اینترنت

برچسب: leadership

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

    Higher Education Leadership in Times of Crisis – Edu Alliance Journal


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    First, don’t panic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



    Source link

  • White and male college leadership fails to reflect California’s racial, ethnic diversity

    White and male college leadership fails to reflect California’s racial, ethnic diversity


    Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity, hosts a panel discussion with California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian, California State University Chancellor Mildred Garcia, and University of California President Michael Drake.

    Credit: Ashley A. Smith / EdSource

    With some of the most racially and ethnically diverse student bodies in the country, California’s public community colleges and universities fail to mirror its students in teaching and leadership positions.

    White men dominate the leadership positions within the University of California, California State University and California Community College systems, even as two-thirds of undergraduates across the state identify as Latino, Black, Asian or Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islanders, according to a new report released Tuesday by the Campaign for College Opportunity. 

    Notably, the three systems are each led by a person of color: a Black man at UC, an Afro-Latina at Cal State and an Indian-American woman at the community colleges, but the report highlights that those leading academic senates, tenured positions, departments and senior administrative positions are disproportionately white and male. 

    Seeing instructors, staff members, administrators and presidents from diverse backgrounds on college campuses has been shown to help all students perform better academically, the campaign’s research shows.

    “I have often found a disheartening lack of representation while going to school, particularly as a STEM major,” said Casey Chang, an environmental science major at Mission College in Santa Clara. “I’ve had a few professors who are Asian American men, but navigating higher education as a woman of color has been difficult. I have yet to take a class with a female Asian American professor, and it feels like my identity has been left out.”

    Chang spoke at an event Tuesday evening hosted by the campaign about the report.

    Autumn Alaniz-Wiggins, a student at Chico State University, said she was excited to study nutrition, access and food justice at the school. But when she started her classes, she found that instead of learning about the intersection of systemic racism and food swamps, her instructors focused on the benefits of kale and quinoa.

    “It became clear to me that the absence of diverse identities in faculty and leadership positions hindered us from equitable student access,” she said. And for a year, Alaniz-Wiggins dropped out of college. That is, until she met her first Black faculty member at Chico State.

    “He taught culturally relevant courses and even hired me as a research assistant where I became published through a study on nutritional knowledge and (low-income) students,” she said. “For the first time, I was getting the support that I needed from the start.”

    For the Campaign for College Opportunity, improvement is too slow.

    “California’s public colleges and universities as well as our governor and Legislature have prioritized and invested in efforts to increase the representation of faculty and college leaders, but the work is, at best, happening at a pace that is far too slow or at worst, only paying lip service to the values of diversity, equity and inclusion,” said Michele Siqueiros, president of the Campaign for College Opportunity. Despite small increases in the racial and ethnic diversity of faculty and college leadership, “troubling gaps” remain, she added.

    The report found that while there have been improvements in gender and racial representations since the campaign’s first report in 2018, the state’s public universities still need to improve diversifying their leadership positions. For example, Latino, Black, Asian, Native Hawaiian and American Indian professors are underrepresented among the tenured and tenure-track faculty groups across the community colleges, UC and CSU systems. 

    The UC system

    There are few Latino faculty members in the UC system, and only 8% of them are tenured or on the tenure track. Among Black faculty, only 3% are tenured or on the tenure track. 

    Only eight of 117 campus leaders in the UC system are Latino, compared with 25% of UC students who identify as Latino, 39% of all Californians and 49% of Californians aged 18 to 24.

    When it comes to women in leadership, only two of the nine undergraduate campuses are led by women, despite 54% of undergraduate UC students identifying as women.

    The Cal State system

    Only 10% of Latino faculty across the 23 CSU campuses are tenured or on the tenure track. 

    The report also found that the CSU’s academic senate is also overwhelmingly white. Seventy percent of the Academic Senate and 64% of the campus-wide academic senate members are white, despite white students comprising 21% of the undergraduate student body.

    California’s community colleges 

    Only 18% of Latino faculty across the state’s 116 community colleges are tenured or on the tenure track. Among Black faculty, only 4% are tenured or on the tenure track. 

    Asian and Native Hawaiian-Pacific Islander students comprise 14% of the state’s community college students, but only 8% of campus or district leaders are Asian or Native Hawaiian. 

    California Community Colleges Chancellor Sonya Christian said she’s optimistic that in five years students will see an increase in diverse leadership across the 116 campuses.

    “Tenure happens at the discipline level, not only at the college level,” she said. “As system leaders, we need to set the expectations and shift the mindset.”

    Unfortunately, too often during the hiring process, people give arguments about not diminishing standards in the pursuit of diversity and equity, but “those are all false arguments,” Christian said. “We need to focus on what the data shows like the (report).”

    UC President Drake said one way to improve the diversity of leadership positions is to encourage the diverse students within the three higher education systems to pursue careers in academia “through graduate school, to the junior faculty, to tenured faculty and to our leaders,” he said. “Those things are evolutionary and they take time. But all the energy’s moving in the right direction.”

    Cal State Chancellor Mildred Garcia, hired at the end of last year, said she’s already starting to hold the 23 campus presidents accountable when it comes to making diversity, equity and inclusion a priority.

    “We have to remember belonging because students do not understand our campuses,” she said. “What are you doing about your staff? And your senior team?”

    But Garcia said campuses should also address the unconscious bias that happens on search committees. The UC system, for example, uses equity advisers in its hiring searches to guarantee a diverse and equitable pool of candidates, Drake said.

