The University of North Carolina System’s Board of Governors issued a memorandum requiring each of the system’s 17 campuses to develop a subcommittee to evaluate the campus’s compliance with the system’s anti-diversity, equity and inclusion policy, The Assembly reported.
They have until Sept. 1 to show how they have complied with the policy, which cancelled previous DEI guidance and mandated neutrality from administrators on political and social issues. As a result of that policy, UNC campuses reported that they laid off dozens of staffers, moved 131 people to new positions, and redirected $16 million in DEI spending to student success and wellbeing programs.
According to the memo, the reviews should include briefings with chancellors about employees whose jobs were changed as a result of the DEI ban.
“These confidential reviews should compare an individual’s prior position to his or her new responsibilities, including how the employee’s performance in that role has changed, and what safeguards exist to ensure an employee’s previous responsibilities do not continue in the present role,” the memo states. “Confidential briefings from the chancellor on any disciplinary action taken against personnel should occur at this time as well.”
The memo comes after four UNC employees were secretly filmed by a conservative nonprofit discussing circumventing DEI restrictions; three of those employees are no longer employed by their universities.
It is already 93 degrees, but temperatures are rising further outside the Tampa Convention Center—especially for the young man dressed in a dinosaur costume. Also sporting a Tom Brady Tampa Bay Buccaneers jersey, he is loudly debating immigration with another young man in a smart suit on the pavement. Across the street, a handful of protesters face off against a growing number of right-wing influencers with cameras.
Inside the building, political strategist Steve Bannon is denouncing billionaire Elon Musk as “evil” while filming a live TV broadcast. Thousands of young college students cheer when border czar Tom Homan threatens to beat up a heckler in the crowd. And a YouTuber leads the audience in a mass “Trump dance party” to the tune of YMCA.
Welcome to the Student Action Summit 2025. Organized by youth activist organization Turning Point USA (TPUSA), the three-day annual conference is billed as the premier event for conservative college students to debate ideas, network and hear from top Republicans. They include Tucker Carlson, Donald Trump Jr. and, of course, Charlie Kirk, who founded the movement as an 18-year-old college dropout.
More than 5,000 people attended this year’s event in Florida, held July 11–13, and Times Higher Education was there to learn what matters to college conservatives today, what issues are dividing this branch of the MAGA movement, and whether this youthful “red wave” can reshape U.S. electoral politics.
As a countdown clock ticks down to zero, a DJ pumps up the well-dressed young crowd—advised to style themselves after Donald Trump’s permanently besuited youngest son Barron—with Rednex’s Cotton Eye Joe and The Killers’ Mr. Brightside. Along with the big hitters, students also hear from Happy Gilmore actor Rob Schneider, founder of the Dark Web marketplace Silk Road, Ross Ulbricht, and fitness trainer Jillian Michaels across an eclectic and often bizarre three days.
Kirk’s fingerprints are all over the summit. Owing to the slightly chaotic nature of the schedule, he is often timetabled to appear in two places at the same time—particularly tricky given that, as the podcaster Dan Nunn puts it, “Charlie can’t even walk around: he’s like a rock star.”
He kicks off the summit on the vast East Hall stage by hitting some issues that Republicans of all ages can agree on—namely, religion and immigration. The 31-year-old activist and podcaster praises the audience for helping reverse decades of declining church attendance (many of them attend a service in the Convention Center on Sunday morning) and for helping TPUSA fight the “spiritual sickness throughout the West.” Talks are regularly interrupted by football-style chants of “Christ is King” or “God is great.”
Kirk also gets loud acclaim when he says that no foreigner should be allowed to own a home or get a job before a U.S. citizen, and draws an even bigger cheer when he mentions President Trump’s plans for mass deportation of illegal migrants. Even legal migration comes under fire over the convention weekend, and Homan, the former chief of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), is treated like a rock star, his frequent mentions of buzz phrases such as “send them home” chanted back to him from the floor.
Abortion is mentioned on stage, as one might expect. Riley Gaines, a former college swimmer who became an activist after finishing tied for fifth in a race with a trans woman, praised Trump as the most pro-life president in modern history. And the issue is brought up repeatedly in interviews with THE—often by young men.
Many speakers are also very keen to stress the importance of reproduction and “traditional” families. Michael Knowles, a political commentator and YouTuber, calls falling birth rates in the U.S. an “existential crisis.” He welcomes the “trad wife” trend on social media—right-wing women promoting their role as stay-at-home moms—and praises young women for rejecting the corporate rat race, “to the horror of the feminists.” A middle-aged audience member, who gets a massive round of applause when he reveals he has 12 children, wants to help convince the college generation of the “beauty of big families.”
Kirk also ploughs that furrow. He tells the audience that the real threat to the U.S. is not racism or environmentalism, but low birth rate. And he tells those listening online what they are missing out on by not being there in person. “If you want to find your future husband or wife … you should be here in Tampa, Florida, because there’s a lot of eligible bachelors and bachelorettes here.”
Equally, however, conservative attitudes to dating and sex are evident. Brandon Tatum, a former college football player, police officer and now online activist, advises against “hooking up with people and doing all this crazy stuff.” Brett Cooper, a child actor turned online activist, warns delegates not to party too much or waste time playing video games. And comedian Russell Brand, currently awaiting trial in the U.K. for rape, sexual assault and indecent assault (he has pleaded not guilty), also praises family values and religion while denouncing pornography and claiming that Jesus was opposed to bad government. During his strange 20-minute speech-cum-rap in front of one of the largest audiences of the weekend, Brand explains how he turned to God following a life of crack and heroin addiction, a “pursuit of carnality” and an “all-you-can-eat buffet” of hedonism.
Source: Patrick Jack
Russell Brand (center) at the Turning Point USA Student Action Summit 2025
Away from the main hall lies the exhibition floor. Here, students can take selfies with political consultant Roger Stone—pardoned by Trump in 2020 after being convicted of lying to Congress, obstruction of justice and witness tampering relating to a Congressional inquiry into Russian attempts to boost Trump’s 2016 election campaign. They can also pick up free copies of a book on the “untold story behind the Vatican’s rising influence in America,” challenge their friends to a pull-up contest or play cornhole.
You can also buy just about anything—provided it has some red, white and blue on it. There’s a stall to “Make Coffee Great Again,” “Trump 2028” hats are on sale for $30 (£23), and there are even cool pads to keep your head cool under them—as well as vibration plates for “advanced whole-body vibration therapy.”
Attendees can also hear from a wide range of fringe groups. A “Blexit” stall promotes “free thinking and empowerment” at historically black colleges and universities and is dedicated to bringing “traditional American principles to urban communities.” Wilbur Sims, strategic manager of student movement at Blexit, said, “We’re trying to educate people …and get away from a victimhood mentality within the black community.”
A surprisingly large number of families, many with young children, mingle with the students, as do some retirees. Steve, a 75-year-old lifelong Republican from Florida, hopes that TPUSA can help ensure the Democrats never get back into power. But there are a few signs of a divide between the younger and older generations.
Guns, which receive very few mentions from the stage, are one. Gun ownership has, for generations, been a mainstay of right-wing identity, but two lonely young men at the National Rifle Association stall express concern that their classmates are not interested in the Second Amendment (the right to bear arms).
