Tag: Uncertainty

  • Federal policy uncertainty is disrupting planning, college leaders say

    Federal policy uncertainty is disrupting planning, college leaders say

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Nearly all senior higher education leaders — 98% — reported that federal policymaking has introduced uncertainty into institutional planning, according to the latest pulse survey from the American Council on Education. 
    • Topping the list of senior leaders’ most pressing concerns is state and federal interference with colleges’ autonomy. Over 70% of leaders said they were either extremely or moderately concerned about threats to independence and academic freedom.
    • “Uncertainty around research funding, immigration and international engagement, academic freedom, and student aid policy are shaping institutional decision-making and straining long-term planning efforts,” the report’s authors wrote.

    Dive Insight:

    After 2025’s many policy upheavals, it would be shocking only if college leaders didn’t report some uncertainty. 

    Last year, President Donald Trump and his administration upended many of the sector’s longstanding precedents and fundamental assumptions. Trump’s executive branch attacked everything from the U.S. Department of Education as a whole, to research funding, to the visa system for international students, to individual colleges, many of which became targets of civil rights investigations and political pressure campaigns.

    Trump and congressional Republicans also ended the 20-year-old Grad PLUS loan program and introduced new caps on federal student loans that some worry will limit students’ access to graduate education. 

    All of that tumult is clearly weighing on the minds of college leaders. 

    Nearly three in four senior leaders described their level of uncertainty about the federal policy environment and its impact on planning as “extreme” or “moderate,” according to the poll. Another 19% reported “some” uncertainty and 7% described it as “slight.” 

    Trump’s impact on international student enrollment — with recent studies showing dips in graduate and new students from abroad — also loomed large for many leaders. Sixty percent said they were extremely or moderately concerned about immigration restrictions and visa revocations.

    Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are also arguably more at risk than they have been in generations.

    Trump’s government has tried to force policy changes at colleges through federal investigations, research funding cuts and his compact for higher education. In some cases, the administration has wrested payments and policy changes from institutions under pressure. 

    But many colleges and universities are also losing their independence through new state laws that aim to weaken governance, direct course content, and banish diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 

    In a recent report, the free expression group PEN America described 2025 as a “catastrophe” for higher ed. The group counted 21 bills across 15 states enacted in 2025 that it says censor higher education and were the “result of a relentless, years-old campaign to exert ideological control over college and university campuses.” 

    College leaders also flagged perennial challenges among their concerns in the ACE poll. That includes fiscal pressures, with 44% reporting either extreme or moderate concern about long-term financial viability. Enrollment, the mental health of students and perceptions about higher education’s value were all among leaders’ most pressing concerns as well. Over 75% reported extreme or moderate concern around what the public and policymakers thought about the sector. 

    The ACE report drew from a December survey of 386 senior leaders from colleges nationwide.

    Source link

  • Effective finance governance is about balancing high quality data with managing existential uncertainty

    Effective finance governance is about balancing high quality data with managing existential uncertainty

    Higher education institution finances are not like the finances of other organisations, in the strange blend of commercial imperative and charitable purpose.

    A big portion of their revenue is driven by loss-making activity in research and programmes that lose money; their surplus-driving activity in international recruitment is hyper-competitive; and they have a cost base in salaries, pensions, and infrastructure that are influenced by factors outside their direct control.

    The current moment of financial pressure on higher education has tightened focus on the governance of university finances, with concerns expressed by the Department for Education and the Office for Students in the English context, and particular scrutiny from government and regulators in Scotland in light of the financial crisis at the University of Dundee last year.

    To the extent that governments set the terms of the higher education funding settlement it is perhaps unreasonable to lay blame for any given higher education institution’s financial struggles at the feet of the board of governors or university leadership. But even with this caveat, the realities of the current moment call for well-managed internal financial governance and robust scrutiny and challenge of the executive’s plans from governing bodies.

    None of this is straightforward – the structures and cultures of higher education require a level of negotiation between academic priorities, external policy drivers, and organisational sustainability. Commercial acumen must be balanced with consciousness of the social mission and the rewards offered by short-term opportunities set against the responsibility to steward organisations that play a critical role in the national wellbeing for the long term.

    Together with TechnologyOne, we recently convened a private round table discussion among a group of COOs and financial directors, representing a diverse range of higher education institutions. We wanted to explore how these pressures are manifesting as emerging priorities for governance, and the nature of those priorities for finance leaders.

    Board cultures and capabilities

    One participant wryly observed that not every board member may have a full understanding of the scale of the challenges facing the sector as a whole, and their institution in particular, at the point of taking up their role, and their first exposure to the financial realities can sometimes be shocking. Commercial experience and acumen are much in demand on boards in financially challenging times, but that commercial awareness has to be deployed in the service of financial sustainability – and the definition of “sustainability” can be something of a moving target, especially when the future is uncertain.

    Attendees shared several examples of the kind of tensions around financial decision-making boards have to work through: between the cash demands of the next 18 months and the longer-term investments that will ensure the institution is still able to achieve its mission five years or a decade into the future; or between stockpiling reserves to guard against future risks versus delivering mission-led activity.

    There can be no right answer to these questions, and ultimately it is for the leadership of the institution to be accountable for these kinds of strategic choices. It is not that board members don’t understand the financial fundamentals, but that, attendees reflected, the nature of the trade-offs and the implications of some decisions may not be fully taken account of as the discussion unfolds. Financial directors and CFOs can play a critical role in ensuring these board-level discussions are shaped constructively, through prior briefing with board and committee chairs, and through being brought into the discussion as appropriate.

    Risk, risk appetite and forecasting

    Boards are, in light of ongoing public discussion about the risk of institutional financial crisis or even insolvency, naturally concerned about avoiding being the next institution to hit the headlines as facing serious financial challenge. Paradoxically, there was also a sense that this driving concern can lead to risk averse behaviours that are not always in the best interest of the organisation, such as conserving cash that could be used for surplus generating activity, or looking at revenue raising independently from the costs implied in raising revenue – the gap between the revenue and real cost of undertaking research being a classic example.

    One area to improve is understanding of risks, and risk appetite. Boards can, broadly, be appraised of risk and particularly financial risk. However, they can be less fluent in considering the risk they are willing to endure in order to solve some of their underlying challenges, or the relationship between risk and opportunity. For example, boards may see an inherent risk in their cash flow position. They often lean toward conserving cash (a low risk appetite) but this may actually worsen their cash position if they do not look at revenue generation (a more risky proposition.) At the other end of the spectrum boards may be tempted to pursue opportunities to raise revenue that do not contribute to, or distract from, the wider organisational mission and strategic objectives.