    There have been some pockets of improvement in closing racial and gender disparities across the three systems. For example, Black Californians are represented in both tenured and non-tenured faculty positions in the community colleges at 6% for both groups, according to the report, which reflects the state’s Black population. 

    The share of tenured and tenure-track professors who are women has increased from 33% to 40% in the UC system and from 47% to 49% in the CSU. About half of CSU presidents are women and more than half of the CSU board of trustees identify as women. CSU presidents are also racially diverse, with 12 of 23 campuses led by Latino, Black, Asian and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander leaders. 

    Women also lead 52 of the 116 community college campuses, and 49% of presidents in the two-year system come from diverse backgrounds.

    The campaign also recommended requiring all three public college systems to submit a bi-annual analysis of their leadership, faculty and academic senate diversity, and encouraged the Legislature to build a statewide fund that would help the colleges in recruitment, hiring and retention. The campaign also recommended that college presidents be willing to restart searches if their applicant pools don’t have an adequate number of competitive candidates from diverse backgrounds.





    Source link

  • With AI in schools, local leadership matters more than ever

    With AI in schools, local leadership matters more than ever


    Credit: Julie Leopo/EdSource

    Last week, the Trump administration’s draft executive order to integrate artificial intelligence (AI) into K-12 schools made national headlines. The order, still in flux, would direct federal agencies to embed AI in classrooms and partner with private companies to create new educational programs. The move comes as China, Singapore and other nations ramp up their AI education initiatives, fueling talk of a new “AI space race.” But as the world’s biggest players push for rapid adoption, the real question for American education isn’t whether AI is coming — it’s who will shape its role in our schools, and on whose terms.

    AI is not simply the next classroom gadget or software subscription. It represents a fundamentally new kind of disruptor in the education space — one that doesn’t just supplement public education but is increasingly building parallel systems alongside it. These AI-powered platforms, often funded by public dollars through vouchers or direct-to-consumer models, can operate outside the traditional oversight and values of public schools. The stakes are high: AI is already influencing what counts as education, who delivers it and how it is governed.

    This transformation is happening fast. For example, in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) the district’s ambitious “AI friend” chatbot project, meant to support students and families, collapsed when its startup partner folded, exposing the risks of investing public funds in untested AI ventures. Meanwhile, major tech firms are pitching AI as a “tutor for every learner and a TA for every teacher,” promising to personalize learning and free up educators’ time. The reality is more complex: AI’s promise is real, but so are its pitfalls, especially when it bypasses local voices and democratic control.

    The rise of AI in education is reshaping three core principles: agency, accountability and equity.

    • Agency: Traditionally, public education has empowered teachers, students and communities to shape learning. Now, AI platforms — sometimes chosen by parents or delivered through private providers — can shift decision-making from classrooms to opaque algorithms. Teachers may find themselves implementing AI-generated lessons, while students’ learning paths are increasingly set by proprietary systems. If local educators and families aren’t at the table, agency risks becoming fragmented and individualized, eroding the collective mission of public schooling.
    • Accountability: In public schools, accountability means clear lines of responsibility and public oversight. But when AI tools misclassify students or private micro-schools underperform, it’s unclear who is answerable: the vendor, the parent, the state, or the algorithm? This diffusion of responsibility can undermine public trust and make it harder to ensure quality and fairness.
    • Equity: AI has the potential to personalize learning and expand access, but its benefits often flow unevenly. Wealthier families and districts are more likely to access cutting-edge tools, while under-resourced students risk being left behind. As AI-powered platforms grow outside of traditional systems, the risk is that public funds flow to private, less accountable alternatives, deepening educational divides.

    It’s tempting to see AI as an unstoppable force, destined to either save or doom public education. But that narrative misses the most important variable: us. AI is not inherently good or bad. Its impact will depend on how — and by whom — it is implemented.

    The U.S. education system’s greatest strength is its tradition of local control and community engagement. As national and global pressures mount, local leaders — school boards, district administrators, teachers, and parents — must drive how AI is used. That means:

    • Demanding transparency from vendors about how AI systems work and how data is used.
    • Prioritizing investments in teacher training and professional development, so educators can use AI as a tool for empowerment, not replacement.
    • Insisting that AI tools align with local values and needs, rather than accepting one-size-fits-all solutions from distant tech companies or federal mandates.
    • Building coalitions across districts and states to share expertise and advocate for policies that center agency, accountability, and equity.

    As Dallas schools Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde put it, “It’s irresponsible to not teach (AI). We have to. We are preparing kids for their future”. But preparing students for the future doesn’t mean ceding control to algorithms or outside interests. It means harnessing AI’s potential while holding fast to the public values that define American education.

    The choices we make now — especially at the local level — will determine whether AI becomes a tool for equity and empowerment, or a force for further privatization and exclusion. Policymakers should focus less on top-down mandates and more on empowering local communities to lead. AI can strengthen public education, but only if we ensure that the people closest to students — teachers, families and local leaders — have the authority and resources to shape its use.

    The world is changing fast. Let’s make sure our schools change on our terms.

    •••

    Patricia Burch is a professor at the USC Rossier School of Education and author of “Hidden Markets: The New Educational Privatization” (2009, 2020).

    The opinions expressed in this commentary represent those of the author. EdSource welcomes commentaries representing diverse points of view. If you would like to submit a commentary, please review our guidelines and contact us.





    Source link