Amira Asantewa is Director of Programmes, Grit Breakthrough Programmes
Reuel Blair is Lead Diversity Programmes Coordinator at the Centre for Student and Community Engagement, Nottingham Trent University
Progress on the Black-white degree awarding gap has gone into reverse. Figures published by Higher Education Student Data (HESA) in autumn 2024 show that in 2022/23 the difference in the percentage of Black students and white students getting a first- or upper-second-class degree went up to 21.4 percentage points (pps) – from 19pps in 2021/22 and 17.6pps in 2020/21.
While there are debates about the way the sector analyses and addresses the awarding gap, what we do know is there is, as yet, little to say about what works in UK universities. However, evidence from our work with students of Black Heritage that suggests social capital is key.
Black leaders
It was back in 2019 that Nottingham Trent University and Grit Breakthrough Programmes co-designed with students the Black Leadership Programme (BLP) – a mix of community-building activities, mentoring, inspirational speakers and work with both employers and global institutions. Centrepiece workshops are delivered by Grit: breakthrough programmes.
Six years on and an independent TASO-funded evaluation found strong statistical evidence of impact on final year grades and that these higher grades were likely to have been caused, not by increased academic engagement, but instead by increased motivation, social capital and sense of belonging.
This reinforced the findings of the independent evaluation of Grit’s Black Leaders and Students of Colour programme across seven universities, which suggested that students were able to apply skills and confidence from having expanded networks and engagement in new experiences, to their academic lives. And the students tell us what this looks like.
Spaces for Black students
Students talk about the importance of access to Black spaces. This space, this community, is a place where Black students are not, as Anike from Liverpool John Moores University puts it, ‘self-censoring to make myself palatable to white people.’ Instead, it is where ‘I can get into the conversations I always wanted to have, feel free to talk about what’s important to me.’
Research describes how Black-affirming campus spaces are vital for Black student academic success and supporting Black student inclusion and well-being. Kwaku from Nottingham Trent University describes the value of ‘a space where there isn’t the weight of always being different. I want a space to connect with people, people who I can talk to about how I am feeling, what I am going though, and who I know would understand.’
So social capital is also about belonging. Zelena from Bath Spa University describes wanting ‘to belong to a community of people we can all turn to, to draw strength from, to look up to and connect with.’
Identity and representation
It is about identity. Students tell us about the importance of ‘realising the value of my own upbringing, my heritage, my culture… that it is not something to be left behind or discarded… I want to explore and appreciate who I am and what I am.’ As Gemma from the University of Greenwich says, it’s about ‘finally claiming my identity. Becoming proud of being Black.’ University is a time for building a new independent life, figuring out who you really are and how your evolving identity fits in this new space. And there is a strong correlation between identities and deeper approaches to learning.
It is about representation, both in the messaging about opportunities and in the ability of those delivering them to relate to the racial identity and cultural backgrounds of the students. Or, as Kane from Nottingham Trent University says, ‘it’s about how we have the right to be noticed, feel heard, to see that my voice, my opinion matters.’
And social capital is also about wanting to make a difference, making a contribution. Afreya from the University of Manchester describes ‘helping other people who are feeling the same as I was. Going out of my way to be visible, showing how anyone just like me, can be successful.’
Students are very clear about social capital: ‘I made friends from the programme. I’ve joined societies… I’ve been a course rep and a Student Ambassador… I’ve been part of a project supporting young Black learners in schools in the city…’
They are very clear about its value: ‘It gave me strength… I’ve been relentless in seizing every opportunity available… I work more efficiently… harder and smarter… I feel that the university has an interest in nurturing Black talent and my growth and development.’
So, alongside all the institutional plans, strategies and initiatives, there also have to be the spaces, places and relationships for Black students to be their full, authentic, very best selves and, just like their white peers, grow the social capital to thrive and succeed in their time at university and beyond.
On 5th June at Nottingham Trent University, Grit Unleashed will take a deep dive into the university experience for Black students and Students of Colour across the UK in a day co-designed and co-delivered by student participants. For more details email [email protected]
Today on the HEPI blog, John Cater revisits a quarter-century of teacher education policy to consider how we can solve the teacher supply crisis – read on below.
And Amira Asantewa and Reuel Blair explore how growing social capital – not just academic engagement – is key to tackling the widening Black-white degree awarding gap in UK universities in a powerful reflection on identity, belonging and community. Read that piece here.
Dr. John Cater was Vice-Chancellor of Edge Hill University from 1993-2025 and member of the Board of the Teacher Training Agency and its successor body from 1999-2006. He also chaired the Joint UUK/GuildHE Teacher Education Advisory Group (2013-2019) and is the author of HEPI Policy Paper 95, Whither Teacher Education and Training (2017).
Twenty-five years ago, the attraction of teaching was on the wane, and universities’ enthusiasm for training teachers was sinking fast. The Evening Standard’s billboards screamed, ‘Schools in Crisis’ as the capital’s schools closed on Fridays or brought pupils in for just half-days because of a shortage of teachers.
Fast forward to 2025, and the recent National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) publication, Teacher Labour Market in England 2025, has reached the newsstands, prompting the same headlines: ‘Schools in Crisis’.
But two and a half decades ago, it was turned around. A serious attempt to tackle teacher workloads (WAMG, the Workload Allocation Model Group) was put in place, with ‘guaranteed’ non-contact preparation time and a rapid increase in the number and responsibilities of teacher support workers ((Higher Level) Teaching Assistants). And one of the most effective marketing campaigns, No-One Forgets a Good Teacher, was launched.
These are more sceptical, more cynical times, and the challenges of teaching are well understood, but there are strategies which could ameliorate the current crisis.
A Better Product. Teaching is a ‘present in person’ profession. No class of thirty adolescents is going to be controlled, still less educated, by an unattended whiteboard. But, particularly in secondary education, rolling up a teacher’s preparation time into a single day, even fortnightly, which could be worked from home, would make the profession more attractive to many. And most school staffrooms need to move into the twenty-first century if they are to match working conditions in the wider world.
Better Marketing. Teaching is a vocation, and the opportunity to change lives and create life chances still resonates with many. A focus on case studies (Tony Blair and Eric Anderson being amongst the best-remembered from the above campaign), moving from the abstract to the relatable, have proved effective in the past.
A Partnership Approach. Too often, the relationship between the state and its agents and training providers has been driven by a contractual ‘purchaser/ provider’ model, characterised by mutual distrust. Similarly, school and college participation in the renewal of the profession, for example, by offering placements and link tutors, has been discretionary and often wrapped in a cash nexus. Some universities are also unnerved by the risk to brand and reputation inherent in the inspectorial process, particularly when teacher training consists of a very small proportion of their portfolio (a concern which can also relate to apprenticeship provision). If scrutiny is accepted by all to be risk-based and proportionate, resource is released to focus on both areas of concern and the sharing of best practice.
Supporting Teaching as well as Training. Incentivising training has its merits, and the NFER Report does indicate a weak correlation between bursaries and the take-up of training places, but training is not teaching. If you have to offer £27,000 to persuade someone to train, are you sending an implicit message about the desirability of the profession you may enter? And, whilst starting salaries (now at least £30,000 per annum outside London) have improved, the financial incentives for taking increased responsibility are widely regarded as insufficiently attractive to keep teachers in the profession.
