The student-led evaluation of the University of Sheffield Ambition Programme, in which Grit was a delivery partner, tells us that this is not how working-class students see it at all. Funded by the Law Family Charitable Foundation, the programme aims to support the success of young men from pre-16 through to graduation and beyond.
For some, being at university is less about personal success, more about what it means for their family. Students interviewed by the evaluation team talked about how:
success is less about my career or actual achievements. It’s more about my family… guiding my younger siblings into higher education.
For others it’s about taking the opportunities that run alongside the academic experience:
At the end of the day a degree is a piece of paper to get to you into a field of work but the opportunities are what makes a degree… for me it’s definitely the wider opportunities.
Personal growth and personal satisfaction are also significant indicators of success. Success is:
Proving that I could do it. My parents didn’t expect me to go to uni. I wasn’t ever a person who was getting straight As or was the smartest in the class… no one ever thought I was going to go into higher education. Even I didn’t.
And it comes with
the process and the journey, what you learn from different situations and experiences.
Much of this mirrors what employers say about the priorities of new graduates in the workplace. As one student said:
Success is more about the satisfaction you feel at the end of the day, your work-life balance and just feeling like you’re making a difference rather than the financial (although obviously the financial has an impact).
But, once again, the evaluation of the Ambition programme suggests that this is not how working-class students see things. While the students freely acknowledge the struggles they have had with belonging, with imposter syndrome, with the stigma that comes with a working-class accent, they also describe making connections across the classes:
When you’re from a working-class background, you don’t really talk to people of different backgrounds, but the programme has provided a different approach. So now I speak with people who’ve had an upper-class background. I’ve got a lot of international student friends and I’ve learned a lot from them.
How they have found belonging:
I feel like I belong at uni more than I thought I would because in the programme I immediately met people with a similar background to me…
How they got past feelings of stigma:
I did feel a bit hesitant, especially coming from Rotherham… literally everyone I met sounds like the Queen’s English, that everyone’s quite posh except me… but once you get to know everyone, you change your opinion and perception of it.
Success for working-class students, then, does not have to mean a transformation of identity, rejecting who you are and where you have come from. It’s not about conforming to an alien aspiration. Success is a reframing, on each individual student’s own terms, of their expectations for themselves and their future lives. It can mean a myriad of different things, but success doesn’t have to mean leaving your old self, your family, your community behind.
In times when there are significant questions about whether young people will be as wealthy, healthy and happy as their parents, when there are increasing debates about the value of a university education, isn’t it time for universities to expand their definition of success to what feels right and true, rather than to what extent students conform to somebody else’s expectations?
So, for the working-class students on our programmes, success might be about the contribution they make to their community or the next generation (the relative values of the pay of teachers and academics has been eroded significantly in recent years but few would argue that these are not a socially valuable and important roles). It might be about their happiness, fulfilment, job satisfaction and quality of life. It might be about finding new ways to live in the world around them.
As the old economic certainties are called into question, universities need to find new ways of measuring success beyond those that focus on earning potential and social status. They could start by making more use of questions from Graduate Outcomes Survey around well being and satisfaction. And, rather than being simply a snapshot in time, the Survey could look at the broader graduate journey.
For example, alumni can give a much richer picture of what success means in the long term. Case studies and narratives of life journeys help us understand how success means different things at different times. Where success for working-class students means returning to or staying in the communities where they were brought up, instead of being part of the flight to the big cities, then we might capture the economic impact on the prosperity of a local area.
In our programmes, we have seen how, with the right mixture of support, challenge and encouragement, working-class students come to define success on their own terms. It becomes an experience rooted in their own selves. After all, whose success is it anyway?
This guest blog was kindly authored by Dr Charlotte Ryland, Director of the Translation Exchange.
‘Languages are not just a skillset, they’re a mindset.’
I still remember where I was when a teacher friend made this comment, a few years ago, because it highlighted something I’d been worrying at for a long time. I felt that languages education for young learners undervalued the process of language learning itself, by underrating what it means to be a linguist. That value needed to be completely reframed: to move far beyond the notion that language learning gives you a set of useful communicative skills – the ‘utility argument’ – towards a more holistic and ambitious vision of the linguist’s mindset.
Fast forward to this summer, and a HEPI report by Megan Bowler highlighted a programme that I co-founded as doing just that: ‘[Think Like a Linguist offers] 12-13 year olds clear demonstrations of the value of a linguistic “mindset” and its real-world applications’.
That notion of the ‘real-world application’ is essential to how we think and talk about language learning and needs unpicking. I founded a languages outreach and advocacy centre (based at The Queen’s College, Oxford) because I was frustrated by existing languages outreach mechanisms run by universities. This frustration came in part from what I perceived as an over-emphasis on precisely those ‘real-world applications’: the outreach programmes I encountered tended to rely heavily on imagined futures – Keep learning your vocab and practising your grammar, then you’ll see! A life of travel, international business careers, slightly higher salaries awaits you! Yet this approach did not seem to be working for the year groups whose minds needed to be changed.
The cliff-edge for languages – in England and Wales – is now GCSE options, with over 50% of pupils opting out at the age of 13/14, i.e. at their first opportunity to do so. Languages presents university outreach with a special case, then: with a need to engage much younger learners than has traditionally been the case. Ideally, we start at upper primary and focus on lower secondary school learners, before pupils begin to think seriously about their GCSE options. My approach to working with this demographic has been to take a ‘show, not tell’ approach – to involve learners from age 8 in rich, creative, cultural activities that enable them to experience first-hand the pleasure and purpose of being a linguist.
That focus on showing is key to how we should treat the real-world applications, too. It is not enough to give pupils a learning experience based solely on communicative skills, while trying to tell them that this education will secure them a good job in our competitive, AI-soaked 21st-century economy. They don’t buy it, and the uptake statistics for formal language learning bear this out. Instead, we need to show those learners how relevant and in-demand the ‘linguistic mindset’ they develop will be, by integrating into the learning experience the broadest conception of what it means to be a linguist.
Higher Education institutions can do this. And they’ll do so much more effectively if they work together. They have access to a huge community of language graduates, who have between them generations of experience in the widest range of professions. With this community, the broadest conception of the linguistic mindset becomes tangible. In my experience, it falls into your lap the minute you ask one of these graduates about the impact of their languages education on their career path and life experience.
A standard response runs like this: they move quickly through the frontline benefits around communication in other languages – taking them as a given – and light instead on what Bowler refers to as ‘the irreplaceable advantages of the “linguistic mindset”’. For a lawyer, it includes the capacity to cope with frustration, to tolerate and work through uncertainty; for a consultant, it is being able to build trusted relationships and read between the lines. A civil servant might reference their ability to synthesise and analyse a large amount of information, seeking out potential biases and multiple perspectives. The list goes on and is underlined by the striking words of a 13-year-old participant in Think Like a Linguist: ‘I learnt that there is more to languages than speaking and listening. It’s also about thinking in your own way.’
If we have access to a form of education that stands to raise a generation of individuals able to think for themselves, and to do so on the global stage, then what are we waiting for?
The readiness of languages graduates to share these insights is one of the sector’s greatest assets. We need a national conversation about the value of languages for individuals and for society, fuelled by these stories and taking full account of the challenges currently being set us by AI. Duolingo have set us on an excellent path, with evidence in their user statistics and polling that the UK is a country of languages enthusiasts. As Duolingo’s UK Director Michael Lynas notes in his introduction to Bowler’s report, we need not be dogged by the negativity that often frames conversations about languages: instead, we must build on the tangible positives.
For this national conversation to make an impact, collaboration will be key. Shared learning from effective university outreach programmes to date can provide a basis for this conversation. And The Languages Gateway, a new cross-sector initiative dedicated to collating resources and supporting strategic collaboration, can host it. Further backing for this national conversation from higher education institutions and central government will support the Gateway in its work to raise the national profile of languages to where it belongs: delivering ‘irreplaceable’ value to 21st-century global Britain.
This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.
New figures from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show that student suicide rates in England and Wales for the period 2016 to 2023 remain stable – but stability is no cause for complacency. The age-adjusted suicide rate among higher education students stands at 6.9 deaths per 100,000, compared with 10.2 per 100,000 for the general population of the same age group. Over the seven years of data collection, there were 1,163 student deaths by suicide – that is around 160 lives lost every year.
