Category: Blog

  • Next-Gen Student Recruitment Strategies for Schools

    Next-Gen Student Recruitment Strategies for Schools

    Reading Time: 17 minutes

    The next wave of prospective students is already taking shape: Generation Alpha, born between 2010 and 2024. They’re poised to become the most digitally fluent, diverse, and tech-immersed generation in history, raised on smartphones, voice assistants, and AI from day one. By 2028, the first Gen Alpha freshmen will be setting foot on college campuses, bringing entirely new expectations for how learning happens and how schools communicate their value.

    Here’s the thing: education marketers can’t afford to wait. Gen Alpha’s habits and motivations differ sharply from Millennials or even Gen Z. In this article, we’ll unpack who Gen Alpha is, what drives their choices, and why institutions must start adapting their recruitment strategies now.

    Drawing on Higher Education Marketing (HEM)’s latest research and webinar insights, we’ll introduce our recommended “PAC” framework, Platform, Algorithm, Culture, a model designed to help schools reach Gen Alpha effectively. We’ll also explore strategies like dual-audience messaging (targeting both students and their Millennial parents), along with content tactics centered on authenticity, user-generated content (UGC), answer-first communication, and AI-ready web experiences.

    These ideas will be grounded in real-world examples, from universities using Roblox campus tours to schools experimenting with Snapchat AR lenses, and illustrated through HEM client success stories across K–12, language, and higher education sectors.

    By the end, you’ll have a clear roadmap to engage both Gen Alpha and their parents through an integrated approach that connects CRM lead nurturing, SEO, social media, and multilingual content into a cohesive next-gen recruitment strategy.

    Let’s dig into what makes Generation Alpha unique and how your institution can get ready now.

    Who Is Generation Alpha?

    Generation Alpha refers to children born between 2010 and 2024. They are the first cohort raised entirely in the 21st century, often called the first true digital natives.

    From iPads in the crib to AI assistants in the living room, Gen Alpha has never known life without touchscreens or high-speed internet. Many learned to navigate apps and streaming platforms before they could read, making technology an effortless part of everyday life.

    Early experiences with remote and hybrid learning have also shaped them. Even in primary school, they joined online video classes, used learning apps, and explored online games, giving them a comfort with digital learning that feels natural.

    Raised largely by Millennial parents, Gen Alpha is globally minded and culturally diverse. They are aware of issues like climate change and social justice, value inclusivity, and seek purpose in education.

    Their aspirations are high, and so are their expectations. They and their parents will assess the return on investment of higher education carefully. College decisions will be shared within the family, meaning recruitment messages must appeal to both the student and the parent.

    Gen Alpha’s Behavior, Media Use, and Decision Drivers

    To connect with Generation Alpha, institutions need to meet them on their terms. Let’s look at how they interact with media, information, and the factors shaping their decisions.

    1. Authenticity Over Polish

    Gen Alpha can spot inauthenticity a mile away. Surrounded by social media from birth, they value honesty over gloss. Highly produced marketing materials feel distant to them; real voices earn trust. Peer content matters more than official content, and a student’s testimonial filmed on a phone will often outperform a polished promo video. Schools that feature current students or young alumni as micro-influencers tend to resonate most. A student-led TikTok dorm tour, for instance, can do more to inspire confidence than a scripted campus video.

    1. Short-Form Video and Shared Screens


    Raised on YouTube and TikTok, Gen Alpha consumes information in quick bursts. They use short-form videos to learn, discover, and be entertained. Yet, they also share viewing time with family, watching longer videos together on smart TVs. This dual habit creates an opportunity for schools to publish family-friendly content on YouTube while using TikTok or Instagram Reels for short, high-impact storytelling.

    1. Social Means Conversational and Interactive

    Gen Alpha doesn’t just scroll; they participate. They use Snapchat for authentic chats and AR filters for creative expression. Gaming worlds such as Roblox and Minecraft double as social spaces where they collaborate and build together. This generation expects to engage, not just observe. Recruitment content should invite participation through polls, challenges, or interactive Q&As rather than simply broadcasting messages.

    1. Digital-Native, but Still Campus-Curious
      Although they are digital natives, Gen Alpha still craves real-world experiences. Campus visits remain important, but they expect them to be hands-on and immersive. They want to test a lab, attend a mini class, or pilot a drone. For them, visiting campus feels like trying on an experience to see if it fits. Schools should design events that blend physical and virtual engagement to appeal to this tactile curiosity.
    2. Instant Answers and Micro-Decisions
       This generation grew up with instant search and voice assistants. They want quick, direct answers, not lengthy explanations. They prefer content structured as questions and answers, such as “What scholarships does this college offer?” followed by a concise response. This approach supports both their research style and the shift toward AI-driven search engines that prioritize clear, digestible information.
    3. Values-Driven and Proof-Oriented
       Gen Alpha deeply cares about social impact. Issues such as sustainability, inclusion, and mental health influence their decisions. However, they don’t take claims at face value. They expect evidence through authentic stories, real programs, and visible results. Institutions that demonstrate genuine action, rather than marketing slogans, will earn their trust.

    Bottom line: Gen Alpha lives online but thinks critically. They move fast, multitask across screens, consult their parents, and expect authenticity at every turn. To earn their attention and trust, institutions must create marketing that is honest, interactive, and evidence-based.

    Why Institutions Must Start Preparing Now

    Why should institutions start preparing now? It might seem like there’s still time before Generation Alpha reaches college. The oldest are only about 15 or 16 today, but the time to prepare is now.

    The Oldest Are Already in High School

    Those born in 2010 are entering the college research phase alongside their Millennial parents. By 2028, they’ll be enrolling in universities. For K–12 private schools, Gen Alpha isn’t the future; they’re your current students. Enrollment strategies, open houses, and outreach events already need to align with their digital-first expectations.

    Strategy Shifts Take Time

    Building authentic social channels, redesigning content ecosystems, and integrating CRM workflows can’t happen overnight. Starting now means time to test and refine. Schools experimenting with TikTok, YouTube Shorts, or AI-powered content today will lead the field when Gen Alpha applications surge.

    Gen Z Is the Bridge

    Current college students have already pushed institutions to modernize through video storytelling and social media. Those adaptations laid the groundwork. Now, Gen Alpha’s shorter attention spans and AI fluency require schools to go further. If you’ve successfully reached Gen Z, you’re ahead. If not, there’s catching up to do.

    Early Adopters Will Stand Out

    Institutions that embrace next-gen tactics, from interactive chat tools to UGC-driven campaigns and dynamic FAQ hubs, will gain a visible edge. These schools appear more innovative and student-centered to both teens and parents.

    Parent Expectations Are Rising Too

    Millennial parents expect quick, personalized communication. Text alerts, Instagram Live Q&As, and ROI-focused content all resonate. Preparing now allows you to fine-tune messaging for both audiences: students and parents.

    In short, every admissions cycle will include more Gen Alpha students. The strategies that worked for Millennials and Gen Z must evolve now, and Higher Education Marketing (HEM) is ready to help institutions future-proof recruitment.

    HEM’s Next-Gen Recruitment Strategies: The PAC Framework and Beyond

    At Higher Education Marketing (HEM), our research into Generation Alpha’s habits has led to the development of the PAC Framework, short for Platform, Algorithm, Culture. This model helps institutions design content and campaigns that genuinely connect with Gen Alpha and get noticed in today’s media environment. Around PAC, we integrate complementary tactics such as dual-audience messaging, authenticity systems, answer-first content, immersive campus experiences, and AI search optimization.

    1. Platform: Go Where Gen Alpha Is

    It sounds simple, yet many institutions still miss this step. “Platform” means existing where Gen Alpha spends their time, on platforms like TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, or even Roblox. Don’t just create accounts; learn how each ecosystem works. What’s trending? What humor or language feels native? Explore these platforms like a student would. Then decide how your institution should engage, through creator collaborations, banner placements, or sponsored events. The key is to meet students where they are, not where you’re comfortable.

    Example: Florida International University (USA): FIU has adopted TikTok to connect with Gen Alpha, where they spend their time. FIU’s social team went viral by leveraging a trending audio challenge on TikTok aimed at students hoping to excel on their midterms. The result was a TikTok that garnered over 10 million views and 1.46 million engagements, demonstrating how being present on Gen Alpha’s favorite platforms can massively boost reach.

    HEM Image 2

    Source: TikTok

    2. Algorithm: Design for Distribution

    Algorithms decide who sees your content. Success depends on understanding how each platform’s system rewards engagement. On TikTok, videos with high watch time and early comments rise quickly. On Google, structured Q&A pages and strong metadata perform best. Research shows attention spans among younger audiences now average two to three seconds. Lead with a hook, such as a bold question, emotion, or relatable visual. Keep captions tight and content shareable. Treat the algorithm like a person you need to impress fast.

