Change Management In Education

Today, I want to share an incredible story that shows how the right kind of partnerships can be a game-changer in making a real difference. Vipla Foundation was set up by Mana’s mom in 1988, & ever since, Mana, Athiya, Ahan & I have remained closely involved in their mission of enriching the lives of underprivileged children & women. Their partners, Educo ONG are a global NGO with presence in 14 countries, they do some phenomenal work for the well-being & rights of children, especially the right to receive a quality education. This isn’t about endorsing Vipla or Educo, but rather about the magic that unfolds when the right kind of collaboration comes into play. Imagine this - two organisations with a shared vision of making a positive impact by ensuring every child in India has the opportunity to learn, grow & flourish. As partners since 2014, they’ve impacted the lives of over 500,000 beneficiaries through childhood care, education, inclusion & women empowerment through skilling. They’re transforming government schools, empowering teachers & bridging learning gaps through innovation & building communities that work with a sense of ownership in the education process. The kind of work that organisations like Vipla do, make them special. What gives their ambitions wings, are the right kind of partners. In that sense, Educo is just that. That’s the thing about forging new partnerships. If it’s done right, with the right people & at the right time, it can work like magic. If the fundamentals aren’t right, it’s not going get you what you want. Through my experiences, I’ve learned to look out for the following when I’m partnering with someone, Common purpose - When there’s a shared vision, sparks fly! It’s the only way to set the stage for extraordinary impact! Complementary expertise - Solo heroes may work in the films, not in real life. Find partners who can make up for your weaknesses & complement your strengths. Flexibility - Life always throws the odd bouncer at us. As partners, everyone needs to have the ability to adapt. Long-term commitment - Nothing good happens overnight. Vipla & Educo nurtured this partnership over a decade & their patience is paying off big time! Mutual empowerment - Just like your life partner, partners at work should be able to raise each other’s games. Partners thrive when there's mutual empowerment & trust. Measurable impact - Numbers don't lie! While you can enjoy working together with a shared vision, truth is the outcome should be measurable. In a world where collaboration is the new cool, I love giving the example of Vipla & Educo, who by working together have become architects of a brighter future! So, next time you're partnering with someone, tying up with an agency or a vendor, building a company or finding the right co-founder, remember to do it with the right people for the right reasons. #CollaborationForChange #SocialImpact #ChildRights #EducationMatters

Most L&D professionals learned the Kirkpatrick Model early on. Fewer have seen it applied beyond Level 1. Here's what each level can actually look like when you put it into practice, not just the textbook definition. ✨ Level 1: Reaction 🔹 Textbook version: Did learners find the training engaging and worth their time? ✅ In practice: Instead of "Did you enjoy this session?", ask "Was this relevant to the work you do?" and "Could you apply this right away?" ✅ Metric to track: Relevance and applicability ratings, not just satisfaction scores. ✨ Level 2: Learning 🔹 Textbook version: Did learners gain the intended knowledge or skills? ✅ In practice: Replace recall-based quizzes with scenario-based checks. Can the learner apply the concept to a situation they'd actually face? ✅ Metric to track: Pre/post assessment scores on scenario-based questions, not just "did you pass the quiz." ✨ Level 3: Behavior 🔹 Textbook version: Are learners applying what they learned on the job? ✅ In practice: 30/60/90-day check-ins, manager observations, or peer feedback on whether the new behavior is showing up in real work. ✅ Metric to track: % of participants demonstrating the target behavior, based on manager or peer input, not self-reported confidence. ✨ Level 4: Results 🔹 Textbook version: Did the training impact business outcomes? ✅ In practice: Pick one business metric the program was meant to influence, before you build it, not after, and track the change. ✅ Metric to track: Movement in that specific KPI (error rates, time-to-productivity, conversion rates, retention) compared to a baseline. Most programs are measured thoroughly at Level 1 and barely at all beyond it. But Levels 3 and 4 are where the "did this actually matter" conversation happens, and they are also where L&D earns a seat at the table. Which level does your organisation measure consistently, and which one do you wish you could measure better? #LearningAndDevelopment #LnD #KirkpatrickModel #TrainingEvaluation #InstructionalDesign #LearningMeasurement #TrainingAndDevelopment #LnDStrategy