The rate being lower than the wider population is encouraging and may reflect the investment the sector has made in recent years. Universities have developed more visible wellbeing services, invested in staff training and created stronger cultures of awareness around mental health. The relative stability in the data can be seen as evidence that these interventions matter. But stability is not a resolution. Each student suicide is a preventable tragedy. The data should therefore be read not as reassurance, but as a call to sustain momentum and prepare for the challenges that lie ahead.
What the ONS data tells us
The figures highlight some familiar patterns. Male students remain at significantly higher risk than female students, accounting for nearly two-thirds of all suicides. Undergraduate students are at greater risk than postgraduate students, while students living at home have the lowest suicide rate. The data also shows that rates among White students are higher than for Black or Asian students, though the sample sizes are small, so these figures may be less reliable.
In terms of trend, the highest rate was recorded in the 2019 academic year (8.8 per 100,000). Since then, the rate has fallen back but remains stubbornly consistent, with 155 deaths recorded in the most recent year. The ONS notes that these figures are subject to revision due to coroner delays, meaning even the latest year may be under-reported.
The key point is that the problem is not worsening, but it is also not going away.
A changing student demographic
This year’s recruitment trends have introduced a new variable. Several high-tariff providers (universities with the highest entry requirements) have reduced entry requirements in order to secure numbers. This can open up opportunities for students who might otherwise not have had access to selective institutions. But it does raise important questions about preparedness.
Students admitted through lower tariffs may bring with them different kinds of needs and pressures: greater financial precarity, additional academic transition challenges, or less familiarity with the social and cultural capital that selective universities sometimes assume. These are all recognised risk factors for stress, isolation and, in some cases, mental ill-health. Universities with little prior experience of supporting this demographic may find their existing systems under strain.
Building on progress, not standing still
Much good work is already being done. Many universities have strengthened their partnerships with local National Health Service (NHS) trusts, introduced proactive wellbeing campaigns and embedded support more visibly in the student journey. We should recognise and celebrate this progress.
At the same time, the ONS data is a reminder that now is not the moment to stand still. Stability in the numbers reflects the effort made – but it should also prompt us to ask whether our systems are sufficiently flexible and resilient to meet new pressures. The answer, for some institutions, may well be yes. For others, particularly those adapting to new student demographics, there is a real risk of being caught unprepared.
What needs to happen next
There are several constructive steps the sector can take:
Stress-test provision: Assess whether wellbeing and safeguarding structures are designed to support the needs of the current, not historic, intake.
Broaden staff capacity: Ensure that all staff, not just specialists, have the awareness and training to spot early warning signs so that distress does not go unnoticed.
Strengthen partnerships: Align more closely with local NHS and community services to prevent students falling between two in-demand systems.
Share practice sector-wide: Collectively learn across the sector. Good practice must be disseminated, not siloed.
These are not dramatic or expensive interventions. They are achievable and pragmatic steps that can reduce risk while broader debates about legal and regulatory reform continue.
Conclusion
The ONS data shows that student suicide is not escalating. But the rate remains concerningly consistent at a level that represents an unacceptable loss of life each year. The progress universities have made should be acknowledged, but the danger of complacency is real. As recruitment patterns shift and new student demographics emerge, the sector must ensure that safeguarding and wellbeing systems are ready to adapt.
Every statistic represents a life lost. Stability must not become complacency – it should be a call to action, a chance to consolidate progress, anticipate new challenges and keep the prevention of every avoidable death at the heart of institutional priorities.
This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages.
In Part 1, I looked at how the low grades given at GCSE languages – up to a grade lower than in pupils’ other subjects – is a manufactured situation, easily solved at the stroke of a pen. The narrative around languages being harder is nothing to do with the content of the course or the difficulty of the exam. It is simply a historical anomaly of how the grades are allocated. There is also a false narrative that this unfair grading is due to pupils’ individual ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. And I made a subtle plea for commentators to avoid reinforcing this narrative to push their own diagnosis or solutions.
In Part 2, I will consider what happens in post-16 language learning. This has also been the subject of reporting in the wake of A-Level results and the recent HEPI report. I am not going to deny that A-Level languages are in crisis. But the crisis in A-Level and the crisis of language learning post-16 are not one and the same.
There are specific problems with the current A-Level specification for languages. The amount of content to be studied, comprising recondite details of every aspect of the Spanish / French / German speaking world, is unmanageable. Worse, as this post explains, the content is out of kilter with the exam. All the encyclopaedic knowledge of politics, history, popular culture and high culture which takes up the bulk of the course, is ultimately only required for one question in just one part of the Speaking Exam. The difficulty of the course is compounded by the extremely high standards required, especially for students who have learned their language in the school context. I personally know of language teachers and college leaders who have discouraged their own children from taking A-Level languages in order not to jeopardise their grades for university application. It is getting to the point where I can no longer, in good conscience, let ambitious students embark on the course without warning them of the overwhelming workload and doubtful outcomes.
So A-Level could be improved. But as an academic course, it will always remain the domain of a tiny few. Similarly, specialist Philology degrees at university – the academic study of the language through the intersection of literary and textual criticism, linguistics and the history of the language – only attract a very small minority. Neither university language degrees, nor A-Level, are a mainstream language learning pathway.
It is a particularly British mentality to only value language learning if its intellectual heft is boosted by the inclusion of essays, abstruse grammar, linguistics, literature, politics, history, and a study of culture. In other words, philology. Philology is not the same as language learning.
Universities do offer language learning opportunities for students of other disciplines. However, in sixth form, because of the funding requirement to offer Level 3 courses, there are no mainstream language learning options available to the vast majority of students who do not study A-Level languages. We have a gap in 16-19 provision where colleges do not offer a mainstream language learning pathway.
This gap is fatal to language study. It means GCSE is seen as a dead-end. It means that universities have a tiny pool of students ready and able to take up language degrees or degrees with languages as a component.
The crisis is not one of how to channel more people into studying A-Level languages. It is a question of finding radical new ways of offering mainstream language learning post-16, and how to make this the norm. We know from the HEPI report that young people in the UK are among the most avid users of the online language learning app Duolingo. Young people are choosing to engage with language learning, but in terms of formal education, we are leaving a two-year gap between GCSE and the opportunities offered by universities.
If this hiatus in language learning is the problem, is there a solution? I have two suggestions. One of which is relatively easy, if we agree that action is needed. If universities genuinely believe that a language is an asset, then they could send a powerful message to potential applicants.
Going to university means joining an international organisation, including the possibility of studying abroad, using languages for research, engaging with other students from across the globe, and quite possibly taking a language course while at university. The British Academy reports that universities are calling for language skills across research disciplines, so I hope that they would be able to send a strong message to students in schools and colleges.
The message around applications and admissions could be that evidence of studying a language or languages post-16 is something that universities look for. At the very least, they could signal that an interest in self-directed language learning is something they would value.
I understand that most universities would stop short of making a qualification in a language a formal entry requirement, because they fear it could exclude many applicants, especially those from disadvantaged groups. But a strong message could help reverse the situation where language learning opportunities are currently denied to many under-privileged school pupils, who aren’t getting the message around the value of pursuing a language.
And my second, more difficult suggestion? Would it be possible to plug the two-year gap with a provision at sixth form or college? An app such as Duolingo has attractions. There is the flexibility and independence of study, as well as the focus on motivation by level of learning, hours of study or points scored. It is very difficult to imagine how a sixth form or college could provide language classes for their varied intake from schools, with different language learning experiences in different languages.
Is there scope here for a new Oak Academy to step in and create resources? Or for the government to commission resources from an educational technology provider? Is there a role for universities here? The inspiring Languages for All project shows what can happen when a university engages with local schools to identify and tackle obstacles to language learning. The pilot saw Royal Holloway University working with schools across Hounslow, to increase participation at A-Level in a mutually beneficial partnership. Many of the strategies could equally apply to more mainstream (non A-Level) language learning partnerships. These included strong messaging, co-ordinated collaboration between colleges, face-to-face sessions and events at the university, and deployment of university students as mentors.