Re-visit Repayments. The lowering of the student loan repayment threshold to £25,000 in 2023 and the extension of the loan term penalises those in the lower-middle salary range – teachers, nurses, social workers – whilst those on higher salaries benefit from lower interest payments. Simply in the interest of fairness, it needs re-visiting.
Fee forgiveness. Teacher retention is an even bigger issue than teacher recruitment, with over a third of all entrants leaving the profession within five years. London Economics and the Nuffield Foundation, amongst others, have repeatedly highlighted the limited cost of writing off outstanding student loans for those who provide a decade or more of service, a cost which would be eliminated fully when reduced recruitment and training costs and anticipated improvements in service quality are taken into account.
Key worker accommodation. The demise of public sector housing and the lack of available and affordable rental accommodation has severely restricted teacher mobility and teacher supply, with particular challenges in high-cost locations (such as the Home Counties). Part of the current Government’s drive to construct 1.5m new homes should place key worker housing close to the top of the priority list.
In the aftermath of the Chancellor’s Spring Statement, the issue of productivity looms large. A highly educated and committed workforce is integral to the future of the UK economy, and a ready supply of well-qualified, passionate teaching professionals is the building block on which that economy can thrive.
The APPG for Students has launched the Commission on Students in Higher Education as a means of feeding into the Department for Education’s HE Review through a student-centred lens. A call for evidence has now opened, until May 1st, where colleagues from across the sector are encouraged to input.
Alex Stanley is Vice President Higher Education of the National Union of Students (NUS).
Saranya Thambirajah is Vice President Liberation and Equality of the NUS.
The debates over the financial sustainability of the higher education sector, effective interventions in access and participation, and the quality of teaching will not be new to HEPI readers. Amongst the column inches and radio waves, however, students and the academic community are living these tensions every single day.
It’s no secret that students are working long hours during term time, living pay cheque to pay cheque to cover their rent and bills – plugging the gap created by real-terms cuts to maintenance support. The NUS’s own research shows that of those who work during their studies, over 60% are working over 20 hours per week. While we feel from the stories that students tell us that there must be a link between inadequate maintenance funding, working long hours and students’ eventual attainment and outcomes, we lack an evidence base on the impact of working hours or lack of financial support on students’ attainment.
Similarly, we are all aware that teaching standards and the concept of good degrees have spent the past fourteen years under the microscope, with innovative practice sometimes denounced as dumbing down in the press – and students told their course choice is leaving them with ‘low value degrees’, or that their hard work leading to higher grades is down to grade inflation.
At NUS, we firmly believe the way to cut through the noise is by focusing on the real-life, current experience of students – and that the best way to do that is to bring them into the rooms where decisions are made. We are proud to hold the APPG on Students, for which NUS UK serves as Secretariat, as a space which connects student leaders to Westminster decision makers. We’ve been using this to bring student voice to the Houses of Parliament for over a decade, from launching the landmark research on the Black Attainment Gap, providing space for students to grill Sir Philip Augar immediately after his report launched, to most recently shaping the Renters’ Reform and then Renters’ Rights Bills, with interventions from current students the genesis of now-passed amendments on limiting rent up front and controlling the student lettings cycle. There is no question that bringing students and young people into the room on issues that impact them makes policy decisions better and enriches the debate.
In this vein, we are proud to launch the Commission on Students in Higher Education, designed to place students at the heart of the current debates on funding, teaching and attainment.
The Commission will tackle the big issues of the current funding debate: teaching standards, maintenance funding and student outcomes, drawing on the expertise of a cross-party group of Commissioners and higher education specialists, all working to provide meaningful recommendations which should influence and complement the Department for Education’s HE Review and the Comprehensive Spending Review.
We will begin with an in-person event on Maintenance Funding tomorrow, Wednesday 23 April, when we will hear from proposers of four different ways of funding a more generous student maintenance offer, who will then be questioned by students and Parliamentarians.
We will take in written evidence on the core areas of the Commission: maintenance funding, students and work, widening participation & student outcomes and teaching quality.
We welcome submissions from colleagues across students’ unions, the academic community and sector practitioners who, like us, are keen to see the HE Review and Spending Review succeed in solving some of the existential problems we are facing across the sector.
In sociology, the term ‘male flight’ refers to men abandoning fields, activities, or professions when they are perceived as becoming too ‘feminine’ or associated with women. Lisa Wade argues that this is ‘bad long-term strategy for maintaining dominance.’ Education, especially in recent years, has become a battleground for cultural and political struggles, particularly in the wake of growing far-right influence in both Europe and the United States. But is the shift away from higher education by young men simply a cultural power struggle, or are we failing to meet their needs and expectations?
The Impact of Gender Dynamics on Higher Education Participation
Men are increasingly opting out of higher education. The widening gender gap in college enrolment reveals a troubling trend: higher education is now facing what can be described as male flight. In the United States, this gap has expanded dramatically. In 1979, only 200,000 more women attended college than men; by 2021, that number had surged to 3.1 million more women than men. While the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted enrollment figures in 2021, this shift underscores a broader trend in gender and education that warrants serious consideration.
A similar pattern is unfolding in the UK. In 2020/21, there were 2.75 million students enrolled in higher education, with women making up 57% of the student body. The undergraduate sector exhibits the largest gender gap. This growth, however, raises critical questions about the future of male participation in higher education.
The Retreat of Men from Higher Education: A Closer Look
The trend of male flight from higher education is unlikely to reverse without targeted intervention. A study by King’s College London highlights that young men today are particularly concerned about the challenges they face in society. Unlike their older counterparts, younger men and women hold vastly different views on education, social issues, and political ideologies. According to a survey of over 3,500 young people aged 16+, young men tend to be less supportive of gender equality initiatives and are increasingly aligning with right-wing political views. Within this context, right-wing political groups, such as Reform UK, advocate for a ‘no-nonsense’ approach to education, emphasizing a patriotic curriculum that they argue better addresses concerns about social equality. Their proposals often reflect a growing sentiment among some groups, particularly white men, who feel that their experiences and challenges do not align with current gender equality initiatives.
While the political rhetoric surrounding this issue is highly charged, it demands serious attention. The key question now is: How can we rebuild young men’s confidence in higher education? This is particularly pressing when considering young men from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds. Research shows that white working-class men are disproportionately likely to cite the high cost of higher education as a barrier to entry.
Fees and student loans are the biggest concern of young people as they look ahead onto the HE landscape, with over 25% of young Britons thinking that university is not worth it. Alongside this sector-wide issue, young men are retreating from HE in much higher numbers than any of their female or BAME counterparts. This is something that should not be ignored if we want truly inclusive HE.
What Can We Do? Policies to Address Inclusive Education and Rebuild Trust Among Disadvantaged White Men
Many of these issues must be addressed by universities themselves. Male students often feel that higher education fails to cater to their unique needs. Young men are less likely to engage in extracurricular activities – such as sports or student unions – that are integral to the student experience. Neil Raven’s contribution to this blog last year highlights young men feeling unsupported and disengaged, and as with everything in this sector, the solution to this question is not straightforward. To truly address the challenges young men face in education, universities must acknowledge that their needs and experiences are distinct and deserve to be supported in meaningful and effective ways.
