Author: admin

  • Have we been looking at free speech all wrong?

    Have we been looking at free speech all wrong?

    This blog was written by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Advocacy at HEPI.

    Free speech is back in the news. Implementing the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was paused shortly after the general election to allow time for the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Philipson, to consider whether the law should be repealed.

    Many expected that to be the case and were perhaps surprised to hear that the Government will implement the ‘Free Speech Act’ after all – with only two measures being considered for repeal – the duties placed on Student Unions and the statutory tort (the proposed legal route for individuals who suffer a loss due to a breach of their free speech). Bridget Philipson announced in the House of Commons that she proposes ‘keeping a complaints scheme in place with the OfS’. This scheme will consider complaints from staff, external speakers and university members, but not students (who can seek external review of a complaint with the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education – the OIA). There are a couple of nerdy regulatory points to note here:

    1. There is still the possibility of the following scenario: A student raises a complaint of harassment from a member of staff. The institution concludes that the staff member did harass the student, and the staff member receives a written warning. The student believes that the outcome of the case was inappropriate and (following an unsuccessful appeal) takes the complaint to the OIA, who upholds the complaint and instructs the institution to compensate the student financially. The staff member feels that their free speech has been impinged by this process and raises a complaint with the OfS, who considers the complaint justified and instructs the institution to compensate the staff member financially. Therefore, we end up with a perverse scenario where two external bodies reach contradictory conclusions about the same event.
    • The OfS will not have a duty to assess every complaint it receives; rather, it will have the power to consider complaints. Bridget Philipson’s speech specifically mentioned the OfS not having to assess poorly put-together or nonsensical complaints. However, a robust, published decision-making framework will need to outline which cases the OfS will consider and which it will not, lest it be perceived that this loophole could be influenced by political persuasion.

    Policy wonks and those who must implement this legislation in institutions wait with bated breath….

    The quite extraordinary amount of time this legislation took to pass, plus the stopping and starting of its implementation, gave me time to ponder its practical implementation. I wonder if the focus of the free speech debate has missed the mark.

    Thousands of column inches have been dedicated to discussing free speech in university, including my own previous blog series:

    Much of the discussion has focussed on individual speakers being invited to campus to speak on particularly polarising topics. This may be an important part of promoting free speech, but if it doesn’t change anyone’s mind, is it just someone shouting into the void? Creating an in-person version of Twitter is unlikely to effectively promote free speech if only those who already agree with the speaker attend and those who feel offended by the topic or the speaker stay away. By almost solely focusing on this approach, we risk missing a significant opportunity.

    I’ve reflected on the circumstances that have led me to change my mind or opinion – or just to be genuinely interested in someone’s different belief or values system. It was not someone yelling polarising opinions but a considered conversation with someone who thinks differently from me. I have the genuine privilege of working with colleagues from across the political spectrum and engaging in debate and discussion, often publicly, on a daily basis. My ideas and beliefs are constantly challenged and given a chance to develop.

    One of the first lectures of my PGCE explained that ‘unlearning’ is much harder than learning. Therefore, if your pupils already believe that they know something, it is much more difficult to change their perception than to paint information on a blank canvas.

    If we truly want to promote free speech, we have to teach the skills of unlearning: curiosity, open mindedness, resilience and tolerance. This isn’t to say that all students should change their minds or perceptions. This might happen, but what we also need to develop is the curiosity to understand why someone thinks or believes differently from us. What led them to this belief? Why is it important to them? And, in turn, why do we hold the belief that we do? What led us to that viewpoint and why is it important to us?

    I appreciate that this becomes more complex when students’ own identities may be intertwined with these topics. While the right to speak freely is crucial, the choice to disengage from a topic that causes deep distress should also be respected. However, there are myriad interesting and challenging topics we can explore to learn from one another. One memorable experience from my time at the University of Bath was when a student explained to me that she found it patronising and incorrect for UK universities to teach that democracy was always the right way to organise society, especially when she observed greater poverty and inequality in the UK than in her home country. This didn’t alter my view on the importance of democratic rights or that it is the best way to organise society – but I’m so grateful that my ingrained belief and perception were challenged in this way and that I had the opportunity to consider an entire societal structure through the perspective of someone from a different background to my own.

    This conversation occurred by chance. As universities strive to promote free speech amidst the new registration requirements, how can we encourage the sharing of diverse, and at times challenging, opinions? Additionally, how can we teach the skills not only to debate our own views but also to listen to the opinions of others? Stimulating debate is, of course, the foundation of university teaching and research, and many institutions create spaces for this to occur daily. However, with ongoing criticism that universities are stifling debate and the new regulations coming into effect, providers will need to formalise and promote these opportunities. (Please write a blog for us if you would like to highlight your best practice in this area!)

    In the age of disinformation, where critical thinking is increasingly important, how can we expect students to critically analyse information shared by others if they cannot first critically analyse their own thoughts?

    Source link

  • Direct and Indirect Assessment Measures of Student Learning in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Direct and Indirect Assessment Measures of Student Learning in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Students are at the centre of a political uprising in Serbia. Again

    Students are at the centre of a political uprising in Serbia. Again

    Today, after three long months of protests, demonstrators in Serbia have called a general strike – and the government has threatened to retaliate.

    Activists are challenging the authority of a populist, nationalist government following months of demonstrations that have brought, at times, over 100,000 people onto the streets.

    But for me what’s significant about the growing movement – that some think could yet topple the government – is that it has been almost entirely led by students:

    The students in the blockade call on the citizens of Serbia for a total suspension of all activities on Friday, January 24… We don’t go to work, we don’t go to lectures, we don’t do our daily duties. Let’s take freedom into our own hands!

    It is a story partly about authoritarianism and tactics, and about how power reacts to protest. But it’s also a story about student movements – both official and decentralised – and how they can both lead, and be co-opted, by others.

    Back in November, a concrete roof at the railway station in Serbia’s second largest city Novi Sad collapsed, killing 15 people.

    The city is home to the University of Novi Sad – with over 50,000 students and 5,000 staff – and in the wake of the tragedy, a student activist group began to organise protests both in Novi Sad and the capital Belgrade – leaving red handprints at the entrances of government buildings to demand the arrest of officials. Government corruption was their claim.

