Author: admin

  • Prioritizing behavior as essential learning

    Prioritizing behavior as essential learning

    Key points:

    In classrooms across the country, students are mastering their ABCs, solving equations, and diving into science. But one essential life skill–behavior–is not in the lesson plan. For too long, educators have assumed that children arrive at school knowing how to regulate emotions, resolve conflict, and interact respectfully. The reality: Behavior–like math or reading–must be taught, practiced, and supported.

    Today’s students face a mounting crisis. Many are still grappling with anxiety, disconnection, and emotional strain following the isolation and disruption of the COVID pandemic. And it’s growing more serious.

    Teachers aren’t immune. They, too, are managing stress and emotional overload–while shouldering scripted curricula, rising expectations, and fewer opportunities for meaningful engagement and critical thinking. As these forces collide, disruptive behavior is now the leading cause of job-related stress and a top reason why 78 percent of teachers have considered leaving the profession.

    Further complicating matters is social media and device usage. Students and adults alike have become deeply reliant on screens. Social media and online socialization–where interactions are often anonymous and less accountable–have contributed to a breakdown in conflict resolution, empathy, and recognition of nonverbal cues. Widespread attachment to cell phones has significantly disrupted students’ ability to regulate emotions and engage in healthy, face-to-face interactions. Teachers, too, are frequently on their phones, modeling device-dependent behaviors that can shape classroom dynamics.

    It’s clear: students can’t be expected to know what they haven’t been taught. And teachers can’t teach behavior without real tools and support. While districts have taken well-intentioned steps to help teachers address behavior, many initiatives rely on one-off training without cohesive, long-term strategies. Real progress demands more–a districtwide commitment to consistent, caring practices that unify educators, students, and families.

    A holistic framework: School, student, family

    Lasting change requires a whole-child, whole-school, whole-family approach. When everyone in the community is aligned, behavior shifts from a discipline issue to a core component of learning, transforming classrooms into safe, supportive environments where students thrive and teachers rediscover joy in their work. And when these practices are reinforced at home, the impact multiplies.

    To help students learn appropriate behavior, teachers need practical tools rather than abstract theories. Professional development, tiered supports, targeted interventions, and strategies to build student confidence are critical. So is measuring impact to ensure efforts evolve and endure.

    Some districts are leading the way, embracing data-driven practices, evidence-based strategies, and accessible digital resources. And the results speak for themselves. Here are two examples of successful implementations.

    Evidence-based behavior training and mentorship yields 24 percent drop in infractions within weeks

    With more than 19,000 racially diverse students across 24 schools east of Atlanta, Newton County Schools prioritized embedded practices and collaborative coaching over rigid compliance. Newly hired teachers received stipends to complete curated, interactive behavior training before the school year began. They then expanded on these lessons during orientation with district staff, deepening their understanding.

    Once the school year started, each new teacher was partnered with a mentor who provided behavior and academic guidance, along with regular classroom feedback. District climate specialists also offered further support to all teachers to build robust professional learning communities.

    The impact was almost immediate. Within the first two weeks of school, disciplinary infractions fell by 24 percent compared to the previous year–evidence that providing the right tools, complemented by layered support and practical coaching, can yield swift, sustainable results.

    Pairing shoulder coaching with real-time data to strengthen teacher readiness

    With more than 300,000 students in over 5,300 schools spanning urban to rural communities, Clark County School District in Las Vegas is one of the largest and most diverse in the nation.

    Recognizing that many day-to-day challenges faced by new teachers aren’t fully addressed in college training, the district introduced “shoulder coaching.” This mentorship model pairs incoming teachers with seasoned colleagues for real-time guidance on implementing successful strategies from day one.

    This hands-on approach incorporates videos, structured learning sessions, and continuous data collection, creating a dynamic feedback loop that helps teachers navigate classroom challenges proactively. Rather than relying solely on reactive discipline, educators are equipped with adaptable strategies that reflect lived classroom realities. The district also uses real-time data and teacher input to evolve its behavior support model, ensuring educators are not only trained, but truly prepared.

    By aligning lessons with the school performance plan, Clark County School District was able to decrease suspensions by 11 percent and discretionary exclusions by 17 percent.  

