportunities in “emerging economies” such as Brazil, Mexico, and Pakistan, the IES said.

    By expanding overseas, our universities, colleges and education providers can diversify income, strengthen global partnerships and give millions more access to a world-class UK education on their doorstep, all whilst boosting growth at home
    Bridget Phillipson, education secretary

    The document also signals the publication of more specific strategy documents in the future, including a Soft Power Strategy outlining plans to grow the UK’s global influence through its education, sports, science, governance, development and tech sectors.

    Expanding the UK’s soft power abroad is a key part of the IES, which recognises the power in education as a way to position the country as “a place of learning, openness, research and innovation – building life‐long alliances and deepening trust in the UK”.

    Education secretary Bridget Phillipson said that supporting international partnerships would help institutions to “diversity and strengthen their business models”.

    “By expanding overseas, our universities, colleges and education providers can diversify income, strengthen global partnerships and give millions more access to a world-class UK education on their doorstep, all whilst boosting growth at home,” she added.

    Minister for Trade Chris Bryant branded education exports as a “major UK success story”.

    “We’re on track grow the sector to £40 billion by 2030, powered by world leading providers driving digital learning, AI enabled innovation and future skills development,” he said. 

    Malcolm Press, president of Universities UK welcomed the new document, saying it “signals a renewed commitment to fostering the global reach, reputation and impact of our universities”.

    This is a breaking news story. Check back for updates on this emerging story…

    Source link

  • Realpolitik: 10 points to note about today’s new International Education Strategy

    Realpolitik: 10 points to note about today’s new International Education Strategy

    Author:
    Nick Hillman

    Published:

    HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, takes a look at the new International Education Strategy, which is out today.