    Dealing with uncertainty is never easy, and there was a lively discussion about the role and purpose of financial forecasting, with one attendee pointing out that the idea of creating a five year financial forecast in a sector that is changing so rapidly is “a bit of a nonsense” with another observing “the only thing we know when we’re putting together our forecast is that it’s wrong.”

    It was noted that some boards spend very little time on the forecast and it was suggested that this was an area for greater focus, not to attempt to accurately predict the unpredictable but to socialise discussion about the nature of the uncertainties and their implications. One attendee argued that the point of the forecast is not in the accuracy of the numbers but that there are agreed actions following from the forecast – “we know what we’re going to do as a result.” Another suggested that the Office for Students could potentially offer some additional insight into what it expects to see in the financial returns at the point of preparing those returns, rather than raising concerns after the fact.

    Data and systems

    The institutional systems that bring together disparate financial systems into a single picture are of varying quality. Sometimes, universities are dependent on an amalgamation of systems, spreadsheets, and other data sources, that involve a degree of manual reconciliation. Inevitably, the more systems that exist and the more people who input the more room there is for disagreement and error. Even the most sophisticated systems that include automation and checks are only as accurate as the information provided to them.

    The accuracy and clarity of financial information matters enormously. Without it it becomes impossible to know where the gaps are in terms of income and costs. Managers and budget-holders cannot understand their own situation and it becomes much harder to present a clear picture to executive teams and from there, to boards. A key “ask” of financial management systems was to integrate with other data sources in ways that allow the presentation of financial information to be legible and allow for a clear story to emerge.

    Attendees at the round table reported a number of areas of focus in tightening up internal financial management and visibility of financial information. One critical area of focus was in improving general financial literacy across the organisation, so that institutional staff could understand their institution’s financial circumstances in more detail. Institutional sustainability is everybody’s problem, not just the finance team’s.

    In reporting to board, attendees were working on shortening and clarifying papers, providing more contextual information, and making greater use of visual aids and diagrams, with one attendee noting “the quality of management reports is an enabler of good governance.”

    In times of financial pressure and challenge, the quality of financial decision-making is ever more intimately tied to the quality of financial information. Budget holders, finance teams, executive teams, and boards all need to be able to assess the current state of things and plan for the future, despite its uncertainties.

    Effective governance in this context doesn’t mean fundamentally changing the management processes or governors departing from their traditional role of scrutiny and accountability, but it does mean engaging in an ongoing process of improving basic financial processes and management information – while at the same time embedding a culture of constructive discussion about the overall financial position across the whole institution.

    This article is published as part of a partnership with TechnologyOne, focused on effective financial governance. Join Wonkhe and TechnologyOne on Thursday 29 January 12.00-1.00pm for a free webinar, Show them the money: exploring effective governance of university finances.

    Source link

  • Policy uncertainty emerges as top barrier to student mobility 

    Policy uncertainty emerges as top barrier to student mobility 

    While affordability remains the greatest obstacle for students, IDP Education’s new Emerging Futures survey has revealed the growing impact of sudden and unclear policy changes shaping students’ international study decisions.  

    “Students and families are prepared to make sacrifices to afford their international education dreams. They can adjust budgets, seek scholarships and rely on part-time work. But they cannot plan for uncertainty,” said IDP chief partnerships officer Simon Emmett.  

    “When the rules change, without warning or clarity, trust falls away. Students hesitate, delay, or choose to study elsewhere.” 

    Drawing on the views of nearly 8,000 international students from 134 countries between July and August 2025, the results highlighted the critical importance of study destinations communicating policy changes to sustain trust among students.  

    The US and UK were rated the lowest for providing clear guidance on visas and arrivals processes, while New Zealand was identified as the top communicator in this respect.  

    What’s more, the UK saw the steepest rise in students withdrawing from plans to study there, indicating recent policy changes including plans to shorten the Graduate Route and increase compliance metrics for universities are creating uncertainty among international students. 

    Of the students who said they were pivoting away from major study destinations, over half (51%) indicated tuition fees had become unaffordable and one in five said it was too difficult to obtain a visa.  

    In markets such as Malaysia, the Philippines and the UAE, students reported delaying or redirecting applications almost immediately after unclear announcements by major destinations, the report said. 

    Meanwhile Canada’s share of withdrawals was shown to have eased, indicating messaging is helping to rebuild stability, the authors suggested, though Canadian study permit issuance has fallen dramatically in 2025.

    Without that stability, even the most attractive destinations risk losing trust

    Simon Emmett, IDP

    Despite policy disruptions in Australia over recent years, the country remained the most popular first-choice destination globally, ranked highly for value for money, graduate employment opportunities and post-study work pathways.  

    At the same time, many respondents flagged sensitivities to recent visa and enrolment changes, highlighting the need for consistent and transparent messaging to maintain Australia’s competitiveness, according to IDP.  

    The US saw the largest decline in popularity, dropping to third place behind Australia and the UK. 

    NAFSA CEO Fanta Aw said the findings should serve as a “wake-up call” that policy uncertainty has real human and economic costs, emphasising the need for “clear and consistent” communication from institutions and policymakers.  

    “Students are paying close attention to how the US administration handles student visas and post-study experiential learning opportunities like Optional Practical Training,” said Aw. 

    Visa restrictions and policy hostility have rocked the US under Trump’s second presidency, with global visa appointments suspended for nearly a month this summer, as well as thousands of student visa revocations and travel restrictions on 12 nations.  

    Post-study work opportunities are increasingly fragile in the US with government plans to overhaul the H-1B skilled worker visa to favour better paid jobs and OPT coming under increased scrutiny from policymakers. 

    Emmett highlighted the knock-on effect of these policy shocks, with student journeys being disrupted “not by ambition, but by uncertainty”. 

    “Countries that provide predictability will win the confidence of students and their families. Without that stability, even the most attractive destinations risk losing trust,” he said. 

    Despite financial and political challenges, demand for global study remained strong, with half of all prospective students intending to apply within six months, and a further 29% within a year. 

    South Asia emerged as the main driver of intent, with more than 60% of students surveyed from India, Pakistan and Bangladesh preparing near-term applications, though this region was also the most sensitive to abrupt or confusing policy shifts.  

    Source link

  • Economic Uncertainty Spurred Campus Cuts in September

    Economic Uncertainty Spurred Campus Cuts in September

    Judging from the widespread job and program cuts announced last month, higher education continues to face economic uncertainty on multiple fronts, from declining enrollment to federal funding issues.

    September saw layoffs, program cuts and other budget moves at a mix of institutions. While some of the institutions listed below are regional universities battered by declining enrollment, others are among the nation’s wealthiest; they pointed to federal research funding cuts, soaring endowment taxes and other factors as the impetus for recent cutbacks.

    Here’s a look at cost-cutting measures announced across the higher ed sector last month.