    Starting a new chapter in the classroom

    Behavior isn’t a side lesson–it’s foundational to learning. When we move beyond discipline and make behavior a part of daily instruction, the ripple effects are profound. Classrooms become more conducive to learning. Students and families develop life-long tools. And teachers are happier in their jobs, reducing the churn that has grown post-pandemic.

    The evidence is clear. School districts that invest in proactive, strategic behavior supports are building the kind of environments where students flourish and educators choose to stay. The next chapter in education depends on making behavior essential. Let’s teach it with the same care and intentionality we bring to every other subject–and give every learner the chance to succeed.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Higher Education Inquirer : Higher Education and Climate Change: Choppy Waters Ahead

    Higher Education Inquirer : Higher Education and Climate Change: Choppy Waters Ahead

    For years, Higher Education Inquirer (HEI) has documented how the climate crisis intersects with higher education. The evidence shows universities caught between their public claims of sustainability and the realities of financial pressures, risky expansion, and—in some cases—climate denial.

    Bryan Alexander’s Universities on Fire offers a framework for understanding how climate change will affect colleges and universities. He describes scenarios where institutions face not only physical damage from storms, floods, and wildfires, but also declining enrollments, strained budgets, and reputational harm if they continue business as usual.

    HEI’s reporting on Stockton University illustrates this problem. Its Atlantic City campus was celebrated as a forward-looking project, but the site is highly vulnerable to sea-level rise. Projections show more than two feet of water by 2050 and as much as five feet by 2100. Despite this, the university has continued to invest in the property, a decision that raises questions about long-term planning and responsibility.

    The problems are not only physical. HEI has reported on “science-based climate change denial,” where the language of research and inquiry is used to delay or undermine action. This type of denial allows institutions to appear rigorous while, in practice, legitimizing doubt and obstructing necessary changes.

    Even the digital infrastructure of higher education is implicated. Data centers and cloud computing require enormous amounts of water for cooling, a fact made more urgent in drought-stricken regions. HEI has suggested that universities confront their digital footprints by auditing storage, deleting unnecessary data, and questioning whether unlimited cloud use is consistent with sustainability goals.

    The federal safety net is also shrinking. FEMA cuts have reduced disaster relief funding at a time when climate-driven storms and floods are growing more severe. Colleges and universities that once relied on federal recovery dollars are now being forced to absorb more of the financial burden themselves—whether through state appropriations, private insurance, or higher tuition. In practice, this means students and working families will bear much of the cost of rebuilding.

    Meanwhile, contradictions continue to pile up. Camp Mystic, a corporate retreat space that hosts gatherings for university-affiliated leaders, has become a symbol of institutional hypocrisy: universities stage climate conferences and sustainability summits while maintaining financial and cultural ties to industries and donors accelerating the crisis. These contradictions erode trust in higher education’s role as a credible leader on climate.

    Climate disruption does not occur in isolation. HEI’s essay Let’s Pretend We Didn’t See It Coming…Again examined how higher education is entangled with a debt-driven economy vulnerable to collapse. With more than $1.7 trillion in student loans, heavy reliance on speculative finance, and partnerships with debt-financed ventures, universities are already positioned on fragile ground. Climate change adds another layer of instability to institutions already at risk.

    Taken together, these trends describe a sector moving into uncertain waters. Rising seas threaten campuses directly. Digital networks consume scarce resources. FEMA funding is shrinking. Denial masquerades as academic debate. Debt burdens and speculative finance amplify risks. Universities that continue to expand without accounting for these realities may find themselves not only unprepared but complicit in the crisis.

    HEI will continue to investigate these issues, tracking which institutions adapt responsibly and which remain locked in denial and contradiction.

    Sources and Further Reading

    Source link

  • The first multi-university group arrives

    The first multi-university group arrives

    The University of Greenwich and the University of Kent have this morning announced the intention to form a multi-university group.

    The aim is for the London and South East University Group – as it’s provisionally to be known, though this will be subject to consultation – to be established in time for the 2026–27 academic year.

    The plan on the student-facing side is for each university’s identity to be preserved – with applications, and degree awards, kept separate – behind the scenes, the “super-university” (as the press release puts it) will have a unified governing body, academic board, and executive team, and a single vice chancellor: Greenwich’s Jane Harrington. Staff at both universities are expected to transfer across to the newly merged university – legally, there will be one entity, but the two “brands” will still exist as trading arms.