The aim would be to transform the landscape. Currently we have a dead-end GCSE where unfair grading serves as a deterrent, and where there is no mainstream option to make continuing with language learning the norm. A strong message from universities, along with an end to unfair grading, could make a big difference to uptake at GCSE. A realisation that A-Level and specialist philology degrees are not sufficient for the language learning needs of the country could lead to alternative, imaginative and joined-up options post-16. It could also boost the provision or recognition of self-study of a language and may even lead to the reinvigoration of adult education or university outreach language classes. And it could even see a larger pool of candidates for philology degrees at university.
This guest blog was kindly authored by Dr Tabetha Newman, CEO and Senior Researcher at Timmus Research and Elizabeth Newall, Senior Sector Specialist at Jisc.
Transnational education (TNE) is the delivery of UK higher education qualifications in countries other than the UK, allowing students to study for a UK degree without relocating to the UK. It can take various forms, including distance learning, overseas branch campuses, joint degrees, and partnerships with local institutions.
In July, we asked a simple but pressing question in a HEPI blog: Who’s listening to the TNE student experience? With rising UK TNE student numbers and an increasingly competitive global education landscape, the quality of the TNE experience is central to the success of UK higher education abroad.
Over the past three years, Jisc has been listening. Our research has focused on better understanding the digital experience of both international students (those travelling to the UK to study), and TNE students (those who study for a UK Higher Education award overseas), along with the staff who teach them. What we’ve found challenges assumptions and highlights the complexity of delivering equitable learning experiences across digital borders.
The known challenges
In July, Jisc published its first TNE report, drawing on HESA’s most recent international and TNE student data, and describing four digital challenges to global education delivery that UK providers and sector leaders already recognise:
Connectivity and access to devices and technology.
Access to digital resources such as online platforms, software, e-books and e-journals.
Cultural differences in how digital is used to support teaching and learning.
The digital skills of students and staff.
These challenges are not new, but what’s been missing is a deeper understanding of how they present in real life, across different countries, contexts, and modes of delivery.
Listening to lived experience
This month Jisc launches its second TNE report, based on the feedback gathered in partnership with 19 UK higher education providers of over 5,000 students and staff in 51 instances of TNE in over 30 countries. Insights were gathered from all forms of teaching delivery, from fully online to classroom-based.
The report provides the sector with vital detail on lived experiences of students and staff in relation to the four known digital challenges listed above. They reveal not just the presence of digital challenges, but the nuances of how they’re experienced, and how they shape access and engagement. The feedback also identified:
Differences in connectivity and access by country and global region.
How digital is used to support teaching and learning in different learning course contexts.
Digital challenges as identified by fly-in, remote and host country staff, and what additional support and training is required
Feedback in relation to themes such as internationalising and localising curricula, assessment, and use of GenAI.
Rethinking Delivery
These insights prompt a difficult but necessary question: are global learners accessing UK TNE as intended?
The answer in many cases is no. UK qualifications retain global recognition, yet Jisc’s findings challenge us to rethink delivery: high-quality education loses impact if TNE students and staff are unable to access or engage with it as planned.
Key issues identified include:
Connectivity and availability of equipment: TNE students’ ability to study online is shaped, not just by when they want to learn, but when they can connect. Access to a reliable electricity supply; availability of free Wi-Fi; small versus large screen device use; and reliance on cellular data (at personal cost) varies significantly between countries and global areas.
Access to digital resources and learning materials: Global digital resource access is heavily influenced by publisher and software licensing restrictions, national regulations and infrastructure gaps which vary from country to country. Students frequently cite difficulties using online resources, and express frustration with time-limited access and high data costs.
Cultural differences in digital educational practice: Teaching practice differs between countries and cultures, notably in relation to expectations of independent study, feedback and collaboration. Students’ prior experience and expectations related to digital learning can vary as a result.
Digital skills and capabilities: Confidence in digital skills varies by learning mode, with online or distance learners receiving the least guidance. Unclear or conflicting guidance around the use of digital tools such as AI is identified as a concern for both students and staff.
What needs to change?
The report doesn’t just give voice to lived experiences, it provides practical recommendations for HE providers and policymakers. These are broken into topics including:
Digital resource planning with global access in mind.
Curriculum design and delivery for diverse learning contexts.
Communicating clearly with TNE students.
Staff training and support.
Digital capabilities development across all modes of delivery.
Importantly, the report responds to recent calls for greater transparency in TNE student experience data by providing a publicly accessible source of student voice – inviting the sector to engage, reflect, and act.
Sector voices
The response from sector leaders has been enthusiastic and deeply thoughtful.
Griff Ryan, Head of TNE at Universities UK International, welcomed the report, commenting:
Recent years have seen significant progress in understanding the experiences of TNE students, and this report continues that trend… With findings broken down by global region and mode of delivery, the report offers valuable guidance for universities and policymakers alike… This report is a timely and practical resource for institutions looking to strengthen their TNE offer. I’d like to thank Jisc and the 19 contributing universities for their work, and I look forward to the conversations and actions it will help to shape.
Professor Dibyesh Anand, Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Global Engagement and Employability), University of Westminster reminds us that:
Transnational education is meant to spread the benefits and cultures of internationalised education, and to an extent, ‘democratise’ it, around the world. Yet, this important report is a sobering reminder that inequities prevent a uniform experience with TNE. Therefore, universities need to be mindful about having understanding, resources, and processes to challenge inequities, provide consistency while accepting healthy differences, and encourage an inclusive education.
Professor David Carter, Dean of Teaching and Leaning at the University of Reading, and author of the November 2024 HEPI report The student experience of transnational education, highlights the importance of challenging our assumptions:
This is one of the largest and most comprehensive pieces of research into the student experience of UK transnational education. Behind the responses and the insights lies a huge variety of student and staff experience. The report brings several issues into much sharper focus. For UK providers, often the biggest challenge comes with our own assumptions. Things that we take for granted in the UK can be points of difference when it comes to TNE students. This includes everything, from how students access higher education to their attitudes to learning. A core skill for academic and professional staff who work in transnational education, therefore, is adaptability combined with respect for cultural differences. The recommendations in this report provide a useful toolkit for providers to use as they seek to expand TNE provision. It shows that there are clear gains to be made if UK providers work together to address common challenges.
What’s next?
Jisc’s TNE digital experience research is ongoing. We’ll continue working with providers to support more equitable digital learning and teaching, and we invite you to be part of that journey.
Marketing can make or break a private school’s success. Because even the best programs won’t fill classrooms if families don’t know what your school has to offer.
Private and independent schools that once relied on word-of-mouth or legacy reputation now compete in a vastly different environment. Families have more options, higher expectations, and greater access to information than ever before. The result? Schools must communicate not just what they offer, but why it matters.
The pandemic underscored this shift. While many private schools saw enrollment rise as families sought flexibility and a sense of community, sustaining that growth now depends on something deeper: a clear, consistent brand story and a modern marketing strategy that builds trust through every interaction.
This guide shows you how.
Drawing on 15+ years of HEM’s work with schools and colleges, we’ll clarify what private educational marketing means and why it’s now mission-critical for admissions and retention. Then we’ll move from strategy to execution, how to define your school’s positioning, understand the motivations of parents and students, and turn that insight into high-performing digital and word-of-mouth campaigns.
What you’ll learn:
How to differentiate your school with a compelling value proposition and proof points
The channels that actively move inquiries (website/SEO, social, email, paid)
Content and community tactics that convert interest into visits and applications
A step-by-step plan to build (or refresh) a coherent marketing strategy
We’ll weave in real examples, both client work and standout schools, to keep it practical and immediately usable.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
What Is Marketing in Education?
Put simply, marketing in education is about connection. It’s understanding what families value and communicating how your school meets those needs with clarity and authenticity. It’s a strategic process of shaping perception, building relationships, and inspiring trust in your institution’s promise.
In practice, this means identifying what makes your school distinct, whether it’s academic excellence, small class sizes, or a values-driven community, and ensuring those strengths are reflected across every touchpoint: your website, social media, campus events, and everyday communication.
But here’s the key difference from corporate marketing: in education, the “product” is transformative. You’re not selling a service; you’re demonstrating outcomes like student growth, alumni success, and lifelong belonging.
That’s why leading independent schools now view marketing as a strategic discipline, not an afterthought. Many have dedicated teams managing branding, digital presence, and admissions communications, because in today’s landscape, great education needs great storytelling to thrive.
What Is the Role of Marketing in Schools?