    Example: Colorado State University (USA): CSU has strategically designed content to please each platform’s algorithm and grab attention within seconds. Seeing the rise of TikTok’s algorithm-driven “For You” feed, CSU shifted heavily to short-form vertical video and front-loaded content with hooks. The social team launched an official TikTok in 2022 with a “non-manicured” approach: four student creators post 4–5 raw, authentic videos per week. This consistency and emphasis on trending audios and quick, relatable hooks led to about 130,000 video views and 12,000 engagements per month on CSU’s TikTok. By tailoring content format (e.g., snappy cuts, engaging captions) to each platform’s algorithmic preferences, CSU ensures its posts get maximum distribution in Gen Alpha’s feeds.

    HEM Image 3HEM Image 3

    Source: Colorado State University

    3. Culture: Co-Create and Stay Current

    Culture is where authentic connection happens. Gen Alpha responds to real voices, humor, and values. Collaborate with students to produce takeovers, TikToks, or short vlogs. Reflect diversity and align with current conversations. Join cultural moments carefully, whether that’s referencing a popular meme or spotlighting sustainability initiatives. Imperfection, such as a slightly unpolished student video, signals truth and authenticity.

    As HEM puts it, algorithms get you seen, but culture gets you remembered. Using PAC as a creative checklist ensures your marketing is visible, relevant, and real.

    2. Craft Dual-Audience Messaging (Students + Parents)

    Because Generation Alpha’s education decisions will be co-driven by their Millennial parents, Gen Alpha student recruitment messaging must speak to both audiences at once. HEM’s approach, dual-audience messaging, ensures every touchpoint, from websites to ads, connects with both teens and parents in harmony.

    For Students

    Gen Alpha students care about community, creativity, and experience. They’re asking, “Will I fit in? Will this be exciting?” Highlight student life, clubs, and hands-on learning opportunities through visuals and peer perspectives. Use quotes or short video clips from current students discussing campus life or real projects. Peer voice matters more than institutional formality; a student testimonial will always carry more weight than a dean’s welcome.

    For Parents

    Millennial parents want reassurance. Their questions are about safety, credibility, and ROI. Showcase graduation rates, career outcomes, accreditation, and alumni success stories. Include details on support services, mental health resources, and campus security. Demonstrating both value and care builds confidence.

    How to Integrate Both

    Every major recruitment asset should serve both audiences. You can segment sections (“For Students” vs. “For Parents”) or blend them seamlessly. For instance, a video might open with student testimonials, transition into outcomes and parental perspectives, and end with a message that resonates with both.

    Action Step: Audit your current materials for balance. Ensure students feel inspired and parents feel assured.

    Example: Queen Anne’s School (UK): This independent girls’ school in England structures every recruitment touchpoint to speak to both Gen Alpha students and their millennial parents in tandem. For example, Queen Anne’s hosts Open Mornings that explicitly cater to “you and your daughter.” During these events, girls sample classes and campus life (answering the student’s “Will I have fun and fit in?”), while parents tour facilities and hear the Head’s vision for the school (addressing the parents’ concerns about values and outcomes). The school offers a wide range of visit options – from personal family tours to student “taster days” where 11–13 year olds spend a day on campus – ensuring both audiences are engaged.

    HEM Image 4HEM Image 4

    Source: Queen Anne’s School

    3. Establish an “Authenticity System” (UGC and Influencers)

    For Generation Alpha, authenticity is the ultimate trust signal. To deliver it consistently, HEM recommends building an Authenticity System, a structured process that continuously produces genuine, student-driven content.

    User-Generated Content (UGC) Cadence

    Plan for a steady flow of unpolished, real moments. Repost student photos or short TikToks weekly to show campus life through their eyes. Campaigns like #MyCampusMondays, where students share everyday snapshots, keep your content authentic and current. The goal is to make sure that whenever a Gen Alpha prospect visits your social channels, they see real students, not PR gloss.

    Student Ambassadors and Creators

    Empower students to take part in marketing. Invite ambassadors or micro-influencers to run Instagram takeovers, film vlogs, or stream events. These voices carry credibility because they feel peer-to-peer, not top-down. As HEM research shows, student creators can dramatically increase engagement by making your institution feel accessible and alive.

    Authentic Voice and Visuals

    Encourage content that sounds natural and looks real. A video filmed on a phone, with casual language or inside jokes, often performs better than a polished shoot. Include candid photos or unscripted clips, authenticity over perfection every time.

    Integrate Authentic Content Across Channels

    Don’t let UGC live in isolation. Embed student testimonials, quote cards, or video clips directly on program or FAQ pages. Pairing factual info with real student stories creates a persuasive one-two punch.

    In short, authenticity shouldn’t happen by accident, it should already be built into your system.

    Example: Colorado State University (USA): CSU has built a systematic pipeline for authentic, student-driven content. After officially launching its TikTok, CSU deliberately adopted a “raw” content style – no slick ads, just students with smartphones. It set up a core group of student content creators who post unfiltered clips multiple times a week, giving a continuous stream of real campus moments. In addition, CSU regularly reposts user-generated content from students: from dorm room mini-blogs to everyday campus snapshots. Every week, prospective Gen Alpha students checking CSU’s socials will see new posts by their peers, not just the PR team. By baking student UGC into the content calendar, CSU continuously projects an honest, peer-to-peer voice that Gen Alpha trusts.

    HEM Image 5HEM Image 5

    Source: Colorado State University

    4. Embrace Answer-First Content and AI Search Readiness

    Generation Alpha searches differently. They ask full questions and expect immediate, concise answers. To connect with them and perform well in AI-driven search, schools need an answer-first content strategy.

    Build Q&A Hubs

    Create web pages organized by questions and answers, not long paragraphs. For example:

    • What hands-on experiences will I get in the Nursing program?
    • What are the career outcomes for graduates?
      This structure helps both humans and AI bots find what they need quickly. HEM calls these “answer-first hubs,” expanded FAQ-style pages covering dozens of micro-questions. Use data from inquiries and chats to identify what prospects ask most often.

    Add Video and Micro-Content

    Gen Alpha prefers short, visual responses. Embed 30–60 second video answers from students or staff directly on your pages. A student selfie explaining “What’s the first-year experience like?” feels more authentic than text alone. For parents, include short clips addressing safety or support topics. Repurpose each Q&A across platforms like YouTube Shorts or Reddit for added reach.

    Implement Structured Data

    Make content machine-readable. Adding FAQ schema markup tells Google and AI assistants what each Q&A covers, improving visibility in featured snippets and AI chat results. HEM research shows this can increase AI-driven visibility by up to 30%.

    Write for Voice and Natural Language

    Use conversational phrasing such as “How do I apply for financial aid?” instead of standard titles. Ensure each answer short but complete, ideal for AI summaries or voice assistants. Schools already applying this approach have seen measurable boosts in organic traffic and “People Also Ask” placements.

    Bottom line: think like an answer engine. Gen Alpha asks questions, so make sure your content answers first.

    Example: Cumberland University (USA): Cumberland makes information instantly accessible by structuring its admissions content around questions and direct answers. Its website features a comprehensive Admission FAQs hub that compiles “our most frequently asked questions to help you find the answers you need quickly”. Prospective students and parents can click categories like Undergraduate, Graduate, International, etc., and find dozens of bite-sized Q&As (e.g., “What are the application requirements?”, “Is there housing for freshmen?”). Each answer is concise and written in plain language – perfect for Gen Alpha’s tendency to ask full questions in Google or AI assistants. By adopting this answer-first approach (instead of burying info in long paragraphs), Cumberland not only improves user experience but also boosts its visibility on search engines. Many of its FAQ entries use structured data markup, so they often appear as featured snippets or “People Also Ask” results on Google.

    HEM Image 6HEM Image 6

    Source: Cumberland University

    5. Treat Your Campus as a Product: Demos and Immersive Experiences

    For Generation Alpha, choosing a school feels like choosing a lifestyle brand. They want to experience it before committing. That’s why HEM recommends marketing your campus like a product demo, through in-person and virtual experiences that let students and parents “test-drive” what you offer.

    Creator-Hosted Events

    Make campus events hybrid and interactive. Invite student creators to livestream open houses or campus days on TikTok, YouTube, or Instagram Live. A student host with a GoPro or phone camera gives the experience authenticity and energy. Let online viewers ask questions in real time while seeing dorms, labs, or the dining hall rush. It’s immersive, engaging, and feels like hanging out with a trusted peer.

    Hands-On Campus Trials

    When prospects visit in person, let them participate. Replace passive tours with interactive demos, mini labs, culinary workshops, or creative challenges. Some schools have gamified tours, turning them into scavenger hunts or student-led challenges. Participation builds emotional connection and makes visits memorable.

    Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Worlds

    Add AR filters or lenses during events to blend play with information. Imagine scanning a building to reveal fun facts or seeing your mascot in AR. Schools like Kent State University have used Snapchat AR lenses to boost engagement while lowering recruitment costs.

    Take it further by creating virtual campuses in platforms like Roblox or Minecraft. Students can explore, play, and imagine life at your school long before applying.