When we talk about the financial red flags facing disadvantaged young white men, we’re really addressing the prospect of being burdened with debt—especially when they are just one choice away from avoiding it altogether. Adopting Tim Leunig’s recommendation to shorten the student loan repayment term from 40 years to 20 would give students greater confidence that they can achieve financial freedom by mid-life.
Furthermore, research conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) found that only 1 in 5 students would not be financially better off by going to university. This is reason enough to incentivise young white men back into the warm embrace of higher education.
A shorter repayment term would not only alleviate long-term financial anxiety but also encourage people from all backgrounds to pursue higher education without the fear of being shackled by debt for life. The Higher Education Policy Institute’s own research, despite indicating young women being more debt-averse than men (even with men paying more of the debt due to higher salaries in the longer term), shows that most of our young people are opposed to the Labour government’s tuition fee increase. A shorter repayment term will perhaps not only restore the confidence of our young women – who are already sceptical of the lower salaries they will receive throughout their careers – but reassure all of our young people that student loans are not a lifelong burden, and that we have a system that rewards ambition rather than punishing those who take the leap.
Moreover, this shift could help restore confidence in the value of a degree, particularly for those who currently see university as a risky financial gamble rather than a stepping stone to social mobility. This is, as Mr Raven identifies, especially important as men doubt and call into question graduate outcomes in the long term.
HEPI’s research also indicates that a tuition fee hike is made more palatable if accompanied by an increase in maintenance support. In a piece I wrote for the Sixteenth Council, I referred to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’s proposals regarding maintenance support. One of these was restoring the generosity of maintenance support to 2020 levels, which represents a 16% increase for the 23/24 intake. Yes, this means issuing £1.5bn in maintenance loans, but repayment levels would mean that the cost to the government and the taxpayer would fall to £0.4bn.
Therefore, making HE more attractive for young people – especially those white, working-class young men who are lacking that engagement with education – involves reducing the repayment term for tuition fees down to 20 years and restoring maintenance support to pre-COVID levels. Ultimately, this would, as HEPI’s research indicates, make the recent tuition fee rise more palatable and, in turn, set young minds at ease.
Another way of addressing these practical problems is spearheading a secondary school library-building scheme. The National Literacy Trust identified a strong link between school library use and reading attainment, which is especially important as low reading abilities help to ‘entrench’ education inequality in the UK. The provision and accessibility of school libraries from a young age can help boost attainment in early years and beyond, setting young men on a course that permits more positive thinking about further and then higher education.
The National Literacy Trust’s report also notes that library users receiving free school meals showed higher reading enjoyment and increased reading and writing for pleasure. They tended to read and write a greater variety of material relative to non-library users. In 2021, the Commons Education Committee found that white working class students were ‘by far the largest group of disadvantaged pupils’ with just under a million eligible for free school meals in 2020. Accessible libraries and reading spaces may be the next big step we can take to help disadvantaged pupils. The National Literacy Trust’s report reveals that white working-class boys receiving free school meals are particularly poised to benefit from a campaign of boosting libraries and reading spaces in educational settings, which may help improve their engagement with education as a whole.
A few months ago, I attended the Publishers’ Association’s parliamentary drop-in event, where I learnt a lot about the importance of the relationship between school libraries, reading attainment, and the publishing industry as a whole. I enjoyed reading in my primary school’s small library space, and throughout my time at secondary school, I made use of both the school’s reading spaces and our local community library. Unfortunately, I must recognise that this was an enormous privilege for a white working-class student when it should just be a permanent feature of our outstanding education system.
This is extremely relevant now as I look out on the educational landscape. Young men are falling behind women in education, a significant issue which goes way back to before primary school. According to the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), ‘From the day they start primary school, to the day they leave higher education, the progress of boys lags behind girls’.
Ultimately, the success of higher education in the 21st century will depend on how effectively universities can adapt to the evolving needs of all students. In the case of young men, this means recognizing their unique challenges and addressing them with targeted, thoughtful solutions. Only by doing so can we create a higher education system that truly serves everyone, regardless of gender.
As Mr Raven notes in his blog contribution, it is certainly ‘our problem, not theirs’.
Professor Claire Callender OBE, who held joint professorships at UCL Institute of Education and Birkbeck, University of London, died at home amid her family on Tuesday, 15 April, after the cancer which developed in one lung and was in remission had moved to the other. She dealt with her illness and the rollercoaster of treatments, tests and diagnoses with exceptional strength, characteristic realism and eventually, open acceptance, making the best of her remaining time. Claire’s life and contributions will now be celebrated, but her passing at a relatively young age has sent a wave of sadness through UK and world higher education. She touched the lives of many as a scholar, colleague and mentor; played a central role in policy and public discussion for three decades; and had much respect and friendship in the sector. She was awarded an OBE for services to higher education in 2017.
Claire attended Notting Hill and Ealing High School between 1961 and 1972, completed a BSc in Social Administration and Sociology at Bristol in 1979, after a period as a community worker in the Beit She’an Community Centre in Israel, and a PhD in Gender and Social Policy at the University of Wales in 1988. Her thesis topic was ‘Women’s employment, redundancy and unemployment’: both gender and the labour market for graduates were to become lifelong research preoccupations. She worked successively at University College Cardiff, and the Universities of Leeds, Bradford and Sussex (in the Institute of Employment Studies), before becoming head of the Family Finances Research Group at the Policy Studies Institute in London (1994-1998). Her first chair appointment was at London South Bank University as Professor of Social Policy (1998-2008). Claire’s social research star was rising and early in the Blair years (1999-2000) she spent time in the Cabinet Office on secondment as Head of Research in the Women’s Unit and a member of the Senior Management Team.
In 2006 and 2007, Claire was a visiting scholar successively at the Center for the Study of Higher Education at Pennsylvania State University, and the Graduate School of Education at Harvard, and was also a Fulbright New Century Scholar in 2007/08, forging productive research collaborations in the United States that continued throughout her career. Her post as Professor of Higher Education Policy commenced at Birbeck in 2008, followed by the Professorship of Higher Education Studies at the Institute of Education (which merged with UCL in 2015) in 2010. She juggled the respective cultures, needs and demands of the two rather different neighbouring institutions with aplomb. Her heart might have been with Birkbeck, and there her policy focus on part-time, adult and evening students had its natural home, while UCL IoE placed her squarely in the centre of the university-policy interface and brought multiple opportunities for fruitful collaborations and ongoing academic friendships.
In 2012, she worked with Peter Scott to develop a bid to the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for a five-year centre with a multi-project focus on higher education. The bid was unsuccessful but the theme caught the attention of the ESRC and the Higher Education Funding Council of England (HEFCE), and in the next ESRC centre round in 2014 there was a specific call for bids focused on the future of higher education, with HEFCE underwriting part of the cost. A team headed by myself was successful, establishing what became the ESRC Centre for Global Higher Education (CGHE) with £5.9 million for 2015 to 2020. Claire was named as a Deputy Director alongside a formidable group of England-based researcher-scholars including Peter Scott, Mike Shattock, Gareth Parry, William Locke, Lorraine Dearden, Gill Wyness and Paul Ashwin, as well as Ellen Hazelkorn at Technological University Dublin in Ireland and researchers from seven other international partner universities.