The other dividing line is Israel. The most prominent stall on the exhibition floor is that of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews (IFCJ), featuring hundreds of Israeli flags. Some college students nearby pose for pictures with a giant cardboard cut-out of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but when Michele Bachmann, a former member of Congress and board member of the IFCJ, begins to discuss the “unprecedented” amount of antisemitism on college campuses, the hall empties out. And during a debate on day three, Dave Smith, a comedian and regular guest on the popular Joe Rogan podcast, warns of the “tremendous” influence of Israel in U.S. politics. And in the wake of the U.S. attack on Iran during Israel’s recent 12-day assault on the country, Smith elicits cheers when he criticizes “neoconservatives” for starting foreign wars—in contravention of the isolationism typically adopted by “America First” advocates. One young man and woman express their skepticism of the U.S.–Israel alliance and are convinced that convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein was a Mossad agent.
Epstein may have died by suicide in 2019, but his presence is keenly felt at the convention. The event occurs amid the MAGA backlash to attorney general Pam Bondi’s comment that the sex trafficker’s “client list”—which, according to Musk, includes Donald Trump, but which right-wing figures are convinced contains prominent Hollywood stars and Democratic politicians—does not, in fact, exist. Despite saying that homes and jobs are more important, Kirk admits the Epstein issue still matters. And in conversation with him, journalist Megyn Kelly calls it a “scandal of the right’s making.” When she asks the audience how many of them think it is an important story, everyone puts their hand up.
Hours later, media personality Tucker Carlson devotes almost his entire 30-minute speech to the issue, while Bannon sees it as symptomatic of the problems with the “deep state.” Even former college athletes Gaines and Tatum devote considerable time to talking about Epstein—with vocal prompting from the crowd.
The TPUSA president at the University of Alabama believes the issue is so important for this crowd because Bondi’s decision not to publish any of the Justice Department’s files on Epstein fits in with their skeptical worldview and their concern that they are being “lied to,” he said.
That sense also permeates the MAGA view of COVID-19. Bannon is cheered when he claims the pandemic originated from a “Chinese Communist Party bioweapon dropped in Wuhan.” There are frequent references over the weekend to the supposedly nefarious “mask mandates,” cancelled proms and young adults’ lost years—for which Kirk calls for a national apology.
“Nobody likes being lied to, and [young people] lived through COVID in a way that adults did not,” according to Nunn, host of the America First and the constitutionalist Nunn Report podcast. “They got their social lives shut down, they got their schools shut down, and then they found out it was all bullshit.” Since they blamed the Democrats for that, he believes that universities became less efficient “leftist breeding grounds” when that cohort arrived on campus.
Chase, a student from Florida, says COVID was a big factor in pushing his generation to the right. “So many people were lied to during that period of time and it definitely brought to light the corruption in the Democratic Party,” he tells THE. TPUSA is important because it helps students learn that they cannot trust mainstream media and must “seek out your own truth.”
The pandemic is clearly still an issue for Owen, a student in Michigan, where Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer was caught breaking public health protocols at a restaurant in 2021. “I don’t really think that what the left was pushing made rational sense to the youth vote at the time, and it still doesn’t make sense now,” he said. “It’s just the hypocrisy of it all—you’re telling me not to leave my house, yet you’re going out and having parties without wearing masks closer than six feet.” Source: Patrick Jack
A striking omission from the stages of a conference targeted at students is higher education itself—despite the fact that Trump’s crackdown on prominent universities’ funding and autonomy has previously been cheered by many figures on the right. When prompted, however, delegates express universal scorn for universities.
John Paul Leon, TPUSA chapter president at University of California, Berkeley, tells THE he is becoming increasingly worried by academia’s left-wing consensus and “moral superiority,” particularly around “discriminatory” diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) measures. David Goodwin, president of the Association of Classical Christian Schools and co-author of Battle for the American Mind with defense secretary Pete Hegseth, says higher education is a “mess”; and while institutions should be free to do whatever they want, he believes that they should expect to forgo government funds if they choose to defy the administration’s policies in areas such as DEI or choice of research topics. And Owen, who attends a private college, welcomes Trump’s attacks on universities because they are “indoctrinating students with wrong ideas.” International students, particularly “military-age males,” should be sent home, he adds.
Carol Swain, a retired professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University and one of the few academics at the event, also welcomes Trump’s fight with Harvard because universities have “lost sight of the original purpose” of the sector, which was to educate minds by exposing individuals to divergent viewpoints. “Now the Ivy League has lost some of its allure, I believe there’s an opportunity for some state colleges and universities and some universities that were considered less prestigious to rise just by doing what the Ivy League hasn’t done, which is educate and create an environment where you have free speech, are following the Constitution, creating opportunities, [and] not practicing discrimination,” she said.
As for the effects of research funding cuts on the academic strength of the U.S., Swain says most papers in recent decades have been “garbage.” The “people that have pushed the beliefs that minorities have been discriminated against … lowered the standards in certain fields, and the emphasis on lived experience as opposed to research and data … has hurt academic research.”
But Jennifer Burns, director of academics at Turning Point Education, does not believe universities are solely to blame, claiming that grade schools are failing to prepare students properly: “If you’re building a house and your foundation is sinking and cracking, then the frame of the house is going to be cracked. It’s not the fault of the carpenters who put up the beams, it’s the cement layers. [Students] are not trained in how to think, so they’re going into college at the whim of a radical college professor and they’re soaking that up.”
TPUSA advocates for a “classical Christian education,” and some attendees propose private, conservative Christian liberal arts colleges such as Hillsdale in Michigan, or New Saint Andrews in Idaho, as exemplars of what higher education should be. Lennox Kalifungwa, digital engagement officer at New Saint Andrews, expresses the view that “the only true education is a Christian education because Christianity has the exclusive when it comes to truth and freedom.”
“Woke” students and academics, meanwhile, are a reoccurring punching bag on the convention floor—particularly those with a specific hair color. Kirk, who rose to fame through viral videos debating with left-wing students, calls them “purple-haired jihadis,” Homan bemoans “people with purple hair and nose rings,” Tatum deplores “liberal non-binaries” and Trump Jr. condemns “raging libtards.”
Such critiques are also usually tied up with anti-trans and anti-gay language. Trump Jr., a long-time ally of Kirk, whose daughter, Kai, is a college-level golfer at the University of Miami, proudly boasts of having been anti-trans since 2017 and sees it as being a “losing issue” for the Democrats. One student tells THE that drag queens reading children stories cause “horrible developmental issues” and contribute to rising suicide rates. Knowles celebrates the Trump-imposed end of the “preposterous ideology” of trans people, calling it “deader than disco,” the cancellation of LGBTQ+ pride parades due to lack of attendance and pop musician Jojo Siwa’s announcement that she no longer identifies as a lesbian. “Nature is healing,” he says with a laugh.
A lone protester who interrupts Homan is called a “loser,” a “moron,” an “asshole” and someone who “sits down when he pees”—to huge chants of “U-S-A.” Homan, who says he “wake[s] up like a kid in a candy shop every day” as border czar, offers to fight the man before his speech is over.
Outside are a few more dissenters. A handful of middle-aged Floridians, who fear TPUSA is “indoctrinating the youth,” hold a sign that says “MAGA—Movement Against Genuine Academics”—perhaps in reference to Kirk’s creation of the Professor Watchlist, which lists scholars who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda.” They are soon joined by a rag-tag group of a few dozen young students, some dressed as characters from the dystopian TV show TheHandmaid’s Tale and others wearing the Guy Fawkes masks popularized by the hacker collective Anonymous. Vicky Tong, spokesperson for the Tampa Bay Students for a Democratic Society, says they want to show that not everyone in Florida supports the “sexist, homophobic, anti-trans, anti-immigrant” agenda of TPUSA.