    Washington University in St. Louis

    One of the nation’s wealthiest universities is laying off hundreds of employees.

    WashU chancellor Andrew Martin announced last month that the private university had cut 316 staff positions and closed another 198 vacant roles as part of an effort to restructure or reduce budgets. He wrote that the cuts, which extend to WashU’s Medical Campus, total “more than $52 million in annual savings.”

    The chancellor cited both external and internal pressures.

    “These include the changing needs of our students, emerging technologies, and innovations in teaching and learning,” Martin wrote. “Others come from internal decisions and structures that have, over time, created ineffective processes and redundancies in the way we operate. In addition, we’re still facing significant uncertainty about potentially drastic reductions in federal research funding.”

    Uncertainty over federal research funding looms even as the university has lobbied heavily on Capitol Hill. Among individual institutions, WashU has been one of the top spenders on higher education lobbying this year, pumping $540,000 into those efforts across the first two quarters. (Third-quarter lobbying numbers are not yet available.)

    Despite a $12 billion endowment, WashU follows well-resourced peers, including Johns Hopkins, Northwestern and Stanford Universities, in enacting steep layoffs.

    Brown University

    Squeezed by a budget deficit and reeling from a battle with the Trump administration over allegations of antisemitism that included a temporary federal research funding freeze and ended with the university making concessions, Brown is laying off 48 employees and axing 55 vacant jobs.

    The cost-cutting measure comes after the Ivy League institution in Rhode Island already eliminated “approximately 90 mostly vacant positions” earlier this year, according to an announcement from senior administrators. Following the cuts, Brown is walking back freezes on hiring, travel and discretionary spending.

    Officials announced they plan to monetize “non-strategic real estate holdings” and pause “spending on plans to move the University to net-zero emissions,” among other efforts, including “prioritizing fundraising for current-use gifts that have an immediate positive budgetary impact.”

    Brown is among the nation’s wealthiest universities, with an endowment valued at $7.2 billion.

    University of Oregon

    Grappling with a budget deficit of more than $25 million, the public flagship announced plans to lay off 60 employees and close another 59 vacant positions, The Oregonian reported.

    The move comes after the university cut dozens of jobs earlier this year.

    “Through careful consultation with deans, department heads and the University Senate, we were able to substantially close our budget deficit without eliminating any degree programs,” UO senior officials wrote last month. “And while we are cutting 20 filled career faculty positions and 14 unfilled tenure track faculty positions, we are not eliminating any filled tenure track faculty positions.”

    Berklee College of Music

    College leaders cited “rising costs, a dynamic enrollment environment, and shifting national policies” in announcing the layoffs of 70 employees at the storied music school last month.

    The layoffs reportedly amount to 3 percent of the Berklee College of Music workforce and include employees on campuses in Massachusetts, New York and Spain, according to Boston.com. Of the 70 employees laid off, all were staff members and no faculty jobs were cut.

    Southern Oregon University

    After declaring financial exigency in July, officials finalized a plan at the public university in Ashland to cut $10 million in operating costs over four years, Jefferson Public Radio reported.

    The cuts will reportedly affect 70 faculty and staff jobs, though not all are currently filled. In addition to layoffs and the elimination of vacant jobs, the university also plans to scale back programs by cutting 10 majors—including chemistry and mathematics—and dropping a dozen minors.

    University of Arizona

    The public university in Tucson is cutting 43 jobs after Congress eliminated funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, The Arizona Daily Star reported.

    The program, known as SNAP-Ed for short, was removed from the federal budget earlier this year. Termination of the program cut off about $6 million in annual funds to the university to provide education-related services, faculty members told the newspaper.

    Arizona’s job cuts come as the university recently managed to zero out a $177 million deficit that administrators discovered in late 2023, which prompted sweeping cost-cutting measures.

    University of Louisiana at Lafayette

    The public university eliminated six jobs and closed the Office of Sustainability and Community Engagement last month as it navigates a $25 million deficit, The Acadiana Advocate reported.

    Other offices were restructured.

    The newspaper reported that officials have already identified $15 million in cuts to help close the deficit. Most divisions across the university will be required to reduce operational expenses by 10 percent.

    Cuyahoga Community College

    Following other public institutions in Ohio, CCC is axing 30 associate degree programs in low-enrollment areas, as mandated by Senate Bill 1, which the State Legislature passed earlier this year, Signal Cleveland reported.

    The cuts, announced last month, include a mix of programs ranging from advanced manufacturing to creative arts. Multiple apprenticeship programs are also being shut down.

    East Carolina University

    Officials at the public university in Greenville announced plans last month to cut $25 million from the budget amid declining enrollment and other factors, The Triangle Business Journal reported.

    Belt-tightening measures will be implemented over three years and will include “permanent reductions, academic program optimization, and organizational adjustments,” ECU officials announced last month. Administrators did not specify the number of potential layoffs ahead.

    Yale University

    Increased taxes and federal funding uncertainty are driving cost-cutting measures at the Ivy League university in Connecticut, where officials last month announced retirement incentives to eligible faculty as the university braces for an 8 percent tax on endowment income.

    Yale is one of the few universities with a multibillion-dollar endowment that will feel the tax at its highest level. The increase is a significant jump from the prior endowment tax of 1.4 percent.

    The university is also delaying major construction projects, among other money-saving moves.

    Source link

  • How Small College Presidents Are Leading Through Uncertainty – Edu Alliance Journal

    How Small College Presidents Are Leading Through Uncertainty – Edu Alliance Journal

    Insights from three post-COVID presidents on enrollment, financial sustainability, and strategic innovation

    September 3, 2025, by Dean Hoke: Small colleges across America face an unprecedented convergence of challenges—demographic shifts, federal policy changes, evolving student expectations, and the lingering effects of COVID-19. In an August 27th Small College America webinar hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds, three presidents shared how they are navigating these pressures with fresh strategies and resilient leadership: Dr. Anita Gustafson of Presbyterian College, Dr. Andrea Talentino of Augustana College, and Dr. Tarek Sobh of Lawrence Technological University.

    Their conversation revealed that while the obstacles are significant, thoughtful leadership and adaptive strategies can position small colleges to not just survive but thrive.

    The Enrollment and Financial Sustainability Imperative

    Finding Opportunity in Transfers

    For Presbyterian College, located in growing South Carolina, President Gustafson has found opportunity amid challenge. “About 60% of our students come from South Carolina, and the state is growing, which helps us,” she noted. However, rather than relying solely on traditional recruitment, the college has pivoted to focus on transfer students—a population they hadn’t previously targeted.

    This strategic shift required significant cultural change. “We have very robust general education requirements, and we are working with our faculty to be more transfer-friendly,” Gustafson explained. The result has been a notable enrollment bump, demonstrating how institutional flexibility can open new pathways to growth.