Claire convened five CGHE research projects under the heading ‘Social and Economic Impact of Higher Education’. Appropriately, given Claire’s own interests and skillset, these projects were all sharply focused on UK policy issues, while mindful also of global comparisons and relevance. The researchers on her list included the leading economists Bruce Chapman and Lorraine Dearden who together modelled income-contingent loans systems of tuition funding in a dozen countries. They achieved a major breakthrough in Columbia in 2022 where their blueprint was adopted by the ministry. Bruce and Lorraine were awarded the ESRC prize for policy impact and paid tribute to Claire’s role in supporting their work.
CGHE received a further tranche of £1.5 million in ESRC funding for 2020 to 2024 before entering its present phase as a largely self-funded operation. Claire continued as Deputy Director, central to CGHE research management and in public forums, and an appreciated mentor to junior researchers. Her own quantitative and qualitative CGHE inquiry into ‘The effects of student loan debt on graduates’ financial and life decisions’, working primarily with Ariane de Gayardon, led to successive papers on the human and social costs for diverse populations associated with the uniform system of student-user charges in England. From 1998 onwards, after fees were introduced into what had been a free higher education system, Claire had been concerned about student financing and its impact, including comparisons between England and Scotland where free education was maintained. She was frequently and eloquently public on those issues. Uncomfortable with debt financing as a deterrent, a long burden and a source of inequalities, like many in higher education she was a staunch advocate of maintenance grants. Her concern that the 2012 full fee system would discriminate against part-timers proved wholly justified when full-time enrolments held up while part-time numbers plummeted. The then Minister for Higher Education, now David (now Lord) Willetts, acknowledged that Claire’s work on the issue was unique and crucial.
As this suggests, perhaps the key aspect of Claire’s scholarly work was her eye for policy relevance. During her career she was commissioned to undertake research and/or invited to present evidence to the OECD, the European Commission and governments in Germany, Finland (where she was appointed by the Ministry of Culture and Education to the peer-review panel for the assessment of the Finnish Higher Education System in 2015), Poland, and Malaysia. She reported to numerous Parliamentary Select Committees in UK, and all the major reviews of student funding that took place in the UK after 1997 – including the most recent review, the Augar Report of 2019, where she was extensively cited. Claire’s contributions to research scholarship included more than 125 books, reports and chapters, more than 30 peer reviewed journal papers and numerous conference and seminar presentations. Some of her very best scholarly work was done in the final years. The last journal paper, with Ariane de Gayardon, was published in Policy Reviews in Higher Education earlier this year. Claire became a Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences in 2003 and her standing in Europe was recognised in 2023 by her elevation to Academia Europaea. The OBE acknowledged her UK policy work.
The formal honours were and are appropriate, but they do not capture the essence of Claire Callender in the world: the way she focused her formidable capacity for rational thought on matters to which she was committed, her gravitas that held the room when speaking, and the warmth that she evoked without fail in old and new acquaintances. Claire leaves her partner Annette and a large circle of family and friends. She is much missed.
* Simon Marginson is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Bristol, Professor of Higher Education (emeritus) at the University of Oxford, and Joint Editor in Chief of the journal Higher Education. He was director of the ESRC Centre for Global Higher Education from 2015 to 2024.
_____________________________
The HEPI staff team were grateful to have known Claire and to have had the honour of publishing some of her critically important work. We learnt a huge amount from her and will be among the very large number of people who will sorely miss her.
Gill Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge.
In early March 2025, the Trump administration sent letters to 60 US universities warning them that they faced ‘potential enforcement actions’ for what it described as ‘failure to protect Jewish students on campus’ during the widespread pro-Palestinian protests on campuses during the last year. This Government direction not only permitted terms to be set on which continuing funding was to be conditional for a specific higher education provider, but also allowed those terms to encroach on the academic freedom of an institution to choose what to teach and how. This ‘Project 2025’ also allowed the President to require a significant proportion of funding to go to the provision of ‘business’ courses.
There were wider consequences of these Government directions. The resulting limitation of funding for research quickly prompted hints of restricted publication of results and encouraged US academics to seek employment in Canada, the UK and Europe.
Though it was joined in its active resistance by Yale and Princeton, Harvard became a test case. It objected to the Government demand that it immediately agree:
to implement the Trump administration’s demands to overhaul the University’s governance and leadership, academic programs, admissions system, hiring process, and discipline system—with the promise of more demands to come
and thus ‘overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech’. [1] The US Education Department speedily responded, announcing on 14 April that it was freezing about $2.3bn of Harvard’s funding. On 15 April, Trump threatened to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status,
US universities are divided into the ‘private’ and ‘public’ on the basis of their funding and therefore differ in the extent to which they are at risk of loss of funding in attacks on their academic freedom. The ‘private’ Ivy League universities enjoy substantial endowments, making them less dependent on their supplementary Government funding than their ‘public’ counterparts.
The Office for Students funds and regulates higher education in England. MEDR, the Welsh Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, funds and regulates higher education in Wales, taking these responsibilities over from the former Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The counterpart body for Scotland is the Scottish Funding Council. This depends on the Scottish Government for the funding it disburses to providers.
English higher education providers enjoy an institutional autonomy, strengthened by the fact that Government funding for English higher education was greatly reduced with the progressive ending of a ‘block grant’ under the Higher Education Act of 2004 and the raising of tuition fees in 2012. That was replaced by much higher student tuition fees under the Higher Education and Research Act of 2017.
Under the same legislation the autonomy of higher education providers in England is protected, with express reference to their right to design their own courses, choose their students and appoint their academic staff. This extends to higher education at tertiary education levels 4 and 5 as well as to ‘degree-level’ 6 and postgraduate degrees at levels 7 and 8.
This legislative permission does not allow a free-for-all. ‘University’ is a ‘sensitive term’ in English law, as are ‘higher’ and ‘accreditation’ when used of education. New providers may grant their own degrees and call themselves ‘universities’ only if they have powers to do so. In the case of new providers that requires Registration by the Office for Students (OfS). The OfS is subject only to ‘guidance on strategic priorities from the Department for Education’, though its activity is open to expressions of Parliamentary concern. For example, on 2 April 2025, the House of Commons debated ‘the impact of university finances on jobs in higher education’. It was suggested that ‘the funding model, which depends on international students paying higher fees, has harmed universities since Brexit’, but it was recognised that only public funding and such broad policy preferences lay with the Government.
The accreditation of qualifications in the UK is the responsibility of a number of agencies, some of which are professional and some are public bodies. In the USA ‘relying on private, independent accrediting agencies has been the most important tool for preventing the centralized political control of higher education in the United States’. The authority of the Trump directive over these seemed clear at first.
