The Educational Shield: Navigating Truth in a Post-Fact World

Introduction

In the modern era, we are often told we live in a "post-fact" world—a landscape where emotion, repetition, and tribalism frequently override empirical evidence. What to do? The words of the philosopher Bertrand Russel come to mind in his message to future generations (1959): "When you are studying any matter, or considering any philosophy, ask yourself only: "What are the facts, and what is the  truth that the facts bear out?" Never let yourself be diverted, either by what you wish to believe, or by what you think could have beneficial social effects, if it were believed." 

He insisted in his message to future generations to make a second point: "The moral thing I should wish to say to them is very simple. I should say: Love is wise, hatred  is foolish. In this world, which is getting more and more closely interconnected, we have to learn to tolerate each other. We have to learn to put up with the fact, that some people say things that we don't like. We can only live together in that way. And if we are to live together and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet. More about this second point in another article.

Such is the reputation for hate speech, lying and misrepresenting facts of the current (and maybe last) President of the USA, Donald Trump, that you wonder why he would bother with facts at all. 

The Economist cover 23 Jan: deserved ridicule

Due to my training as economic historian, what I found most upsetting in his speech at Davos the 21st of January, were these grains of truth in some of the economic statistics he presented, not his preposterous misrepresentation of history on Greenland, nor his mental decline. 

The Nazi Minister of Propoganda, Josef Goebbels called this the "principle of plausibility" or selective truth-telling, involved constructing arguments from credible snippets or verifiable facts drawn from diverse sources, then embedding them within broader narratives of deception. By anchoring lies to isolated truths—like accurate economic data or historical events—propagandists created an "illusion of veracity," exploiting people's tendency to generalize trust from partial accuracy. Even only 10% or 20% of true statement is enough to create the illusion of veracity. In combination with the effect of repeating lies long enough so that they become accepted as facts (e.g. the 2020 election being stolen). The true statements, however, should never be more than 50% in order to raise suspicion and invite further scrutiny (Tella et al., 2011).

Here we used Gemini 3.0 Deep research feature on a transcript of his speech to identify the facts in his speech, which on the whole was a bombastic misrepresentation of his own achievements.

The Untapped Dividend: Professionalizing the "Shadow Use" of AI in Education

Introduction

In the discourse surrounding Educational Technology (EdTech) in Low-Income and Lower-Middle-Income Countries, there is often a reliance on technological determinism—waiting for a future breakthrough to save the system. However, the reality is that the technology is already present. A significant number of educators are already utilizing Generative AI (GenAI) tools to reduce their workload, often described as "taking back" their time (World Economic Forum, 2023). The challenge is that this usage often occurs without institutional strategy or ethical guardrails.

We propose a shift toward a voluntary training program designed to professionalize the usage teachers in those countries have already adopted. This approach moves from haphazard experimentation to strategic mastery, focusing specifically on planning, material generation, and ethical oversight.

The Teacher and the Tool: A Story of Transformation

---

Introduction

Sarah, a ten-year veteran of high school English and History, felt the familiar weight of a Sunday evening. The glow of her laptop screen illuminated two things: a half-written lesson plan for Monday’s class on the Federalist Papers, and a digital mountain of 120 student essays waiting for feedback. She was a passionate teacher, but the passion was being slowly eroded by an avalanche of routine work. Her dream of facilitating deep, Socratic debates and providing one-on-one mentorship was constantly being sacrificed for the urgent reality of grading, planning, and paperwork.

The whispers about AI in education had, until now, felt like a threat. To Sarah, they represented three daunting hurdles:

1. The Hurdle of Time and Training: The idea of learning a complex new technology felt like being handed a shovel while already buried in a landslide. She simply didn't have the time to become a tech expert.
   
   

The 6-Hour Solution: How to Reclaim Your Weekend with a Simple AI Workflow

 The numbers are in, and they are both startling and unsurprising. Recent large-scale surveys of teachers in the USA reveal a consistent finding: educators who effectively integrate AI into their practice can save, on average, six hours of work per week. Let that sink in. Six hours a week translates to roughly 24 hours a month, or nearly six full work weeks over the course of a school year. This isn't a marginal gain; it's a fundamental shift in the professional lives of teachers. It's the difference between spending Sunday evening grading papers and spending it with your family. It's the time to finally plan that creative, project-based unit you've been dreaming of.

For too long, we have been tethered to the "dead tree" (hard-copy) method of creating and assessing student work. The cycle is painfully familiar: hours spent crafting questions, wrestling with formatting in a word processor, queuing at the photocopier, and then dedicating entire evenings to marking stacks of paper. This process is not only a colossal drain on our most precious resource—time—but it is also wasteful in terms of paper, ink, and electricity. Furthermore, it is incredibly vulnerable to the generational techniques of cheating that our students have perfected.

The Dual Mandate of AI Leadership: Driving a Turnaround in Universities and Schools While Mastering the Rule

 

Executive Summary

The proliferation of Artificial Intelligence presents educational leaders with the most complex challenge of our generation. We are caught in a fog of disruption, facing a dual imperative: the urgent need to innovate to maintain relevance, and the critical need to manage the immense legal and ethical risks that AI introduces. This article argues that navigating this fog requires a leader to embody a dual mandate. 

First, they must adopt the mindset of a turnaround specialist, acting with decisiveness to overhaul core infrastructure, manage profound cultural change, and focus investment on the primary mission of learning. 

Second, they must simultaneously act as a compliance guardian, meticulously navigating the complex regulatory maze of GDPR and the new EU AI Act to protect the institution from catastrophic legal and reputational damage. 