    Merger by numbers

    Going by 2023–24 student numbers, the new “super-university” would have 46,885 registered students (29,695 at Greenwich, 17,190 at Kent), around the same size as the University of Manchester. It would employ 2,550 academic staff (currently 1,245 at Greenwich, 1,305 at Kent), roughly equivalent in size to Manchester Metropolitan University.

    It would offer, based on the current UCAS database, an astonishing 442 full time undergraduate courses (281 at Greenwich, 171 at Kent) – 70  more than the University of Manchester. A glance across portfolios sees some interesting congruences. Kent has a medical school, Greenwich has a nursing school and a teacher training offer. Both are strong in law, computer science, business, engineering, and psychology. Greenwich has more of an offer in the arts and tourism, Kent in the hard sciences.

    [full screen]

    The University of Kent has an established reputation for research in social policy and social work, and in law – although the largest single concentration of research active staff is in business and management studies. Greenwich also has a research concentration in business, but overall it has a less strong research portfolio.

    Financially speaking, we’re talking about a “super-university” with nearly £598m of income (Greenwich £329m, Kent £268m): that’s a little less than Newcastle University. Expenditure of £569m (Greenwich £302m, Kent £266m) is in the University of Warwick ballpark.

    While there have been a number of recent higher education mergers – ARU with Writtle, and City St George’s, in particular – the size and scale, along with the much-anticipated deployment of a multi-university model for the first time, mark this news as something of a watershed moment for the English sector.

    Universities UK’s efficiency and transformation taskforce has been for some time highlighting the sector’s interest in something comparable to multi-academy trust structures in schools – while also noting the “relatively limited experience” that the sector possesses in navigating such arrangements. This is about to change – the two universities’ description of the intended union as “a blueprint for other institutions to follow” is likely prescient.

    Two become one

    We might also note here that such a model is by no means limited to only two universities operating under one umbrella. The conversations behind the scenes over the last couple of years have been for groups spanning multiple universities and it’s not hard to see how others in the region might want to – or somehow be compelled to – join this group once it’s up and running. Starting with two, however, is a logical choice given the scale and complexity of that exercise alone. The government will be watching closely and hoping it works, so that they can propose the model elsewhere, particularly if it staves off the risk of institutional failure. Local politicians will also be watching closely as a potentially massive new institution emerges, which could have far-reaching local consequences for better and worse.

    One of the eye-catching aspects of today’s announcement is that of leadership – it has already been settled that there is to be one vice chancellor, one board and one senior team. Most mergers and collaborations in HE in recent times have failed before they have even started because of disagreement about which person should sit in the big chair. Being able to embrace this merger process free of that thorny question gives the exercise a much greater chance of success from the outset.

    Of course, collaboration between the University of Greenwich and the University of Kent is not new. Since 2004 the two universities have jointly run the Medway School of Pharmacy in Chatham Dockyard, a joint endeavour that has grown into a multi-disciplinary campus shared between the Greenwich, Kent, and Canterbury Christ Church University. These two decades of practical experience will be an invaluable resource to draw on as these plans move closer to implementation.

    Just the beginning?

    Aside from the potential for other institutions to join the group, the announcement is clearly the start of a long-term process. Despite staff and students coming together into the newly merged university, student pathways and decision-making processes will inevitably be tied to the old institutions and subject areas – and this is difficult to change midstream. If the merger is successful, then these identities could eventually end up disappearing or at least moving to the background, as natural opportunities for integration and efficiencies are sought to be realised by the board and leadership team.

    Such talk will no doubt be unsettling for staff at both Kent and Greenwich, who will wonder for how long their jobs will be needed, particularly where they have a like-for-like counterpart on the other side. The consultations about their futures will need to be thorough and sensitive.

    And enormous questions of REF submissions, TEF awards, data, DAPs and more will now also need to be worked through.

    For now we watch as a new institution takes shape.

    Source link

  • Florida State Center Focuses on Greek Life Wellness

    Florida State Center Focuses on Greek Life Wellness

    Florida State University is home to over 50 fraternity and sorority chapters, with total Greek membership over 6,800—about 23 percent of the undergraduate population. Fraternity and Sorority Life (FSL) students are generally representative of the student population’s demographics, but they’re more likely to persist, graduate and land a job after graduation compared to their peers.