What protects the institutional autonomy of US Universities? The nearest US counterpart to the Office for Students is the Higher Learning Commission, an independent agency founded in 1895. It accredits institutions granting degrees. The University of Michigan, for example seeks renewal of its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission every ten years. Its ‘evaluations’ are conducted by reviewers from other institutions not the HLC itself.
The award of ‘University title’ and degree-awarding powers is not restricted in the US as it is in England. For example they may derive from a Charter establishing the institution. Its own Charter granted the Trustees of Columbia University degree-awarding powers and powers to create such:
ordinances and by-laws which to them shall seem expedient for carrying into effect the designs of their institution; Provided always, That such ordinances or by-laws shall not make the religious tenets of any person a condition of admission to any privilege or office in the said college, nor be inconsistent with the constitution and laws of this state, nor with the constitution and laws of the United States.
Private US universities
The privately funded Ivy League Universities were set up with a degree of constitutional independence. Each had a State-based beginning. Harvard was established as a College by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 with funding of £400. Its stated purpose was to ensure that the Puritans should be provided with educated ministers, by advancing ‘learning’ to meet the needs of ‘posterity’ and to avoid leaving churches with ‘an illiterate ministry’.Princeton, founded in 1746 by the Presbyterian Synod as the College of New Jersey, had its name changed to Princeton University in 1896. Its present charter dates from 1748. It too has Trustees. In an age when it could be expected that those arriving from England would be practising members of the Church of England, it was insistent about religious freedom:
Petitioners have also expressed their earnest Desire that those of every Religious Denomination may have free and Equal Liberty and Advantage in the Said College any different Sentiments in Religion notwithstanding.
Columbia, too, began as a College. It was granted a Royal Charter in 1754, making its governors a ‘body corporate’. In 1912, the corporate name was changed to ‘Columbia University’. A series of amendments followed, with an Act of the people of the State of New York in 1810 clarifying the position. Its Trustees were to form ‘a body politic and corporate’ ‘in the City of New York’, with ‘continual succession for ever’ and a common seal. The powers of its Trustees as governors were set out in detail, separating them decisively from the ‘professors’ and ‘tutors ‘. The Trustees were to:
have full power and authority to direct and prescribe the course of study, and the discipline to be observed in the said college, and also to select by ballot or otherwise, a president of the said college, who shall hold his office during good behavior,
but no ‘professor, tutor, or other assistant officer’ was to be a Trustee. There was to be an executive body, consisting of eleven of the Trustees, constituting ‘a quorum for the despatch of all [routine] business’.
Its Statutes include a ‘Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure’:
Academic freedom implies that all officers of instruction are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects; that they are entitled to freedom in research and in the publication of its results; and that they may not be penalized by the University for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity; but they should bear in mind the special obligations arising from their position in the academic community.
In March 2025, seeking to force the University of Columbia to comply with his instructions, the President of the USA withdrew $400m of federal funding. Nine specific ’reforms’ had been called for in this case, including a change of Departmental Head and modifications to its provision of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies. A Senior Vice-Provost was to review the educational programmes.
The University published a statement of its own view that certain ‘protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are generally not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct’ because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities’. Yet Columbia acceded to the Trump administration’s demands, including an agreement to expand ‘intellectual diversity’ as ‘defined by the Trump administration’.
Princeton spoke of resistance when the ‘Trump administration suspended dozens of grants to the University from several agencies, including the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Department of Defense’, pending ‘an investigation into antisemitism on campus’. Yale too declared its resistance in a letter signed by 900 of its Faculty, protesting at ‘unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance’. On March 31, Cornell published an op-ed by its President in the New York Times, describing the point which had been made in the interests of freedom of speech when the University held a Panel conversation exploring ‘pathways to peace’ for Israel and Palestine.
On 24 March, the American Association of University Professors and Democracy Forward explained the decision to litigate. On 11 April 202,5 Harvard began its own litigation about ‘the Trump administration’s unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech on a university campus’. It complained that on March 31 ‘an investigation of Harvard University’ had been announced and on April 3 this had been followed by an order to ‘adopt a list of vague yet sweeping programmatic and structural changes to university management, operations, and curriculum’ as a condition of the University continuing to be the ‘recipient’ of $9 billion ‘federal taxpayer dollars’.
Harvard argued that the Government had failed to take the required preliminary steps under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. These requirements, it pointed out, existed because ‘Congress recognized that allowing federal agencies to hold funding hostage, or to cancel it cavalierly, would give them dangerously broad power in a system in which institutions depend so heavily upon federal funding’. It pointed out that the Trump administration had:
frozen over $1 billion in funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University, with an even more shocking lack of process, not even purporting to issue communications providing notice under Title VI or any other legal authority.
Public US universities
US public universities are subject to national Government control as recipients of Government funding. State legislation about them is also significant. The University of North Carolina was established by legislation in 1789, becoming America’s first public university. Its many schools and offshoots were brought together by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1972. The Constitution of the State of Texas states that its legislature shall ‘establish, organise and provide for the maintenance, support, and direction of a University of the first class’ with a new ‘undergraduate curriculum’ and also ‘establish a more demanding standard for leadership of academic departments and research centres’. As a public research university, the University of Texas at Austin (founded 1883) now describes itself as ‘the flagship institution of the University of Texas System’.
Conclusion
A wise US university makes provision to respond to both Government and State supervision. Michigan has a Vice President for Government Relations, acting ‘as the university’s bridge between local, state, and federal governments’. Its ‘State Relations team is committed to building and nurturing strong relationships with state government officials and agencies’, seeking ‘to secure funding, influence policy, and represent the university’s interests in state-level discussions. It also has a Federal Relations team ‘dedicated to fostering and maintaining collaborative relationships between the university and federal government entities including the U.S. Congress’. It too has been subject to Donald Trump’s demands and has stopped the successful diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program it has run since 2016, and closed the office it had set up to deal with it.
It remains to be seen how far the present President of the USA will succeed in enlarging Government control of the nation’s institutions of higher education by linking direction of academic activity with their funding. Former President Barack Obama did not hesitate to express his support for Harvard, calling Trump’s action ‘unlawful and ham-handed‘.
[1]Harvard Faculty Chapter, and American Association of University Professors v.United States Department of Justice, filed 11 April, 2025.
But what is the hidden impact of accent bias across UK HE? How does it influence students’ academic life, belonging and wellbeing?
The Hidden Impact
In our current research (Tomé Lourido & Snell, under review), we conducted an accent bias survey with over 600 students at a Russell Group University in the North of England. It showed that a significant number of students experience accent-based disadvantages that have a lasting negative impact on their academic life. Negative experiences were most frequently reported by students from the North of England, especially from working-class backgrounds, and students who did not grow up speaking English, especially from minoritised ethnic backgrounds. These include:
Being marked as different or inferior through negative evaluation, miscategorisation and frequent microaggressions, such as having their accent mimicked, mocked and commented on.
Facing barriers to academic engagement and success. Students from these groups report feeling that their contributions in academic settings are not valued because of their accent, which makes them reluctant to participate in class. Some feel pressured to change their accent, adding an additional cognitive burden to in-class participation. These students are disadvantaged because they miss opportunities to develop and refine their thinking through dialogue with others.