    The Four R’s Framework

    At Augustana College in Illinois—a state that isn’t growing—President Talentino has developed what she calls the “four R’s” approach: recruitment, retention, revenue, and results. This framework drives their strategic planning and helps the entire campus community understand how their work connects to institutional sustainability.

    “We budget actually 11 years out,” Talentino shared, acknowledging that “it’s a little bit like the weather—once you get past day three or four, it could rain when it’s supposed to be sunny.” This long-term perspective allows the college to anticipate challenges and make gradual adjustments rather than reactive cuts.

    Both presidents emphasize conservative budgeting practices. As Gustafson put it: “When we build our budget, we build it on conservative numbers so that we’re not trying to overextend our budget. I think that’s really key to sustainability—making sure you’re being realistic.”

    Confronting Federal Policy and International Student Challenges

    The STEM Advantage and Vulnerability

    Lawrence Technological University’s focus on STEM education has provided both advantages and vulnerabilities in the current environment. President Sobh noted that domestic demand for technologically trained professionals has driven significant interest in their programs. “Our programming, given the surge and the need for technological education, has been serving us well from a domestic growth point of view,” he explained.

    However, like many engineering-focused institutions, Lawrence Tech has experienced a decline in international student enrollment. Sobh emphasized that this challenge extends beyond individual institutions: “The same statement would probably be true of every single one of the universities in the country that is home to a college of engineering.”

    International Student Success Stories

    Despite broader challenges, Augustana College achieved remarkable success with international student recruitment. President Talentino reported that they expect to bring in close to 85% of their original international student goal, “probably one of the few places in the country where we’re going to come that close.”

    This success resulted from intensive, hands-on communication and their focus on undergraduate rather than graduate international students, who faced fewer visa complications. About 20% of Augustana’s student body consists of international students, making this achievement particularly significant for their financial sustainability.

    Managing Financial Aid Changes

    The recent changes to federal financial aid programs have created additional complexity. Talentino noted that Augustana has some protection through a generous alumnus who funds a program meeting 100% of the needs of high-achieving, high-need students. However, she acknowledged ongoing challenges: “There’s a lot of folks in the middle where parent loans are being squeezed and caps on borrowing are being squeezed.”

    Strategic Technology Investment and AI Integration

    The Liberal Arts Approach to AI

    President Gustafson acknowledged the challenge of staying current with AI developments at a liberal arts institution. Presbyterian College has taken a pragmatic approach, partnering with external agencies for micro-credentialing programs that will eventually extend to alumni.

    “Our graduates need to understand AI. They need to know how to use it in order to be competitive in the job market,” Gustafson emphasized. The college has also established a technology committee with campus-wide representation to develop long-term budgeting strategies for technology infrastructure.

    AI as an Institutional Efficiency Tool

    At Lawrence Tech, President Sobh described AI integration as both natural and transformative. Beyond curriculum integration, the university has embraced AI for business processes. “Our marketing, branding, and public relations departments are using AI for the development of marketing campaigns, which is 100 times more efficient, faster, cheaper, and more productive than not using AI,” he noted.

    This efficiency extends across departments, from budget management to communications, though Sobh acknowledged that implementation remains “work in progress” for non-academic staff who need training and support.

    Evolving Student Experience and Support

    Becoming “Student Ready”

    President Talentino introduced the concept of institutions becoming “student ready” rather than expecting students to be “college ready.” This perspective shift has driven comprehensive changes at Augustana, from streamlining onboarding processes to reconsidering when and how students want to engage with services.

    “We can’t take things that we used to take for granted,” Talentino observed, noting that students today have different expectations and needs than previous generations. The college has revamped peer mentor programs, developed success teams for every student, and created specialized support centers like their new STEM center.

    Supporting First-Generation Students

    Presbyterian College’s focus on first-generation students—about one-third of its population—has led to innovative programming. Their “PresbyFirst Plus” program brings first-gen students to campus two days early and has earned recognition as a “first-gen forward network champion.”

    This targeted support reflects broader changes in student demographics. As Gustafson noted: “Students of today don’t have the reading skills and the math skills that previous generations have had.” This reality has required faculty to adapt their approaches, sometimes focusing on foundational skills before advancing to advanced content.

    Bold Strategic Moves

    Creating New Academic Pathways

    Lawrence Tech’s establishment of a fifth college—the College of Health Sciences—represents a significant strategic pivot for the 95-year-old institution. “It was quite a bold move to establish a new college 50 years or so after the last one had been established,” President Sobh noted.

    This expansion into health sciences aligns with the growing demand for technologically trained healthcare professionals. The college now offers programs in nursing, physician assistant studies, and cardiovascular perfusion, and more programs are planned.

    Community Development as Institutional Strategy

    Perhaps the most innovative approach comes from Augustana College’s creation of a community development corporation (CDC). President Talentino explained that the condition of the surrounding neighborhood had become a recruiting challenge, with prospective students and families expressing concerns about the area.

    Rather than simply hoping for external improvement, Augustana committed to an active partnership with the city of Rock Island. The CDC purchases and renovates properties to create mixed-use developments with retail on the first floor and housing above. “We really committed to putting our money where our mouth is,” Talentino said.

    This initiative aligns with Lutheran principles of service to neighbor while addressing a practical institutional need. The city has become an enthusiastic partner, and the project has energized both campus and community.

    Leadership Principles for Uncertain Times

    Transparency and Partnership

    President Gustafson’s leadership philosophy centers on transparency and symbiotic relationships. Her first-year theme, “Symbiosis—stronger together,” emphasized that the academic community functions best when operating collaboratively rather than in silos.

    Her second-year pivot to “don’t panic, navigate”—borrowed from the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities—has helped the leadership team manage multiple simultaneous challenges. This approach emphasizes thoughtful response over reactive decision-making.

    Cultural Understanding and Patience

    President Sobh, who transitioned from provost to president at the same institution, emphasized the importance of cultural understanding. Despite the temptation to implement changes quickly, he spent his first semester meeting with every colleague on campus—”literally hundreds” of people—to understand institutional culture and aspirations.

    “The tendency of leaders to effect changes immediately is, in my opinion, the wrong decision,” Sobh reflected. “Waiting and listening to the culture of the institution, understanding the aspiration and history, and how my own interests can be integrated into that vision is absolutely worthwhile.”

    Institutional vs. Individual Focus

    President Talentino identified a key leadership challenge: helping people understand institutional needs beyond their individual or departmental perspectives. She noted that this represents one of her biggest adjustments from faculty and provost roles to the presidency.

    “Focus on self and focus on own department rather than institutional-wide awareness was a little bit of a surprise to me,” she admitted, “but I guess that’s what makes it challenging and never boring.”