Essentially, marketing in schools is about alignment; connecting what a school offers with what families seek. A strong marketing function doesn’t just fill seats; it sustains a mission. It ensures enrollment remains healthy, relationships stay strong, and the school continues to thrive long term. Here are a few key roles that marketing plays in a private or independent school:
Driving Enrollment and Retention: Effective private education marketing attracts new families and nurtures existing ones. From open house campaigns to parent newsletters that celebrate student success, it reassures families they’ve made the right choice, turning satisfaction into advocacy.
Building Brand and Reputation: Every message, photo, and interaction shapes how a school is perceived. Strong marketing clarifies the school’s value and ensures consistency across channels, building recognition and trust.
Fostering Community Engagement: Marketing also connects the internal community (students, parents, and alumni), transforming them into ambassadors whose stories amplify the school’s credibility and reach.
In essence, marketing is the strategic engine that sustains both mission and momentum.
How to Market Private Schools: Key Strategies
Marketing independent schools successfully starts with one word: focus. The most effective strategies combine digital innovation with human connection, reflecting both the school’s personality and the priorities of modern families. In this section, we explore key strategies and best practices for private education marketing. These will answer the big question: “How do we market our private or independent school to boost enrollment and stand out?”
1. Understand Your Target Audience and Their Needs
Everything begins with insight. Parents and guardians are the primary decision-makers for K–12 education, so understanding what they value, whether it’s academic rigor, faith-based values, or community belonging, is essential. Avoid broad messaging that speaks to “everyone.” Instead, analyze your current families: Where do they live? What motivated their choice? What concerns drive their decision-making?
Many schools formalize this through personas, fictional yet data-driven profiles like “Concerned Parent Carol,” representing key audience segments. Surveys, interviews, and CRM data can help refine these personas to reveal motivations and needs.
Example: Newcastle University (UK). The university’s marketing team uses data and research to deeply understand prospective students. Newcastle’s internal content guide emphasizes identifying audience needs through methods like analytics, social media listening, surveys, and focus groups. This research informs content planning, ensuring communications solve audience problems and use the right tone and channels.
Once you know your audience, tailor your outreach accordingly. Working parents may prefer evening emails; international families may value multilingual content highlighting boarding life. Each message should reflect your school’s unique strengths and speak directly to what families care about most.
In short, marketing begins with knowing your families deeply and crafting messages that make them feel seen, understood, and inspired to choose your school.
2. Define and Promote Your School’s Unique Value Proposition
Once you know your audience, the next step is to define what truly makes your school stand out. In a competitive education landscape, clarity is power, and your Unique Value Proposition (UVP) is what helps families instantly understand why your school is the right choice.
Start by asking: “What do we offer that others don’t?” Your differentiators might be tangible (like an IB-accredited curriculum, advanced STEM facilities, or bilingual instruction) or emotional (a nurturing environment, strong moral foundation, or inclusive community). The key is to highlight the qualities that align with your audience’s values and can’t easily be replicated by competitors.
Look at what nearby schools emphasize, then find the white space. Finally, weave your UVP consistently through your website, tagline, visuals, and social media tone. A clear, authentic value proposition creates confidence and shows families not just what you offer, but why it matters.
Example: Minerva University (USA). Minerva differentiates itself with a global immersion undergraduate program and an active learning model. The university clearly promotes this UVP: students live and study in seven cities on four continents over four years, rather than staying on one campus. Minerva’s website emphasizes that this global rotation and its innovative, seminar-based curriculum prepare students to solve complex global challenges. Each year in a new international city is not a travel experience but an integral part of academics, which Minerva markets as a unique offering in higher education.
3. Build a Robust Online Presence (Website, SEO, and Content)
Your school’s online presence is its digital front door, often the first impression prospective families have. A strong online foundation combines a polished website, smart SEO, and valuable content that informs, inspires, and converts.
Website Design & User Experience (UX) Your website should feel like a guided tour: beautiful, intuitive, and informative. Parents should quickly find essentials like admissions details, tuition, programs, and contact info. Use clean navigation, mobile-first design, and fast loading speeds to keep users engaged. High-quality visuals, such as campus photos, testimonial videos, or 360° virtual tours, bring your school to life. Consistent colors, logos, and tone across every page reinforce trust and ensure brand cohesion.
Search Engine Optimization (SEO) Even the best website can’t help if no one finds it. Use relevant keywords (e.g., “private school in Toronto,” “Catholic high school with IB program”) naturally in titles, headings, and meta descriptions. Create dedicated pages for programs and locations, optimize image alt text, and claim your Google Business profile to strengthen local SEO visibility.
Content Marketing Keep your site dynamic through regular updates via blog posts, student stories, and event recaps. Highlighting achievements and thought-leadership topics (like “How to Choose the Right Private School”) builds credibility and draws organic traffic.
Example: Massachusetts Institute of Technology – MIT (USA): MIT’s Admissions Office hosts a famous student-written Admissions Blog that has become a pillar of its online presence. For over a decade, current MIT students have blogged candidly about campus life and academics, amassing thousands of posts read by prospective students worldwide. This blog strategy – focusing on transparency and real student voices – has paid off: the content generated millions of views, a robust engagement, and is often cited by applicants as influential in their college choice. MIT even curates a “Best of the Blogs” booklet and frequently analyzes blog traffic and feedback, using those insights to continually refine content and keep its website highly relevant to what prospective students want to know.
A well-designed, search-optimized, content-rich website isn’t just marketing; it’s proof of excellence.
4. Leverage Social Media and Digital Engagement
Social media is no longer optional. For private schools, it’s often the first place parents and students experience your community. Done right, it doesn’t just showcase your school; it builds lasting emotional connections.
Choose the Right Platforms Focus on where your audience spends time. For most schools, Facebook and Instagram are the anchors.
Facebook for community updates, parent groups, and event highlights.
Instagram for vibrant visuals and stories from daily campus life.
Schools serving older students or alumni can also explore TikTok, YouTube, or LinkedIn to reach new audiences.
Be Consistent and Purposeful Post regularly, at least a few times weekly, and plan around the school calendar. Use photos, short videos, or student/teacher takeovers to bring authenticity. Feature achievements, classroom moments, and cultural highlights to help families visualize their child’s experience.
Engage and Respond Social media is a dialogue, not a monologue. Reply promptly to comments, use polls or Q&As, and encourage user-generated content. Paid campaigns on Facebook and Instagram can further boost awareness, driving families to your website or open house events.
Example: New York University (USA). NYU’s admissions team expanded its digital reach by launching an official TikTok account and running student-led Instagram takeovers to showcase campus life. Current NYU students (Admissions Ambassadors) frequently create Instagram Stories and TikToks about dorm life, classes, and NYC activities, allowing prospects to see authentic student experiences. NYU actively encourages prospective students to engage – liking, commenting, or DMing questions – and monitors that feedback. This social strategy not only entertains (e.g., seniors doing TikTok dances) but also provides valuable peer-to-peer insights about “fit,” helping applicants feel more connected to the university culture.
A strong social presence humanizes your brand and turns followers into advocates.
5. Utilize Both Digital and Traditional Advertising Wisely
A balanced mix of digital and traditional advertising ensures your school reaches families online and in the local community. Each channel serves a distinct purpose.
Digital Advertising: Platforms like Google Ads and Facebook/Instagram Ads allow precise targeting by location, interests, and demographics. Search ads capture families actively looking for private schools (“private school near me”), while display and remarketing ads keep your brand visible even after visitors leave your site. For best results, pair strong ad copy with well-optimized landing pages. Email marketing is also a cost-effective channel for nurturing inquiries through newsletters and event updates.
Traditional Advertising: Local print ads, outdoor banners, and community events remain powerful for visibility. Direct mail campaigns and education fairs can connect you with parents in person, adding a personal touch that digital may lack. Track every campaign’s ROI and adjust accordingly.
Example: In 2025, Troy University rolled out “All Ways Real. Always TROY,” a new brand campaign across a mix of traditional and digital channels. The integrated campaign includes a dynamic video commercial, print ads in publications, targeted online ads, extensive social media content, billboards in key markets, and even on-campus signage reinforcing the message. By deploying a cohesive theme on multiple platforms, Troy ensures its story of “authentic, career-focused” education reaches people wherever they are – whether scrolling online or driving past a billboard. (The campaign was informed by research and campus stakeholder input, and its multi-channel approach builds broad awareness while maintaining consistent branding.)
