Author: admin

  • Higher ed is not a public good—but it could be (opinion)

    Higher ed is not a public good—but it could be (opinion)

    ogichobanov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    When 85,000 Cornhuskers all wear red on game day, it’s easy to think of college as something larger than students and professors, classes, research and extracurriculars. Berkeley, Penn State and Michigan each have hundreds of thousands of online followers. Tar Heel nation is, after all, a nation.

    But wearing “college” on our chests does not a polity make. Higher education is not a public good and Americans know it.

    In the plainest sense, public goods aren’t excludable. Think of the air we breathe, interstate freeways and national defense. Everyone is affected by carbon dioxide levels, can travel by open roads and is protected, equally, from foreign threats.

    But when it comes to higher ed, exclusion is the name of the game.

    Admissions offices reject most applicants from selective colleges and create barriers at others. Tuition, even when subsidized, deters those shocked by sticker prices or unable to pay. Courses are controlled by departments, yet some intellectual climates drive students away. Governance, when behind closed doors, excludes parents, students, employers and other stakeholders.

    All told, the labyrinth of exclusionary practices makes higher ed more of a private than public good. We can interpret low public confidence in higher education as reflecting a belief that college is for someone else. Of those who matriculate, two-thirds of new community college students form the same opinion and drop out or enter a broken transfer system. One-third of new B.A. students will drop out or take more than six years to graduate. Once they’re gone, it’s often for good: Only 2.6 percent of stop-outs re-enrolled in the 2022–23 academic year. All told, this has led to a societal “diploma divide”: More people without a college degree voted for Donald Trump’s re-election in 2024 than in 2020.

    Colleges and universities do need to reclaim a place of pride in American society. But instead of ambiguous calls “reaffirming higher education’s public purpose,” why not simply be more public? And deliver an education that is, well, more good?

    My new book, Publicization: How Public and Private Interests Can Reinvent Education for the Common Good (Teachers College Press), argues that educational institutions of any sort—private nonprofit, state-controlled or proprietary—can be more publicly purposed when they meet two criteria. First, they must prepare each generation to sustain the common goods on which American life rests: a vibrant democracy, a productive economy, a civil society and a healthy planet. These are three long-standing aims and one new existential goal, around which colleges and universities can better organize the student experience.

    Second, institutions must themselves operate in ways that are more public than private. To do so, Publicization offers an “Exclusion Test” applicable to six domains—funding, governance, goals, accountability, equity and an institution’s underlying educational philosophy. Colleges and universities can apply the test to these areas and identify where operations can be less exclusionary and therefore more public.

    For example, do policies assume that some students aren’t “college ready,” or do we meet everyone—particularly those impacted by COVID-19—where they are? To what extent do applications create formal and informal hurdles, or do we offer more streamlined direct admission? Are inequitable proxies like Advanced Placement Calculus blocking talented students from admission, or does coursework in more widely relevant areas like statistics matter equally? Are free college plans riddled with eligibility fine print or open to anyone?

    Are courses gated by size, section, time of day and instructor approval, or are they more accessible? Are we mostly catering to young adults or presenting real options for the almost 37 million Americans with some college but no degree? Is federal funding considered a necessary evil, or is Washington engaged as a key stakeholder? Do boards focus narrowly on institutional issues or see themselves as hinges between school and society, mediating higher ed’s role in a democracy? Do we tolerate every private belief or hold ourselves to an epistemology premised on shared evidence and public scrutiny, what Jonathan Rauch calls the “Constitution of Knowledge”?

    As for an experience that’s good, higher ed’s 15-year-old success agenda focuses on access, affordability and student support. These aren’t enough. Quality must join the list, with a particular focus on our technical core: teaching and learning.

    Ask any of the nation’s 1.5 million professors and most will tell you they were not taught how to teach. They are world-class scholars. They serve their institutions. They are committed to students. But hardly any received comprehensive training in effective instruction. This persists despite the fact that most Americans believe the best colleges have the best teaching and evidence that effective instruction leads to more positive mindsets about one’s academic abilities, deeper learning, stronger retention and life readiness.

    As such, it’s no surprise that Richard Arum and Josipa Roksa found, in Academically Adrift (University of Chicago Press), “limited learning on college campuses.” That was in 2010 and not enough has changed, as recent articles in USA Today, The Washington Post, Washington Monthly, Forbes, Deseret News and The Chronicle of Higher Education affirm.

    But change is afoot. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine soon plan to publish STEM teaching standards, a first. Groups like the Equity-Based Teaching Collective have identified policies and practices to promote effective teaching campuswide. Over the past 10 years, the Association of College and University Educators, which I co-founded, has credentialed 42,000 professors in effective teaching at 500 institutions nationwide with proof of positive student impact. Last June’s second National Higher Education Teaching Conference gathered hundreds of higher education leaders and professors to accelerate the teaching excellence movement.

    College as a “public good”? Let’s give the public what it wants and deserves: a good education. In which the “best” colleges aren’t, by definition, the most exclusive. So that at family gatherings, our students tell their voting, poll-taking relatives how much they are learning, how great their professors are and how college is for them.

    Jonathan Gyurko teaches politics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. His new book, Publicization: How Public and Private Interests Can Reinvent Education for the Common Good, was published by Teachers College Press last March.

    Source link

  • Illinois guarantees transfer for all state high school grads

    Illinois guarantees transfer for all state high school grads

    Students who graduated from an Illinois high school, no matter where they’re currently enrolled, will soon be guaranteed transfer admission to any University of Illinois system institution—including the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, which has a regular acceptance rate below 50 percent. 

    Illinois’s new policy, set to take effect this fall, builds on its previous transfer guarantee, which applied only to current Illinois community college students. Typical state transfer guarantee programs apply only to those currently enrolled in another state institution; Illinois’s more expansive approach may help bring back former residents who left the state for college.

    To be eligible, students must have graduated from an Illinois high school, earned at least 36 transferable credit hours toward their transfer institution and maintained a minimum 3.0 GPA in all transferable courses. Students will still have to apply, but if they meet the requirements, they’ll be automatically accepted. Admission to specific programs and majors, however, is not guaranteed. 

    Source link

  • What could WNMU’s ex-president’s exit package pay for?

    What could WNMU’s ex-president’s exit package pay for?

    Former Western New Mexico University president Joseph Shepard received an exit package that included severance pay of $1.9 million, and a tenured faculty job, with perks adding up to an estimated $3.5 million.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | skodonnell/iStock/Getty Images | rawpixel

    The controversial exit package for former Western New Mexico University president Joseph Shepard could have funded multiple scholarships, according to one analysis, while the state’s governor says that the money could have helped feed hungry students at the university for a year.

    Judith Wilde, a research professor at George Mason University who studies presidential compensation and contracts, previously told Inside Higher Ed that Shepard’s exit package could have funded 90 scholarships for undergraduate students at Western New Mexico.

    To Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham, a Democrat, the decision to green-light a $1.9 million severance payment to the departing president “demonstrated an appalling disconnect from the needs of our state, where the median income of a family of four is just $61,000.”

    “The amount of money contained in Dr. Shepard’s separation agreement could have addressed food insecurity across the entire WNMU student body for a full year,” Lujan Grisham said in a news release last week.

    The estimated $3.5 million package—including benefits—for a president accused of improperly spending taxpayer dollars has infuriated state lawmakers and led to the resignations of several regents. More fallout is expected as the state attorney general seeks to claw back the severance payment.

    Shepard’s last day as president was Wednesday.