    Use Existing Tools

    360° tours and virtual events on platforms like YouVisit or CampusTours make immersion easy.

    The goal is to let Gen Alpha see themselves on campus. When they can explore, touch, and interact, even virtually, they’re far more likely to enroll.

    Examples: Kent State turned its campus into an interactive product demo via augmented reality on Snapchat. In a pioneering campaign (the first of its kind in higher ed), Kent State built a custom AR lens that let prospective students virtually “try on” a piece of the college experience – in this case, placing a Kent State graduation cap on their heads, tassel and all. Users could move and see the tassel shake, and with one tap, were prompted to “apply to the university” right from Snapchat. This immersive lens was deployed to Snapchatters aged 16–18 in Kent State’s key recruiting regions. The results were astounding: engagement soared, and the AR campaign achieved a cost-per-application 24% lower than the university’s goal.

    HEM Image 7HEM Image 7

    Source: Snapchat

    University of Sussex (UK): At Sussex, students themselves have helped create a virtual campus that anyone can explore – effectively offering a perpetual, gamified open house. In 2024, a Sussex Computer Science student led a project to recreate the entire university campus in Minecraft, block by block. Using satellite data, the team imported ~1.4 km² of campus into the game (over 19 million blocks), achieving a 1:1 scale replica of Sussex’s buildings and grounds. Now, a group of 20+ students (and even alumni) is collaboratively adding interiors and details to bring it fully to life.

    HEM Image 8HEM Image 8

    Source: University of Sussex

    6. Integrate CRM, SEO, Social Campaigns, and Multilingual Content

    Creating next-gen content for Generation Alpha is only half the battle. To convert attention into enrollment, schools need to align these tactics with the systems that power modern digital marketing. Here’s how HEM integrates CRM, SEO, social media, and multilingual strategy into a single recruitment engine.

    CRM for Lead Nurturing

    A robust education CRM is essential for tracking Gen Alpha inquiries and engaging them across multiple touchpoints—social DMs, event sign-ups, web forms, and more. Automated workflows can send personalized follow-ups instantly, such as a welcome video from a student ambassador or a link to a virtual Q&A. HEM often implements Mautic or HubSpot to manage this process. The result: faster responses, stronger engagement, and less manual work. Segment Gen Alpha students and their parents into complementary streams—student-life content for one, academic and ROI-focused messaging for the other.

    Example: Michael Vincent Academy: Michael Vincent Academy, a private career school in Los Angeles, partnered with HEM to deploy a customized Mautic CRM for student recruitment. “It’s essential that we work smarter, not harder. The HEM Mautic CRM helps us do that,” said Tally B. Hajek, the academy’s CEO. HEM’s CRM solution automated key marketing workflows (such as follow-ups with prospective students) and provided reports to track lead progress and team activities. The system also included a lead-scoring mechanism to identify and prioritize high-value leads, ensuring staff focus on serious, good-fit applicants. As a result, core recruitment processes became automated, allowing the admissions team to spend more time building personal connections with prospects.

    HEM Image 9HEM Image 9

    Source: Higher Education Marketing

    SEO and Content Clusters

    All that great content needs visibility. Use SEO to make it discoverable through optimized site structure, keyword strategy, and internal linking. Develop content clusters, interconnected pages and blogs built around key topics, to boost authority. HEM’s SEO overhauls have helped clients like Cumberland College achieve double-digit growth in organic traffic. Technical SEO, schema markup, and fast mobile performance are nonnegotiable for Gen Alpha’s on-demand expectations.

    Social Media Campaigns

    Meet Gen Alpha where they live: TikTok, YouTube, Snapchat, and Instagram. Blend organic storytelling with paid targeting. Use TikTok Spark Ads or Snapchat placements to amplify authentic student content that already performs well. Combine this with parent-focused Facebook and Google campaigns for a full-funnel strategy. HEM’s campaign for Queen Anne’s School used this dual approach, improving conversion rates from inquiry to enrollment.

    Multilingual and International Reach

    Gen Alpha is global. Translate or localize key pages and ads to reach families in multiple languages. Include subtitles, translated summaries, and multilingual SEO to capture diverse search traffic. HEM’s work with Wilfrid Laurier University demonstrated that localized messaging in Portuguese and Spanish drove stronger ROI in international markets.

    Integrating these elements (CRM, SEO, social, and multilingual content) creates a seamless ecosystem that attracts, nurtures, and converts Gen Alpha prospects efficiently. It’s how institutions move from generating attention to generating results.

    Actionable Takeaways for Reaching Gen Alpha

    Generation Alpha may still be young, but the time to reach them is now. To connect authentically, schools must meet them where they are and communicate in ways that feel human, immediate, and real.

    Be present on the platforms they love, such as YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, and even gaming spaces, featuring student creators who speak their language. Empower current students and recent graduates to share their stories, building trust through authenticity. 

    Balance messaging for both students and parents, addressing excitement and reassurance in equal measure. Adopt an answer-first content model using structured FAQs and schema to increase visibility in AI and voice search. Treat campus tours like product demos, creating interactive, hands-on, or virtual experiences that bring your institution to life. 

    Finally, measure what matters by tracking engagement, conversions, and insights from data to refine continuously. Above all, stay authentic and adaptable. The institutions that start now will lead the next generation of recruitment success.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Question: Who is Generation Alpha?

    Answer: Generation Alpha refers to children born between 2010 and 2024. They are the first cohort raised entirely in the 21st century, often called the first true digital natives.

    Question: Why should institutions start preparing now?

    Answer: Institutions must start preparing now because Generation Alpha is already entering the college decision phase, and adapting strategies early allows schools to refine digital, authentic, and parent-inclusive recruitment approaches before their enrollment surge.



    Source link

  • Pricing strategy: the missing lever in university sustainability

    Pricing strategy: the missing lever in university sustainability

    This blog was kindly authored by Vincenzo Raimo, an international higher education consultant, with analysis from CIL Management Consultants.

    UK universities face an increasingly constrained financial landscape. Across all four nations, domestic undergraduate tuition fees are regulated and have failed to keep pace with rising costs. In England, the cap is currently £9,535 and, following the UK Government’s recent announcement, will rise annually in line with inflation from 2026, with eligibility linked to standards. This modest change does little to reverse years of real-terms decline, leaving much of the UK’s undergraduate teaching provision structurally loss-making. In Wales, fees remain capped at £9,535; in Northern Ireland they are £4,855; and for Scottish-domiciled students studying in Scotland, there are no tuition fees at all.

    In this environment, attention naturally turns to those parts of university income that are unregulated, most notably fees for international students and postgraduate programmes. Master’s fees for home students are unregulated in all four nations, and universities are free to set their own international tuition rates.

    Much of the public debate has focused on the fee levels charged by some higher-ranked universities and the narrative that international students subsidise domestic education and research. While this is certainly true for many institutions, it is far from universal.

    Once scholarships, discounts, agent commissions and other costs of acquisition are deducted, the margins on international student recruitment can be modest, and sometimes non-existent. For a growing number of institutions, particularly those struggling to fill domestic places, international recruitment at low net revenue levels has become a way of keeping the lights on. Better, in some cases, to have some income to cover fixed costs than none at all.

    But this is not a sustainable strategy. If international recruitment is to continue underpinning the financial viability of UK universities, much greater attention needs to be paid to pricing strategy.

    The price–profit relationship

    CIL Management Consultants recently analysed how UK universities can use pricing more strategically to support growth and profitability. Their work highlights just how powerful pricing can be as a financial lever compared with more commonly pursued strategies such as chasing volume or cutting costs.

    Their analysis included an illustrative calculation based on a scenario where a university charges tuition fees of £25,000 per international student, enrols 50 students on the course, and incurs a cost of acquisition of £4,000 per student (including scholarships, discounts and agent commissions).

    Under this model, a 5% increase in tuition fees would generate around a 6% uplift in profit, outpacing the gains from a 5% rise in enrolments (around 5%) or a 5% reduction in acquisition costs (around 1%). In other words, price is the strongest profit lever available to universities.

    Despite this, most institutions have historically set their international and postgraduate fees through incremental adjustments or by reference to competitors’ published fees, often without examining what those institutions actually charge in practice, and with little systematic consideration of how those fees influence volume, cost, and overall margin.

    Understanding the margin challenge

    CIL’s work also reinforces what many sector leaders already know: margins are being squeezed from all directions.

    • Capped domestic fees leave undergraduate teaching structurally loss-making for many institutions.
    • Rising operational costs, particularly staff, energy, and estates, continue to erode surpluses.
    • High fixed cost bases limit flexibility, with cuts risking reductions in quality or capacity.

    In this context, the international market has become the pressure valve. But unless pricing is managed strategically, even international markets will fail to deliver the surpluses universities depend upon.