We are building everything in schools, except a system to keep them working. It’s heartening to see what’s happening in our government schools with CSR support. Even in small, remote villages, you now find smart TVs, computer labs, water filters, pad vending machines, and bright new furniture. And that’s beautiful. It shows intent. It shows change. CSR is working on the ground, and it’s amazing to see. But what also shows up, quietly and painfully often, is what happens after. In many schools, nobody trained the teachers to use the smart classroom. Pad vending machines lie locked, broken, or empty. RO units stop working because cartridges were never replaced. The toilets, often without cleaners or water, become unusable. In some schools, even female teachers quietly walk to the fields, because staff toilets are no better. One or two classrooms have modern facilities. But the buildings around them are crumbling. The gadgets look advanced, but the systems to support them simply don’t exist. The principal wipes sweat off his forehead, looks up at a fan that hasn’t worked in months, and says softly, “Sir, if someone could just fix the fan, that would be enough.” That line captures it perfectly. We keep installing, but we don’t maintain. Here’s what we — corporates, NGOs, and everyone in the ecosystem — can change. Every CSR project that builds something new must include a 3 year maintenance clause and allocate money for it. If year one builds or buys, year two and three must maintain and strengthen the same assets, not move on to another set of schools and start over. I know it’s harder to show fresh impact numbers in year two. But if we think deeply, isn’t continuity the real impact? When toilets work, when machines run, when classrooms function, that is real transformation. We all love new initiatives. CAPEX excites us. OPEX exhausts us. CAPEX cuts ribbons. OPEX cleans toilets. CAPEX gets applause. OPEX gets ignored. But it is OPEX that keeps schools alive. Across the 112 aspirational districts, there are about 1.5 lakh government schools. If we picked just 50,000 and ensured 5 years of maintenance — cleaning, repairs, electricity, water, dignity — at ₹5 lakh per year, that’s ₹25 lakh per school. Over 5 years, that’s ₹12,500 crore. And we have the money. India’s next five years of CSR will be around ₹3 lakh crore. Just 5 percent of that, ring-fenced for maintenance, would keep 50,000 schools truly functional for years. Because sustainability isn’t about what we create. It’s about what we continue. A clean toilet. A working fan. Clean Water. These aren’t small things. They are the basics. So yes, let’s build smart classrooms, install machines, paint walls. But let’s also train, repair, and maintain — together, in the same schools, year after year. If we make maintenance clauses and budgets a shared standard, money won’t go waste. And impact won’t fade. It will last. CSR isn’t about how much we build. It’s about how long it lives.

The Inconvenient Truth About Education Elite educational institutions often present themselves as neutral pathways to opportunity, yet their underlying structures tend to reproduce existing social and economic hierarchies. The dominant meritocratic narrative suggests that access is determined by talent and effort. In reality, access is shaped long before admissions by early exposure to enriched learning environments, private tutoring, and high‑quality preparatory schools. These advantages correlate strongly with household income and parental educational attainment. As a result, admissions processes frequently reward accumulated privilege rather than isolate innate ability. Entrance examinations are widely regarded as objective assessments, but they largely measure the long‑term effects of unequal resource distribution. By the time students reach the testing stage, disparities in nutrition, literacy development, school quality, and parental availability have already influenced their academic trajectories. The exam functions as a symbolic equalizer that obscures the structural inequities embedded in the educational pipeline. Policymakers often rely on this symbolism to justify existing systems, despite consistent evidence that opportunity gaps emerge years before formal schooling begins. For individuals who succeed within this architecture, achievement reflects both genuine effort and the presence of enabling conditions that many students never experience. These conditions include stable households, functional schools, psychological safety, and access to mentors who can translate potential into performance. Many equally capable individuals are excluded from the competition long before selection occurs. Their absence is not a reflection of lower ability but of systemic barriers that restrict participation. A policy‑informed response requires interventions across multiple stages of the educational pipeline. Early childhood programs must be expanded to ensure that foundational skills are not determined by socioeconomic status. Public investment in teacher quality, school infrastructure, and community‑based learning resources can reduce disparities in basic education. Admissions processes should incorporate contextual indicators that recognize structural disadvantage rather than relying solely on standardized tests. Targeted scholarships, mentoring programs, and bridge curricula can support high‑potential students who lack preparatory advantages. Without such reforms, elite education will continue to reproduce inequality while maintaining the appearance of fairness.