    Shepard, who led the university for 13 years, made a base salary of $365,000 a year. He’s not the only college president to get a generous severance on his way out the door, but compared to deals at other institutions, the agreement is unusually lucrative and will cost the university more than multiple line items in its budget. For example, when Ben Sasse stepped down as president of the University of Florida, he struck a deal to keep his $1 million annual salary through 2028 despite exiting the top job. But UF’s annual budget is just over $5 billion, meaning Sasse’s exit package comprises a tiny fraction of university expenses.

    Comparatively, Shepard’s exit package far exceeds those of other former presidents in his state. Former New Mexico State University system chancellor Dan Arvizu received an exit package valued at between $500,000 and $650,000 when he announced his early departure in 2023, a move both parties referred to as a “mutual separation” amid tensions. In 2016, Bob Frank left the University of New Mexico presidency early amid allegations of bullying, striking a deal for a $190,000-a-year tenured faculty job—down from the $350,000 annual salary initially considered.

    At WNMU, a university that enrolled 3,570 students in fall 2023, Shepard’s total exit package adds up to almost 5 percent of its $74.2 million fiscal year 2024 budget, an Inside Higher Ed analysis found.

    In one of the poorest states in the union, more than half of WNMU’s students receive Pell Grants. A 2023 survey also found nearly 60 percent of college students in New Mexico were food insecure, prompting efforts at Western New Mexico and other colleges to address the issue.

    Shepard’s exit package has roiled lawmakers, particularly in light of the economic challenges in the state and a state investigation that found the outgoing president improperly spent $360,000 in taxpayer money on international travel, splashy resorts and expensive furniture. Had the board elected to fire Shepard without cause, it could have spent roughly $600,000 to cut ties with him. Or the board could have waited for the conclusion of another state investigation, which might have given them cause to fire him without spending any additional money, depending on the findings.

    Instead, regents cut him a $1.9 million check and gave him a tenured faculty job teaching two courses a year with a remote option. Altogether those perks add up to a $3.5 million, Wilde estimated. (WNMU officials said the money was paid for out of reserves.)

    Four out of five WNMU regents have since resigned under scrutiny from lawmakers, including the governor. Attorney General Raúl Torrez also demanded an investigation into Shepard’s “golden parachute” and sought a restraining order to prevent him from accessing the $1.9 million severance payment as the state challenges the contract. However, a judge shot down the request to place a hold on those funds Monday. A legal challenge to the contract is pending.

    ButJohn C. Anderson, an attorney for Shepard, defended the payment as “appropriate” and said that the former president had “worked tirelessly on behalf of Western New Mexico University for nearly 14 years to increase graduation rates, modernize the campus through major renovations and the construction of new facilities, and expand the school’s programs,” among other accomplishments. (Shepard’s legal team also disputed the estimate of $3.5 million but did not provide their own figure.)

    As the legal wrangling continues, Inside Higher Ed took a look at WNMU’s budget to determine how Shepard’s controversial exit package stacks up to spending on athletics, academic support, faculty salaries and other line items in the fiscal year 2024 budget, which was last updated in December. While Shepard has already received a nearly $2 million severance payment, the remainder of his deal will be paid out to him as a tenured faculty member where he’ll initially make $200,000 a year. His salary will be paid for by the business school.

    • WNMU athletics teams—known as the Mustangs—compete on the NCAA Division II level. Western New Mexico University sponsors 13 sports with an athletics budget of $5.4 million.
    • The student services budget at WNMU is $4.5 million. That money is spread across a range of offerings from disability services to funding for special events and student health and well-being.
    • WNMU budgeted $4.4 million for the operation and maintenance of campus.
    • WNMU budgeted $3.9 million in academic support.
    • The student financial aid budget at WNMU was $1.2 million.
    • Shepard’s exit package also surpasses the total faculty salaries for any department at WNMU. The nursing department has 19 full-time faculty members, earning a combined salary of $1.4 million, according to budget documents. Nursing appears to be the largest program at WNMU based on the number of full-time employees listed. Social work is also among the university’s largest programs, with 17.2 full-time faculty members listed earning just over $1 million.

    Source link

  • Leveraging European Partnerships in Medical Education

    Leveraging European Partnerships in Medical Education

    By Ivan Dimitrov, Digital Marketing Expert at Medlink Students.

    The United Kingdom faces a critical shortage of medical professionals, a problem exacerbated by the limited availability of medical school places.

    Each year, thousands of aspiring doctors compete for a finite number of spots, leaving many qualified candidates unable to pursue their dreams of contributing to the healthcare system. This bottleneck not only cuts down individual potential but also intensifies the workforce gap in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

    However, there is hope, as innovative solutions are already being tried out. Additionally, new ideas, like partnerships with reputable European universities, present a unique opportunity to address these challenges while opening new pathways for aspiring medical students.

    The Problem: Limited Medical Education Opportunities in the UK

    UK medical schools are oversubscribed, with only a fraction of applicants securing a place each year. For instance, in 2023, only around 7,000 places were available for about 27,000 applicants, leaving thousands of capable students unable to pursue medical education domestically. Those potential students can afford medical school, but there are no seats available for them in the UK.

    This situation places immense pressure on the healthcare system, which is already grappling with severe understaffing and increased demand. Published data suggests there were 125,572 vacancies (9%) in the NHS between March and June 2023. The broader economy also suffers, as estimates suggest poor health outcomes cost the UK between £30.7 billion to £138 billion annually, depending on the research cited.

    Meanwhile, the demand for medical education continues to rise, with applications increasing by nearly 30% over the last decade. However, this increase remains insufficient to meet demand, even though the workforce has grown by 18% between 2018 and 2022, largely driven by international medical graduates (IMGs)

    Even with the planned expansion of UK medical school places, which is already underway, the demand for healthcare professionals is projected to far surpass supply in the foreseeable future.

    The Obvious Long-Term Solution: Expanding UK Medical Schools

    The most logical long-term solution is to expand the UK’s medical school capacity. This initiative is already underway in various forms, including the addition of new medical school seats and pilot programmes like doctor-degree apprenticeships. However, scaling up these efforts requires significant time, planning, and financial investment, which comes with uncertainty. 

    In the meantime, the NHS faces mounting pressures. Currently, over 25,000 doctors registered with the GMC are aged 60 or older and nearing retirement. Without urgent action to fill this gap, the healthcare system will continue to struggle to meet demand.

    While long-term plans are vital, they cannot meet the immediate need for doctors. This is where short-term solutions, such as leveraging partnerships with European universities, can play a critical role.

    A Policy Proposal: Partnering with European Universities as a Short-Term Solution

    To address the urgent need for more doctors, the UK government can explore strategic partnerships with European medical schools. Such partnerships could alleviate the strain on the domestic system while ensuring students receive high-quality, GMC-approved training abroad.

    Key components of the proposal:

    1. Hand-picked, Accredited Medical Schools

      Partnering with select European universities ensures that students receive an education that meets UK standards. These partnerships would focus on medical schools that offer training recognised by the General Medical Council (GMC), guaranteeing seamless integration into the NHS upon graduation.

      But would this approach cost more? Not necessarily. Tuition for UK medical students is currently capped at £9,250 per year, while many European medical schools charge between €3,000 and €18,000 annually. Factoring in lower living costs across much of Europe, studying abroad could be an affordable alternative for many students.

      Even if the UK government were to subsidise part of the cost (an entirely political decision), the potential savings from addressing workforce shortages and improving public health could far outweigh the expense. With healthcare-related economic losses estimated to be at least £30 billion annually, the return on investment is compelling.