    Three levers for strategic pricing

    CIL identify three main levers universities can use to improve pricing power and strengthen their financial position:

    1. Premium to domestic tuition fees: establishing deliberate price differentials that reflect a university’s strategic positioning, course value, and market dynamics. Currently, most universities operate with only a few broad fee bands, typically with humanities and much of the social sciences in the lowest band, lab-based subjects higher, and business or MBA programmes at the top.

      A true pricing strategy would be far more nuanced. It would use evidence on student demand, graduate outcomes, and perceived market value to differentiate pricing across and within disciplines, rather than relying on legacy bands. Some programmes could justifiably command greater premiums; others might need lower pricing to maintain competitiveness or support diversity.

    2. Cost of acquisition: developing clear internal pricing rules to manage scholarships, discounts, and agent commissions. For many institutions, these often-hidden costs now absorb a significant share of international tuition income. Transparent frameworks for managing these levers are essential to protect margins.
    3. Responsive pricing: using dynamic adjustments during the application and enrolment cycle to optimise both numbers and yield. This approach, widely used in other sectors, allows universities to flex pricing and incentives in response to market performance, course capacity, and demand signals.

    When applied together, these levers can transform a reactive pricing approach into a proactive, strategic tool for sustainability.

    From volume to value

    The sector’s dominant mindset has too often been volume-driven: more international students, more income. Yet volume without margin is a dangerous illusion of success. CIL’s analysis reminds us that an overreliance on high-volume, low-margin recruitment can rapidly undermine financial resilience, particularly when acquisition costs are rising.

    Strategic pricing, by contrast, focuses on value, identifying where universities can sustain premiums, where scholarships genuinely drive conversion, and where cost reductions can be achieved without compromising quality or reputation.

    This is not simply a commercial exercise. It’s about ensuring that the financial model underpinning UK higher education remains viable enough to support teaching, research, and public value in the long term.

    Making pricing strategic

    For universities, developing a coherent pricing strategy means integrating finance, recruitment, marketing, and academic planning functions around shared objectives. It also means looking across all offerings to ensure fee levels reflect the real value, demand, and cost to deliver each programme.

    Above all, it requires cultural change. Pricing cannot be left to annual cycles of incremental uplifts or reactive discounts. It needs to become a core component of institutional strategy linked to brand, market position, and mission.

    Pricing for purpose and sustainability

    Price should not be treated as a purely commercial consideration or an uncomfortable topic best left to finance teams. It is a strategic tool that, when used intelligently, can help universities balance their academic mission with financial sustainability.

    A well-designed pricing strategy can sustain access by ensuring that scholarships and discounts are targeted where they make the greatest difference; it can maintain quality by protecting the resources needed to deliver excellent teaching and research; and it can enable innovation by generating the headroom for new programmes, partnerships and investment.

    Reframing price as part of a university’s purpose, rather than as an administrative exercise or a market reaction, allows institutions to align financial decisions with their educational and societal goals. It invites governing bodies and senior leaders to ask not just what can the market bear, but what price best reflects the value we deliver, the students we want to attract, and the impact we want to have?

    If the UK sector is to thrive amid constrained funding and rising costs, it must learn to price with both principle and precision. Getting price right is not about maximising income; it is about ensuring that universities remain able to deliver their mission sustainably for the long term.

    Source link

  • New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    Let me start with a vignette. Back in 2017, we published a brilliant award-winning report on TRAC written by a young intern. This looked specifically at cross-subsidies in universities from Teaching (international students) to Research.

    Back then, there was no clear cross subsidy towards home students, as they (more than) paid for themselves due to £9,000 fees. But the subsidy from international students towards research was large, as it remains today.

    We held a launch event at the LSE for the paper. This remains seared on my mind for, instead of being impartial, the eminent professor in the Chair attacked our young intern for having the temerity to publicise the split in resources for teaching and research.

    His (widely shared) view was that, at an institution like the LSE, research informs teaching and teaching informs research, so policy makers should not look too closely under the bonnet but instead let universities spend their resources as they see fit.

    The interesting part of this story is that the person who asked us to write the report was the LSE’s own Director of Research. He was frustrated that his colleagues seemed not to understand the financial flows in their own institution.

    A second reason why we should shine a spotlight on how universities work is that teaching and research are now split down the middle when it comes to political oversight:

    • we have one Minister for teaching and another for research;
    • we have one Whitehall Department for teaching and another for research; and
    • we have one regulator / funder for teaching and another for research.

    We might prefer it if it were not so, but it is naïve to think substantial cross-subsidies within institutions fit as naturally with these arrangements as they did with the arrangements in place back at the turn of the millennium, when TRAC was first mooted.

    In our 2017 report, we showed that, according to TRAC, only 73% of research costs were recovered. On revisiting the issue in another report three years later, we found cost recovery had fallen to 69%. Today, as the KCL report shows, the number is just 66%.

    In other words, during a decade when politicians have exalted the power of R&D to transform Britain, the level of cost recovery has been falling at almost 1 percentage point a year.

    However, what has changed over time is that this is now fairly well understood. For example, TRAC data were heavily used to show the sector’s challenges in both the Universities UK Blueprint and the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper.

    Let me focus on that white paper for a second. It is a slightly odd document, where you can see the joins between the three Secretaries of State (for Education, Work and Pensions and Science, Innovation and Technology) who share responsibility for it.

    In particular, the white paper recommits to improving cost recovery for research while simultaneously looking for new ways to crack down on the international students who currently provide big cross-subsidise for research.

    The end result, as the white paper itself admits, is likely to be less research:

    We will work with the sector and other funders to address the cost recovery of research. … We recognise that this may result in funding a lower volume of research but at a more sustainable level.

    While some research-intensive institutions may celebrate this concentration, it does not feel like we have talked enough about the consequences in terms of what it could mean:

    • for research capacity in each region;
    • for the pipeline of new researchers; and
    • for the likelihood of missing out on new discoveries that may otherwise happen.

    In other words, what we have in the white paper is the perhaps inevitable result of giving the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, Lord Vallance, the additional role of champion for the ‘Oxford-Cambridge corridor’.

    So far, I have assumed the TRAC numbers are accurate, yet we all know they are rough – or worse. A 10-year old piece on TRAC in Times Higher Education quotes one university finance director as saying: ‘if you put garbage [data] in, you will get garbage out.’

    In preparation for this session, I spoke to one academic at a research-intensive university, who even argued: ‘TRAC is a piece of fiction to conceal how much teaching subsidises research.’

    He went on to explain that your contract might say 40% of time should be on Teaching and 40% on Research (with 20% for admin): ‘If you spend 60% on Research and 20% on Teaching, you would be in violation of contract so no one will admit to it.’

    A second academic I contacted was similarly scathing:

    ‘I think it is a classic case of looking for a lost wedding ring under the lamppost, even when you lost it a mile away. Universities obviously have an incentive to say that teaching UK students and doing research is more expensive, because they hope to get more money from the government. That is why TRAC does not lead to better business models – the stuff is known to be suspect.’

    Such criticisms may explain why I have only ever been able to find one university that has followed the logic of their own TRAC numbers by refusing to take on any major new research projects (and even they only had the ban in force temporarily).

    The lesson I take from all this is that TRAC is useful, but not enough. Some sort of calculation needs to occur to inform policy makers, funders and managers. But TRAC is not the slam dunk that people sometimes like to think it is because:

    1. the process is neither liked nor trusted by those it measures;
    2. institutions do not respond to what the data say, so look guilty of crying wolf; and
    3. every sector in search of public money does its own calculations, so the fact that TRAC exists and shows a substantial shortfall in the full economic costs of research and, increasingly, teaching home students too does not automatically give higher education institutions a leg up over other areas of when lobbying the Government.

    Finally, TRAC is meant to help politicians understand the world but I think we also need to recall the motivations of political leaders. When I was in Whitehall, we struggled to persuade the Treasury to move towards full economic costing. They caricatured it as buying new test tubes when the alternative was shiny new buildings. In the end, politicians in hard hats cannot go to topping-out ceremonies for new test tubes.

    Source link

  • Universities as infrastructures of support: making the Solent Film Office happen

    Universities as infrastructures of support: making the Solent Film Office happen

    UK universities are under mounting financial pressure. Join HEPI and King’s College London Policy Institute today at 1pm for a webinar on how universities balance relatively stable but underfunded income streams against higher-margin but volatile sources. Register now. We look forward to seeing you there.

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Roy Hanney, Associate Professor at Southampton Solent University.

    The launch of the new Solent and South Hampshire Regional Film Office marks a major step forward for the region’s creative economy. Funded by Solent Growth Partners and driven by a consortium of local authorities and cultural development agencies, the film office will provide a single point of contact for productions, market the region as a go-to location for filming and open up new opportunities for local businesses and talent.

    Behind the scenes of this development is a quieter story – one of research, knowledge exchange, and the often-unseen role universities play in helping ideas like this one take root and grow.