    A new center on campus seeks to ensure that Greek organizations promote holistic student development, in part by partnering with student leaders and providing for-credit leadership classes.

    What’s the need: Past grievances with FSL organizations on campus prompted the development of the center to prevent hazing and other harmful practices often associated with Greek life. In 2017, FSU banned all fraternities and sororities following the death of a fraternity pledge. The ban was lifted in 2018 with provisions.

    “The challenge we had was to solve [misconduct] as almost a student success issue, and [we] try to focus on how do we help our students be way more successful, focusing in on their leadership and their wellness and holistic student experience,” said Freddy Juarez, FSU’s director of strategic initiatives and fraternity and sorority life.

    Now, to maintain good standing, Greek organizations must meet a variety of standards, including that members fulfill mandatory volunteer hours and sustain minimum GPAs. The university also maintains a publicly available scorecard on campus chapters to provide transparency into FSL activities, including philanthropic efforts and past disciplinary charges.

    The Center for Fraternity and Sorority Organizational Wellness launched in fall 2024 as an extension of these efforts, with the goal of identifying best practices in the field.

    “What are those markers that we can identify early on so that we can intervene with the right intervention that will stop them from going down that path of not being a ‘well’ organization?” Juarez said. “We’re trying to figure out what are all these components and pieces as we start to bring on national research agendas.”

    FSL students are also embedded throughout campus as tour guides, student government members and orientation leaders, so providing them with leadership training has far-reaching effects on the campus culture, Juarez said.

    How it works: The center engages FSL organizations in a variety of ways. Juarez and Brittany Devies, director of the Center for Fraternity and Sorority Wellness, meet with chapter leaders regularly to discuss governance, risk management, recruitment and new member education, among other topics.

    “We’re doing training and helping them navigate these complex issues, because these students are managing multimillion-dollar budgets and facilities that cost multimillion dollars. Our largest chapter is 320 members; that is a lot to manage,” Juarez said.

    The center also houses a 12-credit leadership studies certificate exclusively for FSL members in the Anne Spencer Daves College of Education, Health and Human Sciences, which is taught by FSL staff members.

    The courses focus on leadership contexts broadly but also provide developmental opportunities for students interested in being leaders in their Greek organization. Some of the courses also fulfill general elective and graduation requirements, aiding in degree completion.

    Approximately 50 students are currently enrolled in the certificate program; next semester they hope to increase that number to 200, Devies said. “Our students are seeing the direct impacts of that on career readiness,” Devies said, referencing another goal of the center.

    Staff also consult other institutions on the lessons they learned from revamping FSL requirements over the past few years, including the importance of data collection and how to partner with chapter leaders.

    What’s next: FSU doesn’t have one definition of organizational wellness, Juarez said, but the university is conducting research on positive outcomes from FSL organizations to understand how they can aid in students’ career outcomes, graduation and persistence rates.

    “We believe that our organizations could be vehicles that are instrumental in student success,” Juarez said. “We’re seeing that with early numbers if you compare our fraternity and sorority students to our non–fraternity or sorority students.”

    Positive career outcomes for members have become a top priority at FSU, so establishing stronger partnerships with the campus career center is a growing focus. FSL added a new staff member specifically to liaise with career services.

    FSL is also creating a six-week study abroad experience for students in the leadership certificate program based in Florence, Italy, to help them apply leadership principles beyond the campus environment, Devies said.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • Tribal Colleges Boost the Economy

    Tribal Colleges Boost the Economy

    Tribal colleges and universities are known to play an outsize role in educating and employing members of their local tribal communities. But they also offer major returns to taxpayers and the economy at large, according to a new economic impact study by the American Indian Higher Education Consortium and Lightcast.

    The study, released on Tuesday, drew on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. Census Bureau and institutional reports from the 2022–23 academic year at all 34 tribal colleges and universities across the country.

    It found that associate degree graduates from tribal colleges earned, on average, $9,400 more per year than those with just a high school diploma. Students earned $7.50 in future returns for every dollar invested in their tribal college education, an annual return of 27.2 percent.

    Meanwhile, alumni of tribal institutions contributed $3.8 billion to the U.S. economy through the higher wages they earned, the increased output of the businesses that employed them and the money students and their employers spent. Tribal college alumni also supported 40,732 jobs nationwide, particularly in industries such as health care and social assistance, retail, and professional and technical services.