Back inside the hall, speakers emphasize that while right-wingers are in the majority here, they are “outnumbered” on campus. Many express fear of being accused of sexual harassment or being cancelled for using the wrong pronoun. Kirk calls them “warriors” and praises them for putting up with threats and intimidation. “What they’re doing is one of the hardest things to do in the United States of America. They are deciding to be less popular on campus,” he says.
Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Charlie Kirk speaks at Donald Trump’s inauguration on 20 January 2025
Some of the big names can sympathize. Trump Jr. used to attend “every cool person party” in New York before his father became involved in politics and the invites dried up. “These people that I thought were friends for decades, they don’t call any more.” He encourages students to “feed off the hate,” while Kelly urges them not to be “sheep” and follow along with what their left-wing professors say just to get good grades. “Don’t call yourself a feminist because your teacher will give you pats on the head. Stand up for what you really believe in, and that’s how we spread the good word,” she said.
Fox News host Greg Gutfeld, who has come under fire for attempting to “reclaim” the word “Nazi,” complains that “left-wingers were the cool kids” when he was young. And that sense of not fitting in on campus is clearly a big reason that some of the attendees are here—many of them thanks to a TPUSA stipend (the organization is largely funded by donations). Leon, who studies in the “belly of the [progressive] beast” at Berkeley and went viral for a video where he confronts a liberal student, says he is called a fascist daily, but at TPUSA “you can find life-long friends, your forever friends, or maybe you can find your wife too.” Dylan Seiter, president of TPUSA at Texas A&M University, told students during a breakout session that “the libs want to drag us down to their level and make us seem like we’re some nasty, hateful people, but in reality, we’re not. And it’s our duty and our jobs to prove them wrong.”
Indeed, some delegates confess that they are only here to hang out and socialize, and nearby bars such as Harpoon Harry’s Crab House are packed with older students before the day’s events are even over. But this social element is not just for fun, it is also for networking. As Kirk puts it: “Marriages will happen this weekend. Lifetime friendships will happen this weekend. Careers will start this weekend.” And as well as selling “I survived college without becoming a liberal” T-shirts, the TPUSA Alumni Association is consciously attempting to replicate the college networks of Ivy League schools to help get MAGA graduates into top jobs. TPUSA also tries to persuade students to work on the “front lines” of the culture war. One recruitment video urges young people not to become doctors or lawyers, but to get a job with “real impact.”
Many speakers are convinced that they are already having an impact, crediting a “red wave” of students with delivering Trump’s landslide victory in 2024, a “shot heard around the world.” Bannon thanks them for being “the hardest core of the hardcore” and the “tip of the tip of the spear” in “winning” the 2016 and 2020 elections as well.
“This is the greatest generational realignment since Woodstock,” says Kirk. “We have never seen a generation move so quickly and so fast, and you guys are making all the liberals confused.” Accordingly, Republican Party luminaries show up in force. Michael Whatley, chair of the Republican National Committee, shakes hands on the exhibition floor and multiple members of Trump’s top team—including director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and homeland security secretary Kristi Noem—deliver speeches. However, these politicians generate far less buzz than social media stars such as Gaines and Cooper.
Still, Kirk warns that Washington is taking right-wing students for granted and “messing up” a once-in-a-generation opportunity to deliver a “death blow” to the Democratic Party by failing to fully deliver on their promises—such as by publishing the Epstein list. And Swain agreed. “If these [elected] officials compromise and they prove themselves to be no different than the politicians they replaced, it’s going to be harder for [young] people to stay enthusiastic,” he said.
As one attendee puts it, conservative students have been “lurking in the shadows” for decades. Kirk has successfully dragged them out into the sunlight. The challenge he and Trump now face is one that will be familiar to the “radical left”— keeping momentum, holding the various factions together in the face of political realities, and delivering on their promises.
Dr. William Casey Boland A lawsuit challenging Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) federal funding represents another figurative bomb lobbed in the current war on U.S. higher education. Galvanized by the President’s blitzkrieg on social funding and education, this assault on the alleged reverse racism of HSI funding reflects the ugly political tenor of the times in the U.S. It also conveniently ignores the evidence of the positive impact of such governmental support.
l’ll acknowledge my bias: I teach at a large urban college that recently received an HSI grant. Nearly all my students are students of color, with roughly half being Hispanic. Many are the first in their families to enroll in college. Most of their parents were not born in the U.S. We are amongst the 20% of all colleges in the U.S. that are eligible to apply for an HSI grant, which are made available through the Higher Education Act of 1965 (Title III and Title V).
Why did we apply for this grant? State funding per student to public HSIs is $6,396.59 compared to $15,526.13 for non-HSIs. The ongoing disparities in postsecondary educational attainment based on race and ethnicity reveal more about a deficit in public policy to address the equitable distribution of resources and less about the ability of students of color to obtain a college degree. Despite modest gains over time, gaps in attainment continue. 28% of the Hispanic population in the U.S. received an associate degree or higher compared to 48% of the white population. The average graduation rate in four-year postsecondary institutions was 52% for Hispanic students compared to 65% for white students. HSI grants are made available in part to narrow this gap in college outcomes amongst Hispanic students.
What is my college doing with its HSI grant? To advance retention, persistence, and specific course completion, the grant will improve the First Year Seminar, provide professional develop with a focus on culturally responsive pedagogy, integrate tutoring, peer mentoring, academic and career coaching, and target intervention in gateway courses.
Many HSI-eligible colleges look like mine, but not all. They are two and four-year public and private non-profit institutions that are under-resourced, become eligible to apply when their undergraduate enrollment reaches 25% Hispanicand at minimum 50% receive some form of financial aid. The rising number of colleges eligible for HSI grants reflects the growth of the Hispanic population in the U.S. Between 2010 and 2022, the Hispanic population accounted for 34 percent of the overall increase in the U.S. population. Hispanic participation in colleges and universities rose from 14 percent in 2010 to 20 percent in 2022.
Several characteristics are common across institutions designated as HSIs. First, Hispanics tend to enroll in HSI-designated colleges more than non-HSIs. This is largely due to Hispanic students wanting to enroll in a college close to their community. Second, Hispanic students attending HSIs are often the first in their family to seek a college degree. Third, Hispanic students enrolled in HSIs on average graduated from high schools with large classroom sizes, disproportionate levels of racially minoritized student populations, and lower standardized test scores. Many argue that HSIs offer such students an opportunity to participate in postsecondary education that they would not otherwise have.
Evidence-based research demonstrates the ROI on the federal government’s investment in HSIs. When colleges receive HSI grants, there is a positive effect on Hispanic students. I found that grant receipt increases Hispanic bachelor’s degree completion by nearly 30 percent and associate degrees by almost 25 percent. In another study, we found a 10% increase in Hispanic students obtaining STEM associate’s degrees. We also found benefits for non-Hispanic students, with an 11% increase in the number of those students receiving STEM associate’s degrees. This echoes another study focusing on the initial year HSI STEM grants were awarded with the authors finding HSI STEM grant receipt directly led to an 8% increase in Hispanic students receiving such degrees in community colleges.