    From research to impact

    The idea of a regional film office did not emerge overnight. It was first identified in research carried out at Southampton Solent University as part of a Research, Innovation and Knowledge Exchange (RIKE) project between 2020 and 2021. It was a response to priorities set out in key strategy documents – including the Creative Network South Creative Industries Declaration and Arts Council England’s cultural strategy for Portsmouth – both of which highlighted the need for stronger infrastructure to support the creative economy.

    The RIKE project gathered evidence, brought together stakeholders, and produced a Theory of Change report for the screen industries in the Solent region. Among its recommendations was the establishment of a regional film office – not simply as an administrative function, but as a vital piece of creative infrastructure: connecting talent pipelines, supporting independent productions, promoting the region internationally, and providing a business case for sustained investment.

    This research provided the evidential basis for further strategic conversations through a series of Screen Industries Cluster meetings hosted in partnership with Fareham College, Creative Network South, and the Southern Policy Centre. These gatherings brought local authorities, policymakers, production companies, and cultural organisations into the same room to test ideas, compare models, and make informed decisions about what would help build our region’s creative economy.

    By December 2024, the Solent Screen Support Feasibility Study was launched, presenting a collaborative roadmap for a film office and confirming broad support across councils, cultural agencies, and regional development bodies.

    The enabling role of universities

    Universities are anchor institutions and, at every stage of this journey, Southampton Solent University played an important role of enablement. It’s often unseen, but it’s by no means any less key. And, by supporting my involvement in this project as part of my research and knowledge exchange remit, the University has created the conditions for academic insight to inform policy and practice.

    This is a subtle but essential contribution. Universities are uniquely placed to:

    • Provide research-led evidence that turns ideas into persuasive business cases.
    • Convene cross-sector conversations by offering neutral space and credibility.
    • Sustain continuity across the long timelines of public sector change.
    • Support thought leadership by connecting academic expertise with industry needs.

    The Solent Film Office is not a “university project” — it is a collaborative achievement led by local authorities and funded by Solent Growth Partners. Yet, it is also fair to say that without the groundwork of university research and facilitation, the momentum to make it happen may not have been sustained.

    A shared regional asset

    With FilmFixer now appointed to establish and operate the new agency, the Solent Film Office is set to work across nine local authority areas, providing a one-stop shop for production companies, marketing the region as a filming destination, and unlocking opportunities for skills development and local business engagement.

    For our university, the benefits are many and varied. Students will have access to an industry landscape that is better coordinated and more visible. Academics can continue to collaborate with policymakers and industry to shape sustainable growth. As a region, we stand to capture a greater share of the economic and cultural value generated by film and television production.

    Regional development? Universities are key

    The story of the Solent Film Office illustrates something bigger about the role of universities in regional development. Universities are not only educators and research producers. They are also infrastructures of support: institutions that provide the long-term stability, intellectual resources, and convening power necessary to get important initiatives off the ground.

    Infrastructures are rarely noticed until they are missing. In this case, the research, networks, and continuity provided by Solent have been crucial in helping partners move from strategy documents to a real, funded institution. The film office will stand as a visible achievement, and Solent’s contribution has been embedded in the process that made it possible.

    The success of the Solent Film Office reminds us that universities are not just ivory towers, but anchor institutions embedded in place. They provide the connective tissue that enables ideas to become reality. Sometimes, that makes all the difference.

    Source link

  • From curriculum to career: why universities must lead the education–skills revolution

    From curriculum to career: why universities must lead the education–skills revolution

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr. Ismini Vasileiou, Associate Professor at De Montfort University. You can find HEPI’s other blogs on the Curriculum and Assessment Review here and here.

    When the Department for Education published its Curriculum and Assessment Review, billed as a Curriculum for Life and Work on 4 November 2025, it signalled more than a curriculum reform – it marked a national conversation about what education is for. For the first time, the school curriculum will explicitly combine knowledge, digital capability, employability, and citizenship – preparing young people not just for exams, but for participation in a complex, data-driven, and interconnected world. Crucially, this is not about replacing education with skills. It’s about redefining education as the process through which skills for life and work are formed. The message is clear: education and skills are inseparable, and the system must now be designed as one continuous journey.

    A moment of alignment

    This announcement completes the trajectory begun by the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper (October 2025). Together, these two policy pillars – one focused on schools, the other on tertiary education – outline a vision of coherence across the learning lifecycle. The Post-16 paper’s introduction of V-Levels, simplification of Level 3 qualifications, and expansion of Higher Technical Qualifications now align with the Curriculum for Life and Work, which embeds the early foundations of employability and digital literacy in every pupil’s experience. For the first time in decades, England’s education policy points in a single direction: towards a joined-up system of education that builds character, competence, and confidence. But the success of this vision depends on one missing piece – universities, which sit at the intersection of learning, innovation, and the workforce.

    Education, not training

    Much of the public debate risks falling into false dichotomies: academic versus vocational, education versus skills. The government’s language – “life and work” – recognises that these are not opposites but continuums. Education remains the intellectual and moral foundation of a healthy democracy. But when delivered holistically, it also nurtures adaptability, creativity, and applied understanding – the very capacities employers now seek. Universities have a critical role in championing this integrated view. Their purpose is not to become training providers but to model what it means for education to produce confident, employable citizens who can learn, unlearn, and relearn throughout their lives.

    Lessons from cyber: integration in action

    This holistic approach already exists in one part of the education system: the cyber sector.

    The Cyber Workforce of the Future white paper (2025) called for a unified skills taxonomy, a shared definition of competence across education and industry, and seamless progression from schools through FE and HE into work. That model aligns almost exactly with what the new curriculum and the post-16 reforms now propose nationally: an ecosystem where education, employability, and innovation are interdependent rather than sequential. In cyber, this has already meant cross-sector curriculum design, embedded work experience, and a culture that treats technical and academic learning as equally rigorous. The next step is to scale that success across all disciplines – from green technologies to healthcare, design, and AI.

    Universities at the centre of reform

    Universities can make or break this national vision. Their position in the education–skills continuum gives them both responsibility and leverage. To succeed, they must:

    1. Anticipate the learners of 2028: The first cohort to study under the new curriculum will arrive at university at the start of the next decade. Institutions must adapt admissions, pedagogy, and assessment to students whose schooling will emphasise applied learning, digital literacy, and teamwork.
    2. Build local and regional partnerships: Collaborating with FE colleges, Skills England, and employers will be essential to map seamless pathways from school to post-16 and higher education.
    3. Integrate employability into education: Employability should not be treated as a bolt-on service but as an educational principle – part of how critical thinking, problem-solving, and collaboration are taught across disciplines.
    4. Champion digital confidence: With data, AI, and cyber understanding now fundamental to the new curriculum, universities must ensure every graduate – not only those in STEM – leaves equipped to operate in a digital society.
    5. Measure outcomes holistically: Success should not be judged solely by employment rates but by how graduates contribute to innovation, community resilience, and lifelong learning.

    Risks and responsibilities

    Reform at this scale brings challenges. Without alignment across sectors, the new curriculum could risk being a policy of aspiration rather than transformation. Schools may teach for adaptability, only for universities to assess for recall. Equally, the pressure to define “skills for work” must not narrow education’s scope. The aim is not to produce workers but well-educated citizens who can shape the future of work. Universities can protect that balance – ensuring that the education–skills revolution deepens, rather than dilutes, the purpose of learning.

    From reform to renewal

    The Curriculum for Life and Work represents a rebalancing of the national education story: knowledge still matters, but so do capability, confidence, and contribution. This aligns perfectly with the model already tested through the Cyber Workforce of the Future initiative – where education, employability, and innovation are treated as parts of one system. That approach, proven in a fast-moving digital sector, now provides a template for reform across the entire economy. For higher education, the challenge – and the opportunity – is to lead. By embedding employability as a dimension of education, not its substitute, universities can turn these policy reforms into a sustainable framework for growth, equity, and lifelong learning. The UK has a rare moment of alignment: curriculum reform, post-16 reform, and national skills strategy all pointing in the same direction. If higher education steps forward now, this could become not just another skills agenda, but a true education revolution for life and work.

    Source link

  • Skills-based higher education driving student financial support

    Skills-based higher education driving student financial support

    Author:
    Peter Gray

    Published:

    Over the weekend, HEPI published a blog on reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women and a blog on the future of languages in multilingual Britain.

    Today’s blog was kindly authored by Peter Gray, CEO and Chairman of the JS Group.

    If universities are to adapt to the latest skills-led demands of the Government (and to match the stated national future industry priorities), they will need to look well beyond their course and employability provision at many other aspects of the student experience.

    One such key area is in the connection between student financial support and employability opportunities. It is important that those students from lower-income or more restricted backgrounds are financially equipped and able to take advantage of, for example, off-campus experiences with employers to ensure they aren’t denied these frontline opportunities for skills development and for making connections. While there are many charities working to structure and access these opportunities, it is the funding itself to enable this full participation that needs particular attention.