    For every federal dollar invested in tribal colleges, the institutions return $1.60 in tax revenue through the increased tax payments of their alumni and alumni’s employers. According to the study, the colleges generate a total of $785.6 million in additional tax revenue and save taxpayers $96.8 million because of higher education’s benefits to alumni, including improved health, fewer interactions with the justice system and less reliance on income-assistance programs.

    “Tribal Colleges and Universities are powerful engines for opportunity, growth, and stability, not just for Native people, but for everyone,” Ahniwake Rose, president of AIHEC, said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed. “The evidence is clear: Supporting Tribal higher education is not only the right thing to do, it is one of the smartest investments this country can make.”

    Source link

  • On AI, We Reap What We Sow (opinion)

    On AI, We Reap What We Sow (opinion)

    I teach a first-year seminar. We call the course Education and the Good Life. The goal of the class is to engage students in a 15-week conversation. We talk about how they can make the most of their courses and our campus, with an eye toward the question of how the college experience can create an approach toward the world that lasts their whole life. In that spirit, last fall, I gave students an example of how I spend my time.

    In class, I shared a set of drafts of a poem that appeared in my most recent collection. One by one, I projected versions of the poem onto a screen. I drew attention to the red ink slashing through unwanted words. I pointed out how I added, struck, added, struck and then re-added a comma. I boasted about my careful use of my favorite punctuation mark—the delightfully overlong em dash. In the end, I shared all 32 drafts of the poem, from conception to published work. When I stopped, a student in the front row quipped, “That doesn’t seem efficient.” In response, I quoted Annie Dillard—“How we spend our days is, of course, how we spend our lives”—and I talked about the concept of “craft.” I suggested that a committed craftsperson produces work, but that in important ways, and for the reason Dillard suggests, the work also produces them. In the end, the time we spend on our projects makes us who we are.

    I asked the class to think about the time they give to writing assignments. I encouraged them to think about the minutes and the hours that they carve out of their schedules to read and then to write. I told them, “These are investments, not just in the creation of something to turn in on a deadline, but rather, investments in your humanity.” I explained, “When you give yourself time to use your faculties, you end up changing the dimensions of your mind.” I said, “You’re changing yourself.” Then I mused about how a college graduate is a certain kind of person, and how the process of earning a degree is largely a process of becoming.

    My students are smart. They understand social conventions. They know how to act, so they humored me. They nodded their heads, even though I detected facial expressions formed with a noticeable twist of “maybe that is how it worked in your generation.” Without saying the words, they made a point. History matters.

    In addition to my work on campus, I serve as a member of the Higher Learning Commission’s peer-review corps. Once or twice a year for the past 22 years, I have studied and visited colleges for the sake of ensuring the quality of their operations. When I joined the corps, in the early 2000s, the HLC held a leadership role in the nationwide assessment movement. The assessment of what students submit as their work, and by proxy what they know and what they can do, had become the benchmark by which we judge our institutions and accredit them. Because the question of whom students become during an education is harder to answer, and because the methods to answer such questions are out of necessity qualitative, we left those concerns aside while we moved, as a country, toward documenting the easily measurable, but narrowly defined, cognitive outcomes of the college experience.

    In the early 2000s, the heightened focus on the assessment of learning outcomes dovetailed with what were then advances in technology. Web-based platforms, still described as “learning management systems,” made it possible to assess students’ abilities at a distance, anytime, anywhere and under nearly any circumstance. The new, single-minded focus on the cognitive outcomes of higher education burgeoned alongside efforts to legitimize the new online institutions that had removed time in place as a component of schooling. In effect, our message was that we take stock of our success by measuring the end product of education, as opposed to the process of becoming educated. Students are smart. They quietly noted our priorities.

    Enter AI. Today we live in an era in which students can feed a prompt into an automated prose generator and, in seconds, have a viable draft of a writing assignment. What are they supposed to think? We’ve spent three decades acting like outcomes assessments are the only things we value. As for questions about how or where or with whom people engage in the process of becoming educated, our general approach has been, “These are not things that we like to know about.”