I doubt the architects of this recent lawsuit challenging HSI funding have ever spoken to someone who graduated from an HSI. I teach a graduate course on minority serving institutions (MSIs). Nearly all my students are students of color from the New York City metropolitan area. Most attended different MSIs as undergraduates. While experiences vary, most extol the virtues of having attended an MSI. They speak to the level of support they received, the power of being surrounded my others who shared their background, the willingness of HSIs and other MSIs to welcome students’ families and community to campus, amongst many other characteristics that made them glad they chose an HSI or MSI over a PWI.
It is important to evaluate the effectiveness of postsecondary programs funded through tax-payer dollars. Yet recent political antagonism directed towards higher education looks more like red meat being tossed to appease the red base as opposed to thoughtful, evidence-based decision-making. Acknowledging the effectiveness of HSI funding and similar efforts would weaken the core animating principle of the current Republican mission to decimate political support for such programs and reduce the existence of government more broadly.
Dr. William Casey Boland is an assistant professor in the Marxe School of Public and International Affairs at Baruch College-City University of New York.
Louisiana Governor Jeff LandryLouisiana Governor Jeff Landry announced that his state will join six other Southern university systems in creating an alternative accrediting body, marking a significant departure from established higher education standards. Through an executive order, Louisiana becomes the seventh state to participate in the Commission for Public Higher Education, which launched in June with university systems from Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.
The new commission is currently seeking expedited approval from the U.S. Department of Education to serve as an official accreditor responsible for maintaining quality standards at colleges and universities. This development represents a direct challenge to the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, the traditional accrediting body that currently evaluates institutions across Louisiana and ten other Southern states including Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia.
The formation of this alternative accrediting body stems from growing tensions between conservative politicians and established accreditors. These conflicts have centered on traditional accreditors’ standards related to diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, as well as their requirements for safeguards designed to limit external political influence in public higher education governance.
Landry’s executive order establishes a Task Force on Public Higher Education Reform charged with developing recommendations for implementing the new commission. The task force will specifically focus on creating a pilot program for dual accreditation, allowing Louisiana schools to maintain authorization from both the new commission and the Southern Association simultaneously.
The governor highlighted the ideological motivations behind the move in his announcement.
“This task force will ensure Louisiana’s public universities move away from DEI-driven mandates and toward a system rooted in merit-based achievement,” Landry said.
Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, who helped launch the original commission, articulated similar sentiments when announcing the new accreditor in June.
“[The Commission for Public Higher Education] will upend the monopoly of the woke accreditation cartels, and it will provide institutions with an alternative that focuses on student achievement, rather than the ideological fads that have so permeated those accrediting bodies over the years,” DeSantis declared.
The practical implementation of this new accrediting system faces a significant hurdle, as U.S. Department of Education approval is mandatory before any institution accredited solely by the new commission can receive federal financial aid. This requirement could potentially affect students’ access to federal funding programs if the transition is not handled carefully.
The composition of Louisiana’s new task force reflects the governor’s significant influence over the state’s higher education leadership structure. With the exception of Commissioner of Higher Education Kim Hunter Reed, every task force member has been directly appointed by Landry or his conservative legislative allies. The task force includes Board of Regents Chairwoman Misti Cordell, University of Louisiana System Board Chairman Mark Romero, LSU System Board Chairman Scott Ballard, Southern University System Board Chairman Tony Clayton, Louisiana Community and Technical College Systems Chairman Tim Hardy, Senate Education Committee Chairman Sen. Rick Edmonds, and House Education Committee Chairwoman Rep. Laurie Schlegel.
Additionally, Landry has appointed his executive counsel Angelique Freel and Commissioner of Administration Taylor Barras to the task force, with the option for them to send designees in their place. The governor retains the authority to select three additional task force members, further consolidating his influence over the group’s composition and direction.
This level of gubernatorial control over higher education governance represents a recent shift in Louisiana’s political landscape. Last year, Landry successfully advocated for legislative changes that granted him direct appointment power over the chairs of the state’s five higher education boards, positions that were previously elected from within the boards’ memberships. An earlier version of this legislation would have extended Landry’s authority to include direct hiring of university system presidents, but this provision was ultimately removed due to concerns that such concentration of political power could jeopardize existing accreditation status.
The task force operates under a compressed timeline that reflects the urgency Landry places on this initiative. The group must convene its inaugural meeting no later than August 31 and maintain a regular schedule with meetings occurring at least once every two months. The task force faces a deadline of January 30, 2026, to submit its comprehensive recommendations for implementing the new accrediting system in Louisiana.
Senator Bernie SandersSenator Bernie Sanders introduced legislation last Thursday requiring all public school teachers to earn at least $60,000 annually, calling America’s teacher pay crisis a “national emergency” during a Capitol Hill town hall with more than 200 educators.
The Pay Teachers Act, co-sponsored by eight Democratic senators including Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey, would establish the first federal mandate for teacher salaries and represents the most ambitious federal intervention in educator compensation in decades.
“Just four hedge fund managers on Wall Street make more money in a single year than every kindergarten teacher in America combined—over 120,000 teachers,” Sanders said. “No public school teacher in America should make less than $60,000 a year.”
The legislation comes as schools nationwide face unprecedented staffing shortages, with nearly 200,000 teaching positions either vacant or filled by underqualified educators. According to the bill’s findings, 38% of teachers nationwide earn less than $60,000 annually, with starting teachers averaging $44,530.
Maria Gonzalez, a third-grade teacher from Arizona who testified at the town hall, said she drives for Uber on weekends and tutors after school to pay rent.
“My students ask why I look tired. How do I tell them their teacher can’t afford to live in the community where she teaches?”
The crisis extends beyond low pay. Twenty-one percent of elementary and middle school teachers’ families rely on public assistance programs including Medicaid, food stamps, and the Earned Income Tax Credit, according to a University of California, Berkeley study cited in the legislation. Additionally, 44% of public school teachers quit within five years, and 17% worked multiple jobs during the 2020-2021 school year.
The comprehensive bill would cost approximately $400 billion over five years, funded through mandatory appropriations. Beyond the $60,000 minimum salary requirement, the legislation would triple Title I funding, provide teachers with at least $1,000 annually for classroom supplies, and mandate that paraprofessionals and education support staff earn at least $45,000 annually or $30 per hour.
States would have four years to implement the salary requirements, with extended timelines available for states demonstrating substantial financial need. The bill also includes $50 billion annually for career ladder programs allowing teachers to advance without leaving the classroom.
The teacher shortage disproportionately affects schools serving students of color and low-income communities, which are four times more likely to employ uncertified teachers than schools with low minority enrollment, according to federal civil rights data cited in the legislation.
James Williams, a high school mathematics teacher from North Carolina, told the town hall that his salary purchased “a decent life” 15 years ago but now forces him to choose between car repairs and classroom supplies.
The legislation faces significant political obstacles with Republicans controlling the House. GOP lawmakers have criticized the massive federal spending, while some education policy experts question federal involvement in traditionally state and local compensation decisions.
Major education unions endorsed the proposal. American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten called it “a crucial federal investment to help sustain the teaching profession,” while National Education Association Vice President Princess Moss praised it as legislation that “invests in our students, educators, and public schools.”
Sanders criticized recent Republican legislation that he said provides “$900 billion in tax cuts to large, profitable corporations and a $1 trillion tax cut to the top 1%” while cutting over $300 billion in education funding. The Trump administration is also withholding nearly $5.5 billion in congressionally appropriated education funding, according to Sanders and his colleagues.
“If we can provide over a trillion dollars in tax breaks to the top 1% and large corporations, please don’t tell me that we cannot afford to make sure that every teacher in America is paid at least $60,000 a year,” Sanders said.