    That’s why I can foresee a new demand for universities to steer more and more bursaries, scholarships, and special-case funding streams towards helping students with skills-based experiences. It is a trend that is already growing – as JS Group’s latest annual analysis of patterns in student financial support demonstrates. In recent years, we’ve assessed the overall use of £296 million of such support provided to 584,000 students.

    In the last 12 months (the 2024/25 academic year), we have looked at the use of this funding by students, the formats of payments and the timelines of when funding is being used and applied. This data (from our Aspire platform) is immensely important as it can draw on real-time and (student) user-based experiences to ensure universities have the evidence to make future decisions about their student support investments.

    A notable trend this year – which is in part explained by an expansion of participating universities providing data and the use of funding from Turing and Taith public funding schemes – is in how more and more students are using cash-based support from their institution to address the costs of work placements or associated travel, or to recover such expenses.

    Expenses claims are up by more than six per cent, use of placement funds is up three per cent and travel is up by more than one per cent. Our indicators show more action in these areas alongside continued support for accommodation, household bills, groceries and course-based resources.

    Our feedback survey of students as funding beneficiaries also shows the value that they place on funding for levelling-up (in terms of their ability to participate in opportunities) and for strengthening their perception of value and belonging with their university.

    If, as we expect, there will now be a national policy drive to steer more embedded work-related and skills-driven activities as part of the higher education experience, then it makes sense for universities to reassess how they are using their financial support beyond cost-of-living and cost-of-learning applications.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: The future of languages in a multilingual Britain

    WEEKEND READING: The future of languages in a multilingual Britain

    This blog was kindly authored by John Claughton, Co-Founder of The World of Languages and Languages of the World and former Chief Master of King Edward’s School, Birmingham.

    The other day, there was a big crowd packed into the Attlee Room in Portcullis House to celebrate the European Day of Languages – it was a comfort that no one had deemed it necessary to wear a sombrero or lederhosen. It was a co-production by the All Party Parliamentary Group for Languages and the All Party Parliamentary Group for Europe. The French and EU Ambassadors to London were the guests of honour, and the meeting was chaired by that rara avis, Darren Paffey, an MP who had been a languages academic. And he even has a wife who teaches languages. Is there, after all, a candle of hope for us all?

    The event was, like Gaul, divided into three parts. The first part was the noble land of diplomacy, with emphasis on the need for mutual understanding, co-operation and mobility in pursuit of global prosperity and harmony. At least everyone agreed that it was time for Erasmus to return – the programme, not the author of In Praise of Folly.

    Part Two was less to do with the noble sentiments of the Republic of Plato than the sewers of Romulus. It was about the grim facts of language learning presented by Megan Bowler, the harbinger of darkness, who wrote the HEPI report on the ‘language crisis’:

    • only 3% of A-level entries are in languages, and a mighty slug of those would come from independent schools;
    • undergraduate enrolments in languages are down by 20% in five years;
    • language teacher recruitment is less than half of what it needs to be;
    • there would still be language teacher shortages if every languages graduate went into teaching.
    • 28 out of 38 post-1992 universities have closed their language departments:
    • it is now quite common for Oxbridge colleges to get fewer than 10 applicants each for languages. That’s less than Classics, by Jove.

    Nor did the recent announcement about the end of IB funding bring any cheer: after all, every IB pupil has to study a language between the ages of 16 to 18.

    After the cold wind of reality had blown through the room, Vicky Gough, the Schools Adviser at the British Council, and Bernardette Holmes, the Director of the National College for Language Education (NCLE), talked of the tracks across this bleak terrain which might lead to better days. The HEPI report itself makes ten recommendations, and there are clearly things that universities can do to make languages more appealing – ‘Bring back Erasmus,’ they cry. However, the future of languages in university cannot lie in the hands of universities. The landscape can only be changed by a fundamental rethink about the teaching of languages at the very beginning of this journey. And that rethink has to reflect the fundamental change that has taken place in the pupils who now sit in our classes. Here are some ‘facts’ which show that fundamental change:

    • 20% of primary school pupils are categorised as EAL, i.e. English is not their first language;
    • this figure materially understates the percentage of pupils who are multilingual in our schools: for example, I know that over 50% of the pupils in the school where I was head were bilingual, even though none of them were categorised as EAL.
    • in many areas of many of our cities, there are primary schools where 90% of pupils are classed as EAL pupils.
    • there are many, many schools in London, or Birmingham, or Leicester, or Bradford where 30, or 40, or even 50 languages are spoken.
    • the schools with the greatest linguistic diversity are very often the schools in the most disadvantaged areas, areas where language uptake is at its lowest.

    And yet, little or no attention, or regard or honour is given to these languages, or to the pupils that speak them. Instead, in 96% of primary schools, it is French or Spanish which is taught, often by primary school teachers who don’t even have a GCSE in the subject. It may be no surprise that too few pupils arrive keen to study a language at GCSE when their language experience has been limited and, to their already multilingual minds, irrelevant.

    So, if there is to be progress, if there is to be a halt in the decline in languages and in the regard for languages, the answer may not lie in doing a bit better what we have always done, but in doing something different. If primary school pupils were taught not French and Spanish, but about languages, their own languages, as well as English and ‘modern foreign languages’ – and even Latin – the following things might happen:

    • pupils might see that languages are relevant, interesting, valuable, even fun;
    • pupils might learn more about themselves and each other, engendering mutual understanding and respect;
    • pupils might feel that they belong in school, and feel that there is not so great a gap between their life at home and their life at school;
    • parents might feel that what was going on at school had some regard for their history and their culture;
    • pupils might be more inclined to study languages, whether their own family/heritage language, and this could be a massive asset for their futures, in human and economic terms;
    • and, as these young people grow up, they might become the kind of adults who can build an integrated, cohesive, respectful and diverse society, and thus silence the voices of division in our political debate.
    • and this approach would demolish the hierarchy of languages which has so beset us for so long.

    Thus, it would place languages at the heart of our society. That would be nice, wouldn’t it? By strange chance, I have been working with some colleagues for several years to create a programme that does just that, but I’ve reached my word limit.

    But wait, dear reader. As a special dispensation, I have been granted more words in a HEPI blog. O frabjous day. So, I’d better be quick. It’s called WoLLoW, World of Languages, Languages of the World, a brilliant palindromic acronym with an Egyptian faience hippopotamus as a logo – just look at all those Greek words – in honour of the Hippopotamus Song by Flanders and Swan. So, if that’s its wondrous name, what does it do? Well, here are some examples:

    • a WoLLoW lesson can encourage boys and girls to talk about their own language, their own family, their own history.
    • it can explore why and how English is the most mongrel of all languages, a dog’s breakfast of Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman French, and polysyllabic Graeco-Latin inventions.
    • it can prove that the pupils can learn the Greek alphabet more quickly than their teachers, and thereby discover why physics isn’t spelt fisiks and dinosaurs have such preposterous names.
    • it can ask why Tuesday is Tuesday here and lots of different things everywhere else – and a WoLLoW lesson might even ask why there are seven days in a week.
    • in a WoLLoW lesson pupils can learn braille and/or sign-language, or even create their own language.

    This looks quite good fun, and it turns out that it is. Another word limit looms, but I can say that it not only cheers up pupils but it also has an impact on those who teach it. The last of my words must go to a pupil at my old school, a Malaysian Muslim, who, whilst in Year 11, taught WoLLoW in a local, Birmingham primary school:

    Working on these lessons, from the very first session, has not only given the children we have taught the opportunity to have their languages and cultures represented in class discussions, but has also allowed me to reconnect with my language and feel more confident in reclaiming it as a part of who I am. I am someone who, like, I suspect, a lot of the children we have taught, has felt disconnected from his language for a long time, and has been given the chance to once again put it front and centre and find their sense of self within it again.

    The rest is silence.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: A thousand days of silence: reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women

    WEEKEND READING: A thousand days of silence: reclaiming education through localisation for Afghan women

    This blog was kindly authored by Naimat Zafary, PhD student at The University of Sussex and a former Afghan Chevening Scholar.

    As I mark my fifth year in UK higher education, a journey that began with a Chevening Scholarship and an MA at the Institute of Development Studies before leading to my PhD in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex, a single, recurring image encapsulates a profound contrast.

    From my study window on campus, I watch the vibrant flow of students: a tide of ambition pouring into and out of lecture halls. In a silent, personal ritual, I often count them. Invariably, I find more young women than men, a sight that swells me with pride to be part of an institution that offers equal and abundant opportunities to female students.

    Yet, this everyday scene instantly transports me to my home of Afghanistan, where this picture is hauntingly absent. For nearly three years – around 1,050 days – the Taliban has barred Afghan girls and women from their fundamental right to higher education. Their university campuses, once symbols of hope, are now forbidden ground.

    Beyond internationalisation

    The start of the academic year is a time of new beginnings for UK universities. There is a mood of anticipation, proudly announcing numbers of new starters and, on my own diverse campus, a commitment to internationalisation. Students arrive from across the world, a myriad of stories behind each of them. For some, a struggle, for others, lifelong dreams of individuals and families.