    1. It is a relief to have the paper finally out, as it has been a wait. First, the Coalition had their initial 2013 version (which still reads pretty well, except for its comments about MOOCs, even if it had a rather different list of target countries … ); the subsequent Conservative Governments then had their 2019 Strategy, with its clear targets, and subsequent updates in 2021, 2022 and 2023; and, in October 2024, the newly installed Labour Government promised ‘a review of the International Education Strategy’, which is what has now landed. It is good to have clarity: the new paper provides a comprehensive summary of UK strengths, usefully reinvigorates some tired initiatives (like a ‘reformed’ Education Sector Action Group) and commits to achieving £40 billion of educational exports by 2030. I do not underestimate the challenges involved in getting the paper to this stage, which has been overseen like most of its predecessors by the indefatigable Sir Steve Smith (the UK Government’s International Education Champion to whom the sector owes so much), despite my mixed commentary below – given the general rightwards shift in the country, given the differences of opinion across Whitehall on issues like student migration and given all the other energy-sapping issues on Number 10’s plate.
    2. My first impression was that the paper is shorter than we might have expected – c.50 pages of large text, with lots of ‘throat clearing’ (the Introduction arrives on page 10 and the meat doesn’t start until page 17…). In contrast, the 2019 Strategy was of a similar length but with a much smaller text and included 23 clear ‘Actions’, while the 2021 Update was c.70 pages of dense text, including an update on progress towards the specific actions.
    3. Similarly, the three Ministers put up to front the report are, in government terms, second rank (Minister of State) rather than first rank (Secretary of State) and two sit in the unelected Upper Chamber rather than the elected House of Commons. Along with the lowish word count, this sends a slightly unfortunate signal about the seriousness with which education export issues are taken in government. The 2019 Strategy and the 2021 Update each had two Secretaries of State pen the Foreword, for example.
    4. Perhaps none of this matters. It is better to be concise than wordy. Who cares how many pages there are, what font size has been used and which Ministers have written the inoffensive Foreword? I think it probably does matter a bit as there are no areas of education as competitive as international exports, and it is one of the few areas where the UK can still undeniably claim world-class status. Our main competitors read such UK strategies closely, just as the UK’s own initial 2013 strategy emerged partly as a response to the strategies that had already been adopted in other English-speaking countries. A confident country keen to expand its share of a particular global market tends to project itself as such, whereas a thinner paper that hedges its bets may be regarded, perhaps accurately, as reflecting lukewarm support for educational exports in parts of Whitehall.
    5. More importantly, the new Strategy is keen to emphasise that it is a cross-Government initiative: ‘Leadership of this agenda now sits firmly across the government, with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office joining the Department of Education and the Department of Business and Trade as co-owners of the strategy.’ This is welcome. But the Home Office remain notable by their absence, and it is they that have sole control over things like student visas, post-study work rules and Basic Compliance Assessments. Until the Home Office are forced to share responsibility for international students studying in the UK equally with other parts of government or until the Home Office is overridden by the centre of Whitehall, our higher education institutions will continue to have one arm tied behind their back while trying to expand this important export market.
    6. The Home Office ministers and mandarins will still, however, have had to sign the new paper off and their behind-the-scenes influence is evident. While the paper is full of commitments to ‘leverage’, ‘champion’ and ‘continue’ doing things, it eschews the opportunity to set clear new targets for higher education. The 2013 paper looked to increase the number of international students studying in the UK at higher education ‘by 15-20% over the next five years.’ The 2019 Strategy had a target of increasing students ‘in the UK to 600,000 per year’ by 2030. Now, however, there is an overall goal of increasing all ‘education exports to £40 billion per year’ by the end of this decade but, on higher education students specifically, we only get a commitment to ‘support the sustainable recruitment of higher-quality international students’, warm words about ‘Well-managed and responsible recruitment’ and an objective of ‘building a more resilient, diverse and long-term pipeline of international talent.’ How many more synonyms are there for ‘reducing’ the number of new student arrivals in the UK, I wonder. The Department for Education’s press release suggests TNE (transnational education), with all its challenges and opportunities, has displaced students coming to the UK as the flavour of the month.
    7. As it is a UK-wide document, so the rUK or the ‘rest of the UK’ as it is known in Whitehall get a brief look in. There are nice words about Scotland’s (in truth poor-performing) schools system and the controversial Curriculum for Excellence, which may be rather useful to Scottish policymakers as they look ahead to the 2026 elections to the Scottish Parliament, when education is expected to feature quite heavily.
    8. There are a surprising number of lengthy references to things that are clearly part of modern education but which do not immediately seem directly relevant to establishing a stronger framework for encouraging UK educational exports around the globe, and which are perhaps included to flesh out the text. For example, climate change appears in the very first sentence of the document and page 22 elaborates: ‘the UK Government expects all nurseries, schools and colleges to have a climate action plan, and in collaboration with leading environmental and education organisations, provides direct support through the innovative Sustainability Support Programme. The programme ensures educational settings are inspired to act and supported to plan and deliver meaningful climate action to embed sustainability, climate awareness and connection with nature.’ One can fully subscribe to the idea of man-made climate change and a climate emergency, as well as the need for action to address these, but still be left scratching one’s head at quite what the purpose of such text is in a short paper promoting the UK’s educational exports.
    9. The paper inadvertently reveals a long-standing and tricky issue for policymakers, which is the gap in our general attitudes towards delivering education to people at home and selling UK education to people from overseas. For example, as a nation we are as favourable towards soft power abroad, by making friends in high places through education, as we are opposed to old boys’ networks at home. In England, we tightly regulate who gets to university via Access and Participation Plans, yet when it comes to overseas students, we rely on the very high fees (plus an incoming International Student Levy) that only upper-middle class students can afford and we don’t even worry too much if, on occasion, the extra international students squeeze out home students. (Those attacking Trinity Hall for advertising their outreach work to a handful of UK independent schools tend to ignore that the entire higher education system is propped up by some of the wealthiest people from other countries.)
    10. There is another contradiction illustrated by the new International Education Strategy too: while Ministers block Eton College from working with partners to set up a school for disadvantaged Brits in Middlesborough, the new Strategy celebrates famous independent schools establishing footprints abroad. So Charterhouse Lagos is, we are told, ‘a model for future school partnerships abroad, strengthening bilateral ties and delivering long-term educational and economic benefits.’ It seems to be Floreat Carthusia abroad and Pereat Etona at home (please correct my Latin in the Comments section below … ), which doesn’t in all honesty seem to make much logical sense. At least, there is a German word for it all: realpolitik. 