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Anna Anthony, director of HEAT. HEAT provides a collaborative data service enabling higher education providers, Uni Connect partnerships and Third Sector Organisations to show the impact of their equality of opportunity delivery through a shared, standardised data system. By aggregating data from across the membership, HEAT can publish national-level impact reports for the sector.
It has never been more important for providers across the sector to show that access and participation activities have an impact. With resources stretched, we need to know the work we are doing is making a measurable difference. New research from HEAT reveals a series of powerful findings:
Intensive outreach boosts HE entry by up to 29% – Students who received at least 11 hours of intensive outreach were up to 29% more likely to enter higher education (HE) than matched peers receiving minimal support.
Disadvantaged students see the biggest gains – Free school meal (FSM) eligible students were up to 48% more likely to progress to HE when engaged in intensive outreach.
Uni Connect makes a difference – The largest relative increases in HE entry were observed in FSM-eligible students who participated in Uni Connect-funded activities, further demonstrating the importance of impartial outreach delivered collaboratively.
Access to selective universities improves – Intensive outreach from high-tariff providers increased the chance of progressing to a high-tariff university by 19%.
Sustained support across Key Stages is vital – Outreach delivered across both Key Stages 4 and 5 had the greatest impact, highlighting the need for long-term, multi-stage interventionsthroughout secondary education.
These findings provide compelling evidence that the work being done across the sector to widen participation is not only reaching the right students but changing trajectories at scale. Crucially, this latest research includes previously unavailable controls for student-level prior attainment — adding new rigour to our understanding of outreach impact. You can read the full report on our website.
What’s next for national-level research?
Our ability to generate this kind of national evidence is set to improve even further thanks a successful bid to the Office for Students (OfS) Innovation Fund. Through a collaboration with academics at the Centre for Education Policy and Equalising Opportunities (CEPEO) at the UCL Institute of Education, HEAT will lead on the development and piloting of a pioneering new Outreach Metric, measuring providers’ broader contribution to reducing socio-economic gaps in HE participation. More details about this project can be found here, and we look forward to sharing early findings with the sector in 2026.
Local-level evaluation is just as important
While national analyses like these are essential to understanding the big picture, the OfS rightly continues to require providers to evaluate their own delivery. Local evaluations are critical for testing specific interventions, understanding how programmes work in different contexts, and learning how to adapt practice to improve outcomes. Yet robust evaluation is often resource-intensive and can be out of reach for smaller teams.
This is where use of a sector-wide system for evaluation helps – shared systems like HEAT provide the infrastructure to track student engagement and outcomes at a fraction of the cost of building bespoke systems. Thanks to a decade of collaboration, we now have a system which the sector designed and built together, and which provides the tools necessaryto deliver the evaluation that the OfS require providers to publish as part of their Access and Participation Plans (APP).
We’re also continuing to improve our infrastructure. Thanks to a second successful bid to the OfS Innovation Fund we are building system functionality to support providers to use their tracking data when evaluating their APP interventions. This includes an ‘automated comparator group tool’ that will streamline the process of identifying matched participant and non-participant groups based on confounding variables. By reducing the need for manual data work, the tool will make it easier to apply quasi-experimental designs and generate more robust evidence of impact.
Next steps – sharing through publication
With all these tools at their disposal, the next step is to support the sector to publish their evaluation. We need shared learning to avoid duplication and siloed working. HEAT is currently collaborating with TASO to deliver the Higher Education Evaluation Library (HEEL), which will collect, and share, intervention-level evaluation reports in one accessible place for the first time. By collating this evidence, the HEEL will help practitioners and policymakers alike to see what works, what doesn’t, and where we can improve together.
If we want to continue delivering meaningful progress on access and participation, we need both meaningful, critical local evaluation and powerful national insights. Centralised data tracking infrastructure can give the sector the tools it needs to do both.
The increasing internationalization of higher education does not automatically lead to global knowledge and skill exchange in the classroom. Hierarchical barriers in pedagogy and classroom geography impede peer-to-peer learning. This article outlines the benefits of using a community cultural wealth approach – with an example – to disrupt academic and cultural hierarchies by drawing on the multiplicity of students’ assets, skills, and knowledge bases within international cohorts. Such a method enables international students to share their diverse expertise and breakdown assumptions about where and in whom relevant knowledge and information lies.
The Challenge of Hierarchy
I have been asking myself the following questions with increasing frequency as I grapple with teaching international cohorts of learners:
How can I move away from being considered the sole source of knowledge in the classroom?
How can I enable my international students to benefit from each other’s knowledge and insights?
How can I support students to co-construct their learning?
As an educator, working out how to center students in the process of learning remains an ongoing challenge, whether working with international or domestic students. For international students, their diverse expertise and experiences add significant value to the learning community. Yet, many of these students have experienced the banking model (Freire 1996) in their previous educational experience, where they were likely considered empty vessels to be filled with information by their instructors. Thus, when confronted with the liberal expectations of a Western education, where students are expected to engage with new people and evaluate and apply new knowledge, many feel underequipped to succeed, as they wrongly assume they have nothing to contribute. This fear of lack may further drive international students to remain in cultural enclaves within the classroom, to mask their concerns. In the grips of this fear, the benefits of an international education are not immediately granted by proximity in the classroom space.
A community cultural wealth model may help to overcome these challenges. This model, developed by Yosso (2005), foregrounds other than academic assets that students possess, including linguistic, familial, navigational, cultural, resistant, and community “capitals”.
This model disrupts the banking model of education as students are affirmed as arriving replete with assets and releases students from their fears by affirming a diverse array of expertise and in whom this expertise may reside. As social theory arises from daily life (hooks, 1994), in response to the circumstances of one’s existence and its connection to history, politics, and power, the community cultural wealth model enables students to connect their life experiences with their learning. Not only does this model transform student-to-student learning, but it also transforms instructor-to-student learning, upending the classroom hierarchy around who in the room holds relevant and useful information (Schoen 1991), and reducing reliance on the instructor as the arbitral of knowledge.
Asset Recognition and Intercultural Exchange
In both the USA and the UK, I have taught Master level courses in public health ethics. In these courses, I help the students to consider ethics applying theory and using evaluation tools to assess degrees of harm or benefit a given policy might cause. Regardless of country, Master’s cohorts consist of students from India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, in varying proportions. Most of these students have trained as clinicians or hold degrees in the hard sciences.
One semester, Indian students were in the majority. I shared a case that helped students to consider the impacts of Indian government policy, Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), which provides financial incentives for poorer, rural Indian women to give birth in a hospital. The case, developed by D. K. Bhati (2016, section 4.12, case 4), highlights the clash between traditional birth practices and hospital birth incentivization and the various challenges it poses, amid the benefits. Underpinning information in the case included cultural nuances around marriage migration to the husband’s region, traditional practices of returning to the wife’s homestead to deliver, maternal consent, maternal control over financial resources, as well as logistical issues around lack of continuous emergency care for obstetrics and the exclusion of private health care provision from the program.
My intention was to explore the risks and benefits of incentivization through a case that would foreground the strengths of Indian cultural expertise. I gave each student a number from one to five to allocate them away from their comfort situations into ones in which each group formed a diverse assemblage of backgrounds. There, they were to discuss the case, by working through a set of questions. These included questions Bhati (2016) provided in the case:
Who are the various stakeholders involved and what are their values and perspectives?
What are the pros and cons of using cash incentives for a public health program?