      2. A National Branding Campaign for Medical Education Abroad

      To overcome stigma, the government could launch a branding campaign to highlight the benefits of studying medicine abroad and emphasise the value of returning to serve in the NHS after graduation. Such a campaign would promote healthcare careers and position international education as a prestigious and viable path for aspiring doctors.

      3. Financial Accessibility for Students

      To ensure equitable access, the government could negotiate tuition discounts at partner universities or provide scholarships for a small number of students. This would not only serve as a great motivator but also open opportunities for lower-income students and diversify the future medical workforce.

      Medlink Students is currently taking advantage of this approach by partnering with select universities in the Caribbean to give a broader range of students access to high-quality medical education. 

      Expanding this concept to European institutions could create a broader pool of skilled graduates ready to serve the NHS. This method can also secure a steady influx of motivated students to the partnered medical schools, improving their standings and boosting the local economy.

      4. Return-to-Service Agreements

      To ensure the investment benefits the NHS, students could sign contractual agreements committing to work within the UK healthcare system for a specified period after completing their training. Similar approaches have already been successfully employed in other countries that offer scholarships tied to public service commitments.

      While some may argue that students could break these agreements, existing data suggests otherwise. In 2022, 52% of new doctors joining the GMC register were IMGs, showing the strong appeal of the NHS as a workplace. UK students with familial and social ties at home are even more likely to return.

      Not coming back to the UK to practise would be an extreme exception, not the norm.

      Learning from International Examples

      Many countries have implemented programmes to address medical workforce shortages by partnering with international institutions. For instance:

      • Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia encourages students to study abroad with scholarships but requires them to return for mandatory public service. The UK could adopt a similar return-to-service model, ensuring overseas-trained doctors contribute directly to the NHS workforce.
      • Malaysia: Malaysia sponsors students to study in selected universities abroad under agreements prioritising national healthcare staffing. The UK could use this approach to target shortages in high-demand regions or specialities.
      • Singapore: Singapore integrates scholarships, branding campaigns, and competitive salaries to attract and retain healthcare talent. This comprehensive strategy demonstrates how financial incentives and targeted marketing can strengthen the healthcare pipeline.

      These examples demonstrate how well-designed policies can address workforce gaps while maintaining financial and political feasibility.

      What’s in it for European Universities?

      European universities do not face the same capacity constraints as the UK, and many universities actively seek to attract international students.

      Countries like Bulgaria, Georgia, Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and others have long-established medical programmes that cater specifically to international students. These programmes provide high-quality, accredited, and internationally recognised medical education in English.

      These programmes typically run parallel with domestic ones, meaning that an influx of UK students would not displace local applicants but would instead guarantee a steady intake of motivated international students. In fact, many universities are actively expanding their capacity to accommodate more international enrolment to increase revenue and demonstrate their ability to adapt to evolving needs and external pressures.

      This makes partnerships feasible without creating strain on current educational systems. On the contrary, partnering with the UK presents substantial benefits for European medical schools, including:

      • Financial Stability: European universities could benefit from a steady stream of tuition income, particularly if the UK government negotiates direct subsidies or covers part of the costs through scholarships. This model has proven effective for institutions hosting scholarship-funded students from Saudi Arabia and Malaysia.
      • Reputational Gains: Collaboration with the UK and GMC recognition could enhance the standing of partner universities globally, attracting further international students.
      • Economic Impact: Hosting UK students would bring economic benefits to local communities, creating demand for housing, goods, and services.

      Additionally, with the support of specialiсed agencies to assist students in managing their documents and application processes, the influx of students can be efficiently handled. Consequently, implementing partnerships with European medical schools is not only a matter of negotiation but also a viable and realistic political decision for the UK. 

      Conclusion

      By initiating partnerships with European universities, the UK government can expand opportunities for aspiring medical students, reduce NHS workforce shortages, and make the dream of becoming a doctor more accessible to all. This potential policy would not only bridge the current gap but also create a more resilient and inclusive healthcare system for the future.

      While expanding domestic medical school capacity remains essential, international collaboration offers an immediate, cost-effective solution to bridge the gap. By combining political will, financial support, and a focus on equitable access, the UK can turn its healthcare challenges into opportunities for growth and innovation.

    Source link

  • UK universities can support Gaza’s immediate education needs

    UK universities can support Gaza’s immediate education needs

    Since the conflict began in 2023, I have interviewed numerous higher education students and academics, both in Gaza and those displaced elsewhere.

    Their stories are profoundly inspiring and speak to the resilience and determination of a community that refuses to let adversity extinguish its aspirations. For students in Gaza, education is far more than a pathway to personal advancement – it is a fragile lifeline, a stabilising force in the midst of chaos, and a source of hope for the future.

    For academics, their passion for teaching and inspiring the next generation endures, even as universities lie in ruins and teaching becomes a voluntary effort.

    Education cannot wait

    In a region devastated by conflict, young Palestinians – particularly those pursuing critical fields such as medicine, pharmacy, and engineering – demonstrate extraordinary resilience as they strive to continue their education under unimaginable circumstances. For these students, education is not merely a personal milestone; it is a transformative force for the public good, equipping them with the skills needed to rebuild their society and economy. UK universities are uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in addressing these challenges. Having recently supported Ukrainian students and academics during a time of crisis, they have developed valuable experience and insights into providing meaningful and structured support. The need to act now is pressing, as education cannot wait.

    The immediate priority is access to online resources – lecture recordings, virtual labs, digital textbooks, and open-access courses – that can sustain continuity in education for Gaza’s students, particularly those in fields like medicine and pharmacy. For instance, final-year medical students in Gaza have been unable to graduate due to the ongoing conflict, creating an urgent need for virtual alternatives to traditional clinical training. Palestinian academics have stressed the importance of accessible online lecture materials and virtual labs to ensure these students can complete their education and serve their communities where they are desperately needed.

    For UK universities, supporting these students is not just an act of compassion but a reinforcement of the broader mission of education: to empower, rebuild, and promote peace and stability. Given the logistical and security challenges that make physical attendance in schools and universities nearly impossible, the solution must be digital. UK universities could, for example, create licenses to share lecture materials such as recordings, slides, and lab simulations with students in Gaza.

    Virtual mentorship, remote internships

    Virtual mentorship programmes could also be established, enabling UK healthcare professionals to guide Palestinian medical students through remote internships and online training modules, equipping them with vital knowledge and practical skills. Collaborating with technology partners to provide devices, software, and secure internet access could further bridge the digital divide, ensuring that students can continue their education even amidst displacement.

    This approach could extend to pharmacy and engineering students, who face similar challenges. Pharmacy students could benefit from virtual labs and training programmes, while engineering students could access workshops on sustainable design, structural engineering, and public works – fields critical to Gaza’s rebuilding efforts. These initiatives would not only address immediate educational needs but also help create a pipeline of skilled professionals prepared to contribute to their communities’ recovery.

    Beyond individual training, research partnerships between UK universities and Palestinian institutions could provide both short- and long-term educational support. Establishing an interdisciplinary Centre for Palestine Studies within UK universities, for instance, would create a platform for collaborative research on pressing issues such as public health, environmental sustainability, and renewable energy. These partnerships could amplify Palestinian academics’ voices through joint publications, international conferences, and shared funding opportunities, while providing mentorship and resources that are otherwise inaccessible in Gaza.

    Our educators could also support the economic recovery in Gaza, which requires more than just rebuilding physical infrastructure; it necessitates cultivating an entrepreneurial spirit. UK universities with strong business and social entrepreneurship programmes could offer virtual training, mentorship, and incubator partnerships for Gaza’s students. Skills workshops on sustainable finance, small business management, and social entrepreneurship could empower young Palestinians to rebuild their economy, fostering resilience and independence.