    Source link

  • Teaching visual literacy as a core reading strategy in the age of AI

    Teaching visual literacy as a core reading strategy in the age of AI

    Key points:

    Many years ago, around 2010, I attended a professional development program in Houston called Literacy Through Photography, at a time when I was searching for practical ways to strengthen comprehension, discussion, and reading fluency, particularly for students who found traditional print-based tasks challenging. As part of the program, artists visited my classroom and shared their work with students. Much of that work was abstract. There were no obvious answers and no single “correct” interpretation.

    Instead, students were invited to look closely, talk together, and explain what they noticed.

    What struck me was how quickly students, including those who struggled with traditional reading tasks, began to engage. They learned to slow down, describe what they saw, make inferences, and justify their thinking. They weren’t just looking at images; they were reading them. And in doing so, they were rehearsing many of the same strategies we expect when reading written texts.

    At the time, this felt innovative. But it also felt deeply intuitive.

    Fast forward to today.

    Students are surrounded by images and videos, from photographs and diagrams to memes, screenshots, and, increasingly, AI-generated visuals. These images appear everywhere: in learning materials, on social media, and inside the tools students use daily. Many look polished, realistic, and authoritative.

    At the same time, AI has made faking easier than ever.

    As educators and school leaders, we now face urgent questions around misinformation, academic integrity, and critical thinking. The issue is no longer just whether students can use AI tools, but whether they can interpret, evaluate, and question what they see.

    This is where visual literacy becomes a frontline defence.

    Teaching students to read images critically, to see them as constructed texts rather than neutral data, strengthens the same skills we rely on for strong reading comprehension: inference, evidence-based reasoning, and metacognitive awareness.

    From photography to AI: A conversation grounded in practice

    Recently, I found myself returning to those early classroom experiences through ongoing professional dialogue with a former college lecturer and professional photographer, as we explored what it really means to read images in the age of AI.

    A conversation that grew out of practice

    Nesreen: When I shared the draft with you, you immediately focused on the language, whether I was treating images as data or as signs. Is this important?

    Photographer: Yes, because signs belong to reading. Data is output. Signs are meaning. When we talk about reading media texts, we’re talking about how meaning is constructed, not just what information appears.

    Nesreen: That distinction feels crucial right now. Students are surrounded by images and videos, but they’re rarely taught to read them with the same care as written texts.

    Photographer: Exactly. Once students understand that photographs and AI images are made up of signs, color, framing, scale, and viewpoint, they stop treating images as neutral or factual.

    Nesreen: You also asked whether the lesson would lean more towards evaluative assessment or summarizing. That made me realize the reflection mattered just as much as the image itself.

    Photographer: Reflection is key. When students explain why a composition works, or what they would change next time, they’re already engaging in higher-level reading skills.

    Nesreen: And whether students are analyzing a photograph, generating an AI image, or reading a paragraph, they’re practicing the same habits: slowing down, noticing, justifying, and revising their thinking.

    Photographer: And once they see that connection, reading becomes less about the right answer and more about understanding how meaning is made.

    Reading images is reading

    One common misconception is that visual literacy sits outside “real” literacy. In practice, the opposite is true.

    When students read images carefully, they:

    • identify what matters most
    • follow structure and sequence
    • infer meaning from clues
    • justify interpretations with evidence
    • revise first impressions

    These are the habits of skilled readers.

    For emerging readers, multilingual learners, and students who struggle with print, images lower the barrier to participation, without lowering the cognitive demand. Thinking comes first. Language follows.

    From composition to comprehension: Mapping image reading to reading strategies

    Photography offers a practical way to name what students are already doing intuitively. When teachers explicitly teach compositional elements, familiar reading strategies become visible and transferable.

    What students notice in an image What they are doing cognitively Reading strategy practiced
    Where the eye goes first Deciding importance Identifying main ideas
    How the eye moves Tracking structure Understanding sequence
    What is included or excluded Considering intention Analyzing author’s choices
    Foreground and background Sorting information Main vs supporting details
    Light and shadow Interpreting mood Making inferences
    Symbols and colour Reading beyond the literal Figurative language
    Scale and angle Judging power Perspective and viewpoint
    Repetition or pattern Spotting themes Theme identification
    Contextual clues Using surrounding detail Context clues
    Ambiguity Holding multiple meanings Critical reading
    Evidence from the image Justifying interpretation Evidence-based responses

    Once students recognise these moves, teachers can say explicitly:

    “You’re doing the same thing you do when you read a paragraph.”