Given her status as poor, young, married, and pregnant, how could the young wife’s autonomy have been upheld?
Should there be different notions of autonomy depending on context – individualist (Euro-American) sensibilities or interdependent (non-individualist, non-Euro-American) sensibilities?
To these, I added the following questions:
Given her lack of status societally, how might the cash incentive remain in the mother’s care?
The JSY policy recommends that fathers or mothers be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies; should this be incentivized with cash? Is this a just incentivization? Explain.
As anticipated, some Indian students were able to provide context for the case and speak from a place of knowing, about rural birthing practices, marriage migration, lack of health literacy, and power imbalances between husbands and wives and their respective families. Unexpected outcomes, which arose in the dialogues, were supplemental knowledge from across the cohort. These included familiarity with other governments’ policies on maternal health, similar situations involving poor rural women in other geographical locations, related experiences from those practicing obstetrics, and insights from the academic theory. Further unexpected outcomes arose through students’ recognition of their educational and social differences between those represented in the case, and themselves, revealing gaps that the ‘cultural experts’ could not fully broker. Interestingly, the recognition of this gap increased senses of connection across the cohort, as the students realized that amid their differences of language, culture, and nation, they shared class, wealth, and education-based assets.
I highlight this example as a watershed moment. Following these intercultural conversations, students’ confidence increased over their capacity to understand, to integrate different voices, and to use and critique evidence, exemplified in their individual coursework. Throughout the semester, students more readily reorganized themselves into small groups, without my explicit directing, suggesting that once nudged across boundaries, the benefits of learning to and from one another outweighed emotional resistance. Informally, students expressed their appreciation of learning together and further related that this approach would support them as public health practitioners, where they would need to connect to, communicate with, and learn from people different from themselves. The community cultural wealth approach further enabled me as instructor to overcome my internalized hierarchies of knowledge creation by allowing learning to unfold in accordance with the various skills in the room, and to arrive at unanticipated and novel outcomes.
By breaking down academic and cultural hierarchies in the international classroom, both the students and instructors can acknowledge and advance diverse understandings and harness the richness of an international cultural, professional, and educational encounter.
Julie Botticello holds a PhD in Anthropology and has taught in the UK and the USA for the past 20 years, predominately to diverse and international cohorts of students, on subjects relevant to the social sciences and to public health. Julie holds a teaching fellowship at the University of New Haven on inclusive pedagogy, teaches a group of incarcerated women at a Federal Prison, and serves as the program director for the undergraduate Health Sciences BS degree.
References
Bhati, D. K. 2016. Case 4: Decoding Public Health Ethics and Inequity in India: A Conditional Cash Incentive Scheme—Janani Suraksha Yojana,in H. Barrett, D. W. Ortmann L, Dawson A, et al., editors. Public Health Ethics: Cases Spanning the Globe. PubMed. Cham (CH): Springer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK435775/#ch4.Sec21
Freire, P. 1996 [1970]. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Hammondsworth: Penguin.
Hooks, Bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Schön, D. 1991 [1983]. The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Yosso, Tara J. 2005. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race Ethnicity and Education 8 (1): 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006.
The increasing internationalization of higher education does not automatically lead to global knowledge and skill exchange in the classroom. Hierarchical barriers in pedagogy and classroom geography impede peer-to-peer learning. This article outlines the benefits of using a community cultural wealth approach – with an example – to disrupt academic and cultural hierarchies by drawing on the multiplicity of students’ assets, skills, and knowledge bases within international cohorts. Such a method enables international students to share their diverse expertise and breakdown assumptions about where and in whom relevant knowledge and information lies.
The Challenge of Hierarchy
I have been asking myself the following questions with increasing frequency as I grapple with teaching international cohorts of learners:
How can I move away from being considered the sole source of knowledge in the classroom?
How can I enable my international students to benefit from each other’s knowledge and insights?
How can I support students to co-construct their learning?
As an educator, working out how to center students in the process of learning remains an ongoing challenge, whether working with international or domestic students. For international students, their diverse expertise and experiences add significant value to the learning community. Yet, many of these students have experienced the banking model (Freire 1996) in their previous educational experience, where they were likely considered empty vessels to be filled with information by their instructors. Thus, when confronted with the liberal expectations of a Western education, where students are expected to engage with new people and evaluate and apply new knowledge, many feel underequipped to succeed, as they wrongly assume they have nothing to contribute. This fear of lack may further drive international students to remain in cultural enclaves within the classroom, to mask their concerns. In the grips of this fear, the benefits of an international education are not immediately granted by proximity in the classroom space.
A community cultural wealth model may help to overcome these challenges. This model, developed by Yosso (2005), foregrounds other than academic assets that students possess, including linguistic, familial, navigational, cultural, resistant, and community “capitals”.
This model disrupts the banking model of education as students are affirmed as arriving replete with assets and releases students from their fears by affirming a diverse array of expertise and in whom this expertise may reside. As social theory arises from daily life (hooks, 1994), in response to the circumstances of one’s existence and its connection to history, politics, and power, the community cultural wealth model enables students to connect their life experiences with their learning. Not only does this model transform student-to-student learning, but it also transforms instructor-to-student learning, upending the classroom hierarchy around who in the room holds relevant and useful information (Schoen 1991), and reducing reliance on the instructor as the arbitral of knowledge.
Asset Recognition and Intercultural Exchange
In both the USA and the UK, I have taught Master level courses in public health ethics. In these courses, I help the students to consider ethics applying theory and using evaluation tools to assess degrees of harm or benefit a given policy might cause. Regardless of country, Master’s cohorts consist of students from India, Bangladesh, Nepal, Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, and Uganda, in varying proportions. Most of these students have trained as clinicians or hold degrees in the hard sciences.
One semester, Indian students were in the majority. I shared a case that helped students to consider the impacts of Indian government policy, Janani Suraksha Yojana (JSY), which provides financial incentives for poorer, rural Indian women to give birth in a hospital. The case, developed by D. K. Bhati (2016, section 4.12, case 4), highlights the clash between traditional birth practices and hospital birth incentivization and the various challenges it poses, amid the benefits. Underpinning information in the case included cultural nuances around marriage migration to the husband’s region, traditional practices of returning to the wife’s homestead to deliver, maternal consent, maternal control over financial resources, as well as logistical issues around lack of continuous emergency care for obstetrics and the exclusion of private health care provision from the program.
My intention was to explore the risks and benefits of incentivization through a case that would foreground the strengths of Indian cultural expertise. I gave each student a number from one to five to allocate them away from their comfort situations into ones in which each group formed a diverse assemblage of backgrounds. There, they were to discuss the case, by working through a set of questions. These included questions Bhati (2016) provided in the case:
Who are the various stakeholders involved and what are their values and perspectives?
What are the pros and cons of using cash incentives for a public health program?
Given her status as poor, young, married, and pregnant, how could the young wife’s autonomy have been upheld?
Should there be different notions of autonomy depending on context – individualist (Euro-American) sensibilities or interdependent (non-individualist, non-Euro-American) sensibilities?
To these, I added the following questions:
Given her lack of status societally, how might the cash incentive remain in the mother’s care?
The JSY policy recommends that fathers or mothers be sterilized to prevent future pregnancies; should this be incentivized with cash? Is this a just incentivization? Explain.