    If we are lucky, we will share some of these experiences and perspectives with the people around us. We will define our possibilities differently as a result. This focus on global reach is commendable and a deep privilege. We are – we become – international.

    But I ask myself a sharper question too. What of those who do not, cannot travel? How do we consider the community which includes the missing, the trapped?

    So, as I look across campus, I see these faces too. Will institutions that are committed and measured in part in relation to the sustainable development goals –  every one of which is behind – take a step to localise, to go to those who cannot come to them?

    British higher education has a long history of outreach. Many of its now great universities began as an effort to take learning and opportunity to provinces where it was absent, or to include within its potential those who, at one time, were told education was not for them.

    That widening participation agenda is now under strain at home and abroad. If you measure the outcomes only of those blessed with an environment and the support to succeed, you implant a bias away from risk. If you effectively close off the means of access, the hopeful will turn away. Participation can narrow as well as widen. In some cases, participation can stall completely –  those desperate to continue their dreams, whose voices are screaming to be heard, and who are simply waiting for a chance?

    Who will answer the call?

    In the worst of times, those who step forward, demonstrate they care and –  despite their own challenges – stand against this injustice are living the most profound values of education.

    Here again, I look out at my campus at The University of Sussex with pride, and I believe there are lessons for others too.

    It begins with leadership and with kind-hearted teams, but also a desire to turn feeling into action. In this case, despite headwinds of practical barriers, the university has undertaken a pilot and has awarded online distance learning master’s degree scholarships for a small group of talented Afghan women and girls.

    The inspiration for this initiative was born out of a stark contrast. As female Afghan Chevening scholars walked across the Sussex graduation stage with pride, in Afghanistan, not a single woman could enter a university, let alone a graduation ceremony. I longed for those with the potential of taking action to hear the voices of Afghan women and somehow open a door, even for just a few.

    Developing an outreach programme in such a sensitive context isn’t easy. Universities have their own urgent challenges close to home, and the many demands they face don’t pause while they innovate in global education.  But principled leaders took the challenge of the absence of women in higher education a world away to their own core, and recognised that this too was their business. 

    Finding a possible solution took time: more than two years of proposals; assessing the situation; back-and-forth communication; and ensuring we were always working in line with advice on ensuring the safety of participating students. It was modest, but it matters beyond words.

    The logic was beautifully simple and necessary: if Afghan women are banned from stepping into the higher education arena, then higher education must step into their own room. This is a practice the Western world embraced during the pandemic; we simply need to apply it now to find a light in the darkness.

    An undefeated hope

    The proof of this need was instantaneous. In early July 2025, the University of Sussex’s announcement went live. Within the first 48 hours, more than eight hundred women and women sent an inquiry and applied for the scholarships.

    That response sent a clear, undeniable message of a thirst and love for education, of persistent talent, eligibility, and an undefeated hope for the future. And now it begins. The five talented women awarded these scholarships have started on the first of these courses with an unwavering commitment.

    One of the awardees described her gratitude this way:

    As an Afghan woman achieving this milestone under such challenging circumstances has been both difficult and deeply meaningful. I am committed to making the most of this opportunity and to using the knowledge and skills I gain to contribute toward strengthening and supporting our fragile communities.

    These students are proof that Afghan women are not defeated even in this brutal hour. They may have to learn behind legal bars for now, but they believe in a better future, they are determined to serve their community and contribute to wider society — given the chance, they will change their lives and the lives of those around them.

    Deeds not words

    To my colleagues and friends in UK higher education, I humbly say this. Our institutions are built on the foundational motto of “leaving no one behind” – no one, not even the women whose doors are bolted but whose spirits still crave learning.

    I profoundly hope the UKhigher education community will look closely at the successful case of the University of Sussex, draw on the experience of this pilot and follow its lead. One programme could become many. A single voice could become a chorus.

    Afghan girls and women are navigating one of the most catastrophic times in their history. The education of women is core to the UN Sustainable Development Goals for good reason. Those who step up now, who provide a lifeline through education in this moment of darkness, will not only be remembered – they will be helping to shape the very future of Afghanistan. As the suffragists once chanted in this country, this is a time for Deeds Not Words.

    I ask each of you not to write off hope.  A dear friend shared a poem with me, which is much loved across this country. It was written by the great War poet Siegfried Sassoon at a time of despair, but it continues to move people because it defiantly imagines a time of release and redemption.

    Everyone suddenly burst out singing;

    And I was filled with such delight As prisoned birds must find in freedom…

    My heart was shaken with tears; and horror Drifted away … O, but Everyone

    Was a bird; and the song was wordless; the singing will never be done.

    There are times a university keeps hope alive, where a pilot programme is a flame visible across the world. It is the promise of a better future through the empowerment of those who wish desperately to build it.

    A good deed can be multiplied. If Afghan women students cannot come to us, let us join together as a band of scholars and go to them.

    If any university colleagues would be interested in understanding more about the Sussex pilot to offer online postgraduate access to Afghan women, please contact [email protected].

    Source link

  • The time for change is now: reducing pension costs in post-92 universities

    The time for change is now: reducing pension costs in post-92 universities

    This blog was kindly authored by Jane Embley, Chief People Officer and Tom Lawson, Deputy Vice-Chancellor and Provost, both of Northumbria University.

    It is welcome that the government’s recent white paper acknowledges the very real funding pressures on the university sector and outlines some measures to address them. It is rather disappointing, however, that one of the causes of that financial pressure recognised by both employers and trade unions – is somewhat sidestepped – namely the crisis in the post-92 institutions caused by the Teachers’ Pension Scheme (TPS). While the government has pledged to better understand the problem, this will presumably lead to a period of consultation before any new proposals come forward. The cost of TPS compounds the financial difficulty of many institutions, and the severity of the current situation means the moment for change is now.

    The TPS cost crisis

    At the beginning of 2025, we wrote a piece for this website that outlined the problem in general terms, and particularly, for Northumbria University. To briefly summarise, post-92 institutions are all required to enrol their staff who are engaged in teaching in TPS. The cost of TPS for employers (and employees) is rising, and having historically been similar to other pension schemes in the sector is now much more expensive than schemes such as the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) or the local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). TPS employer contributions are now 28.68% whereas for USS they are 14.5%, and for Northumbria’s LGPS fund are 18.5%.

    This means that for an academic salary of £57,500, in addition to NI costs, the employer pension cost is £8,300 per annum for USS, but for a TPS employee it is £16,500. Put simply, it is now considerably more expensive to employ a member of staff to do the same job in one part of the sector than another.

    The figures are striking. For every 1,000 staff, an institution would face more than £8M per annum of additional costs if their colleagues were members of TPS rather than USS. For Northumbria, given the number of colleagues we have in TPS, the additional cost of this scheme compared to USS is more than £11M per annum. To put it another way, the fees of more than 800 Northumbria students are fully consumed by paying the additional cost of TPS, versus USS.

    Why alternatives fall short

    There are ways that universities can find alternatives to TPS – institutions can take steps to employ their academic staff via subsidiary companies and reduce pension costs by using defined contribution schemes. This has multiple disadvantages for individuals as well as institutions – not least because colleagues employed by that mechanism are not counted within the HESA return, for example, and as such are not eligible for participation in the Research Excellence Framework or for Research Council funding. As such, colleagues employed via such mechanisms cannot fully contribute across teaching and research and may find it difficult to progress their careers or move between institutions in the future.

    At Northumbria, as a research-intensive institution, we did not consider the above to be a path we could take. As there are no clear proposals forthcoming from government we have had to seek recourse to a different solution.

    Northumbria’s strategic response

    As we predicted in our previous blog, individual institutions have no choice but to take control of the total cost of employment. Since then, at Northumbria, we have been thinking about how we might do just that. We have settled on an approach that follows a three-part solution, something which we believe offers flexibility and choice while managing the University’s pension costs down to an acceptable level in the medium to long term.  

    First, we are offering colleagues in TPS an attractive alternative – the main pension scheme in the sector, USS, following a recent agreement to change our membership terms. Over 200 colleagues at Northumbria are already members (having joined Northumbria with existing membership), and going forward, USS membership will be available to all our academic colleagues. Of course, we acknowledge that there are differences in the membership benefits of each scheme. USS is a hybrid scheme with defined benefits up to a threshold and then defined contributions beyond that. TPS is a career average defined benefit scheme. We will help our TPS members with this transition by providing personalised, independent financial information and guidance, as pensions are complex and any decision to move from TPS to USS will need careful consideration.

    However, we do need to be confident that we can address the very high cost of TPS employer pension contributions, and have recently begun discussions within our university about moving to a total reward approach to remuneration.

    Using the two pension schemes, we want to provide colleagues with the choice as to how much of their total reward they receive as income now and how much we pay in pension contributions.