Impacts on wellbeing and career aspirations: Due to negative past experiences, some students internalise negative perceptions of their accent, affecting their confidence and wellbeing, and making them reluctant to take up new opportunities or follow certain career paths. This can have a knock-on effect on their mental health.
The accent-based disadvantages reported by students are not simply representative of wider societal prejudices; for many, the university context was unique in highlighting and amplifying these prejudices. Students also recognised that accent bias intersects with other forms of discrimination – class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and disability – in complex ways. Thus, we argue that HEIs should turn an analytic lens on themselves and take action to tackle accent bias and related inequities.
From Awareness to Action: A Collaborative Approach
There is work to be done for all of us in HEIs to embrace a true multilingual and multicultural ethos and challenge the idea that there is an idealised type of university student. We must “de-normalise” the microaggressions against students with accents perceived as “regional” or “foreign” and ensure that students from all backgrounds are able to participate in the classroom without feeling out of place. We propose four areas of interdisciplinary and collaborative work across the organisation:
Raise awareness of accent bias and its negative consequences in collaboration with students and student unions. Create a communications campaign, provide targeted student and staff training, engage with career offices and employers.
Tackle accent-based inequities by adopting a good practice statement about linguistic diversity and incorporating action into Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy and practice. Include content on linguistic diversity and discrimination in relevant university policies (e.g. mutual respect), strategies, student communications, and training (e.g. induction).
Create a safe report and support route within existing systems for linguistic discrimination, bullying and harassment. Train staff supporting students, including personal tutors, on accent bias and its impact on academic life.
Evaluate the effect of accent bias on students’ success, belonging and wellbeing. Track linguistic diversity. Assess the success of initiatives.
Accent bias remains a largely unaddressed issue in large organisations. HEIs can play a pivotal role in leading a much-awaited societal change.
Addressing accent bias in Higher Education is about breaking down barriers to opportunity and creating an environment in which all students, regardless of their background, can succeed in their studies, secure jobs, and contribute positively to society. By doing so, HEIs will support the employability of their students, a key metric for prospective students when selecting a university, and contribute to economic growth and social mobility.
We encourage senior leaders to take proactive steps to tackle the negative consequences of accent bias and foster a more inclusive and equitable Higher Education system where students from all linguistic backgrounds can thrive.
Customer Relationship Management (CRM) systems have become essential tools in higher education, transforming how universities interact with prospective students, current students, alumni, and other stakeholders. Whether you’re trying to track your enrollment funnel, streamline your recruitment process, or boost retention, CRM systems offer many unique marketing benefits for your institution.
You may have already encountered discussions about CRM platforms, but understanding their full potential in an educational context is key to optimizing your institution’s outreach, recruitment, and engagement efforts. Keep reading to learn more about higher education CRM systems, the unique marketing benefits they offer, and how you can get started.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Understanding Higher Education CRM
What is a CRM in higher education? It’s a powerful software solution that helps universities manage relationships at every stage of the student lifecycle. Traditionally associated with sales and customer service in corporate settings, CRM technology has evolved to meet the specific needs of educational institutions. In higher education, a CRM can track interactions with prospective students, automate communication, and analyze data to improve engagement and conversion rates.
Unlike a standard student information system (SIS), which focuses on administrative tasks like enrollment and grades, a CRM is designed for relationship-building. It allows universities to personalize outreach, streamline marketing efforts, and nurture students from the moment they express interest until they become engaged alumni. By integrating CRM technology into your institution’s marketing strategy, you can enhance recruitment efforts, improve retention rates, and foster long-term alumni engagement.
Source: HEM
Are you wondering how your university can unlock the benefits of a CRM? Reach out to learn about our tailored digital marketing solutions.
The Benefits of CRM Systems for Universities
What are universities using CRM for? Well, to be successful as an educational institution, building and maintaining positive relationships with prospective students is necessary. CRMs help schools manage those relationships at various stages of the enrollment funnel and offer valuable marketing benefits.
One of the most significant advantages of implementing a CRM in higher education marketing is the ability to centralize and manage vast amounts of student data efficiently. Rather than relying on disparate spreadsheets, email threads, and manual tracking, a CRM consolidates all interactions into a single platform, ensuring every team member has up-to-date information.
A well-implemented CRM system helps streamline the recruitment process by automating lead nurturing. When prospective students submit inquiries through your website, attend a virtual event, or download a brochure, a CRM can trigger personalized email sequences, follow-up reminders, and targeted content recommendations based on their interests. This level of automation ensures that no lead is left unattended, allowing admissions teams to focus on high-value interactions.
Beyond recruitment, CRM systems are crucial in improving student engagement and retention particularly when data from a Student Information System is integrated. Universities can use CRM and SIS analytics to monitor student behaviour, such as class attendance, engagement with academic advisors, or extracurricular activities. If a student begins to disengage, automated alerts can prompt intervention from faculty or student services, helping to improve retention rates and overall student satisfaction.
Another key area where CRMs add value is in alumni relations and fundraising. By tracking alumni career paths, donation history, and event participation, universities can segment their alumni base and tailor communications accordingly. For instance, an alumni relations team can identify graduates likely to contribute to fundraising campaigns based on past engagement, ensuring that outreach efforts are strategic and effective.
Source: HEM
Implementing a CRM System in Your University
Integrating a CRM into your university’s operations requires careful planning and execution. The first step is selecting a CRM that aligns with your institution’s needs. Some CRMs, like Salesforce Education Cloud, HubSpot, or Slate, are specifically designed for higher education, offering features tailored to student recruitment, engagement, and alumni relations.
Prioritize Data Integration
Data integration is another challenge that universities must address. Many institutions already have multiple systems for student records, financial aid, and course management. Ensuring that the CRM integrates seamlessly with these existing platforms prevents data silos and a smooth flow of information across departments. This might require working closely with IT teams or investing in middleware solutions to facilitate integration.
Measure Results and Plan Accordingly
Once a CRM is chosen, establishing clear goals and key performance indicators (KPIs) is crucial. Universities should determine what they want to achieve with their CRM, whether it’s increasing application rates, improving response times for inquiries, or boosting alumni donations. Setting measurable objectives ensures that the CRM is used strategically.
Example: A great way to measure the success of your marketing efforts using a CRM is to track the outcomes of your communications as pictured below. This data is extremely valuable as now, you know how many prospects you were able to reach, how they responded to your communications, and whether you need to obtain more accurate contact information. This is just one of the metrics you can track using our Mautic CRM system.
Source: HEM | Mautic
Get Your Whole Team Involved
Staff training is another essential component of successful CRM implementation. A CRM is only as effective as the people using it, so ensuring that admissions teams, marketing departments, and student services personnel are comfortable navigating the system is paramount. Conducting regular training sessions, creating user guides, and designating CRM champions within each department can help drive adoption and maximize efficiency.
Focus on Personalization
To fully leverage the potential of a CRM, universities should also focus on personalization. With the data collected through a CRM, institutions can tailor communications to different student segments. For instance, a prospective student interested in business programs should receive targeted content about faculty research, alumni success stories, and upcoming application deadlines for the business school rather than generic university-wide messaging. Personalized engagement fosters stronger connections and increases the likelihood of conversion.