    The group leading much of the activism has been Students Against Authoritarian Rule (STAV) – formed last January from within the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Novi Sad, and responsible last summer for a two-week blockade of the Rectorate building over what they saw as undemocratic practices in student representation.

    It’s a fix

    STAV’s dissatisfaction had its origins in a law passed in Serbia back in 2021, when the National Assembly passed a new Law on Student Organizing as part of a broader set of educational reforms designed to enhance student participation and accountability.

    When a small group of us visited the country last year, it all looked pretty positive – it formalises the roles of student parliaments at both faculty and university level, grants them participation in university decision making over issues like teaching, curricula, and regulations, gives them a formal role in advocating for academic and social rights, sets them up to promote extracurricular activities, and establishes them as drivers of national and international collaboration.

    It also sets out detailed rules on elections – eligibility criteria, timelines, and protocols to ensure a fair electoral process. But that’s partly where the trouble started.

    Last October the Center for Science and Innovation for Development (SCiDEV) – a Tirana-based think tank that works to contribute to democratisation in Albania, the Western Balkans and the European Union – published a comparative analysis of of student perceptions and engagement in student governments in Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia.

    It compiled growing concern about the involvement of political parties in the student electoral process in Serbia, a perception of a lack of transparency in election procedures, a belief amongst some students that the electoral process is manipulated or unfair, and a lack of independent mechanisms to monitor election processes and prevent misconduct.

    That’s partly because of perceptions that both locally and nationally within SKONUS (Serbia’s NUS), the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) appears to have played a key role. Milan Savić, who was elected as SKONUS President in 2016 and 2018, was elected to the National Assembly of Serbia as a member of SNS – and activists argue that since then, its leadership has repeatedly aligned itself with government policies rather than defending the student interest.

    Current President Margareta Smiljanić has also been linked to the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) through her involvement with something called the Centre for Education and Youth Development in Belgrade (CEROB) – whose headquarters, critics claim, were used to distribute payments for work in the SNS call centre.

    If that sounds fairly tenuous, it’s because it is. It may be that Smiljanić and her predecessors have links to the government – but she’s also one of a long line of “official” student representatives in pretty much every country that get accused of “siding” with university managements or government when engaging in meetings discussing issues like timetabling and food subsidies (two key planks of her manifesto) rather than trying to analyse a broader system and reject a wider administration.

    Either way, if the SCiDEV report provided a backdrop of evidence, the Novi Sad tragedy provided an event to rally over for STAV – the collapsed canopy a symbol of the corruption they saw as endemic in the Serbian political system.

    Wastewater and tear gas

    A week after the tragedy, protests in the two cities had started to grow – flares, red paint and wastewater were thrown onto the City Hall building in Novi Sad, and police responded with tear gas – while a smaller group of angrier protesters wearing masks attempted to enter the building and hand over their demands that those responsible for the canopy collapse face justice.

    That night, President Aleksandar Vučić came out to address the public – saying the police were “showing restraint” while issuing a warning that “horrific, violent” protests were underway:

    People of Serbia please do not think violence is allowed… All those taking part in the incidents will be punished.

    Miran Pogačar, a former philosophy from the Faculty of Philosophy and a prominent activist involved in citizens’ movement “Bravo”, was featured across national news:

    One glass window can be mended but we cannot bring back 14 lives. People are angry. Serbia won’t stand for this.

    At this stage it looked like the government was going to be able to keep the public on its side – highlighting a violent “former/non student” core as somehow manipulating more mainstream student protesters has long been a tactic of governments facing student unrest – a key feature, for example, of the Millbank student protests over tuition fees in London in 2010.

    But days later, the mood changed. CCTV footage of the collapse started to go viral – showing the huge canopy on the outer wall of Novi Sad station building collapsing onto young people below on benches. The government, having attempted initially to draw a line under events by promising a full investigation, was on the back foot.

    And the student activists of STAV – partly conscious of the role that peaceful student activism played across Central and Eastern Europe in bringing down communism – managed to get its more violent elements under control to secure public sympathy, while the banners painted by students started to become more direct – the most common being red paint on cardboard saying “corruption kills”.

    Students leading change

    There are good reasons for students to, for want of a better phrase, feel the hand of history on their shoulders.

    In the 1960s, Belgrade’s new “Student City” had become a central hub for student solidarity and the sharing of experiences and opinions, associations and clubs between students from both across the country and the world. In June 1968, protesting an accommodation shortage, the lack of voice in university structures and President Tito’s reforms (that had led to high unemployment and forced graduates to leave the country and find work elsewhere), students gathered at Block 1 of Studentski Grad to stage the first mass protest in Yugoslavia after World War II.

    Police beat the students and banned all public gatherings, but students then went into a seven-day strike – staging debates and speeches on social justice, and handing out copies of their banned magazines. Tito’s only option was to give in to some of the students’ demands – famously saying that “students are right” during a televised speech. But in the following years, he dealt with the leaders of the protests by sacking them from university and Communist party posts.

    Students were also central to the protests against Slobodan Milošević and the broader Yugoslav Communist Party in the late 1980s – ones that began as educational and economic grievances became infused with demands for political liberalisation, academic freedom and democracy. The economic crisis in Yugoslavia had fueled discontent, and it was students at the University of Belgrade that had started to form dissident groups to oppose censorship, restrictions on academic freedoms, and worsening living conditions.

    Inspired by other anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe, Serbian students began organizing campus forums in 1988, demanding democratic reforms – and by March 1989, the revocation of Kosovo’s autonomy by Milošević’s regime became a turning point, sparking protests against authoritarianism and the use of force. By May, students shifted focus to broader democratic demands, including free elections and minority rights, with their activism peaking during events like the famous Gazimestan rally and widespread “general strikes” across cities.

    Nevertheless, it took another decade for the regime to fall.

    The Student Union of Serbia (SUS) got going in 1992 at the Belgrade Faculty of Law, aiming to promote transparency, democratic elections, and enthusiasm within student organisations. Throughout the 1990s, SUS played a key role in student protests against the autocratic regime, notably during the 1996/97 demonstrations advocating for the recognition of local election results and university autonomy.