🎓 Bullshit Universities: The Future of Automated Education This sharp and provocative essay by Sparrow and Flenady challenges the utopian narratives surrounding AI in higher education. The authors argue that AI outputs—lacking truth, meaning, and moral accountability—are unfit for replacing human teaching. While automation promises efficiency and access, it risks hollowing out the essence of education: learning by example, dialogue, and critical inquiry. To defend education’s social and transformative role, universities must reinvest in people, not platforms. ⚖️ 5 Key Trends, Trade-offs, and Contradictions: 1. 🚀 EdTech Hype vs. Pedagogical Reality History shows that "assistance" is often the first step toward labor displacement. Once AI designs lessons and grades essays, the rationale for keeping educators weakens. The tech utopia may actually be a cost-cutting dystopia. 2. 📦 Content Delivery vs. Human Formation AI excels at packaging and distributing content, but real education involves identity, ethics, and intellectual rigor. Teachers inspire, challenge, and mentor—not just instruct. 3. 🌍 Access vs. Quality AI can extend access to learning, especially in underserved areas—but what kind of learning? If AI replaces meaningful teacher interaction, we risk offering a second-class education to marginalized groups. 4. 🤖 Automation Bias Once AI systems become routine, users tend to trust them too much—even when they’re wrong. Teachers may stop reading student work critically, while still being held responsible for errors. Over-reliance on machines erodes professional judgment. 5. 🧠 Learning that vs. Learning how Knowing facts (“that”) is not enough—students must develop skills and judgment (“how”). Writing, critical thinking, and discussion require human modeling and feedback. 🛠️ 5 Policy Recommendations 1. 🧑🏫 Reinvest in Human Teachers: Fund smaller classes with passionate, expert human teachers. Teachers are not content deliverers—they are mentors, models, and guides. Smaller classes mean more dialogue, personalized feedback, and intellectual engagement. 2. 🧰 Use AI Only in Dedicated Skills Units: Let students learn how to use AI tools responsibly—just like learning to use a library or a bibliography. But don’t let AI replace disciplinary teaching or feedback. 3. 📋 Protect Assessment Integrity: Avoid AI-based grading; protect integrity through human assessment. AI lacks the judgment, context, and accountability that grading demands. 4. 🔁 Prioritize Human Mentorship and Feedback: Mentorship builds trust, motivation, and deep thinking. 5. 🎓 Resist the Temptation to Mass-Produce Education: Incentivize deep learning, not scalable content delivery platforms. https://lnkd.in/eE9Vvni3

As higher ed grapples with questions of value and viability, it may be helpful to reframe the question: Value for whom? At Western Governors University, we’ve found clarity by defining our primary beneficiary—the student—and measuring value by their outcomes, not our inputs. This shift requires letting go of some legacy assumptions: time-bound credit hours, rigid academic calendars, even notions of selectivity as a virtue. It also opens the door to models that are more affordable, personalized, and aligned with the world learners are navigating—not just the one we inherited. With 72% of jobs expected to require at least some post-secondary education by 2031 (Georgetown University), it’s essential all stakeholders—educators, employers, policymakers, and community leaders—align around this shared understanding. What might our higher ed system look like if we optimized every part of the system for student success? #HigherEd #StudentOutcomes #StudentSuccess

For a long time, we have imagined a linear path: schools and universities educate, companies hire. Today, that model is showing its limitations. The pace of technological change, particularly the rise of artificial intelligence, is shortening the lifespan of skills. In many cases, educational programmes struggle to evolve as quickly as the world of work itself. This is why it is so interesting to see a growing number of companies taking a more active role in education, working alongside schools, universities and local communities to help develop skills that are immediately relevant and applicable. Yet there is an even more important point. The challenge is not simply teaching people how to use AI tools. The skills that will truly matter are those that technology cannot replace: the ability to ask the right questions, think critically, understand complexity and take responsibility for decisions. The real question is not whether education should be the responsibility of schools or businesses. The real challenge is building a new educational partnership in which institutions, universities and employers share responsibility for preparing people not merely to adapt to change, but to shape and lead it. https://lnkd.in/dW_Epk_3