    The Value Proposition Message

    All three presidents emphasized the importance of clearly articulating their institutions’ value propositions to various constituencies. President Sobh stressed the power of concrete outcomes: “Being able to say 97% of my students continue on and are employed at this level and they are guaranteed a job and 85% live locally—that’s an incredibly powerful statement.”

    President Gustafson focused on framing liberal arts education in terms of workforce development and democratic leadership: “All of us are important contributors to workforce development. If we can shape our message around workforce development, economic development, and providing leaders for a democratic society, that’s very helpful.”

    Looking Forward

    These three presidents demonstrate that successful leadership during uncertain times requires a combination of strategic thinking, cultural sensitivity, and adaptive capacity. Their approaches vary based on institutional type and regional context, but common themes emerge: the importance of transparency, the need for long-term planning with short-term flexibility, and the value of viewing challenges as opportunities for innovation.

    As small colleges continue to navigate demographic shifts, policy changes, and evolving student needs, these leadership insights offer practical guidance for presidents, boards, and stakeholders committed to the distinctive mission of small college education.

    The conversation reveals that while the challenges facing small colleges are significant, innovative leadership and strategic adaptation can position these institutions not just to survive, but to thrive in serving their communities and students.

    The complete webinar is available on the Small College America YouTube Channel at https://youtu.be/ya1FBu9eS5Q, and the audio podcast can be accessed at https://smallcollegeamerica.transistor.fm/19

    Small College America is a podcast series that presents critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast will delve into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience. The series is co-hosted by Dean Hoke and Kent Barnds.

    Source link

  • Federal Policy Uncertainty Impacting College Budgeting

    Federal Policy Uncertainty Impacting College Budgeting

    Economic uncertainty—the kind that dominated headlines for the first half of 2025—makes long-term financial planning difficult. But nearly two in three college and university chief business officers say that uncertainty surrounding federal policy for higher education is hindering their ability to conduct even basic financial planning. That’s according to Inside Higher Ed’s forthcoming annual survey of CBOs with Hanover Research.

    “Higher education has not faced this level of financial uncertainty in generations,” said Robert Kelchen, chair of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, who reviewed preliminary survey data.

    While recent history offers one comparison—the early days of the pandemic, when uncertainty was similarly “off the charts”—the federal government at that time “quickly stepped in to provide support,” Kelchen continued. Today, by contrast, the federal government “is causing the uncertainty.”

    According to the survey, federal policy uncertainty under the second Trump administration is moderately impacting basic financial planning at 49 percent of institutions represented, meaning that challenges have arisen but CBOs and their colleagues have managed to adapt. Another 14 percent of institutions are severely impacted, meaning basic financial planning has been extremely difficult, leading to major disruptions. This is consistent across sectors.

    The survey was fielded in April and May, with CBOs from 169 institutions, public and private nonprofit, associate to doctoral degree–granting, responding. The full 2025 Survey of College and University Chief Business Officers will be released later this month. It includes additional findings on the second Trump administration’s impact on institutional finances so far, mergers and acquisitions, value and affordability, and more.

    CBOs see federal student aid policy changes as a major risk, with 68 percent citing this as a top federal policy concern from a longer list of options. A distant second: research funding levels, cited by 24 percent of all CBOs. Public institution CBOs are relatively more concerned about research funding, at 36 percent versus 9 percent of private nonprofit peers.

    Questions about the future of federal student aid come on top of last year’s Free Application for Federal Student Aid fiasco. And nearly four in 10 surveyed CBOs (38 percent) report having already experienced significant to severe disruptions related to that FAFSA rollout.

    In Kelchen’s assessment, there’s no guarantee that the federal financial aid system will work as intended this fall—especially for colleges that require additional oversight before receiving funds, given recent mass layoffs at the U.S. Education Department. Congress also last week passed what he described as the largest set of changes to federal higher education policy in decades, via the Trump-backed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, with potential “downstream effects for state budgets due to cuts to federal benefits.”

    Throw in cuts to federal research funding and big changes for international students, and colleges’ budgets “are highly uncertain,” Kelchen said.

    Case in point: Michigan State University president Kevin Guskiewicz recently announced a plan to cut spending, including faculty and staff positions. He blamed expectations that the university will receive “less money from the federal government due to research cuts and restrictions on international enrollments, although the magnitude of those impacts is uncertain.” Also at play: increasing operating costs and state budget concerns.

    In another example of uncertainty in action, Val Smith, president of Swarthmore College, announced in late May that the institution’s Board of Managers had been unable to carry out “one of its primary fiduciary responsibilities: approving the college’s operating budget,” at least as usual. Given the “confluence of uncertainties we currently face,” she said at the time, the board moved forward with an interim operating budget for the first three months of the new fiscal year. It plans to revisit and adopt a full operating budget in the fall, “when we expect to have more clarity.”

    To Kelchen, interim budgets such as Swarthmore’s can make sense if revenues are “highly volatile.” So he said he wouldn’t be surprised if other institutions were quietly making similar moves.

    In an additional expression of uncertainty, most surveyed CBOs describe the impact of the second Trump administration’s policies on their institution’s financial outlook—both current and over the next 12 months—as somewhat or very negative.

    Most CBOs report minimal federal funding cuts under Trump so far. A handful do indicate that their funding has been reduced significantly, by more than 10 percent. An additional 11 percent report that funding has been reduced by 5 to 10 percent. And about as many aren’t sure. But the rest say funding has decreased by less than 5 percent or stayed consistent.

    While the ultimate impact of federal policy changes remains to be seen—and will look different at different institutions—strategist Rebeka Mazzone advised frequent collaboration and communication between CBOs and other cabinet-level leaders, “so that you always know what’s happening on a more real-time basis.”

    Also critical: forecasting, or “having a tool that allows you to constantly update the dollars you have so that you understand the impact.” Mazzone, founder of FuturED Finance, said that this real-time process is underused and very different from typical budgeting, in a which a yearlong spending plan is developed based on a particular moment in time. But the “smaller and the more cash-strapped the institution is, the more important the forecast becomes.”

    Fancy software isn’t necessary, she said, as forecasting can happen on a spreadsheet. What matters is “capturing changes and overlaying them on the budget so that you understand where you’re going to end the year, and that helps you to more proactively manage the outcomes.”

    Another important tool? Five-year projections. “If you have lower enrollment this year, that is going to affect you also for the next three years. If you have a higher discount rate this year, that is going to affect you also for the next three years.” So when institutions “suddenly” close, Mazzone said, “it’s not so sudden. They just weren’t using these tools to really understand how bad things were—and how quickly things were heading in the wrong direction.”