    Back home, Living Marxism – the in-house magazine of the Revolutionary Communist Party that went on to morph into libertarian website/group Spiked! (famous now for its Free Speech rankings of universities and its War on Woke) – argued that Western media outlets and international organisations exaggerated Serbian atrocities while downplaying crimes committed by others such as Bosnian Muslims or Croats.

    In 1997, it had published an article claiming that ITN’s footage of emaciated Bosnian Muslim detainees at the Trnopolje camp was misleading – alleging that the camp was not a concentration camp but rather a refugee centre, and that the imagery was manipulated to evoke Holocaust comparisons. It provoked outrage from human rights groups and journalists – and today Spiked! remains resolutely anti-EU  and oddly pro-populism.

    Back in Serbia, student-led Otpor! continued its tactics of nonviolent resistance, creative protests, and grassroots organising to help unify opposition groups, inspire mass demonstrations, and sustain momentum for democratic reforms. By the turn of the millennium, things were coming to a head – Milošević refused to concede defeat in the September 2000 presidential elections, and protests erupted again on October 5, as hundreds of thousands of Serbians from across the country marched to Belgrade demanding his resignation.

    Then, as now, students were accused of being puppets of the West – not least because the slogan Gotov je! had been distributed via 2.5 million stickers and 5,000 spray cans channeled by the U.S. Department of State.

    Student protesters stormed government buildings, including the Federal Parliament, and symbolically burned election ballots believed to be fraudulent. Faced with overwhelming public opposition and a breakdown of loyalty within the police and military, Milošević resigned on October 7, 2000, marking the end of his regime and paving the way for democratic reforms in Serbia.

    Few believe that communism could have fallen in the way it did either in Serbia or across Europe more generally in that period without students – every country in the region has its own set of stories about how students inspired wider movements. The question now, in Georgia, maybe soon in Romania and more generally across the region, is whether students will play a key role again in bringing down populists often accused of being in bed with Russia.

    Legitimate representatives

    By December 5th 2024, unrest was building in Belgrade. A group of students at a protest symbolically turned their backs on the Minister of Construction, Goran Vesić during a public appearance in the capital. Hours later he’d resigned, but they’d secured the support of the Bar Association of Serbia, which announced a one-day strike citing “systematic and long-term interference by the executive branch in the work of the judiciary”, and problems with the separation of powers in a democratic society.

    Dejan Bagarić, a PhD student from the Faculty of Philosophy and one of the perceived ringleaders of STAV, was jailed for up to 30 days on charges of “reckless theft” and “assault on an official” after taking and returning a phone from a journalist filming a protest incident involving his girlfriend. And Branko Rodić, another student from Novi Sad, was reportedly assaulted by two people believed to be members of the National Assembly’s security, who knocked him to the ground and hit him in the face.

    Six days later, students gathered in front of the headquarters of RTS, Serbia’s public television station – protesting over coverage of President Aleksandar Vučić’s claims that the demonstrators were “funded by Western countries seeking to destabilize Serbia”.

    The crisis growing, Vučić then pulled an age-old tactic beloved by governments and university managements over the years – he ostentatiously held a meeting with the SKONUS President Margareta Smiljanić and other “representatives of the legitimately elected students” at which he announced a housing scheme offering young people to purchase €75,000 flats with a deposit of €1000.

    SKONUS had been formed in the slipstream of the fall of Milošević in 2005 – established to inject some resource into student representation and “officially” represent students at accredited universities in Serbia, with its origins tied to the country’s new Law on Higher Education. Initially, it played a key role in higher education reforms like Bologna and promoting student mobility, and in 2014 worked alongside SUS when the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) came to power and cut the number of exam periods from six to five and cut the funding for students’ fifth year of studies.

    But since then, student activist groups have grown suspicious of SKONUS and its leadership’s role in “negotiating” with government and avoiding “non-student” issues. Hence when Margareta Smiljanić responded to Vučić’s deal in December, she both welcomed the announcement, and played up her concern for students’ education:

    The reason we organized this meeting is because we were elected not to hold political positions, but to hold student positions, to answer the students who ask us questions every day about what will happen to the further teaching process and who will ensure the quality of education for the year 2024/2025. We requested from the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Ministry of Education that we be admitted to the meeting and I would like to thank them for accepting us in record time today.

    She went on to say that no-one had given her an answer on reimbursement of tuition fees, compensation and exam registration, and whether university buildings would re-open at all in the new year:

    These are all questions that are troubling students, and I believe parents as well. We believe that it is of crucial interest for deans, rectors, and the academic community to answer because 230,000 academics are tormented by these questions. We demand urgent answers.

    Whether you believe that Smiljanić was a government stooge that was part of a propaganda effort to brand the activists as extreme and anti-education, or a student leader doing her best to focus on student issues, is fairly moot – either way, Vucic took to the airwaves to build on the divide and rule tactic:

    So, all the [protest] demands have been fulfilled, and we expect those who made the demands to say their demands have been fulfilled and to return to classes. But [if not] it will [then] be clear to the entire public in Serbia … and to all the citizens of Serbia that there were never any demands, but that it was [pure] politics.”

    STAV was having none of that – branding Smiljanić a sell-out and claiming that some of its activists had started to be called in for one-to-one meetings with university managers about their academic “progress”, who had themselves been threatened with the sack if they failed to get students back into classrooms.

    6-7 seconds

    Things continued to escalate. On December 10 a man drove his car into a group of participants, injuring four musicians who’d joined the protests from the Belgrade Philharmonic Orchestra.

    By December 13, farmers in central Serbia had joined the protests by blocking a motorway with tractors, expressing solidarity with the students and amplifying calls for governmental accountability – and two days later visibly frustrated Prime Minister Miloš Vučević responded to question with “you can’t bring down a country because of 15 people who died, nor 155, nor 1,555”, and was forced to apologise.

    By December 22, the crowd of protesters had swelled again – with over 100,000 gathering in Slavija Square in Belgrade where students had been joined by numerous civil society groups. On Christmas Eve Vučić then also mis-stepped in an interview – claiming that if he wanted to, he could deploy special forces to disperse student protesters “in 6-7 seconds”.