Collaborating on Credentials The future of the workforce and the future of education lie in collaborative models where industry and academia work together to create relevant, practical learning experiences. Whether through advisory boards, design challenges and projects, or comprehensive microcredential programs, these partnerships are reshaping how we prepare talent for tomorrow's workforce. On a recent podcast, sie.ag/443UxN, I connected with Michael J. Readey and Christy Bozic, PhD, PMP, CPEM to discuss the transformative power of industry-academia partnerships. Together, we have been collaborating on credentials and sustainability to improve the circular economy digital mindset. Here are some insights we discussed that every education and industry leader should consider: The Traditional Model is Evolving: The "degree-only" mindset is shifting as we recognize the growing importance of continuous, skills-based learning. With the majority of credential-seekers being full-time professionals, the demand for flexible, targeted upskilling is clear. Industry-Academia Partnerships Matter: We must continue to invest in partnerships that bridge the critical gap between classroom theory and rapidly changing workplace demands. Together, we can enable faster identification of emerging skill needs and create timely real-world learning opportunities through immersive experiences. This provides learners with early and direct industry exposure. The Rise of Microcredentials: We're seeing a trend of professionals who actively seek, learn, and collect badges and microcredentials for career progression. Agile learning formats offer just-in-time education and experience for quick adaptation to industry needs, and flexible learning paths can address immediate and targeted skill application. Learn more about what hiring managers look for, how to build industry-relevant learning pathways, and what the future holds for collaborative academic-industry relations. I remember when I started in this industry, the focus was on how we could break down the walls between CAD and CAM. There are still walls between academia and industry we must break down. The collaboration we experienced with Michael, Christy, and the University of Colorado Boulder gives me hope for a new path forward. Listen to the full episode and share your perspective below: sie.ag/443UxN.

Often, when we discuss tech in education, we focus on student-facing tools: smarter apps, adaptive platforms, and AI tutors. But the most critical layer is the teacher. Without a teacher who understands the "why" and "how" of technology, even the best tools risk being underused or misapplied. Just came across this inspiring case study from Kerala, India. The state government’s e-learning platform KOOL, launched in 2018, has now upskilled and certified over 58,000 school teachers in AI and emerging technologies. This is a systemic reboot of pedagogy. This is exactly the kind of foundational investment that creates lasting impact. Upskilling teachers creates a ripple effect. Each empowered educator influences hundreds, if not thousands, of students over their career. It builds institutional confidence, reduces resistance to change, and fosters a culture of continuous learning within schools themselves.    When teachers are confident and competent in emerging technologies, the whole system becomes more resilient, adaptive, and ready for whatever comes next. Read more here: https://lnkd.in/gZuZFkAZ    #AIForEducation #AIForIndia #AIAdoption

𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓: 𝐀 𝐒𝐭𝐞𝐩 𝐓𝐨𝐰𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐒𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐠𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐁𝐮𝐭 𝐀𝐫𝐞 𝐖𝐞 𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐌𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐬 𝐁𝐞𝐡𝐢𝐧𝐝? As we reflect on the recent 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐁𝐮𝐝𝐠𝐞𝐭 and its alignment with the visionary provisions of the 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧𝐚𝐥 𝐄𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐜𝐲 (𝐍𝐄𝐏 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟎), I feel optimistic about the direction in which our education system is heading. From the Bharatiya Bhasha Pustak Scheme to the announcement of 50,000 Atal Tinkering Labs in government schools, and the ₹500 crore Centre for Excellence in AI for Education, these provisions are certainly a step forward in enhancing innovation, scientific temper, and regional language learning. But the question is – Are we promoting true equity in education? Nearly 50% of India's students study in private schools, with a significant portion enrolled in affordable private schools (APSs). These schools play a crucial role, serving over 50-70% of the student population. Yet, many of these schools lack the resources to implement the kind of upgrades that the Union Budget envisions. Here’s where the real challenge lies. The government’s initiatives in public schools are a great start, but to promote true equity, we must ensure that these advancements reach all schools—not just those that can afford the infrastructure. Initiatives are good, but what about implementation at a large scale? State governments must take a leading role in public-private partnerships. Edtech companies have already scaled solutions successfully, and they can help the government implement these initiatives at the national level. Public-private partnerships can bridge the gap and bring these resources and innovations to all schools. Without this, we risk leaving millions behind. Broadband connectivity and digital learning solutions are powerful, but they only work if teachers are empowered to use them effectively. It’s not just about providing technology; it’s about equipping educators to drive this transformation. There is a lot more that needs to be done. The 𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐁𝐔𝐃𝐆𝐄𝐓 𝟐𝟎𝟐𝟓 has laid the foundation stone, now it's up to all of us—equal stakeholders in this education ecosystem—to lay the bricks one by one. #edtech #NEP2020 #Budget2025 #InnovationInEducation #InclusiveEducation