As anticipated, some Indian students were able to provide context for the case and speak from a place of knowing, about rural birthing practices, marriage migration, lack of health literacy, and power imbalances between husbands and wives and their respective families. Unexpected outcomes, which arose in the dialogues, were supplemental knowledge from across the cohort. These included familiarity with other governments’ policies on maternal health, similar situations involving poor rural women in other geographical locations, related experiences from those practicing obstetrics, and insights from the academic theory. Further unexpected outcomes arose through students’ recognition of their educational and social differences between those represented in the case, and themselves, revealing gaps that the ‘cultural experts’ could not fully broker. Interestingly, the recognition of this gap increased senses of connection across the cohort, as the students realized that amid their differences of language, culture, and nation, they shared class, wealth, and education-based assets.
I highlight this example as a watershed moment. Following these intercultural conversations, students’ confidence increased over their capacity to understand, to integrate different voices, and to use and critique evidence, exemplified in their individual coursework. Throughout the semester, students more readily reorganized themselves into small groups, without my explicit directing, suggesting that once nudged across boundaries, the benefits of learning to and from one another outweighed emotional resistance. Informally, students expressed their appreciation of learning together and further related that this approach would support them as public health practitioners, where they would need to connect to, communicate with, and learn from people different from themselves. The community cultural wealth approach further enabled me as instructor to overcome my internalized hierarchies of knowledge creation by allowing learning to unfold in accordance with the various skills in the room, and to arrive at unanticipated and novel outcomes.
By breaking down academic and cultural hierarchies in the international classroom, both the students and instructors can acknowledge and advance diverse understandings and harness the richness of an international cultural, professional, and educational encounter.
Julie Botticello holds a PhD in Anthropology and has taught in the UK and the USA for the past 20 years, predominately to diverse and international cohorts of students, on subjects relevant to the social sciences and to public health. Julie holds a teaching fellowship at the University of New Haven on inclusive pedagogy, teaches a group of incarcerated women at a Federal Prison, and serves as the program director for the undergraduate Health Sciences BS degree.
References
Bhati, D. K. 2016. Case 4: Decoding Public Health Ethics and Inequity in India: A Conditional Cash Incentive Scheme—Janani Suraksha Yojana,in H. Barrett, D. W. Ortmann L, Dawson A, et al., editors. Public Health Ethics: Cases Spanning the Globe. PubMed. Cham (CH): Springer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK435775/#ch4.Sec21
Freire, P. 1996 [1970]. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Hammondsworth: Penguin.
Hooks, Bell. 1994. Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom. New York: Routledge.
Schön, D. 1991 [1983]. The Reflective Practitioner, How Professionals Think in Action, Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Yosso, Tara J. 2005. “Whose Culture Has Capital? A Critical Race Theory Discussion of Community Cultural Wealth.” Race Ethnicity and Education 8 (1): 69–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/1361332052000341006.
Sometimes you walk through a city and the city changes around you.
There’s a subtle modulation in feel – the style and tenor of the place is renewed, the rhythm of green spaces shifts, the architectural language expands. Statements made in concrete, brick, limestone, and plate glass are more assertive.
And a new form of power and control begins to be felt. You see what look like guard posts, staffed by a private police force. Gates and passes dictate where you can and cannot go. Parking a car holds a byzantine mystery of its own. Signs are branded, sometimes incomprehensibly, for the attention of an elite you suddenly feel you are not part of.
And who runs these places? Well, you don’t get to choose. What do they do? You don’t get a say. This part of your city is not your city.
If you like, a university is a freeport – where the goods coming in and out are ideas. It is, to be clear, absolutely a part of a nation state – but it is a separate polity – designed and separated for a purpose. Individually these areas are tiny, but when you start adding things together it gets interesting.
The total population (the FTE of every staff member and student that could be counted as a “citizen” of our higher education zones) is 2.4 million – that’s around the size of Slovenia or Latvia. Staff FTE is closer to 396,000 – larger than the population of Iceland.
University sites extend across 12,887 hectares of land in the UK – that’s more space than Bristol (the unitary authority area), and larger than Jersey. But for the number of people involved that isn’t a lot of space: the population density (again, using FTE here) is 0.02 FTE/m2 (behind only Macau and Monaco in global terms).
Financially, we are looking at £48bn in income and £39bn in expenditure (these as reported in the Estates dataset, not the Finances dataset, giving us a positive (if weak) balance of trade. Gross national income per FTE (if we use staff only) is £12,192 (that’s 16,518 USD at current prices, a higher equivalent GNI per capita than Russia!)
Land management
According to the Association of University Directors of Estates (AUDE, using last year’s data) our hypothetical micronation spends around £200m on defence (or security if you’d rather) each year. If you include maintenance and repair – another essential way to protect the value of your estates assets, we’re pushing our total up beyond £1bn. And if you factor in all spending on premises (cost centre 205, which includes things like taxes, rental payments, energy, and insurance) – we are talking in the region of £6bn.
This spending covers a lot of work. Higher education involves the use of just under 16,000 buildings – everything from student accommodation and office blocks, from nuclear reactors to wind tunnels, from listed buildings to literal pigsties. It isn’t published in the open data, but last year AUDE tells us the proportion of buildings rated as being in condition C (operational but major repair or replacement needed in the short to medium-term) and D (inoperable or serious risk of major failure or breakdown) was 23.8 per cent – the building stock is deteriorating, year on year, as repair and maintenance backlogs grow.
What we do see in published data is display energy certificates (DEC) and and energy performance (EPC) certificates, two broadly comparable ways of rating the environmental performance of buildings. It’s not a direct line that can be drawn, but a well maintained estate (or an estate where old buildings are replaced with new) is likely to become more energy efficient over time and a poorly maintained estate will tend to lose efficiency. This year 28.21 per cent of sector non-residential estates were in categories E, F, or G – broadly the same as last year, for a larger estate that still includes a number of older buildings that are never going to reach modern efficiency standards, but still a concern.
Though higher education involves the creation of intangible assets (everything from intellectual property to the future value of graduates in wider society), the estate represents the sector’s tangible assets. Should we lose a provider to the financial storms the sector faces, it is to the estate that creditors (or potential buyers) might look to release funds.
Zero and below
The UK’s COP29 pledges – in the service of a global “net zero” carbon in 2050 – have become increasingly politically controversial as the costs of doing pretty much anything have risen (due to a range of geopolitical factors far too well-known and tedious to go into here having an impact on supply chains and labour availability).
In our hypothetical UK higher education micronation – given what is popularly imagined to be a progressive, science-informed, population – you would expect an element of leadership in sustainability and decarbonisation. And indeed, this has been the case. But this stuff comes at a cost.
The affordability of necessary estate maintenance and development and the significant cost of investment needed to reduce carbon emissions as part of providers’ commitments to achieve net zero.
A year later, the mention of net zero had been scrubbed entirely:
the significant cost of investment needed to reduce carbon emissions as part of a commitment to tackling environmental sustainability
Despite governments having an interest in the improving the sustainability of, and reducing emission from campuses (for example the education system sustainability and climate change strategy, first published by DfE in 2021 under the auspices of noted doyenne of woke activism Nadhim Zahawi) there is no statutory energy and carbon reporting route in English higher education(as there is for FE colleges and schools). The closest OfS gets is to gently ask those bidding for historically tiny amounts of capital to offer “assurance that providers have considered practical solutions towards achieving environmental sustainability as part of their bid”.