    Demonstrators delivered 1,000 letters to the office of Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac, urging her to fulfill her duties and address the protesters’ demands – and stories were swirling that agents from the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA) had made visits to the workplaces and homes of some of the student organisers’ family members.

    And by now, protests had spread to other Serbian student cities too. In Užice, over 2,000 gathered in front of the city hall to express their support for the movement – and authorities attempts’ to kill that off by turning off street lights were met with portable generators.

    Vučić then publicly accused eight Croatian students – led by twin brothers Lazar and Luka Stojakovic from the Faculty of Organisational Science at Belgrade University – identified by pro-government daily newspaper Vecernje Novosti as protest leaders paid by Croatia’s secret service. Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković dismissed Vučić’s claims as “laughable.” But Lazar and Luka were emboldened:

    Corruption entered every single layer of our society and it is the main cause of roof collapse and killing of 15 people.

    On New Year’s Eve into New Year’s Day 2025, tens of thousands were on the streets, chanting “There is no new year – you still owe us for the old one” – and two weeks later Margareta Smiljanić popped up again on TV, arguing that the the “destruction of the higher education system” was underway, that the protest participants were “not student representatives”, and calling on universities to launch surveys to get a “clear picture” of what the majority of students want:

    We have generations of students who enrolled in studies during the coronavirus. That generation lost two years of normal classes. During the coronavirus, they had make-up and online classes, and now they have classes interrupted again. So we have generations who will graduate with a much lower quality of knowledge… I think that the radicalization of any protests is not good and that through dialogue we can achieve greater goals.

    But Biljana Đorđević – co-president of the Green-Left Front, and an assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, responded with another allegation often thrown at student representatives – that she’s been studying for a full decade and has been a student official for eight years:

    She was hired… as the President of a student organization that the regime of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić hires to impersonate students when necessary.

    Since then numbers have grown again – last Friday, during another massive protest in front of the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) building in Belgrade, tens of thousands of students and academics observed a 15-minute silence to honour the victims of the Novi Sad tragedy, and protesters chanted slogans advocating for a general strike.

    This regime stands no chance

    You can pretty much flip a coin at this point on whether the movement will grow and bring down the government, or whether concerns of students about what is starting to look like a write-off of the academic year altogether will somehow see Vučić and his government survive.

    And as was the case in 1989 throughout the former Yugoslavia, it pretty much rests on whether the wider public’s sympathy with “the students” grows or wanes. There are reports of people donating food, businesses providing supplies, taxi drivers offering free fares, and farmers pledging to protect protesters with tractors – but some sense too that parts of the public are tiring of the disruption as it spreads. Who they blame will matter.

    Ljubica Oparnica, a professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Novi Sad, thinks that STAV and “unofficial” student movement will win out:

    I am truly fascinated by the way students are working together. Their solidarity is a fortress that cannot be breached. If we all share the same vision — and here it is clear that we all want a new system, a new and different era — this regime stands no chance.

    And while the country’s four biggest teaching unions struck a deal with the Serbian government on pay increases earlier this month, plenty of schools and teachers have refused to start the new term – with Vucevic now threatening to send in inspectors and sack teachers in schools that take part and go on strike today.

    “I am not threatening anyone,” said Vucevic to RTS this week. “I am merely urging everyone not to play with children and the education system”. Dusan Kokot of the Independent Union of Education Workers of Serbia said that education can’t thrive in a society “plagued by systemic corruption”:

    Education cannot flourish while decision-makers are plagiarists, forgers, usurpers and manipulators.

    In one final – and some say desperate move – Vucevic this week offered a non-binding “advisory referendum” on the government, while opposition leaders demanded a transitional government to ensure fair elections.

    Much now rests on the success or otherwise of today’s general strike. Some still think that a mixture of propaganda, counter-protests and public concern about the grinding to a halt of education in general will see the protests peter out – but Ljubica Oparnica is less sure:

    They won’t give up easily because they enjoy immense privileges. That’s why change seems impossible. But I believe this government will collapse suddenly, like the fallen canopy [at Novi Sad train station]. We’ll all be surprised. I think they’ve reached the end of their strength.



    Source link

  • We need strategic technical leaders

    We need strategic technical leaders

    As a society we’re seeing rapid changes, especially in technology, that impact how we live, work and learn. Higher education institutions have needed to reevaluate their priorities and adapt to this new environment. Strong, diverse and skilled leadership to drive change is more important than ever – and strategic technical leaders can play a key role.

    These relative new positions in the sector bridge the gap between organisational goals and technical capabilities. They champion their teams, drive innovation and collaboration.

    Technicians are critical to teaching, research and innovation and there is an increasing demand for strategic technical leaders in universities to strengthen and develop this vital workforce, helping institutions to thrive in this ever-changing landscape.

    Filling the technical leadership gap

    Historically there has been a leadership gap for technicians in higher education institutions, with their roles often being capped at lower levels, meaning a lack of representation in strategic decision-making.

    In recent years this trend has been reversed, with several institutions appointing strategic technical leaders. At first glance, HESA data indicates that 45 per cent of UK HEIs have a strategic technical leader in position, which – while not ideal – at least illustrates a promising improvement.

    But given this figure is based on those institutions that opt-in to submit data to HESA for their non-academic staff, the number of senior strategic technical leaders is potentially far lower than the statistics suggest. Conversely, the HESA statistics also do not account for strategic technical leaders who are operating at lower levels in institutions.

    Variation across remits and institutions

    Data from existing strategic technical leaders (published in the report Strategic technical leadership: advocacy, empowerment and transformation) revealed variations in these roles between institutions, particularly around responsibilities, remit and seniority.

    As relatively new roles in the HE landscape, they are still evolving. Institutions establishing these roles have often defined the scope with limited reference points, resulting in positions being shaped around individuals or tailored to specific priorities. While some inconsistencies are to be expected, greater consistency in defining the remit and responsibilities of these roles would be beneficial.