    For each grade point in our pay structure, we are aiming to establish a reward envelope, based on the total cost of salary plus employer pension contributions, reflecting USS rather than TPS rates. As such, a colleague remaining in TPS would have no reduction in their salary, although they will, initially, have a total reward package that exceeds the envelope for their grade point.

    Our goal will be to increase the total reward envelope for each grade point each year by the value of the pay award determined via national collective pay bargaining. In this model, the cost of the total reward envelope will be the same, but colleagues will be able to choose how they construct their reward package based on their own personal preference or circumstances. Salaries for colleagues who are members of USS will increase in line with the rest of the sector. Those colleagues who choose to remain in TPS will not see an increase in their take-home pay, as this, plus the cost of their pension contributions, exceeds the envelope for their grade point. However, over time, when the value of the total reward envelope for colleagues in USS and TPS has equalised, the salaries for those choosing TPS will increase again.

    Looking ahead: a fairer, sustainable future

    We understand that many of our colleagues might find this change unpalatable; however, we feel the additional monthly cost of almost £1M cannot be justified. While to some this will be controversial, ultimately, our proposed approach will mean that over time (likely to be up to seven years) the reward envelope (or cost) for USS and TPS employees will have equalised and as such we will have eliminated the differential costs of employing these two groups of colleagues undertaking the same roles, and be on an equal footing with other universities.

    We anticipate that by adopting this approach USS will, in time, become the normalised pension scheme for our academic staff, as it already is across the pre-92 universities. Along with competitive pay, colleagues will be members of an attractive sector-wide scheme, with lower personal contribution levels resulting in higher take-home pay. Of course, we will keep the whole approach under review as the employer pension contribution rates change over time, and we will be actively engaging with our colleagues over the coming months to seek their views on our proposal and to shape our future plans.  

    Finally, we are also encouraging our colleagues to consider carefully whether to opt out of TPS and join USS now. In order to gain traction and make earlier progress, we are offering existing salaried staff in TPS the choice to move early, with the University recognising this decision via a one-off payment, which shares the longer-term financial benefit of this with the University. Colleagues may receive the value of the savings made over the first year – typically between £5,800 and a maximum of £10,000 – as a taxable payment or via a payment into their pension, subject to a number of conditions in relation to their future employment.

    As we have outlined, the time for change is now, and we cannot wait for the outcome of a consultation or for the government to decide how it will seek to address this obvious disparity in the sector. Ultimately, we believe that moving towards a total reward approach, as outlined above, is advantageous for both the University and for our colleagues. It provides choice – no one will be forced to leave TPS, and as such, colleagues can continue to choose to receive the benefits of that scheme by more of their total reward being paid in pension contributions than salary. Or colleagues can choose to access more of their total income now in their salary, while joining a hybrid pension scheme that is already in place across the sector and which delivers defined benefits, and defined contribution benefits for higher earners. We believe that this is a novel approach to what has been, for some time, an intractable problem in the sector.

    Source link

  • The Curriculum and Assessment Review

    The Curriculum and Assessment Review

    Author:
    Professor Sir Chris Husbands

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Sir Chris Husbands, who is a Director of Higher Futures and a HEPI Trustee. He was previously the Vice-Chancellor of Sheffield Hallam University.

    The Final Report of the Curriculum and Assessment Review led by Becky Francis has been published.  At 196 pages, with 16 pages of recommendations, it is a long and complex document – long and complex enough for early commentary to find quite different things in it.  The Daily Telegraph headline was ‘five year olds to learn climate change under Labour’ (a Bad Thing).  The Guardian headline was that the curriculum “should focus less on exams and more on life skills” (a Good Thing). The Times was more neutral, picking up on “more diversity — and fewer exams at GCSE” (which could be Bad Things or Good Things).  The report’s length and attention to analytical detail (there are 478 footnotes and what is by comparison a brief analytical annex of 37 pages) make it difficult to summarise.  But so do the granularity of the recommendations, which include such recommendations as that the Government reviews “how the PE Key Stage 1 to 4 Programmes of Study refer to Dance, including whether they are sufficiently specific” (p 106), or that it “makes minor refinements to the Geography Programmes of Study” (p 83).  The detail and granularity are consistent with Becky Francis’s repeated statement that her review would be “evolutionary not revolutionary”, and there is enough here to keep curriculum leaders in schools and assessment policy wonks in awarding bodies busy for a very long time. But they make it difficult to see the underlying ideas.

    But underlying ideas are there.  From the perspective of higher education policy, there are probably three.  The first is commitment to evolution rather than revolution. The school curriculum in five years’ time will not be unrecognisable from now.  It will continue to be a subject-based, knowledge-led curriculum.  Some of the more egregious aspects of the Gove reforms of a decade ago – the obsession with formal teaching of technical grammar such as ‘fronted adverbials’ (p 75), the overloading of history programmes of study (p 85) and the obsession with pre-twentieth century literature (p79) — are abandoned. There is greater emphasis on diversity and inclusion “so that all young people can see themselves represented” in what they learn (p 10). The review is conservative on assessment. The burden of assessment at 16 is to be reduced, suggesting that a reduction of 10% in GCSE examinations is feasible to increase time for teaching (p 135), but not changed in its overall form. Government “[should] continue to employ the principle that non-exam assessment should be used only when it is the only valid way to assess essential elements of a subject” (pp 138, 193), because “externally set and marked exams remain the fairest and most reliable method of assessment” (p 136).

    This rebalancing, with less prescription, greater clarity between what is statutory and what is advisory and the reduced volume of GCSE (but not, unless I have missed it, A-level) assessment is the key to a second underlying idea which is an attempt to enhance teacher agency.  This is cautious.  The report is strong on pupil entitlement: this is a “national curriculum … for all our children and young people” (p180), which obviously means that it should apply to academies as well as local authority maintained schools, and that it should apply to all learners, not least because “learners with the lowest GCSE attainment (particularly grades 1 or 2) have fundamental knowledge gaps that extend to earlier key stages” (p163). But the report also recognises that any curriculum depends on those who teach it, and it recommends that the overhaul of programmes of study “involve… teachers in the testing and design of Programmes of Study as part of the drafting process” (p54). In all curriculum reform, the balance between prescription and latitude, between entitlement and flexibility is difficult.  The report creates more space for teachers to make choices, but it retains a strong prescriptive core, and in some cases extends that: under current arrangements, Religious Education, although compulsory is outside the national curriculum.  Francis wants the content brought into national requirements, and there will be hard fought arguments about RE.

    The third key idea is about the 16-19 curriculum.  The review stresses the key importance of level 3 learning and qualifications in “shaping life chances and supporting our economy” (p31), and it is sensibly less clear-cut than the interim report appeared to be on the differentiation between academic and vocational pathways at 16-19.  Arguably, the report is agnostic about which Level 3 pathway students pursue, providing that more do access level 3.  The report recommends abandoning the English Baccalaureate performance measure on the evidential grounds that “whilst well-intentioned [it has] not achieved” its goal and has “to some degree unnecessarily constrained students’ choices” (p10).  The EBacc will be largely unmourned, except by its ministerial architects. The Review’s strong focus on progression is critical and may be its most important feature in the long term. Francis “thinks it is important that as many learners as possible who have achieved level 2 (five GCSEs at grade 4 or above or the equivalent) should be supported to study at level 3” (p141).  This is obviously important for HE and is consistent with the Prime Minister’s Labour Party conference commitment to expand access to tertiary education. The Review unsurprisingly endorses the new ‘V-level’ qualification, although T-levels and V-levels refer to concepts (technology, vocational education) which are not levels of study.  The Review remains committed to T-levels, and was probably required to be, but its evidence here on take-up (just 3% of learners, p141) is a reminder about just how far there is to go to establish T-levels.  But the fundamental point is that the future of widening participation at all levels of tertiary education depends on improving progression from level 2 to level 3.

    The Curriculum Review is a frustrating document to read.  It is complex, thorough in its analysis of evidence and has clearly been hemmed in by policy priorities in several directions.  It is dogged and detailed, well-meaning and intelligent, realistic about the world as it is and cautious about radical change.  It offers a nip here, a tuck there and a tweak in other places. Arguably, this is Starmerism in the form of education policy.  Natalie Perera, CEO of the Education Policy Institute, which I chair, called it “a broadly sensible direction of travel” and that is right. The initial reaction of the Opposition that the review rates “learning about climate change as more important than learning to read and write” is clearly absurd.

    Many of the Review recommendations are for government and others to do further work. That means that the real impact of the Review depends less on the recommendations themselves than on the combination of political will and strategic implementation to make things happen.  The government’s immediate response, which has been to accept some of the recommendations, suggests that there is scope for a good deal of frustration as thinking turns to implementation.  Higher education academics and institutions care a lot about the ways that the compulsory education system prepares young people for entry to higher education – even if that is not its main function.  What they get from the review is a largely recognisable curriculum landscape, conservatism about assessment approaches, a national entitlement to a more modernised and flexible curriculum, and, above all, a strong focus on pathways into post-16 study.

    Source link