    That moment of transfer is powerful.

    Making AI image generation teachable (and safe)

    In my classroom work pack, students use Perchance AI to generate images. I chose this tool deliberately: It is accessible, age-appropriate, and allows students to iterate, refining prompts based on compositional choices rather than chasing novelty.

    Students don’t just generate an image once. They plan, revise, and evaluate.

    This shifts AI use away from shortcut behavior and toward intentional design and reflection, supporting academic integrity rather than undermining it.

    The progression of a prompt: From surface to depth (WAGOLL)

    One of the most effective elements of the work pack is a WAGOLL (What A Good One Looks Like) progression, which shows students how thinking improves with precision.

    • Simple: A photorealistic image of a dog sitting in a park.
    • Secure: A photorealistic image of a dog positioned using the rule of thirds, warm colour palette, soft natural lighting, blurred background.
    • Greater Depth: A photorealistic image of a dog positioned using the rule of thirds, framed by tree branches, low-angle view, strong contrast, sharp focus on the subject, blurred background.

    Students can see and explain how photographic language turns an image from output into meaningful signs. That explanation is where literacy lives.

    When classroom talk begins to change

    Over time, classroom conversations shift.

    Instead of “I like it” or “It looks real,” students begin to say:

    • “The creator wants us to notice…”
    • “This detail suggests…”
    • “At first I thought…, but now I think…”

    These are reading sentences.

    Because images feel accessible, more students participate. The classroom becomes slower, quieter, and more thoughtful–exactly the conditions we want for deep comprehension.

    Visual literacy as a bridge, not an add-on

    Visual literacy is not an extra subject competing for time. It is a bridge, especially in the age of AI.

    By teaching students how to read images, schools strengthen:

    • reading comprehension
    • inference and evaluation
    • evidence-based reasoning
    • metacognitive awarenes

    Most importantly, students learn that literacy is not about rushing to answers, but about noticing, questioning, and constructing meaning.

    In a world saturated with AI-generated images, teaching students how to read visually is no longer optional.

    It is literacy.

    Author’s note: This article grew out of classroom practice and professional dialogue with a former college lecturer and professional photographer. Their contribution informed the discussion of visual composition, semiotics, and reflective image-reading, without any involvement in publication or authorship.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Celebrating Faculty Strengths and Differences: A Positive Strategy for Thriving Academia – Faculty Focus

    Celebrating Faculty Strengths and Differences: A Positive Strategy for Thriving Academia – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Transform or be transformed: why digital strategy is now central to university survival

    Transform or be transformed: why digital strategy is now central to university survival

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Amanda Broderick, Vice-Chancellor & President of the University of East London.

    Across higher education, there is a growing realisation that no cavalry is coming over the hill. Government support arrives with one hand while being withdrawn with the other, and universities are being asked to do more, for more people, with fewer resources. The choice facing the sector is stark: we must transform, or be transformed.

    At the University of East London (UEL), we have been on this journey for some time. In many ways, it was almost serendipitous that the University reached a point of existential pressure years before similar headwinds struck the rest of the sector. That early crisis forced us to confront difficult truths, make bold decisions, and learn quickly what genuinely works. As we approach the final quarter of our ten-year strategy, Vision 2028, our transformation is evident. We have seen a 25 percentage point improvement in positive graduate outcomes (the largest in England), an unparalleled rise in NSS rankings, a move from 90th to 2nd in the country for annual student start-ups, and a financial sustainability strategy which now places us as one of only 15 universities in the country without any external borrowing, whilst delivering a £350m investment programme.

    One area underpins each of these elements of our transformation: digital.

    When we launched Vision 2028, digital transformation sat at its core – not as a technology programme, but as a strategic enabler. Our ‘Digital First’ approach was designed to ensure that the entire UEL community has the tools, confidence and freedom to innovate and develop continuously. That philosophy has shaped everything we have done since.