Drawing on principles from crisis management and concrete analysis of new regulations, this article presents a unified framework for leaders. It outlines four key principles to drive a responsible AI transformation: 1) Secure the core before you scale; 2) Recognize that transformation is a human endeavor; 3) Navigate the regulatory maze before you accelerate; and 4) Build governance-infused accelerators. This is a guide for boards and executives to move beyond the hype and lead with both the courage to change and the wisdom to build guardrails.

---

Introduction: Leading in an Age of Contradiction

The conversations happening in boardrooms today are defined by a palpable tension. On one hand, there is the exhilarating promise of Artificial Intelligence—a technology that could personalize learning, streamline administration, and unlock new frontiers of research. On the other, there is a deep-seated anxiety about the "fog of disruption" it creates. Leaders feel an immense pressure to innovate, yet many are paralyzed by the very real risks: academic integrity crises, biased algorithms, faculty burnout, and a looming web of complex global regulations.

To choose one path over the other is to fail. The leader who champions innovation without governance is reckless, exposing the institution to legal sanction and reputational ruin. The leader who prioritizes governance without innovation is timid, condemning the institution to obsolescence.

The path forward requires a new model of leadership, one that embraces this contradiction. I call this the dual mandate. It requires an executive to embody two distinct, almost opposing, archetypes. The first is the Turnaround Leader, a decisive agent of change who can stabilize a crisis, drive foundational improvements, and rally an organization toward a new vision. The second is the Compliance Guardian, a meticulous, risk-aware steward who understands that in the digital age, protecting data and adhering to regulation is as fundamental as balancing a budget.

Having led a university through a successful turnaround from the brink of financial collapse and possessing deep experience in the intricate worlds of data governance and medical ethics, I have seen both mindsets in action. They are not mutually exclusive; they are mutually dependent. This article offers a practical framework built on four core principles, merging the urgency of a turnaround with the discipline of compliance to provide a steady hand through the AI fog.

Part 1: The Turnaround Mindset – Driving Foundational Change

A crisis, whether financial or technological, demands a specific style of leadership. It requires moving beyond incremental adjustments to address foundational weaknesses. The AI revolution is such a crisis, and it demands a turnaround mindset.

Tulips, AI, and the Timeless Art of Bouncing Back

Introduction

We are living in an age of breathless excitement. Artificial Intelligence, we are told, is not just a new technology; it is a force that will reshape humanity, solve our greatest problems, and create unprecedented wealth. Fortunes are being made overnight. The fear of missing out is palpable. As an educator who has implemented LLM-based simulations in my own teaching, I see the profound potential. But as a Dutch economic historian, I also hear a faint, familiar echo from centuries ago—the scent of tulips on the winter air.

A Lesson from the Golden Age

In the 1630s, my native Netherlands was in the grip of "Tulip Mania." A simple flower bulb, newly introduced from the Ottoman Empire, became the world's most speculative asset. At the height of the frenzy, a single bulb of a rare variety could be traded for the price of a grand Amsterdam townhouse. People sold their land, their businesses, and their futures to get in on the boom. It seemed like a new economic paradigm where prices could only go up.

The True ROI of EdTech: A Board's Guide to Investing in AI Fluency

 

Executive Summary

The rapid integration of Artificial Intelligence into every facet of society presents educational institutions with a choice: treat it as a marginal IT expenditure or embrace it as the most significant strategic investment of our time. This article argues against the common boardroom blunder of viewing AI through a narrow lens of operational cost-savings. Instead, it posits that the true return on investment (ROI) from AI is realized only when boards champion a holistic, top-down investment in "AI fluency"—a core competency for every student. We propose a practical, three-pillar investment framework for boards to guide this transformation: 1) The Technology Foundation, focusing on robust infrastructure and data governance; 2) The Pedagogical Application, centered on curriculum redesign and authentic assessment; and 3) The People Enablement, driven by sustained faculty development. By shifting the focus from short-term efficiency gains to the long-term enhancement of our core product—capable, future-ready graduates—we can secure not just financial sustainability, but institutional relevance for decades to come. This is a guide for leaders to move beyond the hype and make the strategic, disciplined investments that will define the future of learning.

---

The conversation in every university and international school boardroom today is haunted by two letters: AI. For some, they represent a bewildering technological wave threatening to upend centuries of pedagogical tradition. For others, they are a siren song of efficiency, promising streamlined operations and reduced overheads. Both views are dangerously incomplete.

As someone who has spent over two decades navigating the intersection of educational leadership, digital transformation, and financial stewardship, I have witnessed numerous technology cycles. I have seen institutions make bold investments that paid off spectacularly and others that resulted in little more than expensive, underutilized software. The current AI moment is different in scale, but not in principle. The greatest risk we face is not the technology itself, but a failure of strategic vision at the governance level.

The common blunder is to relegate AI to the IT department, treating it as a line item to be managed rather than a strategic asset to be leveraged. This approach invariably leads to fragmented, siloed projects that fail to create systemic value. A recent analysis highlights that a significant portion of digital transformation initiatives fail to meet their objectives, often due to a disconnect between technological implementation and strategic integration (Gartner, 2021). The true challenge for boards is not to buy AI, but to invest in a fundamental shift in the institution's operating model—a shift toward what I call the Dual ROI.

Part 1: Redefining ROI – From Operational Savings to Institutional Relevance

For any board, fiscal responsibility is paramount. The temptation to justify AI investment solely through operational ROI—cost savings in administration, admissions processing, or energy consumption—is immense. These are tangible, easily quantifiable metrics that look good on a balance sheet. During my tenure as Vice Chancellor of the Papua New Guinea University of Technology, we achieved a 25% reduction in operational expenses, a critical part of a turnaround that led to our first-ever unqualified audit. I am a firm believer in fiscal discipline.