    There’s an opportunity to guide the integration of strategic technical leaders into leadership structures. This would not only support their effective implementation but also ensure continuity, which is critical for their long-term impact and sustainability.

    Defining the role

    Previously undefined, our report proposed the following definition of a strategic technical leader:

    An empowered decision-maker who aligns the technical workforce with the institution’s long-term goals by anticipating future needs, advocating for technicians, and shaping policies that impact both technical staff and the broader organisation. They play a pivotal role in strategic planning, particularly in areas such as workforce sustainability, skills development, and investment in technical resources, while ensuring technicians have access to meaningful development opportunities.

    Acknowledging that the definition and roles of strategic technical leaders are still evolving, their benefits are already clear, bringing significant advantages to their institutions, technical staff, and the wider higher education sector.

    Strategic technical leaders are vital for aligning technical operations with university strategy, offering significant benefits to institutions, technical staff, and the wider higher education sector. Their holistic view of technicians’ roles across teaching and research ensures consistency in opportunities, operations, and experiences. By fostering the development and application of technical skills, they drive efficiency across the institution.

    Working as changemakers

    Input into the university’s overall strategy ensures sound investments in equipment and facilities while reducing inefficiencies and duplications of equipment, resulting in cost-savings. Where responsibility for the technical portfolio of activities is integrated into the executive level of the institution, our report indicated wide-reaching benefits internally and externally.

    Strategic technical leaders who are embedded within the higher level of the institutional decision making act as important changemakers for the technical community, advocating for representation in decision-making.

    Improving the visibility of technicians is vital for improving the long-standing lack of recognition and visibility technicians have endured. The results can be far-reaching with evidence suggesting improved results in two often challenging areas associated with technical careers – recruitment and retention.

    Embracing and influencing change

    The focus of the strategic technical leader’s role extends beyond the boundaries of their own organisation – they also have an important externally-facing role. The strategic leaders we spoke to highlighted the importance of their external networks, for developing opportunities for collaboration and sharing of best practice to benefit their home institutions.

    Beyond this, strategic technical leaders are well placed to engage with bodies that advocate for technicians such as the UK Institute for Technical Skills and Strategy and the Technician Commitment.

    Their influence reaches other important networks such as policymakers, professional bodies and sector stakeholders where they can influence sector change, an approach that was recommended in the TALENT Commission report.

    To work at their optimal, universities need innovative and collaborative leadership that represents the entire workforce. It is time that technicians and the vital work that they do is represented in university leadership. Investment in these roles not only supports the development of an institution’s technical teaching, research and operational efficiency but safeguards future excellence.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Funding, attendance, student hardship

    Podcast: Funding, attendance, student hardship

    This week on the podcast Minister of State for Skills Jacqui Smith helped launch a pamphlet on whether universities are “worth it” – and was notably cold on extra money. But does she mean outlay or eventual return to the Treasury?

    Plus there’s changes afoot in Scotland, UKVI is cracking down on attendance for international students and students are still feeling the pinch financially – is a return to maintenance grants a lost possibility?

    With Ben Vulliamy, Executive Director at the Association of Heads of University Administration, Dani Payne, Senior Researcher at the Social Market Foundation, Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Jacqui Smith rules out (much) more money while her department assesses the impacts

    The Scottish government wants its own post-study work offer

    A new funding body landscape emerges in Scotland

    UKVI is tightening the rules on international student attendance

    Higher education should lift students out of poverty – not trap them within it

    Source link

  • Ventriloquising the student interest | Wonkhe

    Ventriloquising the student interest | Wonkhe

    Following the devastating review offered by the 2023 report of the Industry and Regulators Committee of the House of Lords, the Office for Students’ (OfS) proposed strategy makes a great play of being centred around “the student interest”.

    But while it recognises that students have diverse and changeable views about their interests, it is still significant that it characterises these as “the student interest” rather than “students’ interests”.

    The reason for doing this is that it makes it much more rhetorically powerful to claim you are doing something in relation to an interest that is definitive, rather than interests which are multivarious and shifting.

    And be clear, the OfS proposed strategy shows a huge appetite to intervene in higher education in the name of “the student interest”.

    Much talk, no sources

    In the draft, OfS boasts that it has done a great deal of work to renew its understanding of the student interest – polling students, holding focus groups, hosting engagement sessions and talking to their own student panel.

    But two things are particularly noticeable about this work. First, whilst a lot of other sources are referenced in their strategy consultation, this is one area where no evidence is provided.

    This means the OfS interpretation of the outcomes of this consultation cannot be interrogated in any way. Clearly OfS knows best how to interpret this interest and isn’t interested in collective conversations to explore its ambiguities and complexities.

    Second, none of this work involves open ended engagement with students and their representative organisations (who appear to have been excluded completely, or at least their involvement is not detailed). They are all forms of consultation in which OfS would have framed the terms and agenda of the discussions (non-decision-making power, as Steven Lukes would have it). It’s consultation – but within tightly defined limits of what can legitimately be said.

    This seems to explain the remarkable number of priorities in the strategy (freedom of speech, mental health, sexual harassment) that are said to be in the student interest but previously appeared in ministerial letters outlining the strategic priorities of the OfS.

    Get a job

    Perhaps most concerning is that the government/treasury logic that the only real reason for going to university is to get a well-paid job is now central to the student interest. Sometimes this is done more subtly by positioning it in the (never-)popular student language of “a return on investment”:

    …in return for their investment of time, money and hard work they [students] expect that education to continue to provide value into the longer-term, including in ways that they may not be able to anticipate while they study (p.12).

    At other times, we are left in no doubt that the primary function of higher education is to serve the economy:

    Our proposals…will support a higher education system equipped to cultivate the skills the country needs and increase employer confidence in the value of English higher education qualifications. High quality higher education will be accessible to more people, and students from all backgrounds will be better able to engage with and benefit from high quality higher education, supporting a more equal society which makes better use of untapped talent and latent potential. The supply of skilled graduates will support local and national economies alike, while the ‘public goods’ associated with high quality higher education will accrue to a wide range of individuals and communities. Public goods include economic growth, a more equal society and greater knowledge understanding (OfS 2024 p.30-31).