    Beyond education

    However, significant challenges remain, including the reconstruction of homes, schools, and infrastructure. For now, support can only reach those students with access to the internet and devices, such as laptops. In the long term, UK universities should partner with charities, NGOs, and funding bodies such as the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society to help rebuild Gaza’s educational and healthcare infrastructures. Dialogue with Palestinian colleagues is essential to developing a strategic framework for digitisation and reconstruction that is both practical and impactful.

    Imagine British universities collaborating with Palestinian institutions to create start-up incubators focused on renewable energy, healthcare technology, or sustainable agriculture. These ventures could foster economic independence, create jobs, and lay the foundation for a stronger and more resilient Gaza. Students in Gaza don’t just want access to education – they want the tools to contribute actively to their communities, creating a sustainable future for themselves and their families.

    UK universities now stand at a critical juncture. By extending support to students and academics in conflict zones, they have the opportunity to reaffirm the transformative power of education. Young Palestinians, who continue their studies amidst tremendous adversity, exemplify education’s potential to not only uplift individuals but to rebuild communities.

    The UK’s academic community has long championed education as a force for peace, progress, and the public good. By sharing resources, expertise, and a commitment to equity, UK universities can help rebuild Gaza—not just in physical terms, but in spirit, knowledge, and skill.

    This is a moment for UK universities to step up – for Gaza’s students, for the future of Gaza, and for the enduring promise of education as a beacon of hope and resilience.

    Source link

  • The courts are slowly clarifying universities’ duty of care

    The courts are slowly clarifying universities’ duty of care

    Imagine you’re a student, a member of staff, a parent or even an MP trying to work out what type, level or nature of “duty of care” is owed by a university to students.

    The other day Janet Daby, whose day job is Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing but who also moonlights as a kind of spokesperson for HE given that Jacqui Smith is in the Lords, was asked about duty of care.

    Her answer was as follows:

    The department’s position is that a duty of care in HE may arise in certain circumstances. Such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the specific facts and context of the case being considered, and will be dependent on the application by a court of accepted common law principles.

    That’s unhelpful enough – but the courts don’t seem to be very clear either. Of relevance down this rabbit hole, there’s a fairly lurid bit of press coverage doing the rounds on a case involving a law student at Cambridge who has sued the university for its refusal to award him a PhD.

    The Mail, with its usual insinuative air quotes, runs the headline as follows:

    Cambridge law student sues university after he failed his PhD, claiming it held up his career as a barrister because he was “less able” to write a thesis.

    The case itself is interesting because of the way in which the judge in a recent appeal has differentiated between different bits of law that are supposed to protect students.

    And in a context of disabled students routinely reporting problems with the way in which reasonable adjustments are delivered, there could be significant implications, depending on what happens next, for practice in the future.

    Background

    Jacob Meagher is a disabled PhD student at Cambridge who alleges that he was not provided with an adequate supervisor or advisor, and was denied certain scholarships – acts which he claims were acts of victimisation.

    He previously brought a claim against the university on those issues in 2017, and reached a settlement in 2019 which involved him restarting his PhD. But he alleges he was subjected to a number of detriments after the settlement – crucially, that in connection with his PhD examination, the university was aware of the adjustments he needed to avoid a disadvantage because of his disability, but failed to provide them.

    That’s partly because they had been recommended by the university’s Accessibility and Disability Resource Centre (ADRC) in a plan, but not implemented in the department, which is the sort of scenario that Disabled Students UK’s research suggests is common.

    That, Meagher claims, led to a suicide attempt and hospital admissions – things he claims the university was made aware of but refused to help or support him. Then following complaints, the university recognised the issues with the initial viva and is working to ensure a fair process for his re-examination.

    But even though the university agreed to let the student re-defend his thesis and implement reasonable adjustments, he took the university to court for several reasons:

    • The case includes additional claims beyond the failure to implement reasonable adjustments during the initial viva. He alleges various breaches of the Equality Act 2010, including victimisation and discrimination, stemming from incidents throughout his PhD program. These include claims of inadequate supervision, vetoing of scholarships, and mishandling of complaints.
    • Meagher is seeking compensation for damages already incurred. He claims that the university’s actions have caused him financial losses, including missed opportunities for a tenancy as a barrister due to the delay in completing his PhD. He is also seeking general damages for the distress and harm to his mental health caused by the university’s alleged actions.
    • He is seeking a legal declaration that the university unlawfully discriminated against him, validating his claims and potentially influencing future practice at the university. He is also seeking to clarify legal issues concerning the university’s obligations ahead of that agreed re-examination.

    The university or individuals?

    When he initially brought his claim in August 2023, he included six individuals as defendants in the case – all senior employees of the university that held specific leadership roles within the departments and committees relevant to his complaints.

    He argued that in addition to the liability of their employer under section 109, section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 allows individuals to be held personally liable for acts of discrimination committed in the course of their employment.

    Meagher’s argument was that these individuals, by virtue of their positions, were responsible for the university’s decisions and actions that he alleged were discriminatory and caused him harm. So he sought a declaration from the court that these individuals had discriminated against him, in addition to the declaration sought against the university.

    The university’s legal team argued that including these individuals as defendants provided no tangible benefit to Meagher as the university had acknowledged its liability for discriminatory acts committed by its employees, and that the claims against them were duplicative and unnecessarily increased the cost and complexity of the legal proceedings.

    The County Court Judge hearing the initial applications in the case agreed with the university’s arguments and struck out the claims against the individuals, citing the “Jameel principle” that allows the courts to strike out claims that are technically valid but considered an abuse of process due to the disproportionate costs and burden they impose on the defendants compared to the potential benefit to the claimant.

    And on appeal, a High Court judge has now agreed – hence the headlines. But it’s where the High Court has disagreed with the County Court where things get interesting.

    Breach of contract?

    In the County Court, Meagher argued that the university’s failure to implement adjustments recommended by the ADRC for his viva constituted not just breaches of the Equality Act 2010, but also breaches of contract and tort – and once you’re in that space the legal principles of foreseeability of harm, and the duty of care in providing services with reasonable skill and care, kick in.

    On the duty to avoid foreseeable harm, the principle basically means that individuals and organisations have a legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent harm that is reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of their actions or omissions. If the Court determines that the harm Meagher experienced (e.g. psychological distress, academic setbacks) was a foreseeable consequence of the university’s failure to implement the adjustments, that would strengthen his claim for breach of contract and tort.

    Then there’s the duty of care in carrying out a service with reasonable skill and care issue. That’s enshrined in section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and also applies under common law principles of negligence – and requires service providers, in this case, the university, to exercise reasonable skill and care in the provision of their services to consumers, in this instance, Meagher as a student.

    The question in this case is whether the university, by failing to implement the adjustments recommended by its own ADRC, breached this duty of care by not conducting his PhD viva with the requisite skill and care, considering his disability. Meagher argues that the university’s failure to implement the ADRC’s recommendations, which he says were specific to his needs and aimed at ensuring a fair and accessible assessment process, constitutes a breach of this duty.

    And at the heart of all that is the question of competence standards and how they intersect with reasonable adjustments for disabled students under the Equality Act 2010.

    Competence standards

    Competence standards are essentially the academic benchmarks used to assess whether a student has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities for a particular qualification. You’ll recall from the Natasha Abrahart case that there was disagreement about whether presenting in-person to a lecture theatre was itself a required competence, or merely a way of assessing competence that could be (reasonably) adjusted.