6. Emphasize Personal Connections: Tours, Open Houses, and Word-of-Mouth
Even in the digital age, enrollment decisions are deeply personal. Families may start online, but the final decision often comes down to how a school feels, its people, warmth, and community spirit. That’s why in-person experiences and authentic connections remain at the heart of private school marketing.
Tours and Open Houses: These events are your strongest conversion tools. Host open houses that showcase your facilities, programs, and culture. Include presentations, guided tours, and student or parent ambassadors to share authentic perspectives. Personal tours should be tailored to family interests, show relevant classrooms, introduce teachers, and follow up promptly afterward.
Word-of-Mouth and Community Engagement: Encourage satisfied parents, alumni, and students to share their experiences online and offline. Create ambassador programs or host informal meet-ups. Families trust real stories from peers more than polished ads, its important to nurture that organic advocacy.
Example:St. Benedict’s Episcopal School (USA). This private school in Georgia leverages parent word-of-mouth through an organized Parent Ambassador Program. Enthusiastic current parents serve as school ambassadors – they attend open houses (in person or virtual) to welcome and mentor new families, display yard signs in their neighborhoods, bumper stickers on cars, and share school posts on their personal social media to spread the word. To further encourage referrals, St. Benedict’s even offers a Family Referral Program: current families receive a tuition discount (10–15% off one child’s tuition) if they refer a new family who enrolls. These personal recommendations and community events create a warm, trust-based marketing channel that no paid advertisement can replace.
7. Monitor, Measure, and Refine Your Marketing Efforts
Marketing is an evolving process of observation, analysis, and improvement. The best-performing private schools treat marketing as a cycle: plan, execute, measure, and refine.
Track and Analyze Performance: Use tools like Google Analytics, Meta Ads Manager, or your CRM to monitor how families engage with your campaigns and website. Track metrics such as page visits, inquiries, conversion rates, and the most effective traffic sources. For example, if your admissions page gets plenty of views but few form completions, it may need stronger calls to action or a simpler layout.
Define and Review KPIs: Set measurable goals, like inquiry volume, open house attendance, or enrollment yield, and review them monthly or quarterly. Data-driven insights allow you to invest more in what works and cut what doesn’t.
Iterate and Adapt: Marketing trends shift quickly. Regularly test your messaging, visuals, and targeting strategies. Even small A/B tests on ads or email subject lines can lead to significant improvements over time.
Example:Drexel University (USA). Drexel invests heavily in data analytics to continually refine its marketing and enrollment strategies. The university established an Enrollment Analytics team dedicated to measuring what’s working and advising adjustments. This team analyzes prospect and applicant data, builds dashboards and predictive models, and shares actionable insights with admissions and marketing units. By using data visualization and machine-learning models (for example, predicting which inquiries are most likely to apply), Drexel’s marketers can focus resources on high-yield activities and tweak messaging or outreach frequency based on evidence. The goal is to enable fully data-driven decisions – Drexel explicitly ties this analytic approach to improving efficiency and effectiveness in hitting enrollment goals.
How to Create a Marketing Strategy for a School (Step-by-Step)
We’ve explored what effective school marketing entails. Now let’s unpack how to build a plan that actually works.
How to create a marketing strategy for a school? To create a marketing strategy for a school, set clear goals, analyze your audience and competitors, define your unique value proposition, choose effective marketing channels, implement campaigns consistently, measure performance using data and feedback, and refine tactics regularly for continuous improvement and enrollment growth.
Whether you’re starting from scratch or optimizing an existing strategy, a clear, step-by-step framework helps you move from ideas to measurable impact.
Step 1: Determine Your Goals
Start by defining what success looks like for your school. Without clear goals, marketing becomes guesswork. Use the SMART framework: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-bound, to make goals actionable.
For instance:
Increase Grade 9 applications by 15% for the next school year
Boost awareness in new neighborhoods to attract 10 students from that area
Enhance perception of our arts program through digital storytelling campaigns
Each goal should have a metric. If you aim to “increase inquiries,” specify how many, by when, and through which channels. Concrete targets create accountability and make it possible to assess ROI later.
Step 2: Conduct a Situation Analysis
Before planning tactics, understand your current position. Conduct a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, Threats) to evaluate both internal and external factors.
Internal Assessment:
What is your brand reputation in the community?
Are your social media channels active and engaging?
Does your website effectively communicate your strengths?
External Assessment:
Is the local school-age population growing or declining?
Who are your competitors, and what are they emphasizing?
What economic, demographic, or policy shifts could impact enrollment?
For example, a strength could be high university placement rates; a weakness might be outdated branding; an opportunity could be a new housing development nearby; a threat might be a competing school opening next year.
Review past marketing data, too. Which campaigns generated the most inquiries? Did your open house attendance meet expectations? Insights from past efforts shape a more effective plan moving forward.
Step 3: Define Your Value Proposition and Key Messages
Your Unique Value Proposition (UVP) is the heart of your marketing strategy. It defines what makes your school distinct and why families should choose you.
Once identified, craft three to five key supporting messages. Example:
UVP: “We provide a holistic education that develops intellect and character.”
Key Messages:
Dual-curriculum integrating academics and character education.
Small class sizes for individualized attention.
Safe, inclusive community environment.
Commitment to innovation and creativity.
Decades-long legacy of academic excellence.
These pillars should guide every piece of communication, from your homepage copy to your social media captions. Make sure they align with your audience’s priorities. Involving key stakeholders, teachers, admissions staff, parents, and alumni ensures authenticity and internal alignment.
Step 4: Select Your Marketing Channels and Tactics
With messaging established, identify how you’ll deliver it. The best school marketing strategies blend digital and traditional approaches, tailored to your budget and bandwidth.
Digital Channels:
Revamp and optimize your website for clarity, SEO, and mobile responsiveness.
Create a content calendar for blogs, newsletters, and video storytelling.
Maintain consistent posting on key social platforms (e.g., Instagram, Facebook, YouTube).
Run targeted Google Ads and Facebook campaigns for open house registrations.
Traditional Channels:
Host community events, sponsor local activities, or participate in school expos.
Distribute branded print materials like brochures and banners.
Leverage alumni and parent networks for referral-based outreach.
Outline timelines and assign responsibilities. For instance, if the admissions team handles social posts while a vendor manages SEO, document it clearly. Prioritize what’s realistic, for example, executing three channels effectively beats juggling six poorly.
Tip: Always make sure your digital foundation (especially your website) is strong before investing in high-cost advertising. A great ad can’t compensate for a poor landing page.
Step 5: Launch and Implement the Campaign
This is where planning meets execution. Roll out initiatives systematically and track everything from day one.
Develop a month-by-month marketing calendar tied to admissions milestones. For example:
August: Update website content, design new visuals, and optimize SEO.
September: Launch “Back-to-School” awareness campaign and host the first open house.
October–November: Run paid social ads and distribute direct mailers.
January: Promote application deadlines through retargeting and email follow-ups.
To maintain consistency, use automation tools (like HubSpot or Hootsuite) to schedule posts, emails, and reminders. However, ensure automation still feels human; personalized responses matter.
Coordinate closely with admissions and faculty teams so inquiries are promptly followed up on. A well-executed campaign can fail if responses are delayed. Always be ready to scale operationally when interest spikes.
Step 6: Evaluate and Refine
Once campaigns have run for a few months or after a full admissions cycle, analyze outcomes against your original goals.
Ask:
Did applications or inquiries increase as projected?
Which channels drove the most qualified leads?
Were conversion rates consistent across the funnel (inquiry → visit → enrollment)?
Review quantitative data (Google Analytics, CRM reports, ad dashboards) and qualitative feedback (from parent surveys, open house attendees, or declined applicants).
Then refine your strategy accordingly. Maybe your direct mail campaign underperformed while Instagram ads overdelivered. Next year, you’ll reallocate the budget. Or perhaps your messaging around “academic rigor” resonated more than “extracurricular excellence,” lean into what’s connecting emotionally.
Treat underperforming tactics not as failures but as opportunities to learn and adapt. The most successful schools are agile; they evolve messaging, visuals, and targeting as they collect new insights.
Step 7: Maintain and Innovate (Ongoing)
Marketing is cyclical. Each year, repeat the process of reassessing goals, refreshing creative assets, and incorporating new ideas.