    Consider our focus on outcomes in another sphere of human development: athletics. Assume for a moment that you are a cyclist. I am confident that technocrats will soon create a bot capable of riding a bicycle. On a day when life presents you with too much to do, and you can’t find time to ride, would it seem reasonable to send a bot out in your stead? I hope that sounds absurd. During most of the time that we give to athletics, the outcome is not the point. In cycling, on most days, the point is not that a bicycle was ridden. The point is that you rode a bicycle.

    The craft of writing and the art of performing music share a set of similarities. Both demand engagement, practice and the exercise of creativity. The difference is that writing practices, outside of occasional public readings, tend to unfold in solitude, whereas a musical performance is, by nature, a social event. Imagine yourself as a student of the violin. At the end of the semester, during your final recital, would it seem reasonable to bring in a Bluetooth speaker, cue up a music streaming service to a song that you’ve been practicing and hit the play button? Of course not. The point is not that a song was played in the recital hall. The point is that you played the song.

    In the era of AI, student disengagement looms like a fog on our campuses, from libraries to studios and laboratories. Our best data on undergraduate engagement suggests that members of Generation Z are reading less. When pressed with assignments that require deep thought, time on task and earnestness, students tend to see technology as a means to maximize efficiency. Should we blame them? We spent years building systems and assessments designed to sidestep questions about the nature of the process students move through on the way to earning degrees.

    Through our actions, preferences and even accreditation, we built a set of values that suggest the finish line is what matters. We tend to see the route that we take to arrive there as irrelevant. Every campus I have ever visited staffs an office dedicated to the measurement of cognitive learning outcomes. I have yet to find a similar office aimed at understanding the quality, character or broad-ranging impact of the processes that students engage in during the course of an education.

    I would say it’s past time that we started to give the process of becoming educated our attention. But in at least some quarters, we have long-standing and holistic studies of the college experience. In 1991, Ernest T. Pascarella and Patrick T. Terenzini wrote the first of what became a three-volume set, published at roughly 10-year intervals: How College Affects Students. Alongside a chapter on verbal, quantitative and subject matter competence, each edition of the book contains sections on psycho-social change, attitudes and values, and moral development. We should see the AI era as providing us with a reason, and an opportunity, to expand our interests to include an analysis of the broadly formative processes involved in education, as opposed to focusing solely on narrow sets of outcomes. Fortunately, if we find the will to turn our curiosity toward questions about the quality of the time that we ask students to invest in their education, or the kinds of people that college graduates become, there is a well-developed body of literature waiting to guide our efforts.

    My first-year seminar includes an end-of-the-semester Saturday retreat. A local museum hosts the event. We take a tour in the morning, then students give presentations throughout the afternoon. The day represents more than just another class meeting. It’s a celebration. We make it a potluck, and the table we use features an impressive array of dishes: snacks, desserts, salads and crocks full of chili and soup.

    This past year, at the end of the day, I stood at the table with three students as we were preparing to leave. I happened to point out that half of the contributions brought to the potluck were handmade. The others were store-bought. The handmade dishes were nearly gone, while the efficiently prepared, mass-produced cookies and salads still sat in their plastic containers.

    One of the students said, “Hmm.” Then she added, “It’s not just ingredients on a table.” She went on, “How is something made? Who makes it? What kind of time do they spend?” She said, “That stuff matters.”

    I smiled and told her I agreed.

    Chad Hanson serves as a member of the faculty in sociology and religion at Casper College in Wyoming.

    Source link

  • The leadership challenges embedded in the 2025 OECD report, Education at a Glance

    The leadership challenges embedded in the 2025 OECD report, Education at a Glance

    • Yesterday, HEPI and Cambridge University Press and Assessment jointly hosted the UK launch of the OECD’s Education at a Glance. You can see the OECD’s slides here.
    • Here we publish a response to the OECD from Professor Sir Chris Husbands, who is a former Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University and also former Chair of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) Panel. Chris is a Trustee of HEPI and spoke at the launch.

    There is one line in the 2025 OECD Education at a Glance report which should be in bright flashing lights for this and all governments. The supporting data is on page 112 of the main report. It is this: Individuals with greater educational attainment generally face a lower risk of unemployment and earn higher wages. Race, gender, deprivation, place, subjects studied all impact outcomes in different ways, but the overall conclusion is clear, and in his HEPI briefing on the report, the OECD’s chief analyst Andreas Schleicher got the summary down to just two words: education pays.