    So what we are left with is a proposed strategy that makes powerful claims to be grounded in the student interest – but which could have easily formed part of the last government’s response to the Augar review.

    Whose priorities?

    Through its consultation on its proposed strategy, OfS has presented the priorities of the previous government as if they are drawn straight from its engagement with students.

    We don’t yet know the higher education priorities of the current government, but given the proposed strategy was published under their watch it looks like we are moving in a depressingly familiar direction.

    It is worth reflecting on the profound injustice of this. Students are expected to pay back the cost of their higher education and now have the previous government’s priorities presented as their interest so that OfS can intervene in higher education.

    Yes, you have to pay – but the government and its friendly neighbourhood regulator are here to tell you why you want to pay! It seems that despite the excoriating criticism of the House of Lords Committee, OfS have not really learned how to engage with students or to reflect and reconcile their interests.

    Source link

  • Higher education postcard: Dartington | Wonkhe

    Higher education postcard: Dartington | Wonkhe

    Dartington Hall is a splendid old country house.

    Its great hall dates from 1388, and has a wonderful hammerbeam roof, an a porch where the arms of Richard II can still be seen. The trouble with keeping old buildings going – when you’re no longer a medieval feudal lord, and when wages have risen – is that upkeep is pretty tough. So it was fortunate that Dartington was bought, in 1925, by Leonard and Dorothy Elmhirst.

    The Elmhirsts were interesting. Leonard was from minor English gentry, poor but clearly clever (he completed his degree in agriculture from Cornell in two years). Dorothy inherited at 17 a fortune (about half a billion dollars in todays money). She met Leonard when he was seeking donations to support his club for international students at Cornell. Romance blossomed: they married in 1925.

    But before then, Leonard had accepted a job as secretary to Nobel-prize-winning polymath, poet and painter Rabindranath Tagore. This took him to India, where he supported Tagore’s work on rural reconstruction. This influenced him and Dorothy to attempt something similar in the UK, and in 1925 they purchased Dartington Hall. This became a home for all sorts of experimental work – on agriculture and rural economics and society, and also arts and creativity. About 1500 people worked on the estate; it gave concerts (the BBC broadcast the English Singers Quartet on 24 November 1934, and on Saturday 1 December 1934 a concert by Claud Biggs on the piano, accompanying contralto Astra Desmond); and the Western Morning News and Daily Gazette was entranced, on 28 May 1934, with Uday Shan Kar’s Hindu dancing.

    In 1935 a charitable trust was established to run the estate, and a a wide variety of activities continued. These included summer schools (such as the Fabian Society school which is pictured on the card), concerts, classes of all sorts. Post war, these activities became more significant: an adult education centre was established in 1955, and in 1961 Dartington College of the Arts was founded. Initially this focused on training teachers in the arts: music, dance and drama, and visual arts.

    In 1973 the college gained “assisted” status and received funding from Devon County Council to extend its offer to provide undergraduate degrees. Degrees were awarded by the Council for National Academic Awards (CNAA), the body which awarded degrees across the non-university higher education sector. This was prompted by a shift in government policy to require teacher education to be to degree-level (the first of many such shifts in professional education over the years).

    The changes in funding arrangements in the late 1980s – the removal of polytechnics and colleges from local authority control, and the creation of the Polytechnics and Colleges Funding Council – created financial challenges for Dartington, as it lost its special funding. These were addressed by closing some programmes and rationalising others. And again, in 2006, the college faced financial difficulties. Scale appears to have been the problem, exacerbated by the college not owning its buildings and therefore being unable easily to expand student numbers.

    This time the problems were insurmountable, and the college merged what was then Falmouth University College, and is now Falmouth University. The provision was moved away from the Dartington site.

    But that isn’t the end of the story for higher education at Dartington: Dartington Hall Trust is registered with the Office for Students and established a provider with two faculties: Dartington School of Arts and Schumacher College (each of which continued the work of former colleges associated with the Dartington site).

    Back to the postcard: we’ve encountered the Fabians before, in the establishment of the London School of Economics. They seem to have run summer schools at Dartington for several summers in the 1940s at least, but I haven’t been able to track down which one this card depicts. Can anyone recognise any of the earnest (Bevin or otherwise) socialists?

    And here’s the jigsaw for you to have a go at. Have fun!

    Source link

  • ‘Sobering news’: Sonoma State University makes broad cuts to tackle $24M deficit

    ‘Sobering news’: Sonoma State University makes broad cuts to tackle $24M deficit

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • Sonoma State University is moving to cut staff, faculty, programs, departments and its athletics programs as it faces a larger-than-expected deficit of nearly $24 million.
    • Interim President Emily Cutrer described the depth of the university’s budget hole as “sobering news.” To manage it, the university is cutting four management positions and 12 staff positions, and it will not renew contracts of 46 tenured and adjunct faculty members for the 2025-26 academic year. 
    • It also plans to axe about two dozen undergraduate and graduate programs. Additionally, it will eliminate its departments of art history, economics, geology, philosophy, theater and dance, and women and gender studies, while consolidating other programs and schools.

    Dive Insight:

    In announcing the cuts at Sonoma State, Cutrer outlined several forces behind the university’s growing budget gap. She cited, in part, inflation — in personnel costs, as well as supplies and utilities. Recent cost escalations led the university to the “unfortunate realization” that its yearslong deficit was even larger than expected, the president said. 

    But the public institution’s chief challenge is enrollment, Cutrer said, noting a 38% decline since its peak in 2015. (Fall headcount stood at just under 6,000 in 2023, per federal data.) Those decreases hit the university’s revenue in tuition and fees as well as in enrollment-based funding from the California State University system. 

    To cope, Sonoma over the past two years has offered buyouts, made “strategic” job cuts and frozen hiring, among other operational moves, Cutrer said. 

    “Unfortunately, the actions taken so far, difficult though they have been, are not enough,” she added. “Further steps must be taken to fully close the budget gap and ensure Sonoma State’s financial capacity to best serve its current and future students and adapt to a changing higher education landscape.” 

    Those steps entail broad-based cuts. On the chopping block is a wide range of programs, including bachelor’s programs in art, economics, physics, philosophy and many others. Some master’s programs are also slated to be cut, among them Spanish, English and public administration. 