    We have migrated from on-premises data centres to a cloud infrastructure, becoming the first UK university to be fully cloud-based in 2019. This has improved resilience, reduced environmental impact, and transformed how we use big data, from student retention predictive modelling to generative AI personal learning assistance to business intelligence and management information. We have invested in innovation spaces that allow students to build their own compute environments, redesigned our website to offer a more personalised browsing experience, and strengthened our digital architecture to mitigate downtime.

    Sustainability has been a constant consideration – reducing data centre usage and re-using compatible hardware wherever possible. We have also made key software available anytime, anywhere, and consolidated multiple CRM-type environments into a single solution.

    But digital transformation only matters if it serves a purpose. At UEL, that purpose is careers.

    How can we prepare students for future careers if we do not embed digital skills throughout their education? That question underpins our Mental Wealth and Professional Fitness curriculum, co-designed with employers to ensure students develop future-ready digital capabilities alongside cultural capital, confidence and professional inter-personal behaviours. Introductory modules are paired with sector-specific specialisation depending on course, with Level 3 and 4 modules already covering AI and digital tools for industry, digital identity and professional networks, data literacy, visualisation, and data ethics. Employability is not an add-on at UEL; it is embedded throughout the learner journey – which means that in-demand digital skills are too.

    Our ambition extends beyond our enrolled students. We want to spread transformation across our communities so that opportunity is not confined to campus. Click Start, delivered by Be the Business and the University of East London in partnership with the Institute of Coding, is a powerful example. This four-week course equips young Londoners aged 18–30 with digital marketing and data analysis skills, delivering more than 90 hours of teaching alongside industry-recognised certificates from Google and Microsoft. Since June 2023, more than 230 young people have completed the programme – 41% women, 88% from ethnic minority backgrounds, and 70% from East London. Graduates have progressed into jobs, apprenticeships and further study, with some joining UEL itself and others using the programme as a springboard to transform their lives elsewhere.

    This ethos of applied, inclusive innovation is reflected across our courses and underpinned by active research centres and innovation hubs, from our UK Centre for AI in the Public Sector and Centre for FinTech, to our Child Online Harms Policy Think Tank and Intelligent Technologies Research Group. Alongside our industry partnerships, this cutting-edge research ensures that what students learn remains relevant, responsible, and future-focussed.

    When a student’s whole experience is designed as digital first, technology stops being a blocker and becomes an enabler. It supports our shift from a ‘university-ready student’ model to becoming a ‘student-ready university’. UEL’s Track My Future app exemplifies this approach, bringing academic, careers, and support services into a single personalised platform. Putting students’ own data into their own hands and providing a digital route-map to university life, daily active use regularly exceeds 40,000 interactions – clear evidence that digital tools can strengthen engagement and belonging.

    Compared with when I joined UEL in 2018, the scale of the digital transformation today is unmistakable. This is what purposeful digital transformation looks like: not technology for its own sake, but a platform for inclusion, resilience and impact. In a sector facing relentless pressure, that is not optional – it is essential.

    Kortext is a HEPI Partner. Professor Amanda Broderick is speaking at Kortext LIVE on 11 February 2026 in London. Find out more and secure your seat here.

    Source link

  • Connecting devolving and prioritising innovation- It’s the Northern Growth Strategy

    Connecting devolving and prioritising innovation- It’s the Northern Growth Strategy

    Of all the things I am proud of in my life I am the most proud of being Northern.

    You have not felt love until you have seen the sun rise over the Tyne Bridge. Life is rendered that bit more vibrant by a visit to Middlesbrough Institute of Modern Art. The North is the place where kindness is a professional sport. To be Northern is to be part of a collective, part of a cultural and economic history that spans from the Darlington and Stockton Railway to the Mercury Prize.

    To be Northern is to have won the lottery of life but it is to have not even been in the draw when it comes to infrastructure investment.

    Dark satanic mills

    The UK is stuck in a deep economic malaise. Productivity is low which means economic output and living standards are also flat-lining. This phenomena is even worse in the North where a vicious cycle of poor investment in innovation assets and infrastructure weakens the case for further investment in innovation assets and infrastructure which in turn further depresses productivity, growth and living standards.