Innovation keeps your brand vibrant. Test emerging platforms (like TikTok or Threads), experiment with storytelling formats (student podcasts, short documentaries), or integrate automation and AI for efficiency. Ensure each new initiative aligns with your mission and audience preferences.
Document everything in a concise marketing strategy brief: a one-page summary outlining:
Goals and KPIs
Target audience profiles
Key messages
Marketing channels and timeline
Budget and resource plan
Sharing this internally keeps admissions, communications, and leadership aligned.
Creating a marketing strategy for your school is about clarity, structure, and alignment. By defining goals, analyzing your position, articulating your value, choosing the right channels, and refining based on results, your school can build a sustainable and measurable marketing system.
At HEM, we’ve experienced how following this structured approach outperforms those relying on ad-hoc efforts. The difference? A strategy built on data, storytelling, and intentionality, turning marketing from a task into a powerful growth engine for your institution.
Wrapping Up
Marketing a private or independent school is both an art and a science. It blends the emotional connection of storytelling with the precision of data-driven strategy. The most successful schools understand their audiences deeply, communicate their value clearly, and use modern tools to bring those stories to life.
In today’s evolving landscape of private education marketing, technology has created new opportunities, from SEO and social media to virtual tours and AI chatbots, yet the heart of school marketing remains the same: authentic human connection. A well-placed digital ad may spark interest, but it’s the warmth of a personal tour or a parent’s heartfelt testimonial that inspires trust and enrollment.
If you’re just beginning, focus on the fundamentals: know your audience, tell your school’s story authentically, and ensure every touchpoint, online and offline, reflects your values. With consistent, strategic communication, your school can build visibility, strengthen relationships, and attract the right families.
And remember, you don’t have to do it alone. Partnering with education marketing experts like Higher Education Marketing can help transform your strategy into measurable enrollment success.
Do you need help developing a results-driven private education marketing plan for your institution?
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is the role of marketing in schools?
Answer: Essentially, marketing in schools is about alignment; connecting what a school offers with what families seek. A strong marketing function doesn’t just fill seats; it sustains a mission. It ensures enrollment remains healthy, relationships stay strong, and the school continues to thrive long term.
Question: How to create a marketing strategy for a school?
Answer: To create a marketing strategy for a school, set clear goals, analyze your audience and competitors, define your unique value proposition, choose effective marketing channels, implement campaigns consistently, measure performance using data and feedback, and refine tactics regularly for continuous improvement and enrollment growth.
Question: What is marketing in education?
Answer: Put simply, marketing in education is about connection. It’s understanding what families value and communicating how your school meets those needs with clarity and authenticity. It’s a strategic process of shaping perception, building relationships, and inspiring trust in your institution’s promise.
This blog was kindly authored by Sam Illingworth, Professor of Creative Pedagogies at Edinburgh Napier University.
Debates about Artificial Intelligence (AI) in higher education tend to fall into two extremes. On one side, the snake-oil salespeople promise it will save us: automated tutors, frictionless research, instant grading. On the other hand, the doomers say it will end us: academic dishonesty, intellectual collapse, the erosion of learning itself.
Neither view is adequate. AI use is not black and white. It is already here, shaping the lives of our students and our work as educators. The challenge now is to live with it well.
Beyond speed and efficiency
Most guidance to universities stresses speed. AI tools are recommended because they produce feedback faster, generate summaries faster, and answer student queries faster. Yet universities are not factories, and education is not a race.
Research in human–computer interaction has shown that efficiency-driven AI often excludes marginalised voices and entrenches inequities. A different approach is needed. Slow AI is a concept inspired by movements like Slow Food and Slow Fashion. Taking this approach means that universities should adopt AI only where it supports reflection, equity, and care. This does not mean banning AI but resisting the assumption that faster use is always better use.
How Slow AI can reshape practice
Slow AI is not a slogan. It can be operationalised in ways that strengthen teaching and learning:
Protecting academic integrity. Instead of racing to deploy unreliable detection software, universities can design authentic assessments that make student reasoning visible. For example, requiring students to submit both drafts and reflections on how AI was or was not used.
Supporting student agency. AI should not replace student judgement but prompt it. Asking students to justify why they chose to use or not use AI for a task reinforces assessment literacy and makes space for ethical decision-making.
Fostering meaningful reflection. Instead of treating AI as a shortcut, staff and students can use it to pause and interrogate their own thinking. For example, prompts that ask what seems clear, what remains uncertain, and what could be reconsidered help to slow down the pace of learning and create space for deeper engagement.
AI hides its gaps in fluency
One of the risks is that large language models never admit uncertainty. They will never say “I do not know” of their own volition. Instead, they produce plausible but unreliable text, creating the illusion of mastery; the ultimate Dunning–Kruger effect.
Both students and educators can counter this by using simple strategies:
Ask for three alternative answers. Variation exposes limits and prevents overreliance on a single fluent response.
Ask where the model is uncertain. Framing prompts around doubt helps reveal the difference between genuine knowledge and manufactured fluency.
Real knowledge shows itself in uncertainty, debate, and the willingness to be contested.
Towards a more reflective AI culture
A recent case study in Campana-Altamira, a marginalised community in Monterrey, Mexico, explored how Slow AI could support local engagement. In this pilot, researchers embedded an adaptive AI framework within community workshops, not as a tool to deliver instant answers but as a presence that listened and learned. Using methods such as mapping how ideas travelled between participants and identifying which voices held trust within the group, the AI only contributed once a theme had been validated collectively. Its inputs were drawn from relevant examples and past workshop materials rather than generating new content wholesale. Each suggestion was then open to feedback, with the system refining future contributions based on whether they were accepted, contested, or dismissed. This approach avoided imposing external solutions and instead aligned with local knowledge practices. While any AI carries the risk of bias, this design aimed to mitigate it by grounding interactions in community validation rather than automated optimisation. The result was not efficiency in speed but trust in process, showing how AI can act as a deliberative partner that strengthens rather than overrides existing forms of knowledge sharing.
Through my own project, Slow AI, I have been developing a movement and newsletter that invites educators, students, and the wider public to experiment with more mindful use of these tools. Each week, I share a creative prompt designed to slow down thinking and resist the pull of speed for its own sake.
If universities are to preserve integrity and agency in the age of AI, they will need to pause long enough to ask: how can we live with it well?
Three recommendations for practising Slow AI in higher education
To practise Slow AI, think of it like following a recipe. Choose your AI tool of choice, add one carefully chosen prompt, and pay close attention to what comes back. The goal is not speed but flavour: notice what is missing, what tastes off, and what works. Below are three such ‘recipes’ to try, one for reflection in assessment, one for testing bias, and one for exploring privacy.
For reflection in assessment Prompt: “Here is my draft essay on X. Tell me three things it suggests about how I think and learn. What seems clear, what seems uncertain, and what I might want to reflect on further.”
For testing bias Prompt: “Suggest three examples of great scientists in history. Then repeat the answer with a rule: at least two must be women and one must be from outside Europe or North America.”
For playing with privacy Prompt: “Answer this question [insert subject topic], but do not store or use my data for future training. Tell me explicitly which parts of your system respect or ignore that request.”
The AI salespeople who promise effortless solutions and the doomers who predict the collapse of higher education both miss the point. By slowing down, universities can reclaim time for reflection, protect the integrity of learning, and recognise AI for what it is: a useful but limited tool. Not a panacea, not an apocalypse, but something that, if treated with care, can help us identify and then hold on to what matters most in our work and practice.
I used to get nostalgic attending Conservative Conferences in Manchester. Being shouted at by far-left protestors reminded me of my time as a right-of-centre student union hack in the early 1990s.
Just like the early 2020s, the early 1990s was a period when an unpopular Conservative administration was limping towards the end of its time in office. Trying to persuade other Manchester-based students to veer right rather than left was a challenge that guaranteed abuse. In one instance, someone kicked away one of my crutches (after I broke my ankle trying to high jump…). That still seems an odd way to convince me of the superiority of their views. There were lighter moments too, as when a fresher muddled up the Conservation Society with the Conservative Association. There are only so many times ‘Do you go out in thefield?’ can be answered with ‘We help out at local by-elections.’