Our UK HE micronation, as well as being a good global citizen, also has an interest in driving down long-term costs. Fossil fuels are only going to get more expensive in the long run, switching to alternatives and moving to greater efficiency makes business sense even if there are initial costs. There has been some progress with scope 1 and 2 emissions (another fall last year), though this is limited compared to what could be achieved last decade: much of the “easy” work has already been done. That said, we’re still talking about 1.4m tonnes of carbon a year, equivalent to a small African country (Eswatini, formerly Swaziland, is a decent comparator) – and this is only scope 1 and 2 (direct) emissions, factoring in the supply chains and travel within scope 3 is another matter.
So, while it is undeniably fun to see UK higher education at the scale of a small country, it still remains firmly rooted in the four home nations. But the exercise prompted me to think – are there other zones within the UK that have been designed to optimise specific benefits for the areas and nations around them?
These days its all industrial strategy zones, but in terms people may recognise we might think about enterprise zones designed to stimulate economic growth by offering incentives to business – there are 48 in England. We have the internationally focused freeports, of course – 12 of them in the UK, and 7 investment zones (to date) that aim to unlock opportunities for business. In each of these examples the actual zones are quite small (almost like campuses, in fact) but the focus is on the impact on a wider local area (where workers may commute from, for example).
Zones like this reflect a global trend towards special economic zones (SEZs) which disapply national rules (around tax, customs, state aid, planning and so on – in some international examples we get as far as labour laws and immigration rules) in the interests of commercial activity. The wilder fringes of policies like this are pretty terrifying, but the UK does appear to be open to paddling in the shallower waters.
Which prompts the question – if universities are like freeports (better than freeports, in fact, as they have a proven track record of providing local benefits) why not offer the relaxation of some national regulations to encourage them to expand and develop in the areas that we want them to? Perhaps it should be easier for UK higher education to recruit international staff – perhaps there should be reductions of employer national contributions with respect to UK staff. Perhaps planning could be easier around established campuses? Perhaps it should be easier to unlock state investment to improve estates without triggering the rules that would drag us into the public sector? Perhaps we could unlock investment and incentives for clean electricity generation and area heating systems?
In the absence of an increase in tuition fees or income from OfS, a special economic zone (or zones) for higher education might be a way forward. The ideas of universities as largely self-administrating state-like entities within a country is an old one (the early days of Oxford featured a parallel judicial system, that ended up provoking riots and the foundation of Cambridge!) and perhaps worth revisiting.
The apprentice-student is changing higher education – from curriculum to culture. It’s time we stopped treating them like traditional undergraduates.
Degree apprenticeships (DAs) are not just reshaping the student experience – they’re redesigning the university itself. As the Office for Students (OfS) emphasises outcomes, progression, and employer engagement, and as Skills England continues to define standards for higher-level technical education, DAs are becoming a proving ground for some of higher education’s most urgent policy challenges.
Yet they are often marginalised in strategic thinking, treated as vocational bolt-ons or niche offerings rather than core to institutional purpose. That’s a mistake. DAs demand that we think differently about curriculum, assessment, and academic infrastructure. Quietly but decisively, they are exposing the limitations of legacy systems, and pointing the way to a more integrated, future-facing university model.
Different learners, different accountability
Degree apprentices are full-time employees and students, legally entitled to spend 20 per cent of their working time on off-the-job learning. This is not simply “study leave” – it encompasses formal teaching, applied projects, reflective practice, and continuous professional development.
This dual status creates a distinctive learner profile, and a distinctive teaching challenge. In designing a level 6 accounting and finance manager degree apprenticeship, we couldn’t simply repackage existing content. We had to co-develop new modules that satisfied two sets of demands: the academic rigour expected by the university and the occupational standards defined by the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (IfATE). These must also align with professional accounting syllabi from bodies such as CIMA, ACCA and ICAEW.
This triple mapping – to university, regulatory, and professional standards – creates what might be called multi-stakeholder accountability. It requires curriculum teams to work in ways that are more agile, responsive, and externally engaged than many traditional degree programmes.
Rethinking assessment
If OfS regulation is pushing universities toward more transparent, outcomes-focused assessment practices, DAs offer a blueprint for how that can work in practice. Assessment in degree apprenticeships is not an end-of-module activity; it’s a longitudinal, triangulated process involving the learner, the employer, and the academic team. Learners are required to build portfolios of evidence, reflect on their practice, and complete an end-point assessment, which is externally quality-assured.
In our programme, this means apprentices must show how they’ve applied ESG frameworks to real reporting challenges or used digital tools to improve efficiency. These are not hypothetical case studies, they’re deliverables with real organisational impact.
This demands a fundamental shift in how we understand assessment. It moves from a one-directional judgement to a co-produced, real-world demonstration of competence and critical thinking. It also raises practical challenges: how do we ensure equity, consistency, and academic standards in these shared spaces?
Practice must evolve too. Assessment boards and quality teams need confidence in workplace-verified evidence and dialogic tools like professional discussions. Regulations may need adjusting to formally recognise these approaches as valid and rigorous. Co-created assessment models will only work if they’re institutionally supported, not just permitted.
Institutional systems still speak undergraduate
Despite their growth – and repeated nods in policy papers from DfE, OfS, and IfATE (now Skills England) – DAs still struggle to integrate fully into institutional structures designed around traditional undergraduates.
Timetabling, academic calendars, support services, and digital access systems are still largely predicated on a three-year, 18- to 21-year-old, campus-based model. Degree apprentices, who may study in blocks, access learning from workplaces, and require hybrid delivery modes, often fall through the gaps.
This institutional lag risks positioning apprenticeships as peripheral rather than core to university provision, and undermines the very work-based, flexible, lifelong learning that national policy increasingly promotes.
To move beyond legacy assumptions, institutional systems must adapt. Timetabling and delivery planning should treat block teaching as core, not marginal. Learner support must accommodate hybrid work-study lives with flexible pastoral care and digital access. Even workload models and quality assurance processes may need tailoring to reflect co-delivery demands
If we are serious about the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, future modularity, and widening participation, DAs are not just a test case, they are the early evidence base.
Who owns the curriculum?
DAs also reconfigure academic authority. In designing the our degree apprenticeship programme, we co-developed curriculum with employers, professional bodies, and regulators. At its best, this is collaborative innovation. At its most complex, it’s curriculum by committee.
Some employers overestimate their control over content or underestimate their responsibilities around mentoring and assessment. Professional bodies may be supportive in principle, but slow to recognise apprenticeship pathways in formal qualifications. The university becomes a mediator, balancing academic integrity, regulatory compliance, and employer priorities.
This is delicate, sometimes frustrating work. But it also shifts the purpose of curriculum design, from academic transmission to negotiated, contextualised learning and demands that academic teams are supported to work across professional and regulatory boundaries without compromising standards
What universities can learn
DAs are more than a niche. They’re a stress test, revealing how well universities are equipped to deliver flexible, employer-engaged, outcome-driven learning.
They challenge traditional pedagogies, reward authentic assessment, and open up new relationships between knowledge and practice. They also model the kinds of teaching and learning the sector is being increasingly nudged toward by policy: modular, flexible, accountable, and co-created with employers.
This is not an argument for turning every degree into an apprenticeship. But it is a call to stop treating DAs as bolt-ons or exceptions. If we take seriously the structural and pedagogical shifts they demand, we may find in them a pathway to broader institutional transformation.
In a higher education landscape increasingly shaped by regulation, scrutiny, digital disruption and workforce change, the apprentice-student may not just be part of the future – they may be leading it.
Source: Patrick Jack
Source: Patrick Jack 
Source: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