    The regional imbalance in infrastructure investment is not inevitable nor as prominent a feature of many comparable economies. It is a series of deliberate policy decisions that are both structural in the hyper-centralisation of the state which allocates and reallocates its resources to London and the South East, and economically reinforcing through investment in clusters of leading assets. The results of which see UKRI invest 72 per cent more per person in the Greater South East than outside the Greater South East.

    This arrangement is also not a good deal for London. The weak economy across the rest of the country reduces the amount of cash available to invest in London’s leading research assets which in turn depresses growth in the capital, and because of the size of London’s economy, the whole of the economy. Despite the concentration of state spending Londoners also generate far more in tax receipts than London receives in state expenditure.

    The economy cannot grow without improving productivity, productivity will not grow without improving Northern economies, and Northern economies will not improve under the current approach to state spending. A problem at last recognised by the government in the launch of its Northern Growth Strategy.

    We do thing differently here

    There are three planks to the strategy. Investment in transport, business support, and a devolution agenda that combines investment in innovation assets with promises of further devolution.

    There are further plans to come but the agenda, while light, sets out some of the big opportunities that would be genuinely transformative to the North. The first is to improve the educational opportunities for the people in the North and increase the number of graduates that stay there. Unless there are going to be caps for students in the South East (unlikely) this would inevitably mean more not fewer university students. The hope is that retaining graduates, and therefore intellectual capital, would provide an economic boost. This reads more as a wish than a plan. The government has not explained how they will rebalance the economy by moving graduates without any incentives, fewer jobs in the North, and bad infrastructure.

    The wider economic plan relies on realising the benefits of key research assets aligned to the industrial strategy in things like manufacturing, digital, and clean energy. The promise is that there will be national investment in these assets, coupled with improved transport to improve the economic performance of radial cities, allied to wider transport infrastructure to improve connection between Northern cities. The plan is to use government investment to improve economic performance both with and across cities.

    Darlington and Stockton rail

    The transport announcements have captured the headlines. There is evidence in other contexts that good transport links allied to research assets induce spillover benefits The plan, finally backed by Labour’s perennial leadership candidate Andy Burnham, will see investment between Sheffield, Leeds, York, and Bradford followed by a new route between Liverpool and Manchester, and complete with new connections in the Pennines connecting the rest of the North via Darlington. Part of the case for transport investment is that improving connectivity between leading knowledge assets will support economic growth.

    Ultimately, this plan recognises two crucial points about the UK’s economy. The first is that the success of the UK’s knowledge assets is the success of the wider economy. That success is predicated on a better distribution of cash and opportunity. The second is that the North’s potential has been stymied by poor infrastructure. In addressing both the government not only confirms its ambitions for the North but further cements innovation at the heart of its economic plan.

    Source link

  • The Hidden Tax Students Pay for Your AI Strategy (opinion)

    The Hidden Tax Students Pay for Your AI Strategy (opinion)

    University leaders are thinking a lot about AI. Some institutions are purchasing site licenses, others forming task forces and others are drafting policies focused on academic honesty. Meanwhile, students are quietly bearing a cost that few are tracking: between $1,200 and $1,800 over four years in AI tool subscriptions that fragmented and unenforceable institutional policies have made necessary.

    Here’s what a typical student experience looks like. Freshman fall semester: The composition professor bans ChatGPT even though the university has a site license. The biology lab recommends NotebookLM for research synthesis. The math professor encourages Wolfram|Alpha Pro Premium at $8.25 per month. Spring semester brings a different writing professor, who requires Grammarly Pro at $12 monthly, while the computer science intro professor suggests GitHub Copilot Pro for $10 monthly (though it’s worth noting here—props to GitHub Copilot—that verified students may be eligible for free access to the Pro plan). Meanwhile, the research methods professor advises students to “use AI responsibly” without defining what that means.

    As students progress, the costs compound. Statistics courses need IBM SPSS Statistics with AI features or Jupyter with premium compute, such as through a Google CoLab Pro subscription ($9.99 per month). Marketing classes require Canva Pro for design projects at $15 monthly. Capstone courses recommend Claude Pro at $20 monthly, or premium versions of research tools like Consensus or Elicit running anywhere from $10 to more than $40 per month. Different courses equal different tools, and the subscription stack grows. The money matters—$1,200 to $1,800 is significant for students already stretching every dollar. But the financial burden reveals something more troubling about how policy fragmentation or policy stall is undermining educational equity and mission. The problem runs deeper than institutional inaction.