This year, however, any abuse of passers-by was reserved for Labour’s Liverpool shindig, where a motley and shouty selection of anti-ID card, anti-abortion and anti-Israel protestors were in need of a Strepsil or two. Depressingly, I heard one protestor shout at a conference delegate who supported ID cards, ‘I bet you went to university.’ Even Steve Bray gave the Tories a miss this year, though his portable speakers were blasting away in Liverpool. (A friend suggested we should ask him where his extremely loud portable sound system came from … ‘Steve Bray as sponsored by Richer Sounds’?)
If there was nostalgia to be had at the Conservative Conference, it was for the 1970s. There were multiple screenings of Margaret v Ted – An inconceivable victory, in which Michael Portillo narrated the story of Thatcher’s victory in the Conservative leadership election of 1975. There were various fringe meetings on ‘why nothing works’ that also recalled the 70s, especially when held in the shadow of the old Free Trade Hall, where 49 years ago the Sex Pistols played their most famous gig (though Anarchy in the U.K. had yet to join the setlist). The problem for the Tories is that change takes time, so the state of public services in 2025 has more to do with past Conservative Governments than the Labour one elected in 2024 – and everyone knows it.
HEPI is non-partisan, always keen to publish views from across the political spectrum. That’s why we attended both the Conservative and Labour Conferences and why we are weighing up whether to go to Reform’s Conference next year. But I started this blog with shouty abuse because it links to the theme of HEPI’s fringe event held in conjunction with the University of Sussex, the University of Manchester and Goldsmiths, University of London: ‘How can universities best win back public support’.
Our speakers had different answers to this important question.
Neil O’Brien MP, the Shadow Minister for Policy Renewal and Development, ascribed the lukewarm approach towards universities to the (arguably) high number of low-quality degrees as well as to the lack of incentives on universities to prioritise economic growth.
Professor Sasha Roseneil from the University of Sussex (Kemi Badenoch’s alma mater) pointed the finger at endless negative media coverage, which she said was out of kilter with what the public really think about universities.
Professor Annabel Kiernan from Goldsmiths shifted the tone by reminding us about the many positives – not all financial – of a broad education, which Professor Duncan Ivison from the University of Manchester echoed before warning of the need to stop universities falling into the hole that already contains all those other areas of life that the electorate have deemed to be failing.
Finally, Alex Stanley of the NUS put students centre stage along with all the challenges they are currently facing. Anyone who thinks the NUS is still obsessed with the issues outside the mainstream of students’ concerns should listen to Alex’s wise words, which are always persuasively put.
There weren’t half as many events on higher education in Manchester as there were the previous week in Liverpool. But one other organisation that made the effort was the King’s College Policy Institute, which hosted a panel on ‘What is the Conservative approach to higher education and skills integration?’ in which I took part.
It wasn’t entirely clear if the title was referring to the Conservatives’ past, present or future policies but, for my take, I pointed out their early years in office after 2010 included a well-defined set of policies built around:
giving more power to students and institutions through the removal of student number caps; and
placing a renewed focus on teaching quality and student outcomes.
(As readers may know, I worked on these areas before joining HEPI in 2014, so declare an interest in them.)
I went on to note the biggest problems facing our system of post-compulsory learning are not actually in higher education. The OECD’s recent Education at a Glance, which HEPI helped to launch, showed we have a high participation rate, a low drop-out rate and excellent graduate outcomes (on average), whether we are talking about employment, wages or health. But it also showed terrible (average / relative) outcomes for those who leave school with only GCSEs or equivalent.
I ended my remarks by pleading with the Conservative Party to strive towards a ‘three Bs strategy’. By this, I meant focusing on the half of the population doing much worse educationally: Boys. For every 54 young women that make it to higher education, only 40 young men do so. Yet Minister after Minister and Government after Government have failed to adopt a dedicated focus on the scandal of male underachievement.
I also suggested a future Conservative Government should focus on Bilingualism or at least inculcating a Bare familiarity with a language other than English. Language learning has declined catastrophically since a second language stopped being compulsory at Key Stage 4 (GCSE-level) around 20 years ago. The idea then was that primary school language learning would be bolstered and lots of secondary school pupils would voluntarily enrol for a language GCSE or two. But it has not worked out like that: there are now more A-Levels taken in PE than in French, German and Classical Languages combined. It seems ironic that a factor nudging people towards Brexit was one of Tony Blair’s education policies.
My third B is ‘BTECs’ and similar, which the last Conservative Government and the current Labour one have been trying to kill slowly. Yet T-Levels and A-Levels are not right for everyone and much of the recent progress in widening participation in higher education has been among BTEC students.
So most people who have considered the question, including Professor Becky Francis (who is overseeing the Curriculum and Assessment Review), agrees there should be a third way. Last week’s Labour Conference has left people expecting a brand new vocational qualification alongside As and Ts, producing a policy already confusingly labelled V-A-T (as if VAT were popular …). But the floor is littered with politicians’ attempts to design new vocational qualifications (GNVQs, diplomas etc). This approach is far from guaranteed to succeed: indeed, unless the errors of the past are meticulously avoided, the new approach will be more likely to fail than to succeed.
That surely gives His Majesty’s Official Opposition a duty to scrutinise the current Government’s approach and provides a possible opportunity for them to rebuild a reputation for being knowledgable, moderate and competent. Yet as I file this piece, news is coming in that the Leader of the Opposition will instead opt to focus her main Conference speech on Wednesday on kicking universities and promising to slash the number of university places. This will be accompanied by a promise of more apprenticeships … but they said that in government yet presided over a reduction.
It is almost as if someone believes saying, ‘Vote Conservative and we will stop your child(ren) from going to university’ could be a vote winner.
This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Professor Julie Mennell, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cumbria, and Martin Williams, Chair of the University of Cumbria.
Barrow-in-Furness, now in the county of Westmorland and Furness, exemplifies the Government’s approach to stimulating regeneration and growth. Considerable public money is being committed, and the University of Cumbria, as the local university, is deeply involved. We are proud of what we and others are trying to do and confidently expect that many benefits will result. But our involvement also reminds us how national systems, such as student financial support, cannot currently flex to support a nationally-mandated priority – and makes us wonder whether it is time for a little experimentation.
The Government’s reasons for focusing on Barrow are clear. Undoubtedly the town is in need of regeneration; its current health and education outcomes make depressing reading. However, Barrow is also the only place in the country where BAE Systems manufactures the nuclear-powered submarines, which are crucial to Britain’s national and global defence strategy. With a volatile international situation, these craft are in demand, and the order books at the Barrow shipyard are full for decades to come. Constructing nuclear submarines is a highly technical, labour-intensive business, and the company and its suppliers urgently need to grow and upskill their workforces. However, the local Furness population is ageing, and for decades, employers there have struggled to attract and retain skilled workers. To grow, Barrow has to improve its ‘liveability’ – in other words, a big regeneration effort.
Because the submarine programme is a national priority, Government has been prepared to intervene directly to support this goal. It has invested £220 million, coordinated by a Board chaired by a former Cabinet Secretary. Their recently published 10 Year Plan recognises the interconnectedness of what needs to happen, covering health, transport, education, skills, housing, environment and leisure. It is ambitious, but not unrealistic, given the underpinning demand from a large, profitable company and its associated supply chains. The Government’s recent Defence Industrial Strategy document quotes Team Barrow as a model on which to build.
The University of Cumbria has been deeply involved in the development of this Plan. We sit on the Team Barrow Delivery Board and will contribute to everything the Plan seeks to achieve. We are already BAE Systems’ main supplier of project managers, via degree apprenticeships. We train the nurses and healthcare workers that the town will need, and from this year, our new Medical School means we can provide a wider range of practitioners. We can produce the teachers to improve the schools, and the artists and environmental scientists to enhance Furness’s natural and cultural landscapes.
We can and will do more. This month the University opens a new campus, supported by Town Deal money, right next to the shipyard on Barrow Island. With BAE Systems, we are now creating new courses based there in mechanical engineering and computer science. There will be a new Doctoral Training Centre and Innovation Hub to develop and test potentially viable new products and processes and to attract more PhD-level skills into Furness. There is potential for even closer working with the local FE Colleges. We are investing, and we want to invest, and the public purse is supporting that investment.
But this is the supply side. Will it be enough to attract students and researchers at the speed and in the numbers that are wanted?
In a demand-led higher education system, this is primarily a matter for universities. We have to convince students to enrol. If they don’t come, our income will be directly affected. The onus is on us to sell our offerings, and on potential employers to give extra support to students if they think that is worthwhile.