    To Mazzone’s point, while federal policy uncertainty is challenging short-term planning, many institutions now making budget cuts have significant underlying issues.

    What’s Kelchen’s advice for colleges and universities struggling with present uncertainty—including those navigating longer-term financial woes? Prepare multiple budget scenarios “ranging from something close to business as usual to the possibility of losing most federal funding.”

    Institutions will get “some answers on what actual revenues look like as the start of a new academic year draws nearer, but this will take time,” he said. Those in stronger positions can “operate more at business as usual and absorb losses if needed. But if there is underlying weakness, colleges need to budget for the worst right now and hope for something better.”

    Source link

  • Federal Funding Uncertainty Halts Construction Projects

    Federal Funding Uncertainty Halts Construction Projects

    Earlier this year the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Board of Trustees approved the design of a $228 million research facility that would expand UNC’s work on virology, vaccine development and other areas. But now that project is suddenly on hold.

    UNC Chapel Hill is one of several major research universities pausing construction plans due to financial uncertainty provoked by the Trump administration’s efforts to cap federal research funding reimbursement rates.

    In recent months multiple federal agencies have announced plans to cap research reimbursement rates at 15 percent. (While such rates typically hover just under 30 percent, some institutions have negotiated reimbursement rates upward of 50 percent.) Though court challenges have halted the rate cuts for now, the uncertainty has prompted some institutions to pause certain construction projects—particularly research labs and related facilities.

    Institutions pausing or slowing plans to build new projects include some of the nation’s wealthiest private universities: Yale, Johns Hopkins and Washington U in St. Louis, which posted endowments of $41.4 billion, $13 billion and $11.9 billion, respectively, in the last fiscal year, according to a recent study of endowments. (UNC Chapel Hill is among the nation’s wealthiest public institutions, with a $5.7 billion endowment.)

    In some cases, construction on other facilities, like a new residence hall at UNC Chapel Hill, is moving forward while projects such as research labs have been halted.

    Projects on Hold

    Yale has paused construction on 10 planned projects, according to The New Haven Register.

    “We’re riding out a bad period,” Alexandra Daum, Yale’s associate vice president for New Haven affairs and university properties, said at a local Chamber of Commerce event earlier this month.

    One of those projects is the planned conversion of a street into a pedestrian and cyclist-only plaza, which officials decided in February to delay, Daum told The New Haven Independent, another local news outlet. Yale has not identified the other nine projects it plans to put off.

    Daum pointed to uncertainty about federal funding as the reason for the pause.

    “Like many, Yale is tracking federal funding closely and anticipating there will be impact to projects in the planning pipeline,” Daum wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed. “We don’t know how much of an impact federal decisions will have on these projects, so we are being prudent.”

    Construction on projects already underway will reportedly continue.

    Johns Hopkins University announced a similar decision in early June. Administrators wrote in a message to campus that the university has experienced “a steady stream of research grant terminations, suspensions, and delays” that created uncertainty, particularly when coupled with the proposals for lower research reimbursement rates. The rate caps could deal the university a loss of more than $300 million a year in federal research funding, officials wrote.

    JHU is taking a number of measures to handle budget concerns, including a staff hiring freeze, as well as pulling back on planned construction projects.

    “Prudence dictates cutting back our ambitions in the near term, and we have decided to reduce our capital construction and renovation plans by approximately 10-20%,” officials wrote. “Final decisions on these reductions will be made over the summer in consultation with the divisions, with an emphasis on continuing mission-critical projects, essential deferred maintenance, and projects that are already far along in the permitting, demolition, and construction process.”

    JHU did not identify what specific projects might be pushed back.

    Washington University halted construction of a new arts and sciences building in April; work was expected to begin earlier this year, according to a news release from last fall.

    WashU officials also cited federal funding concerns.

    “We regret that it’s necessary to take these actions, but in our current climate, it is simply not prudent to continue with these projects as scheduled,” Chancellor Andrew D. Martin said in a news release. “We are always careful stewards of the university’s resources, but at this time, given the uncertainty around federal research funding and other potential government actions, we have to take a careful look at every aspect of our operations. We hope that once we have a clearer sense of the financial picture, we may be able to revisit some of these investments.”

    UNC Chapel Hill offered similar reasons for halting construction on the research lab.

    “Due to ongoing uncertainty surrounding federal research funding, the University has paused plans for the Translational Research Building. We are currently evaluating our research infrastructure, including our research facilities, and will continue to monitor funding trends. Scenario planning is underway to help us remain prepared for future opportunities,” a UNC Chapel Hill spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed in an emailed statement.

    However, the university is moving forward with some projects, including a $93 million residence hall.

    In neighboring Virginia, Republican governor Glenn Youngkin rejected $600 million in funding requests for 10 planned renovation and expansion projects at public universities last month, The Virginia Mercury reported. In a letter to state legislators, Youngkin cited economic uncertainty.

    “I am optimistic about Virginia’s longer-term prospects for Fiscal Year 2027 and Fiscal Year 2028, and beyond, but there are some short-term risks as President Trump resets both fiscal spending in Washington and trade policies that require us to be prudent and not spend all of the projected surplus before we bank it,” Youngkin wrote to state lawmakers in May.

    Some of those planned projects were research-oriented, though many were not.

    The Outlook

    While a few universities have publicly walked back big projects, that doesn’t appear to be happening en masse, experts say. Planned construction is still happening at many colleges.

    “Projects, generally, are moving ahead. There are some larger projects that have been paused. The ones that have been stopped tend to be research-focused projects,” said Chris Purdy, director of higher education at SmithGroup, a design and planning firm that works in the sector.

    Other buildings, particularly those that are student-focused or in high-growth areas such as health sciences and STEM, are also moving ahead, he noted. Purdy pointed out that research labs and related facilities are often highly specialized and therefore the most expensive to build.

    “They’re primed to be under the most scrutiny just because they’re very expensive buildings,” Purdy said.

    He noted that SmithGroup continues to see requests for proposals for campus construction and is optimistic that colleges won’t back off of planned projects throughout the rest of the year. But looking ahead to next summer, or fiscal year 2027, Purdy is less sure about where things will stand, noting the looming economic uncertainty for many institutions.

    “At that point they’re going to have a different outlook on funding for capital projects,” Purdy said.

    Source link

  • Could Uncertainty in Higher Ed Be a Catalyst for Change?

    Could Uncertainty in Higher Ed Be a Catalyst for Change?

    As colleges navigate major disruption—from a loss of federal funding to AI advancements—they’re also being forced to grapple with persistent questions around their role in skills training, trust in their institutions and how to keep pace with digital learning innovations.

    At Digital Universities, a convening of more than 150 faculty, teaching and learning administrators, and education-technology experts, attendees came away with a sense of urgency to meet this moment of unpredictability and uncertainty.