Example: How do you personalize your university marketing efforts? A great place to start if you’re still learning about your ideal prospect is tailoring marketing communications for the stage of the enrollment funnel they’re in. Through segmentation, a CRM system like Mautic can divide your contacts into groups based on their current relationship with your institution. This approach ensures you reach each lead at the right time with the right message.
Source: HEM | Mautic
Automate for Efficiency
Another best practice for CRM implementation is utilizing automation for efficiency. Many CRM platforms offer workflow automation features that simplify tasks such as sending event reminders, scheduling advisor meetings, and managing follow-ups. Automating repetitive processes reduces the administrative burden on staff, allowing them to focus on more strategic initiatives.
Example: A CRM system will enable you to craft automated email and SMMs to increase efficiency and ensure timely, carefully worded responses every time. Here, you can see how Mautic allows you to personalize your messages, time them, and tailor them to the purpose of your communication – to promote your university or to collect specific admission information.
Source: HEM | Mautic
The Future of CRMs in Higher Education
As technology continues to evolve, the role of CRMs in higher education will only expand. The rise of artificial intelligence and predictive analytics is already enhancing CRM capabilities, allowing universities to forecast enrollment trends, identify at-risk students before they drop out, and personalize outreach on a deeper level. Chatbots and AI-driven communication tools integrated into CRMs improve response times, ensuring prospective students receive instant answers to their inquiries.
Moreover, the shift towards hybrid and online education models has made digital engagement more critical. Universities that effectively utilize their CRM systems can provide seamless virtual experiences, track online learning engagement, and maintain meaningful connections with students regardless of physical location.
Choose a CRM Built for Higher Education
Unique needs call for unique solutions. A CRM for universities offers specialized features such as student lifecycle tracking, automated admissions workflows, alumni engagement tools, and seamless integration with existing student information systems, ensuring a more efficient and personalized approach to student recruitment, retention, and engagement.
One example of a CRM tailored specifically for higher education is Mautic by HEM. Developed from the Mautic open-source platform, Mautic by HEM offers a powerful combination of CRM and marketing automation designed to help universities streamline their lead management, supercharge their marketing efforts, and improve follow-up processes.
With tools for segmentation, automated workflows, email marketing, and analytics, Mautic by HEM enables institutions to track prospective students throughout the enrollment journey while optimizing team productivity. By leveraging this CRM, universities can enhance engagement, improve efficiency, and gain deep insights into recruitment and admissions efforts.
For university marketers and administrators looking to stay competitive, embracing CRM is an absolute must. With the right approach, a CRM can transform how your institution engages with students, streamline processes, and ultimately achieve enrollment and retention goals.
Example: For a complete view of how our CRM system can help you to reinvent your marketing strategy. In one of our previous webinars, we explored how Mautic can help you boost enrollment through effective relationship management.
Source: HEM | YouTube
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is a CRM in higher education?
Answer: It’s a powerful software solution that helps universities manage relationships at every stage of the student lifecycle.
Question: What are universities using CRM for?
Answer: Well, to be successful as an educational institution, building and maintaining positive relationships with prospective students is necessary. CRMs help schools manage those relationships at various stages of the enrollment funnel and offer valuable marketing benefits.
Dr Ismini Vasileiou is Associate Professor at De Montfort University, Director of the East Midlands Cyber Security Cluster and Director and Co-Chair of UKC3.
Higher education has always played a critical role in skills development, from professional fields like Medicine, Dentistry, and Engineering to more recent models such as degree apprenticeships. However, as the UK’s digital economy evolves at an unprecedented pace, there is a growing need to rebalance provision, ensuring that universities continue to equip graduates with both theoretical expertise and industry-ready capabilities in areas such as AI, cybersecurity, and automation.
The government’s strategic focus on workforce development underscores the importance of these changes, with higher education well-placed to lead the transformation. As industries adapt, the need for a highly skilled workforce has never been greater. The UK Government’s Plan for Jobs outlines a strategic vision for workforce development, placing skills at the heart of economic growth, national security, and regional resilience.
With the new higher education reform expected in Summer 2025, the sector faces a pivotal moment. The Department for Education has announced that the upcoming changes will focus on improving student outcomes, employment pathways, and financial sustainability in HE. While universities are autonomous institutions, government policy and funding mechanisms are key drivers influencing institutional priorities. The increasing emphasis on workforce development – particularly in cybersecurity, AI, and other high-demand sectors- suggests that universities will likely need to adapt, particularly as new regulatory and funding structures emerge under the forthcoming HE reform.
The National Skills Agenda: Why Higher Education Matters
The skills gap is no longer an abstract policy concern; it is a pressing challenge with economic and security implications. The introduction of Degree Apprenticeships in 2015 was a landmark shift towards integrating academic learning with industry needs. Subsequent initiatives, including MSc conversion courses in AI and Data Science,Level 6 apprenticeships, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) serve as policy levers designed to encourage and facilitate a more skills-oriented higher education landscape, rather than evidence of an inherent need for change. Through mechanisms such as Degree Apprenticeships, AI conversion courses, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, the government is actively shaping pathways that incentivise greater emphasis on employability and applied learning within universities.
The Plan for Change accelerates this momentum, funding over 30 regional projects designed to enhance cyber resilience and workforce readiness. One example is the CyberLocal programme, a government-backed initiative (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) focused on upskilling local authorities, SMEs, and community organisations in cybersecurity. CyberLocal connects universities, businesses, and local governments to deliver tailored cyber resilience training, addressing the increasing threats to national digital security. More information can be found through CyberLocal’s page.
Financial Pressures and the Case for Skills-Based Education
At the same time, the financial landscape of HE is shifting. Declining student enrolments in traditional subjects, increasing operational costs, and a competitive global market have left many institutions reassessing their sustainability strategies. The upcoming higher education reform will shape policy from 2025 onwards, and universities must determine how best to adapt to new funding models and student expectations.
While skills-based education is often positioned as a solution, it is not an immediate financial fix. Many Degree Apprenticeships are run at a loss due to administrative complexities, employer engagement challenges, and high operational costs. Several articles, including those previously published at HEPI, highlight that while demand is growing, institutions face significant challenges in delivering these programmes at scale.
Government-backed funding in AI training and cybersecurity resilience offers targeted opportunities, but these remain limited in scope. Some universities have found success in co-designed upskilling and reskilling initiatives, particularly where regional economic growth strategies align with HE capabilities. The Institute of Coding, a national collaboration between universities and employers funded by the Office for Students, has developed industry-focused digital skills training, particularly in software development and cybersecurity. Additionally, the Office for Students Short Course trial has enabled universities to develop flexible, modular programmes that respond directly to employer demand in areas such as AI, digital transformation, and cybersecurity. Other examples include the National Centre for AI in Tertiary Education, which supports universities in embedding AI skills into their curricula to meet the growing demand for AI literacy across multiple sectors. However, a broader financial model that enables sustainable, scalable skills education is still required.
Regional Collaboration and Workforce Development
Since 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) has supported the creation of Institutes of Technology (IoTs), with 19 now operational across England and Wales. These institutions prioritise digital and cyber education, aligning with local skills needs and economic strategies. Strengthening collaboration between HE and IoTs could enable universities to support regionally tailored workforce development.