    The Equality Act doesn’t require universities to adjust competence standards to accommodate disabled students – but it does require universities to make reasonable adjustments to the assessment processes used to evaluate a student’s competence.

    This distinction is crucial in Meagher’s case because he argues that the university’s failure to implement certain adjustments, specifically those recommended by the ADRC, resulted in him being disadvantaged in demonstrating his competence during his viva.

    He argues that requiring him to take the viva in a standard format, without the recommended adjustments, placed him at a substantial disadvantage due to his disabilities, and that they were necessary to enable him to fairly demonstrate his understanding of the subject matter and meet the PhD competence standard.

    Meagher proposed that his PhD assessment be based on an analysis of his published academic papers, a method already used for university staff, rather than a traditional thesis. He requested a legally-qualified editor to proofread his thesis for aesthetic and presentation standards, along with significant restructuring or adjustments to the viva process. His proposed adjustments included written feedback from examiners on areas needing improvement, followed by revisions and reassessment, as well as receiving written questions and a detailed agenda seven days prior to the viva to reduce anxiety.

    To further support his needs, Meagher requested oral questions be linked to specific thesis sections in active voice, pauses and breaks after oral questions for cognitive processing, and the ability to write down questions for clarity. He also sought the option to clarify ambiguous questions with examiner explanations and breaks of at least ten minutes every hour to manage fatigue and maintain focus during the viva.

    The Student Support Document (SSD) created by the ADRC included much of that – but Meagher says that the university failed to provide it to the examiners before the viva, leaving them unaware of his disabilities and the necessary adjustments – only providing a list of adjustments. He also alleges that adjustments to the viva format were not made – the examiners, he says, failed to avoid unnotified topics, clearly signpost questions, and accommodate the thesis format.

    He was then granted an interim injunction against the university in July 2024 preventing it from taking any action over his PhD course or examination without consent from both parties pending the conclusion of the legal proceedings.

    Two big issues

    In other words, there are two things going on. On the one hand, in the discrimination arguments the student wants clarity over the reasonable adjustments/competence standards issue before that re-examination issue goes ahead.

    Depending on what happens next, there could be significant implications across the sector as it continues to try to wrangle reasonable adjustments to assessment and the differences between competence standards in a subject that shouldn’t change, and mere methods for assessing them that could.

    On the other hand, the potential compensation would be higher if Meagher was able to make the contract/tort arguments for a breach of contract and the implied duty to act with reasonable skill and care. Crucial there is whether, once it was agreed, the plan from the ADRC became part of the contract with the student – where if so we’re into avoiding foreseeable harm and so on. And that matters because it looks like it could create a form of duty of care.

    On that issue, in the County Court Meagher argued that the failure to implement adjustments for his viva constituted breaches of contract and tort – but the judge reasoned that that was an attempt to improperly import the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 into contractual and duties of care.

    But on appeal in the High Court, the contract and tort claims have been reinstated – the judge found that the County Court judge had got it wrong on “you’re trying to use two bits of law on one issue,” and argued that once it had agreed them, the university had separate contractual and tortious duties to implement the recommendations, irrespective of whether those recommendations aligned with the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act.

    And so that’s where things now get very interesting – because of who the pressure goes on now in any tug of war between professional services and academics that disabled students often find themselves in.

    Where will the pressure fall?

    It is possible that the pressure goes onto academic departments. If universities face potential legal liability for breaches of contract or tort when they fail to implement their reasonable adjustment plans, that could strengthen the hand of frustrated disabled students, and strengthen the authority of disability services departments within universities to ensure that their recommendations are given due weight and followed through.

    It could also mean better training for academic staff on disability law, or clearer procedures for communicating and implementing reasonable adjustments so academic departments are aware of their obligations.

    But it’s also possible that the risk of legal action causes universities to pressure their professional disability staff to be more cautious in creating and publishing reasonable adjustment plans that they could later be held to account over. They may put in steps like ensuring relevant academics agree first, slowing down already slow processes. There may also be a chilling effect on adjustments that beleaguered staff know will be hard to get academic staff to agree to.

    And of course there’s more to run here – in the eventual potential outcome of the case – on what is and isn’t a reasonable adjustment to a PhD viva as a method of assessment.

    What is clear is that the chances of an individual student having the money, time or smarts to take a case as far as Meagher has so far are slim. It also remains the case that disabled students’ rights in areas like this are desperately unclear, that the legal frameworks surrounding them interact in potentially unhelpful ways, and their access to support is heavily restricted once at the end of their course.

    Someone, somewhere – perhaps OfS’ Disability in Higher Education Advisory Panel – needs to grip these issues properly. And next time Janet Daby is forced to issue an answer like “well it’s for the courts to decide”, perhaps she could remind herself and her boss in the other place that she’s a lawmaker.

    Source link

  • West Virginia Executive Order on ‘DEI’ unconstitutionally limits university classroom discussions.

    West Virginia Executive Order on ‘DEI’ unconstitutionally limits university classroom discussions.

    West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order yesterday to eliminate certain diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in state agencies and organizations that receive state money. While the state may limit certain programs or activities of state agencies, the executive order is written so broadly that it applies to classroom instruction in higher education. As such, the executive order violates the First Amendment and must be rescinded or amended to make clear that it does not affect what’s discussed in college classrooms. If the order is not rescinded or amended, West Virginia’s public institutions must protect faculty academic freedom rights and make sure that classroom teaching is not affected. 

    If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, FIRE is here for you.

    Provision 1.b. sweeps in an enormous amount of expression protected under the First Amendment protected expression at West Virginia’s universities and colleges. It provides: 

    [No] entity receiving state funds, shall utilize state funds, property, or resources to . . . Mandate any person to participate in, listen to, or receive any education, training, activities, procedures, or programming to the extent such education, training, activity, or procedure promotes or encourages the granting of preferences based on one person’s particular race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin over that of another.

    This language violates the First Amendment, reaching college classroom instruction and discussion. It is viewpoint-discriminatory, prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that “promotes or encourages” a view while allowing them to criticize that viewpoint. And while other states’ anti-DEI efforts have included language that might protect discussions in university and college classrooms, West Virginia’s does not — instead, it applies to any agency receiving state funds. West Virginia’s public universities cannot both comply with the executive order and their obligations under the first Amendment. 

    Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction. 

    Whatever authority states might have to regulate other state agencies (including K-12 education and non academic higher education programming), the university classroom context is different. The First Amendment protects the right of faculty members at public universities and colleges to discuss pedagogically-relevant material in their courses, even if that material is offensive to students, colleagues, the public, or lawmakers. As the Supreme Court held in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York (1967), state officials cannot use the law to impose an “orthodoxy over the [college] classroom,” where students learn “through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas,” not “authoritative selection,” wrote Justice William Brennan.

    FIRE has defended this important right across the ideological spectrum in courts across the country, successfully suing over Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” and maintaining an ongoing challenge against California’s requirement that faculty incorporate ‘anti-racist’ viewpoints into their classroom teaching.

    Executive Order 3-25 violates those First Amendment rights. Under Executive Order 3-25:

    • A law professor teaching constitutional law cannot present Supreme Court opinions arguing in favor of race-conscious admissions at universities and colleges, including the dissenting opinions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College or the plurality or majority opinions in Bakke and Grutter.
    • A college professor cannot recount other arguments in favor of affirmative action or racial preferences, which remain legal in many other circumstances outside of the university context.
    • A professor discussing reparations — including proposals recently introduced in the United States Senate — can only criticize reparations, but could not present arguments in favor, even if they want to dissect those arguments.
    • A history professor would have to think twice before presenting materials relating to historic immigration policies that limited immigrants by national origin, as that might “promote” preferences based on national origin.
    • A political science professor cannot present materials arguing in favor of continuing to limit Selective Service (i.e., the military draft) registration requirements to men, or limiting combat roles to men, as those arguments would “promote” preferences based on sex.