    Meanwhile, other programs will be consolidated. For example, Sonoma’s departments of American multicultural studies, Chicano and Latino studies, and Native American studies are set to merge into an ethnic studies department with a single major under it. 

    Also making headlines is Sonoma’s decision to end its Division II NCAA athletics programs after the current academic year, which was made after a “thorough review of the university’s financial necessities and long-term sustainability,” the institution said. Sonoma plans to honor the scholarships of current student athletes and to support those who decide to transfer to another school, such as by helping them obtain their transcripts.

    Expected savings from the cuts include:

    • $8 million in reduced instructional costs. 
    • $3.8 million from reorganization.
    • $3.7 million from cutting athletics. 
    • $3.3 million from hiring freeze.  
    • $1.3 million from university-wide budget reductions.

    Cutrer said the round of cuts likely represent the “large majority” Sonoma will have to make this year, but she warned more could be necessary as it discusses shared services with Cal State.

    Sonoma is by no means the only public institution in California making cuts. The Cal State and University of California systems are both scrambling to manage potential reductions in state funding amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars after Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled his latest budget proposal for the 2025-26 fiscal year. 

    After the proposal’s release earlier this month, Cal State — facing a state funding reduction of $375 million — said that a “shortfall of this magnitude will negatively impact academic programming, student services, course offerings and the CSU workforce.”

    Source link

  • Law professor challenges university after campus ‘shooting’ hypothetical changed in lesson plan

    Law professor challenges university after campus ‘shooting’ hypothetical changed in lesson plan

    Those concerned that law schools are shying away from teaching some areas of law to avoid controversy just got more reasons to worry, this time courtesy of the University of Hawai’i at Manoa and its absurd treatment of law professor Kenneth Lawson.

    Lawson, an accomplished faculty member at UH, used a simple hypothetical to teach the idea of “transferred intent,” a legal concept invoked when a defendant intends to harm one person, but ends up harming a second person instead. As is common in law school, Lawson offered a hypothetical to convey this idea: Imagine if a dean at his institution tried to shoot another dean, missed, and hit Lawson instead.

    Here’s a screenshot from part of his lesson:

    Those who have been to law school will understand that using campus figures to illustrate hypotheticals is not at all unusual, and is intended to add a bit of levity and grounding to what can be pretty esoteric topics.

    But when an anonymous student filed a complaint, calling the hypothetical “extremely disturbing” and citing the context of some shootings near the university’s campus, administrators summoned Lawson to a meeting near the end of last semester. Though they acknowledged he had not violated any university policy, they nevertheless mandated that he remove the thought experiment from a posted video of the class — or they would change it for him. 

    The ability of administrators to forcibly alter course materials is positively ripe for abuse.

    Lawson hadn’t thought twice about including the example, and had been using the example for years, not simply because it wasn’t unusual but because the protections of academic freedom give faculty wide latitude in determining how to approach controversial or potentially difficult material. When Lawson refused to alter the video of his presentation, given that he had not violated any policy, and using the hypothetical was well within his academic freedom rights, administrators just went on the school’s online curriculum system, where faculty submit presentations, to make the changes themselves.

    Remember: these changes were being made because, supposedly, some found a hypothetical of campus figures being shot to be disturbing. So this is what the administration came up with.

    Slide with an image of law professor Ken Lawson alongside generic man/woman icons

    You will note that there is still a campus figure on that slide, and it’s the person who was (hypothetically) shot: Professor Lawson. Only the deans have been removed. It seems that at UH, some hypothetical victims are more equal than others.

    There’s no denying that this is silly, and many will be tempted to chalk it up as just more campus craziness. But there’s a disturbing wrinkle here, which is that the ability of administrators to forcibly alter course materials is positively ripe for abuse. The university’s administrators have granted themselves unilateral authority to interfere with faculty teaching decisions, despite the fact that UH is a public institution bound by the First Amendment, which views academic freedom, which protects that right, as a “special concern.” If administrators can “memory hole” bits and pieces of curricula they don’t like, even when it violates no rule, where does it stop?

    UH still has an opportunity to do the right thing. It’s easy, too — all it has to do is step back and let faculty teach, and save the video editing for film class.

    FIRE wrote the university on Dec. 13, urging it to reverse course and restore Lawson’s original hypothetical. The university responded in early January, declining to substantively engage with our concerns or detail specific issues with our argument. Lawson, and all UH students, deserve better. As our second letter states: 

    FIRE’s concerns are only amplified by the fact that this alleged capitulation to sensitivity is occurring in a law school. To receive a proper education in the law, students will inevitably encounter difficult topics like sexual assault, homicide, physical assault, domestic violence, and may be faced in school and in their careers with descriptions of personal injuries far more graphic than those in Lawson’s hypothetical. Where do UH administrators draw the line regarding their interference in faculty instruction if they feel free to operate under a nebulous standard of protecting students from “disturbing and harmful” material? 

    Lawson has submitted a grievance about the situation, so UH still has an opportunity to do the right thing. It’s easy, too — all it has to do is step back and let faculty teach, and save the video editing for film class.

    Source link

  • Personalized Communication Strategies That Drive Student Engagement in Higher Education

    Personalized Communication Strategies That Drive Student Engagement in Higher Education

    Key Takeaways:

    • Personalized, timely, and relevant communication is key to engaging prospective students and meeting enrollment goals in higher education.




    • Effective strategies rely on immediacy, relevance, automation, and trackability, ensuring impactful and consistent interactions.




    • Omnichannel outreach, using a mix of email, SMS, print, and digital platforms, enhances visibility and builds trust by meeting students where they are.




    • Data-driven tools enable tailored, personalized communication, real-time adjustments, and sustainable strategies.

     

    Connecting with prospective undergraduate students in meaningful ways requires a thoughtful blend of strategy, immediacy, and personalization. Gone are the days when generic messaging could effectively spark interest or drive engagement. Today’s prospective students expect communications that reflect an understanding of their individual needs, aspirations, and priorities and their value to your institution.