    Without coordination, universities face two unsatisfying options. Option one: Buy nothing centrally. Students bear the full cost—potentially $4 million to $7 million in aggregate per year for a 15,000-student institution—creating massive equity gaps and graduates unprepared for AI-integrated careers. Option two: Attempt institutional licensing. But this means more than purchasing a single large language model. Writing disciplines might work with ChatGPT or Claude. But other disciplines might need GitHub Copilot, Canva Pro, AI-enhanced modeling platforms, Consensus, Elicit, AI features in SPSS or premium Jupyter compute. There are thousands of AI platforms out there.

    A truly comprehensive strategy for a large university could exceed $2 million annually—with no guarantee of faculty adoption or pedagogical integration. So even with an investment, without consensus or agreement, students might still experience this AI tax. Some institutions have the financial capacity to invest in both comprehensive licensing and faculty development. But most universities facing enrollment pressures and constrained budgets cannot afford coordinated AI strategy at this scale. The result is policy paralysis while students continue paying out of pocket. Some institutions have tried a middle path, purchasing site licenses for tools like ChatGPT Edu or Claude for Education. But without cross-functional coordination, these investments often miss their mark.

    The fundamental barrier is really a structural one. Procurement authority typically resides with the chief information officer, while pedagogical decisions belong to the provost and faculty. The information technology office selects tools based on security, scalability, cost and vendor relationships and reliability. Faculty need tools based on disciplinary fit, learning outcomes and individual professional preparation. These criteria rarely align. If an institution does purchase something, it may sit underutilized while students continue paying for what they actually need or what faculty require or prefer.

    This creates the unintentional equity crisis: Two students in the same capstone course may face dramatically different access. Student A, working 20 hours weekly and Pell Grant eligible, cannot afford premium subscriptions. She uses free versions with severe limitations and usage caps—and when those caps hit midassignment, her work stalls. Student B, with family financial support, maintains premium subscriptions for every required tool with unlimited usage and priority access. Student B’s AI-enhanced work earns higher grades not because of deeper learning, but because of subscription access. Academic advantages compound over time and may continue past college and into the career.

    Universities have created an unintentional AI tax here on students that exacerbates grade inflation, does not ensure learning of content and is costing students. Universities have always operated on a principle of equal access to essential learning resources. AI has become essential to academic work, yet access remains unequal.

    The academic commons is breaking down. The coordination gap is structural—and fixable. Technology teams focus on infrastructure and security. Academic affairs manages curriculum and pedagogy. Student success addresses traditional access barriers. Financial aid handles emergency requests for support case by case. In practice, the CIO and provost rarely will coordinate at the operational level, where these decisions actually get made.

    The employability implications compound the equity concerns. One survey found that 26 percent of hiring managers now consider AI fluency a baseline requirement, with 35 percent actively looking for AI experience on résumés. Students graduating without systematic AI literacy preparation face workforce disadvantages that mirror the educational inequities they experienced, disadvantages that may extend into career outcomes and lifetime earnings.

    The real question isn’t “What should we buy?” Instead, universities need to ask themselves, “What is AI fluency and how do we know if students are getting it?” Then, “How do we make strategic decisions about what gets institutional investment—not just licenses but also faculty buy-in and development—versus what students purchase?” That requires executive-level strategic coordination that bridges IT and academic affairs, something most universities lack.

    The conversations are happening in separate silos when they need to converge. Until they do, universities will continue creating hidden taxes for students while wondering why AI investments aren’t delivering promised educational transformation. Students caught in this gap might not even be aware it is happening and not have the language or platform to name it.

    Higher education’s democratic mission requires equal access to essential learning tools. AI has become essential. Access remains unequal. Costs are passed to the students. The longer institutions delay action, the wider these gaps grow.

    Kenneth Sumner is founder and principal of Beacon Higher Education, which provides AI governance consulting for colleges and universities. He previously served as provost at Manhattan University and has held associate provost and dean roles at Montclair State University. He holds advanced AI strategy and design and innovation certifications from the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University School of Business.

    Source link