    Diversity, equity, and inclusion statements FAQ

    Issue Pages

    Vague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI.


    Read More

    Worse still, it is impossible for an educator to know what might “promote or encourage the granting of preferences” with regard to a particular student. For instance, since students reading the Supreme Court decisions in Bakke and Grutter may find their arguments convincing, even teaching about these landmark cases would risk violating the executive order. This cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment and academic freedom rights of West Virginia students and professors.

    The plain language of the provision clearly conflicts with West Virginians’ constitutional rights. Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction. If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, please contact FIRE: https://thefire.org/alarm.

    Source link

  • No speech for you: College fires professor for calling America ‘racist fascist country’ in email to students

    No speech for you: College fires professor for calling America ‘racist fascist country’ in email to students

    When tenured Millsaps College professor James Bowley sent an email sharing his opinion on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, he didn’t anticipate it would result in his termination. But in a perfect storm of overreach and red tape, that’s exactly what happened. 

    On Nov. 6, 2024 — the day after the election — Bowley emailed the students in his “Abortion and Religions” class, canceling that day’s session to “mourn and process this racist fascist country.” With only three students in the class, Bowley got to know them quite well, including their political feelings, and knew canceling class would be best for those students. As Bowley told FIRE, “I just want to be caring and kind to my students, whom I knew would be troubled by the election.” Bowley wasn’t just trying to get out of work; he did not cancel the much larger first-year writing class session he taught that same day because he had no reason to know how those students felt about the election. 

    Two days later, Millsaps Provost Stephanie Rolph informed Bowley that he had been placed on temporary administrative leave pending review, for the bizarre offense of using his “Millsaps email account to share personal opinions with [his] students.” 

    That’s right: Millsaps didn’t take issue with Bowley canceling class (likely because they’d have to punish lots of people; professors cancel class for all sorts of reasons). The only cited reason was the use of his email to share personal opinions with students, which unsurprisingly is not an actual policy violation. That’s right: The college simply fabricated a policy violation so it could punish a professor for his speech. Frank Neville, president of the private college, has ignored hundreds of calls to reinstate Bowley, who was unable to do his job for over three months until yesterday, when he was eventually fired.

    Welcome to Millsaps, a labyrinth of academic bureaucracy where personal opinions may not be shared.

    Millsaps College president Frank Neville denied a committee recommendation and doubled down on Bowley’s leave being both justified and necessary, without explanation. (Barbara Gauntt / Clarion Ledger / USA TODAY NETWORK)

    Professor punished without due process

    Everything about Bowley’s treatment goes directly against Millsaps’ own fundamental principles of “freedom of speech and expression.” While Millsaps is a private institution not bound by the First Amendment, its commitment to free speech leads any reasonable student or faculty member to believe they are being promised expressive rights that align with the First Amendment. 

    Courts have recognized protection for a great deal of faculty speech on matters of public concern (say, a presidential election) because higher education depends on the wide exposure to robust exchanges of thoughts and ideas. But Millsaps’ actions here signal that it doesn’t take its own principles seriously and is making up its own standards for free speech and expression. That’s not okay with us — and it’s unfair to the students and faculty of Millsaps.

    Not only did FIRE request that Millsaps drop the investigation and reinstate Bowley, but so did more than 100 students, reportedly, (pretty impressive for a college of only about 600) and over 500 alumni. And when Bowley contested the provost’s decision to place him on leave, a grievance committee made up of faculty members determined that Millsaps couldn’t identify a single policy that Bowley had violated. The committee recommended that Bowley be reinstated immediately.

    FIRE remains by Bowley’s side, fighting for his return to teaching — and his right to share his opinions with students.

    The grievance committee, like FIRE, also found that Bowley was not afforded proper due process. Bowley was placed on leave before receiving a hearing and final determination. By doing so, the provost created an intermediary step in the process of dismissing a professor that exists nowhere in the handbooks — all without Bowley having any prior violations or disciplinary actions taken against him.

    But Neville seemed unfazed by the calls from the Millsaps community and unconvinced by the facts presented to him. On Jan. 10, Neville denied the grievance committee’s recommendation and doubled down on Bowley’s leave being both justified and necessary, without explanation.

    Calls to reinstate Bowley continued, this time reaching tens of thousands of people. But that still wasn’t enough. On Jan. 14, Bowley was told in a meeting that he was fired for not exercising restraint and not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s. To be clear: The college fired Bowley for an offense – not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s – of which he wasn’t accused. It’s no surprise that Bowley could not extricate himself from what Millsaps made into an impossible situation. 

    Ferris State cannot punish professor for comedic — and now viral — video jokingly referring to students as ‘cocksuckers’ and ‘vectors of disease’

    News

    It’s a joke, people. But violating faculty rights is not.


    Read More

    Even if the college had originally charged Bowley with not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s, his email to his class still wouldn’t qualify. Whatever interest Millsaps may have in preventing faculty from purporting to speak on its behalf does not justify automatic punishment for simply not asserting that one isn’t speaking for the college. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that a teacher could not be punished for a letter to the editor he wrote in which he identified himself as a teacher at a certain school. Just because Bowley is identified as working at Millsaps (via his faculty email), doesn’t mean his speech is transformed into speech on behalf of the college. 

    Millsaps cannot overcome this principle just because it wants faculty to indicate whether views expressed “are individual or those of the institution.” Nothing in Bowley’s email can reasonably be interpreted as speaking on behalf of Millsaps, as it is commonly understood that when using their college email, faculty members are speaking for themselves rather than conveying that they speak for their employer. And here, Bowley was very clearly sharing an opinion – a criticism of an election outcome – that any reasonable person would understand as being his own opinion. 

    Bowley told FIRE yesterday: “I love Millsaps College and even more I love my students, but censorship by an administration by definition means that it is not education anymore; it is not a legitimate college.”

    FIRE remains by Bowley’s side, fighting for his return to teaching — and his right to share his opinions with students.

    Source link

  • One country wants to close math achievement gaps by ending academic tracking

    One country wants to close math achievement gaps by ending academic tracking

    CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — Many students in New Zealand have a story to tell about “streaming” — being grouped into separate math classes based on their perceived ability to master the subject.

    Manaaki Waretini-Beaumont, now 18 and an environmental science major at the University of Canterbury, learned about the downside of streaming when she enrolled in Avonside Girls’, a 1,000-student high school in Christchurch.

    Avonside starts at Year 9, equivalent to eighth grade in the United States, and ends at Year 13, equivalent to 12th grade. Before the start of her Year 9 term, Waretini-Beaumont and her fellow students were divided up into groups to take tests in “maths,” reading comprehension, and patterns and shapes.

    Afterward, the students were separated into lettered groups that spelled out the word B-I-N-O-C-U-L-A-R-S. Waretini-Beaumont was a “9-N” student in mathematics — as she describes it, “the top of the middle block.”

    But she said she didn’t feel comfortable as one of the few Māori students in the class.

    “I felt like I wasn’t good enough to be in that space,” said Waretini-Beaumont, whose iwi, or tribal affiliations, are Te Āti Haunui-A-Pāpārangi, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Paoa. “If there was something I wasn’t understanding, I felt like I wasn’t able to say that, because I’m supposed to be in the smart class with all these smart people.”