Examples such as the East Midlands Freeport, the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Skills Observatory, and CyberLocal illustrate the power of localised approaches. The Collective Skills Observatory, a joint initiative between De Montfort University and the East Midlands Chamber, is leveraging real-time workforce data to ensure that training provision matches employer demand. These initiatives could provide a blueprint for future HE collaboration with regional skills networks, particularly as the UK government reviews post-2025 skills policy.
Cyber Resilience, AI, and the Challenge of Adaptive Curricula
The government’s focus on cyber resilience and AI-driven industries underscores the urgent need for skills development in these areas. With AI poised to reshape global industries, universities must ensure graduates are prepared for rapidly evolving job roles. However, one of the biggest challenges is the slow pace of curriculum development in higher education.
Traditional course approval processes mean new degrees can take two to three years to develop. In fields like AI, where breakthroughs happen on a monthly rather than yearly basis, this presents a serious risk of curricula becoming outdated before they are even launched. Universities must explore faster, more flexible course design models, such as shorter accreditation cycles, modular learning pathways, and micro-credentials.
Government-backed initiatives, such as the Institute of Coding, have demonstrated alternative models for responsive skills training. As the HE reform unfolds, universities will need to consider how existing governance structures can adapt to the demands of an AI-driven economy.
A New Skills Ecosystem: HE’s Role in the Post-2025 Landscape
The forthcoming higher education reform is expected to introduce significant policy changes, including revised funding structures, greater emphasis on employability and skills-based education, and stronger incentives for industry partnerships, particularly in STEM and digital sectors.
Higher education must position itself as a leader in skills development. The recent Universities UK (UUK) blueprint, calls for deeper collaboration between the further and higher education sectors, recognising their complementary strengths. Further education offers agility and vocational expertise, while higher education provides advanced research and higher-level skills training – together, they can create a seamless learner journey.
At the same time, national initiatives such as Skills England, the Digital Skills Partnerships, and Degree Apprenticeships present opportunities for universities to engage in long-term skills planning. The integration of Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) loans will further support continuous upskilling and career transitions, reinforcing the role of HE in lifelong workforce development.
Conclusion: Shaping the Future of HE Through Skills and Collaboration
With the HE reform announcement expected in Summer 2025, universities must act now to align with the government’s long-term skills agenda. The future of HE is being written now, and skills must be at the heart of it.
Personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education is the school curriculum subject in England dedicated to supporting children’s safety, health, wellbeing and preparation for life and work. When timetabled and taught effectively, it can play a key role in improving young people’s preparedness for life beyond school, including for higher education and the graduate labour market. For instance, PSHE education can provide a safe and dedicated space for young people to learn about sex and relationships, budgeting and time management, among other things that most students will need to navigate more independently – and sometimes for the first time – during higher education.
As the official subject association for PSHE education, and a charity and membership body supporting over 50,000 teachers and schools nationally with resources, training and guidance, the PSHE Association was especially interested in the Higher Education Policy Institute’s (HEPI) recent report, One Step Beyond, which investigated how well the curriculum as a whole prepares young people for life beyond school.
The report, which is based on an analysis of data from a survey of 1,105 undergraduates in England, found that over half of participants wanted to have received more education on personal finances and budgeting (59%) and to have had more opportunities to learn ‘life skills’ (51%) prior to entering higher education. A large minority also wanted to have received more careers education (44%), a topic that PSHE education covers and which, when delivered well, can make a positive difference to young people’s confidence, sense of direction and career trajectories.
Importantly, the report also found that over half (58%) of participants wanted PSHE education to be compulsory until 18. At present, while relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is compulsory for 16- to 18-year-olds in schools with sixth forms – and our own PSHE education planning guidance runs up to post-16 / key stage 5 – this requirement is not applicable to other settings, including sixth form and further education colleges. Furthermore, existing PSHE education content on economic wellbeing, personal financial education and careers education is optional in all but independent schools. As there is evidence to suggest that these are topics that young people from more affluent backgrounds are more likely to be taught about and discuss with their parents, all of PSHE education, including economic wellbeing, personal finance and careers education, has the potential to contribute towards narrowing social inequalities. And this is what we argue strongly for in our response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, alongside strengthening the expectation that all young people should benefit from PSHE education up to the age of 18.
The good news is that since statutory RSHE requirements were introduced in 2020, these appear to have made a positive impact. And the findings from the One Step Beyond report support this idea, with half of the participants reporting feeling well prepared for sex and relationships in higher education in 2024 (47%) – almost double the percentage that reported feeling this way three years earlier (27%).
Another aspect of life which PSHE education can help young people to navigate during school, college and higher education is mental health. The One Step Beyond report found that most participants believed that their schools or colleges had done a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job of preparing them to plan and manage their workloads (61%); take care of their mental health and wellbeing (56%); and use healthy coping strategies (55%). However, a substantial minority of participants did not feel this way, suggesting that there is room to improve the quality of education that students receive on these topics – and PSHE education can play a crucial role in making this happen.
PSHE education provides opportunities for young people to learn about mental health and develop skills that can support them in taking care of it. For example, through PSHE education, young people can be taught about how to prevent and manage stress, which can aggravate or contribute towards the development of mental health difficulties. This is achieved in a variety of ways. For instance, by providing opportunities for young people to be taught about how to problem solve, develop greater emotional awareness, use healthy coping strategies, maintain good sleep routines and recognise when and how to access support for themselves or others.
After leaving school, such teaching could help young people to navigate further and higher education, which both demand greater independence and present unique opportunities and challenges. Illustrating this, when 136 A-level students were asked to describe their experience of sixth form using three words or phrases, the majority (79%) used at least one term to describe it as challenging and almost half (43%) described it as intense, stressful or overwhelming. Furthermore, across several interview studies, students have consistently described studying A-levels as a ‘massive step up’, a ‘jump’ and ‘a completely different ballgame’, which demands far more self-directed learning and can be an emotionally turbulent experience. It has also been found that experiencing education-related problems is among the main reasons why 16- to 18-year-olds contact Childline. So, PSHE education during school and post-16 education has the potential to support young people and contribute to improving higher education students’ mental health by equipping them with knowledge, understanding and skills that can help them to navigate this stage of education prior to entering it.
To conclude, high-quality PSHE education has the potential to improve young people’s preparedness for many aspects of higher education – social, academic and economic – as well as for life beyond its walls. And it is for this reason that the PSHE Association has argued in response to the Curriculum Review and Assessment Group consultation that personal finance education and careers education should be placed on the same statutory footing as RSHE and for PSHE education, comprising all these elements, to be scheduled as a school curriculum subject in all schools, with at least one timetabled lesson per week.
Findings from the One Step Beyond report indicate that PSHE education has had a positive impact on preparing young people for life beyond school, but that there is significant potential and need to build on improvements since elements of RSHE became statutory. This includes more emphasis on economic wellbeing, careers and mental health, as well as a guarantee that young people in all post-16 education settings can benefit from PSHE education until the age of 18 – not just those in specific settings.