    The 2025 OECD Education at a Glance report comes in at 541 pages, and the annual appearance of the report has made it the definitive guide to education system performance and policy dynamics all around the world: in the now familiar graphs of compelling clarity, and crisp text judgements, the OECD team have made themselves indispensable to institutional leaders, policy analysts and decision makers.

    This year’s report has a specific focus on tertiary education, which in OECD terms includes, but stretches a bit further than, higher education. There are some familiar and unsurprising themes in the 2025 report, but they are nonetheless important for being set out so clearly. A few key findings stood out for me, all of them speaking clearly to the English and UK policy agendas.

    First, advantages are inherited: those who have at least one tertiary-educated parent are more than twice as likely to attain a tertiary qualification than those whose parents have below upper secondary attainment, though the gap is smaller in the UK than elsewhere (p.56).

    Secondly, life is getting tougher for those without qualifications: the employment rate for young adults without upper secondary qualifications fell by 6 points since 2019, and by 9 points for men (pp.82-3).

    Thirdly, at the same it’s getting better for the better qualified: the nearly one-in-six with a Master’s degree have higher employment rates and earnings than those with an undergraduate degree (p48).

    Fourthly, education is losing the battle for public funding as the costs of health, pensions and defence rise: between 2015 and 2022, government spending on education declined from nearly 11% of budgets to just over 10% (p.278).

    And fifthly, despite that decline, R&D is strengthening to drive growth and competitiveness. Where it is highest, government drives it: in the UK, Israel and Switzerland, government R&D expenditure is more than twice private expenditure (p.329).

    There is more fine-grained analysis about English higher education. England, on the OECD data, is an outlier in important respects.

    First: English HE is well-funded by comparison with the OECD, whatever it feels like in the sector just now.  The finding is important: total tertiary expenditure per student, including R&D, is $35,000, among the highest in the OECD and 65% above the average (p.327). 

    Secondly, however, in the UK government tertiary expenditure is $8,000, 48% below the OECD average (p.331). This is a result of high tuition fees:  undergraduate fees are three times the OECD average.

    The third way in which England is an outlier is that access to higher education and completion rates within it are high – fourteen percentage points above the OECD average (p.246): access to higher education is far more a consequence of maintenance support than fee levels, but high fee levels almost certainly disincentivise non-completion. Finally, while there is a gap between economic returns to science and technology disciplines on the one hand and arts and humanities on the other in all OECD countries, the gap is much higher in the UK than in almost all other countries (p.111). 

    Putting all this together poses some knotty challenges. England has a successful, relatively accessible higher education system, but one which is very expensive when budgets for education are getting tighter. And this is happening when the economic returns to high levels of qualification are strengthening: masters and doctoral graduates enjoy higher returns than those with undergraduate degrees, while the least qualified face more intense difficulties. These challenges go beyond the voluminous data in Education at a Glance.

    First, and painful for English higher education, the challenge is not simply the level of current funding, but funding in relation to what is a high-cost operating and delivery model. That model secures strong results in terms of access for disadvantaged students and high completion rates, but it is relatively inflexible. It’s unclear whether a lower-cost and potentially more flexible operating model would put some of the successes of the English system at risk.

    Secondly, it is the economic, social and increasingly political costs of the plight of the lowest attaining young people, and especially young males without qualifications, which is attracting political attention. If money is tight, it’s more likely to go towards that problem, and the London government’s decision to move skills funding into the Department of Work and Pensions appears to be a signal of intent.

    These are the leadership challenges which emerge from this year’s report: how to reshape our successful HE system so that its strengths remain, but it can be more responsive and flexible. It needs to adapt to a changing labour market and to a society in which division and inequality are being reinforced with greater ferocity.

    Source link

  • How To Teach With AI Transparency Statements – Faculty Focus

    How To Teach With AI Transparency Statements – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Senators ask VCs to justify $1m salaries – Campus Review

    Senators ask VCs to justify $1m salaries – Campus Review

    An Inquiry into the quality of university governance has asked the vice-chancellors of universities who are cutting staff why they are paid up to $1 million per year.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • UTS defends decision to cut courses – Campus Review

    UTS defends decision to cut courses – Campus Review

    The University of Technology Sydney (UTS) has given evidence to a federal senate inquiry that probed how cutting education and public health courses aligns with its public mission.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link