    So she shifted to another mathematics class with her Māori friends, who were in the “S” classes. 

    “Being in two different spaces, I could really see the change,” Waretini-Beaumont said. “At the top classes, the teachers’ language towards the students was always positive and it was always encouraging. And they really wanted students to learn and were trying to help them.”

    Manaaki Waretini-Beaumont experienced the effects of “streaming,” or academic ability tracking, during her time as a high school student at Avonside Girls’ School in Christchurch, New Zealand. Credit: Image provided by Richie Mills/Ngāi Tahu

    In the classroom where her friends were assigned, in contrast, the mathematics work mostly amounted to simple worksheets — “coloring pages and word find,” Waretini-Beaumont said.

    Related: Sign up for a limited-run newsletter that walks you through some of the most promising solutions for helping students conquer math.

    For years, much like in the United States, New Zealand has worried about sliding student proficiency in mathematics, as captured by both national and international test scores. Later this month — the beginning of the New Zealand school year — the country is launching an overhaul of mathematics instruction that education leaders hope will reverse the trend.

    But other groups in the country have been trying to approach the problem of academic achievement from a different angle. They believe that streaming is driving achievement gaps in the country, including in mathematics. Tokona te Raki/Māori Futures Collective, a think tank focused on youth, has been working since 2019 to persuade schools to voluntarily end the practice by 2030. The initiative is called “Kōkirihia”— Māori for “take action.”

    Streaming is just one of many ways that schools group students by academic ability. Ability grouping can include separating students into vocational or university tracks at different schools as early as age 10, as is common in Germany and other Western European countries. But it could also include teachers creating informal and non-permanent groupings within their own classrooms to provide enrichment or extra support to students who need it.

    In New Zealand, critics say streaming pushes two groups into so-called “cabbage,” or lower-level mathematics, at a disproportionate rate: Māori students, who are indigenous to New Zealand, and students who are Pasifika, the New Zealand term for people from Samoa, Tonga and other nations in the Pacific Islands.

    In the 14th century, the Polynesian ancestors of today’s Māori migrated thousands of miles by canoe to what they called Aotearoa, the land of the long white cloud. Hundreds of years later, English settlers came to engage in trade and now represent the majority ethnic group in New Zealand. In 1840, the two groups signed the Treaty of Waitangi that established New Zealand’s bicultural identity.

    Many youth with Pacific Island backgrounds are descended from people who were encouraged to move to New Zealand after World War II to address a labor shortage.

    Both Māori and Pasifika are a fast-growing, and young, population. By the 2040s, more than a third of children in the country are expected to identify as Māori, according to Stats NZ, the country’s official data agency.

    Related: Eliminating advanced math ‘tracks’ often prompts outrage. Some districts buck the trend

    The New Zealand Ministry of Education’s official stance discourages streaming, but the country’s more than 2,500 schools operate with a great deal of independence: Principals have similar powers and responsibilities as school superintendents in the United States, and each school has an elected board that sets policy and manages budgets.

    New Zealand does not track streaming or ability grouping by race or ethnicity, but surveys show it is common: Eighty percent of students are in schools that group students by ability level in mathematics, according to a 2022 survey conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment.

    Other data shows a wide academic gap among students of different ethnicities in New Zealand.

    Students at May Road School in Auckland, New Zealand, work through a lesson on fractions. Credit: Becki Moss for The Hechinger Report

    In the Auckland region, the country’s most densely populated of 16 regions in all, 76 percent of Asian students left secondary school with the highest of three levels on the country’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement in 2022. Like a high school diploma, the NCEA Level 3 is a minimum qualification to enter college in New Zealand.

    About 66 percent of Pākehā, or white, students left school with that credential. About 46 percent of Pasifika students and 40 percent of Māori students did the same.

    In comparison, the high school graduation rate by race and ethnicity in the United States in the 2021-22 school year was 94 percent for Asian American/Pacific Islander students, 90 percent for white students, 83 percent for Hispanic students, 81 percent for Black students and 74 percent for American Indian/Alaskan Native students.

    Misbah Sadat, the newly appointed principal at Kuranui College, a high school 50 miles northeast of the capital of Wellington, began actively working to “destream” mathematics courses soon after emigrating to New Zealand in 2009 and becoming a teacher there.

    As head of mathematics at a high school called Horowhenua College, she started by identifying promising Māori students on her own, moving them to higher level classes, and mentoring them, as described in a Ministry of Education newsletter.

    Related: OPINION: As a middle-class Black student, I was tracked into lower-level math classes that kept me back

    Eventually she convinced her colleagues at Horowhenua to create mixed-ability classes rather than dividing the students. She continued the same work as deputy principal at Onslow College in suburban Wellington, where she worked before her new appointment.

    The streaming practice comes from a patronizing mindset, said Sadat, who was also a math teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland.

    Schools are telling parents that their children might be lost and overwhelmed in a more rigorous class. In actuality, “We have demoted some students to learn crap,” she said. “And then we are saying that at age 16, ‘You are dumb at maths.’ How dare we decide what a young person is capable of or not capable of?” 

    Students at Kaiapoi North School in suburban Christchurch, New Zealand, work through a multiplication problem in chalk on the playground blacktop. Credit: Becki Moss for The Hechinger Report

    Both of New Zealand’s unions for elementary and secondary teachers signed onto the pledge to end streaming by 2030. In a newsletter to members, the elementary teachers union noted that its members have noticed “a sense of ingrained hopelessness that comes with being in the ‘cabbage’ classes.”

    But in the same newsletter, another teacher said educators struggle with the mix of abilities in one classroom, along with managing behavior challenges.

    David Pomeroy, a senior lecturer in education at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, is studying schools that have committed to reducing their reliance on streaming.

    It’s a difficult task, he said. So many teachers are accustomed to the practice, since they went through it in school themselves. Parents of students in high-level classes are worried their children will be shortchanged. Teachers also say that it is easier to work with students who are all roughly on the same skill level.

    And then there is an emotional connection to the practice, Pomeroy said. Unlike in the United States, lower-level mathematics classes are often taught by teachers who have a lot of classroom experience and who express real fondness for their students, he said. Pushing students too hard is seen as setting them up for repeated failure, which teachers were reluctant to do.

    Abby Zonneveld’s bulletin board at St. Clair School in Dunedin, New Zealand, asked students to describe their “tūrangawaewae,” or place where they feel a special connection. Credit: Becki Moss for The Hechinger Report

    “Even if they accepted streaming wasn’t the right next step, they wanted to protect them from anything that could damage their confidence,” Pomeroy said.

    For schools that have made a commitment to reducing or ending streaming, he said, one useful tool has been to bring mathematics teachers in different schools together so they can work through challenges, such as lesson planning, and share successes.

    Related: Racial gaps in math have grown. Could detracking help?

    The research into the benefits or harms of academic tracking or streaming show mixed results. In 2016, a group of researchers compiled all the best U.S-based research on ability grouping and acceleration at that point, going back for a century. They found certain kinds of ability grouping, such as placing highly gifted students together, was a benefit to those students. But grouping students in high- or low-performing classes did not show any benefit or detriment for students.

    The New Zealand Initiative, a right-of-center think tank, said that the country should conduct its own research on the effects of streaming in the country, rather than relying primarily on research done elsewhere and on qualitative reports that primarily capture feelings about the practice. “Research suggests that lowerstream students are often taught less engaging content by less experienced teachers. So, it may not be streaming itself that increases gaps in achievement but streaming done poorly,” the initiative said in a report.

    But the efforts to reduce streaming voluntarily seem to be catching on.