    Institutions aiming to enhance their enrollment strategies must adopt a more data-informed and strategic approach to communication. This means reaching out with the right message, at the right time, and through the right channels.

     

    Laying the Foundation for Communication Success

    Effective communication with students is built on four key principles: immediacy, relevance, automation, and trackability. Each element plays a critical role in ensuring that interactions resonate with students and influence their decision-making process.

    • Immediacy: Quick and timely responses that change as students’ behaviors change demonstrate attentiveness and can make a significant impression on prospective students. Delays in following up on inquiries or campus visits risk the loss of momentum and interest. Statistics show that the school that responds to inquiries first is more likely to convince that student to enroll.




    • Relevance: Tailored, personalized communication should go beyond basic name inclusion. Students expect messages that address their specific interests. Misaligned content, such as sending information unrelated to a student’s expressed major, can quickly undermine trust.




    • Automation: Streamlined, automated workflows keep communication consistent and dependable, even during staff transitions or times of high demand. Manual processes, such as college fair follow-ups that sit unprocessed for long periods, can derail engagement. Automation prevents these bottlenecks, enabling timely responses even when staff are unavailable.




    • Trackability: Monitoring communication effectiveness helps institutions refine their strategies and optimize ROI.

    By integrating these principles, higher education institutions can deliver a cohesive and impactful communication strategy that strengthens student engagement and builds trust.

     

    The Importance of Omnichannel Outreach

    While email has long been—and remains—a cornerstone of communication, relying on it exclusively is no longer sufficient. The sheer volume of emails students receive daily makes it easy for even the most well-crafted messages to be overlooked. To stand out, institutions must adopt an omnichannel approach with campaigns that combine email with print materials, SMS messaging, voice blasts, digital ads, social media engagement, and microsites, all tailored to student interests.

    Each channel serves a unique purpose for student engagement in higher education. Print materials, for example, are particularly effective at involving families in the decision-making process. A well-designed brochure placed on a kitchen table can spark conversations among family members, especially parents, who are often key influencers in the college selection process.

    Similarly, integrating consistent, tailored messaging across multiple channels ensures that students receive a seamless experience. Whether they encounter an institution on social media, via a targeted ad, by SMS message, or through an email campaign, the message should feel cohesive and tailored to their interests. Omnichannel strategies, timed appropriately through the enrollment timeline, not only improve visibility but also demonstrate an institution’s commitment to meeting students where they are, thus building trust and rapport.

     

    Leveraging Data for Personalization

    Modern communication strategies must be rooted in data. By analyzing student preferences and behaviors, institutions can craft messages that resonate on an individual level. With data-informed insights, institutions can identify what matters most to prospective students—whether that’s career outcomes, financial aid, or specific academic opportunities—and address those priorities directly.

    For example, students interested in STEM programs may be more receptive to communications highlighting research opportunities and faculty expertise, while first-generation students may appreciate messages emphasizing affordability and support services.

    To further maximize impact, institutions can use surveys and initial engagement data to tailor their outreach strategies, which allows them to deploy resources efficiently while maintaining relevance. For example, expensive print materials can be reserved for students who show strong interest in particular programs, while a social media campaign may be more appropriate for inquiries earlier in the enrollment cycle.

    Real-time data tracking lets institutions segment their strategies dynamically. If a particular campaign underperforms across the board or for certain cohorts of students, modifications can be made immediately to better align with student preferences. This agility is essential for maintaining relevance and impact throughout the recruitment cycle.

     

    Building a Sustainable Communication Infrastructure

    Sustainable communication strategies rely on the integration of advanced tools and technologies. While a customer relationship management (CRM) system lays a strong foundation, institutions often need more specialized solutions to elevate their outreach efforts. Liaison offers a suite of products designed to enhance and streamline communication and enrollment strategies, including:

    • Enrollment Marketing (EM): Liaison’s EM software and marketing services help institutions manage and analyze personalized, automated omnichannel campaigns, ensuring consistent and effective messaging across multiple channels.




    • Othot: This AI-driven tool leverages predictive and prescriptive analytics to optimize communication strategies and enrollment decisions, tailoring outreach to align with student behavior and institutional goals.




    • Centralized Application Service (CAS): By simplifying the admissions process for students and providing institutions with tools for marketing, data management, and application processing, CAS supports efficient communication with applicants.

    By incorporating these technologies, along with Liaison’s CRMs, institutions can maintain a seamless and unified communication flow so that prospective students receive timely, relevant, and personalized messages. These solutions also allow institutions to monitor campaign performance and adjust strategies in real-time, maximizing the effectiveness of resources and making messaging more impactful for target audiences. This integration reduces reliance on fragmented workflows, preventing gaps or delays caused by disconnected platforms.

    Aligning tools and strategies across departments using Liaison’s technologies keeps messaging consistent and impactful, even as prospective students engage with multiple touchpoints throughout their journey.

     

    Achieving Long-Term Engagement

    Effective communication with students is about building relationships that extend beyond the initial stages of recruitment. Institutions that invest in understanding and addressing the unique needs of their prospective students position themselves as partners in their academic journey.

    By delivering personalized, timely, and relevant messages through multiple channels, institutions can foster deeper connections and enhance student engagement in higher education. As the competitive landscape of enrollment continues to shift, adopting a strategic and data-informed approach to communication will remain essential for success.

    Ready to elevate your communication strategies? Discover how Liaison’s advanced tools and technologies can transform how you connect with prospective students. From personalized, omnichannel campaigns to data-driven insights, our solutions help you engage students meaningfully and meet your enrollment goals. Contact us today to learn more.

    About the Author

    Craig Cornell is the Vice President for Enrollment Strategy at Liaison. In that capacity, he oversees a team of enrollment strategists and brings best practices, consultation, and data trends to campuses across the country in all things enrollment management. Craig also serves as the dedicated resource to NASH (National Association of Higher Education Systems) and works closely with the higher education system that Liaison supports. Before joining Liaison in 2023, Craig served for over 30 years in multiple higher education executive enrollment management positions. During his tenure, the campuses he served often received national recognition for enrollment growth, effective financial aid leveraging, marketing enhancements, and innovative enrollment strategies.

    Source link