    “It’s revealing the tensions between different goals, aspirations and larger challenges that may be implicit but are still there,” said Trey Conatser, assistant provost for teaching and learning at the University of Kentucky and director of UK’s Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching.

    “Some of those things are what it means to adapt to enrollment challenges and how we negotiate our identities as institutions of higher education, as stewards of a storied, scholarly mission in light of changing business models, as well as negotiating our relationships with industry partners, the public and public officials.”

    Glenda Morgan, an education-technology market analyst, told Inside Higher Ed that she was reassured that “people are actually talking about this stuff—this moment of uncertainty” throughout the conference’s programming.

    “AI is making clear some of the issues and fractures and making all of these problems that have probably been there for a long time more apparent, visible and urgent,” she said.

    For example, “AI brings questions about cheating to the forefront, but it really highlights that our assessment systems are so outdated … Testing factual information has never been the point; it’s always been application. But AI is making that more urgent now.”

    Trust in Higher Ed

    In a panel discussion on privacy, AI and cybersecurity, speakers highlighted another long-standing issue that AI is pushing to the surface: trust. Morgan said that while today’s students seem generally comfortable sharing their data with outside entities, they may be increasingly skeptical about how their own institutions are using or even “surveilling” their data.

    Panelist Josh Callahan, chief information security officer for the California State University system, later told Inside Higher Ed that cybersecurity concerns in the era of AI are stoking conversations that should have happened decades ago.

    “We were all busy doing the things, building technology into teaching and learning, and we had a lot of assumptions and really didn’t engage in some of these conversations,” he said. “And now it’s becoming unavoidable, because it’s embedded. And we are at a crisis point in a lot of ways, in terms of our trust in institutions—not just higher ed.”

    Teaching in the Age of AI

    At the two-day event in Salt Lake City organized by Inside Higher Ed and its parent company, Times Higher Education, attendees also considered how to respond to the threat to entry-level white-collar jobs posed by the evolution of AI—a risk articulated by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei last month when he predicted AI could wipe out half of those positions within just five years.

    During a discussion on leveraging workforce partnerships for future skills, Sarah DeMark, vice president of academic portfolio at the fully online Western Governors University, said WGU’s instruction and curriculum model is informed by employment data and focused on helping students both develop and effectively market the skills they learn in college. “It’s not just about degree completion, it’s about getting a job,” she said. “One of the big opportunities [institutions] have is transparency around the skills and competencies students are gaining through the courses and programs they’re taking.”

    Hollis Robbins, special adviser for humanities diplomacy at the University of Utah, offered a different perspective on workforce preparation, saying faculty should be able to do more than teach skills and information in the age of AI, when students no longer need a professor to learn easily accessible, established information.

    “My own view is that AI is going to be teaching general education courses,” she said. With that in mind, “it’s important to reconfigure their business models to double down on faculty expertise and say that’s the value of what [students] are paying for.”

    Meanwhile, in a discussion about getting the most out of teaching with AI, Zawan Al Bulushi, an assistant professor of education at the University of Arizona, said that she sees generative AI as a “friend” that offers shortcuts for professors who may feel overwhelmed by their workloads. She uses it to craft lesson plans that strike the right tone with students and create visually appealing lecture slides that keep students engaged.

    “The best educators won’t be replaced by AI,” she said. “But those who use it well will redefine what’s possible.”

    Bulushi is an outlier among most faculty, however, as many institutions still have no formal AI policy supporting students and faculty in engaging with the technology.

    Recent findings from Inside Higher Ed’s survey of chief information officers showed that more than half of CIOs say their institution hasn’t adopted institutionwide formal policies or guidelines for the use of AI tools for general use. And 31 percent said their institution hasn’t adopted any policy or guidelines in the areas of instruction, administrative tasks, student services or research assistance.

    “If you don’t have a policy, then it’s a little bit like the wild, wild West. Entities like OpenAI, Google and Microsoft are all competing, and they’re all telling you that they’re the answer,” Marvin Krislov, president of Pace University, said in the opening plenary. “But there doesn’t seem to be regulation on the federal level and there doesn’t seem to be consensus in higher education. At least on an institutional level, I hope people will start—if they haven’t already—grappling with [AI].”

    Maricel Lawrence, innovation catalyst at Purdue Global, advised institutions to consider why they want to use new AI technologies before jumping headfirst into adoption.

    “We need a larger conversation about what it means to learn and how to advance student success,” she told Inside Higher Ed. “AI could help us in many ways, but it shouldn’t be that we’re starting the conversation with AI.”

    Sara Custer and Colleen Flaherty contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • Advising in a time of uncertainty

    Advising in a time of uncertainty

    • By Sarra Jenkins, Director of Future Pathways at Loughborough Grammar School.

    The headlines made by the financial uncertainties within the Higher Education sector have been widespread in recent months. QMUCU has a running list of the currently 90 organisations with redundancy and restructuring programmes, and the Office for Students predicts more than one-third of universities will face ‘serious cash flow problems’. For the sector and those in it, this creates uncertainty. It also creates uncertainty for students making decisions on their university choices, in both an emotional and logistical way. So, what challenges do university advisers face when advising students in the current climate?

    Before application

    When students are considering their higher education options, research is crucial. I have previously written about the importance of ‘best fit’ for trying to ensure a student will thrive at university. However, when students are researching institutions about which headlines have been written in terms of their financial security, it creates uncertainty and raises questions for students. These questions are often ones that do not have obvious or immediate answers, but they can make it difficult for students to feel that they can make effective decisions.

    This also makes it difficult to advise students on the post-18 plans. When the sector within which the students are researching is facing the financial concerns that it currently is, it makes it challenging to advise them accurately. One training session I attended drew attention to this, but effectively argued that students should not be too concerned with what is going on. This is well-meaning advice, but it does little to reassure them in the face of the headlines they see when they conduct their research.

    Course withdrawals during application

    Another way students may experience the impact of the financial issues in higher education is through course withdrawals. There have been news reports of universities deciding to cut courses due to the financial challenges they face. But this also affects prospective students. If a course is withdrawn before an application is made, at least the research that a prospective student carries out can take this into account in their decision-making. However, what about after an application is made?

    I had a student this year who was delighted to get an offer from the university they wanted to be their first-choice institution. They had put considerable effort and focus into their post-18 research and were able to get their application sent very early in the application cycle. This allowed them to focus on their A Levels and on getting the grades they would need to get in if they received an offer. In October, they received the offer they wanted, only to have it withdrawn in January after it was decided the course would not run in this academic year. As all of this occurred before the Equal Consideration Deadline, the student could remove this withdrawn option and put another university and course onto their UCAS form. But this logistical solution hides the emotional toll this took on the student.