    When looking at all academic subjects, not just mathematics, principals on a 2022 PISA survey said 67 percent of students in New Zealand are grouped by ability into different classes for at least some subjects. That’s a drop from 2015, when 90 percent of principals reported that students were grouped into different classes in their schools.

    The change is welcome, said Waretini-Beaumont, who works on social media for Tokona te Raki. Streaming “has more impact than just cutting off some opportunities and stopping someone from doing calculus,” she said. “Our grandparents have been streamed and they don’t know it was even a thing. They just thought they were dumb.”

    Contact Christina A. Samuels at 212-678-3635 or samuels@hechingereport.org.

    This story was produced with support from the Education Writers Association Reporting Fellowship program.

    This story about academic tracking was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Bridget Phillipson reaffirms commitment to free speech

    Bridget Phillipson reaffirms commitment to free speech

    Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson has delivered a statement to Parliament on her regulatory approach to higher education – specifically, the future of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.

    Ahead of her day in court with the Free Speech Union – which is taking her to court over her implementation pause – she announced that key provisions will be brought into force, whilst “burdensome provisions” will be scrapped.

    And the good news is that pretty much for the first time from a minister on this issue, there’s an explicit recognition of the fine lines, complexities and contradictions often in play on the issue. A press notice covers largely the same material.

    You’ll recall that on taking office back in July, Phillipson paused further commencement of the Act in response to “concerns raised by a cross section of voices” – and controversially, at least for some, a “source” branded the Act as passed a “Tory hate charter”.

    In the intro, Phillipson said she was still committed to ensuring the protection of academic freedom and free speech – “vital pillars” of the university system:

    Universities are spaces for debate, exploration, and the exchange of ideas, not for shutting down dissenting views… extensive engagement with academics, universities, students, and minority groups revealed concerns about unworkable duties, legal system burdens, and potential impacts on safety, particularly amid rising antisemitism on campuses.

    Insights from her work to consult with interested stakeholders (both for and against the act), says Phillipson, have shaped a “balanced, effective, and proportionate approach” to safeguard free speech while addressing minority welfare.

    What stays

    First up, the government will commence the following requirements currently in the act (in sections 1,2 and 6):

    • The duties on higher education providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure and promote freedom of speech within the law
    • The duty on higher education providers to put in place a code of conduct [practice] on freedom of speech

    Those are relatively uncontroversial – most providers were preparing in that spirit already, although the (very) detailed suggestions on compliance previously proposed by OfS may yet change.

    Underpinning that, Phillipson also intends to commence the duties on the Office for Students (OfS) (section 5) to promote freedom of speech and the power to give advice and share best practice. And unsurprisingly, the ban on non-disclosure agreements for staff and students making complaints about bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct will also remain.

    There was a curious passage on the Director for Free Speech and Academic Freedom role – the Secretary of State said that she had “complete confidence” in Arif Ahmed who will be staying on – but then criticised how he’d been appointed, drawing on interim Chair David Behan’s review of the regulator that had recommended a look at how all OfS executive and board appointments should be made.

    She said will decide on the process of appointing directors to the independent regulator “shortly”.

    What’s going

    A couple of other measures were “not proportionate or necessary”, so she’ll be seeking repeal.

    The duties on students’ unions are to go – because they’re neither “equipped nor funded” to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and are already regulated by the Charity Commission:

    But I fully expect students unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not, and expect providers to work closely with them to make sure that happens, to act decisively to make sure their students union complies with their free speech code of conduct.

    That effectively returns us to the Education Act 1986 position – of providers taking reasonably practicable steps to get their SU to comply – and sensibly removes the prospect of a new student being told about two codes of practice to follow depending on who they’d booked a room with.

    Most controversially for some, she will also repeal the legal tort, on the basis that it would have resulted in:

    Costly litigation that risks diverting resources away from students at a time when University finances are already strained – remaining routes of redress have plenty of teeth.

    Those pro the tort worry that that only leaves OfS’ powers to find as the compliance lever – although others worried that the threat of it would have resulted in more threatening letters than sensible, nuanced decisions.

    What’s changing

    On the OfS free speech complaints scheme, it will remain in place for university staff and visiting speakers – but there will be two changes. OfS will first be freed up to prioritise the more serious complaints – and be officially empowered to ignore others.

    And the government will remove the “confusing duplication” of complaint schemes for students. Students will be diverted to using the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA, and OfS will take complaints from staff, external speakers and university members.

    That doesn’t quite remove the potential duplication of the two bodies considering the same incident or issue from different angles/complaints – but it’s a sensible start.

    And the government will also amend the mandatory condition of registration on providers to give OfS flexibility in how they apply those conditions to different types of providers – we’d expect that to cover issues like the obvious oversight of 14-year olds in FE colleges caught by the Act suddenly gaining free speech rights.

    The government says it will also take more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures in the act as it “works at pace” on the wider implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme that was part of the National Security Act 2023. Those two bits of legislation never felt properly aligned – so that also feels pretty sensible.

    In the debate that ensued, there was some lingering suspicion from the opposition that that all amounted to the government going soft on China – and regardless of the foreign funding clauses, there were some concerns from providers about the workability of the draft OfS guidance on the main duties re oppressive regimes and TNE. That will be one to watch.

    Finally, we will also get a policy paper to set out the proposals in more detail, potentially alongside a decision on information provision for overseas funding.

    What’s next

    As we signalled back in March, the interaction with allegations and incidents of antisemitism appears to have been a big influence on the decisions – the press notice reminds readers that there were fears that the legislation would encourage providers to “overlook” the safety and wellbeing of minority groups, including Jewish students, and instead protect those who use hateful or degrading speech on campus:

    Groups representing Jewish students also expressed concerns that sanctions could lead to providers overlooking the safety and well-being of minority groups.

    Phillipson even referenced the faux pas from Michelle Donelan way back in May 2021 when, on the day the Bill was launched, she was unable to explain how the government’s proposals would prevent Holocaust deniers coming to campus.

    Phillipson said that she could see “no good reason” why any university would invite a Holocaust denier onto campus to deny the overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust is an “appalling form of antisemitism”. Even when the last government had clarified the position on holocaust denial, it never confirmed that holocaust deniers could be banned – and the point about many external speaker edge cases is that they rarely fill the form in with “I’m going to say something unlawful”.

    There’s still a way to go yet on these (and other) fine lines – in the ensuing debate, Phillipson said that she was worried that the regime that was due to launch would have “unduly prioritized” free speech which is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who feel harassed and intimidated – these issues, she said, can be “very finely balanced”. That may well see a push from the SOS that the two sets of guidance – on OfS’ new Harassment and Sexual Misconduct duties, and the drafts on this regime, are integrated more sensibly.

    The ongoing questions surrounding the IHRA definition of antisemitism may also yet pop up again too – not least because of Arif Ahmed’s own apparent u-turn on it and the ensuing cases challenging its usage in disciplinary procedures. Questions of pro-Palestinian activism on camps and where that might stray into antisemitism were notably absent from OfS’ guidance drafts.

    Overall, some in the debate will be furious at the government’s apparent watering down of the Act, others will be pleased that some of the arguably more unworkable aspects are being amended.

    But probably the most important signal from Phillipson was a recognition that the area is complex and decisions often finely balanced – putting a degree of trust in universities (and their SUs) that they will also take it seriously.

    Whatever else has happened over the past few years, there’s plenty of evidence that understanding has improved in the sector – it looks it has in Whitehall too. The question now is whether, next time an incident or issue comes along, it is handled by a university (or its SU) in a way that commands confidence.

    Source link