    Initially, all of their well-formed and carefully researched plans were now in disarray. They could look at other options, and we did identify similar courses at different institutions. But understandably, these other options were not what the student wanted or had planned for. Having received an offer, they had set both their heart and their head on accepting it. Having it withdrawn was not simply a case of ‘finding something else’; rather, it undid months of research in the manner that every university adviser hopes their students will approach this decision.

    Students may also see other changes occurring during their application. At one university, headlines were created when departments were merged. In this case, I had a student who held an offer at one of these departments, and who then raised questions about what this meant for them. The answer might be that such changes may have relatively little impact on the student experience, however it does create uncertainty and unsettles the student.

    As a university adviser in this situation, we can try and help the student make the best decisions in the circumstances. But it does undermine the plans they had started to put together, either internally or in reality, about their next steps. This could also potentially undermine the success and speed of their transition to HE.

    Course withdrawals during a course

    Some withdrawals happen once a course has begun. Whilst universities might be supportive of students who find themselves in this unfortunate situation, it still undermines the research a student has done and the subsequent choices that they have made in accepting and taking up an offer.

    I had a student get in touch this year having had their course withdrawn just before Easter of their first year. Being so relatively new to university, the student came back and sought advice and support for an entirely new application. They had been offered a place on a different course by their university, but it did not have the focus and modules that they wanted. Instead of seeking a transfer, they sought to re-apply to university and begin again elsewhere in the first year.

    Again, whilst universities or school university advisers can try and help students make the best decisions in these circumstances, a decision has ultimately been placed on the student beyond their control. This does happen within the world of work too, however when students are paying to take up their higher education choices, it is important that they have agency in the choice and that their decision is right for them, not simply a fallback over which they had little control.

    Moving forward

    None of these situations reflects a preferred situation for a university, let alone a student. Clearly, none of these decisions are taken lightly by universities. Equally, this is, of course, not a UK-specific problem. Having visited the Netherlands recently, we saw protest signs about higher education cuts in Utrecht, and as I write this piece, reports are coming from the US of the Pentagon ending all funding for social science research. Those facing redundancies and restructuring are undoubtedly feeling the brunt of these financial concerns.

    Additionally, though, perhaps it is worth recognising the impact of this uncertainty on prospective students. The resilience they need to deal with such changes may yet not be fully formed, and this is one of the first major decisions in their lives over which they are likely to have considerable agency. Knowing these possibilities can help university advisers better prepare students. As universities look to their new intake in September, and open day season in the coming months, perhaps they could consider the reassurances that are possible to prospective students too.

    Source link

  • Driving resilient, stable school budgets in times of uncertainty

    Driving resilient, stable school budgets in times of uncertainty

    A perfect storm of financial pressures, from declining enrollment to escalating economic uncertainty, are pushing K-12 school district budgets to their limits.

    To adapt, districts nationwide are embracing innovative strategies to shore up budget stability. From reducing facility operational costs to forging strong community partnerships, school district leaders can learn from these proven examples to safeguard their financial stability and maintain funding for critical student programs.

    Securing revenue, and finding new revenue streams

    The post-COVID recovery era has been especially challenging for the majority of school districts whose budgets are based on per-pupil enrollment or attendance. Fortunately, there are many examples of school districts that have successfully combatted budget shortfalls through community-driven student engagement, retention and attendance programs. And with shifting populations and school choice schemes on the rise, school districts are also growing more adept at differentiating themselves through strong communications programs and visible investments into modern facilities. These strategies impact budgets by attracting new residents and strengthening student retention. 

    More districts are also looking to partnerships with local utility companies like utility rebates, net-metering programs, and demand response incentives. These programs reward smart energy management (i.e. energy efficiency upgrades, on-site renewables, and strategic energy usage) by offering direct cash infusions and bill credits that can improve a school’s budget health.

    Richland County School District One in South Carolina, for example, was able to take advantage of a net-metering program with their local utility after installing nearly 9MW of rooftop solar across 15 campuses. These solar upgrades will save the district over $29 million in energy costs over the next 20 years, more than funding themselves while creating a new financial cash flow into the district’s budget. This project also enables new STEAM curriculum, engaging students in energy generation and conservation in hands-on learning labs.

    Eliminating cost volatility and avoiding unexpected expenses

    Most US school districts are grappling with a portfolio of facilities that are decades past their prime. Maintaining those aging facilities often becomes reactive rather than planned—leaving districts vulnerable to costly, disruptive emergencies. This cycle of crisis spending is unsustainable, driving up long-term costs. That’s one reason why, in their 2025 Infrastructure Report Card for America’s Schools, the ASCE calls to, “urge school districts to adopt life-cycle cost analysis principles in planning and design processes to evaluate the total cost of projects and achieve the lowest net present value cost, including life-cycle O&M, in addition to capital construction.”

    Outdated HVAC systems, leaky building envelopes and inefficient lighting also strain budgets by consuming massive amounts of energy. With energy price volatility on the rise, inefficient energy usage can present a threat to predictable budgeting, particularly for public schools already navigating tight financial constraints.

    School districts like Greene County Schools (GCS) in Tennessee are seeing big budget impacts from taking a proactive approach to facility and energy management. Facing a growing list of deferred maintenance projects, including more than 400 aging HVAC units, GCS turned to Schneider Electric to help design a comprehensive, long-term energy management strategy that allowed the district to reallocate savings toward deferred maintenance.

    Support top-line priorities by capturing O&M cost savings

    Operations and maintenance (O&M) represent the second-largest expenditure in most school districts, right after personnel. Unlike staffing, however, these costs can be reduced without sacrificing student outcomes. By investing in facility modernizations—like smart building controls, LED lighting, water conserving plumbing, and clean energy technologies—schools can dramatically lower their utility bills and maintenance costs. These savings, when captured strategically, can be diverted back into what matters most: academic programming, staffing, and student engagement. 

    Gilbert Public Schools (GPS) in Arizona discovered first-hand how energy improvements can be an excellent tool to achieve budget sustainability. GPS started by upgrading to high-efficiency LED lighting across the district’s gymnasiums, allowing them to turn a $257,000 initial investment into more than $1.2 million in lifecycle savings over the life of the project. Next, GPS made modernizations that reduced water usage and lowered maintenance costs, from which the district ultimately realized $12.9M in lifecycle savings.

    Finding budget stability in times of uncertainty

    Times are uncertain, but as these stories show, budget stability is still within reach. Through smart resource optimization and strong community partnerships, schools can safeguard funding for their top priorities.

    Visit Schneider Electric’s K-12 Education Hub for more inspiring success stories and insights into our budget stability solutions tailored for schools.

    Source link