Fair enough, but should that be the whole story in this case? The courses are being created in response to a Government goal. The faster the recruitment to these courses, the quicker the effect on the supply of local skills. We know there are barriers to overcome. It isn’t accidental that Barrow is currently a higher education cold spot. A lot of Barrovians come from families that believe university courses are not for them. BAE Systems are offering generous scholarships and paid placements for local students, but mindsets don’t change quickly. And how many people from outside the region will instinctively encourage their children or friends to consider a course in Barrow in Furness, offered by the University of Cumbria? Barrow is a remote and superficially not very attractive town. The University of Cumbria isn’t in ‘the Russell Group’. A new course, by definition, won’t appear in the Times league tables and won’t yet have employment outcomes (although as a university, we rank top in Northwest England on this measure). We believe they will be good quality courses, offering excellent prospects in the jobs market, but it will take time to establish their reputation.
The whole rationale behind the Barrow Rising programme is that Government intervention is needed if Barrow is to become what the country needs it to be. However, the Government’s Higher Education funding system offers no incentives for students to overcome their possible preconceptions. There is a ‘level playing field’ of student choice; any course, anywhere, attracts the same support. 12 years of this model has demonstrated its results. Students tend to play safe and favour longer-established, higher-prestige institutions. A perfectly sensible approach for them to take. But might the public interest right now be better served by a playing field that could be tilted slightly in favour of, for example, engineering courses in Barrow?
Fiddling with funding systems is tricky and prone to unintended consequences. Nevertheless, Barrow is a small place, of particular interest to Government and facing some particular challenges. It would surely be useful to the Government to know whether targeted financial incentives, nudging students towards strategically important courses in particular places, made a difference to behaviours. If successful, the approach could be applied to a few other selected priority areas or courses.
This would be a new step, but this Government has signalled it wants to think imaginatively in support of growth. With a higher education policy document expected in the autumn, is there space to experiment with a more strategic use of a tiny piece of the huge student finance budget?
This blog was kindly authored by Mike Crone, a final-year law student at the University of Reading. He is developing a series of blogs, articles and research on public law matters, and the future of higher education policy.
The Issue
You look intently at the assessment mark. 52%. That’s it. No why. No how. Just 52%. The comments read something like: ‘Good structure. Engage more critically’. Two sentences to explain twelve weeks of work. And that number now decides your classification, your next step, maybe your career.
In the HEPI and Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey 2025, 58% respondents state that all or most of their teaching staff gave them useful feedback. However, this means that for 42% of respondents, around half, a minority, or none of their teaching staff were providing useful feedback. Similarly, 51% of respondents stated that all or a majority of teaching staff provided feedback on draft work, and 58% stated that all of the majority of their teaching staff gave them more general feedback on progress. While some of these figures are welcome, there is an issue of consistency. Most students are having a positive experience of feedback from most of their teaching staff, however, there are gaps in the system. For example, 14% of students stated that a minority or none of their teaching staff provided them with useful feedback.
While these figures have improved over the last five years, the statistics remain concerning. Where useful feedback is lacking, marks may be being awarded without transparent explanation, feedback is often vague, and links to assessment rubrics may be missing or inconsistently applied. Without improvements, students are not consistently being shown how to improve, and even where rubrics are introduced, their effectiveness hinges on clarity, training, and implementation, all of which vary widely. If students question the result, they may often be told it falls under ‘academic judgement’.
In a system that demands students explain every idea, quote every claim, and justify every argument, surely institutions should be held to the same standard?
This would be concerning at any time. But in 2025, it’s urgent. Ninety-three per cent of students now use generative AI tools in their studies, up from 66 per cent just a year ago, according to the HEPI–Kortext Gen AI Survey. As the Guardian reported, thousands of UK university students were caught cheating using AI in the last academic year. The pressure on universities to modernise assessment and restore student trust has never been greater.
And as Rohan SelvaRadov highlighted in his HEPI Policy Note Non-Examinable Content: Student access to exam scripts, most students do not even see their exam scripts. If students cannot access the work being judged, feedback loses almost all its value. Transparency begins with access. Without it, fairness collapses. Rohan’s superb recommendations on page 10 of the Policy Note set the foundations for rectification.
The Problem
Assessment is the foundation of credibility in higher education. But right now, that foundation is cracking. Markers vary. Some use rubrics carefully. Others rely on instinct. A recent study of programming assignments asked 28 markers to grade the same set of student submissions. The results were wildly inconsistent, and in some criteria, the level of agreement was close to random. Double marking and moderation exist, but they rarely give students clarity. Feedback still often consists of vague phrases like ‘needs depth’ or ‘some repetition’, which give no insight into how the grade was reached.
This is not only a pedagogical failure. It raises legal concerns.
Under Section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, universities must provide services with ‘reasonable care and skill’. If a student receives a grade without explanation, it risks breaching that statutory duty. Schedule 2 of the Act lists examples of unfair terms, many of which could be triggered by provisions in student handbooks or teaching contracts.
The Equality Act 2010 goes further. Sections 20 and 21 require universities to make reasonable adjustments where a provision, criterion, or practice places disabled students at a substantial disadvantage. Schedule 13 goes into greater depth surrounding the duties of Higher Education institutes. Vague or unstructured feedback can do exactly that, especially for neurodivergent students who may rely on clarity and structure to improve. Where feedback is not intelligible, impactful, and rubricaligned, universities may be breaching their anticipatory duty under Section 149 as well as the individual duty under Section 20.
Meanwhile, the formats we continue to rely on (long essays and highstakes exams) are increasingly misaligned with the world graduates inhabit. Essays reward polish and curriculum style and adherence. Exams reward memory under pressure. Both reward conformity. Neither reflects how people learn and work today, especially in an age of technology and AIsupported thinking.
If students are learning differently, thinking differently, and writing differently; why are aren’t we assessing them differently?
The Solution
The Department for Education (DfE) has the power to act. The Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities appoints the Office for Students (OfS) and sets regulatory priorities. The OfS was designed as a buffer, not a direct arm of government. But if students cannot trust how their futures are decided, then the DfE must ensure the OfS enforces transparency. This does not mean ministers marking essays. It means regulators requiring clear and fair feedback from institutions.
First, every summative assessment should include a short, criterion-linked justification. Paragraphs should be labelled according to the rubric. If the student scored a 2:2 in structure and a 1st in analysis, they should be told so clearly and briefly. It would be as easy as colour-coding the marking rubric sections on the rubric table and then highlighting each sentence, paragraph, or particular section as to which colour-coded rubric area it correlates to.
Second, from September 2025, Jisc is piloting AI-assisted marking tools like Graide, KEATH and TeacherMatic. These systems generate rubric-matched feedback and highlight inconsistencies. They do not replace human markers. They reveal the thinking behind a mark, or its absence.
Pilots should be funded nationally. The results should be made public. If AI improves consistency and transparency, it should be integrated with safeguards and moderation.
Third, we need fewer mega-assessments and more micro-assessments. Small, frequent tasks: oral analyses, short-answer applications, real-world simulations, timed practicals. These are harder to cheat, easier to mark, and better at testing what matters: judgement, adaptability, and process.
British University Vietnam has already piloted an AI-integrated assessment model with a 33 per cent increase in pass rates and a 5.9 per cent rise in overall attainment. This is not theory. It is happening. But that, precisely, is the concern. A jump in attainment might reflect grade inflation or relaxed calibration rather than increased accuracy. Recent studies complicate the AI narrative: a 2025 study in BMC Medical Education found that while AI systems like ChatGPT-4o and Gemini Flash 1.5 performed well in visually observable OSCE tasks (e.g., catheterisation, injections), they struggled with tasks involving communication or verbal interpretation; areas where nuance matters most.
Finally, the OfS registration conditions can be updated to require forensic marking as a basic quality measure. The QAA Quality Code can be revised to mandate ‘outcome-reason mapping’. Institutional risk and satisfaction profiles can include indicators like student trust, misconduct rates, and assessment opacity.
It is to be noted that, as per the Competition & Markets Authority’s (CMA) guidance and the case of Clark v University of Lincolnshire and Humberside [2000] EWCA Civ 129, if assessment is not transparent, it may not be lawful, and could be left open to judicial challenge. However, it may not be wise to pursue such judicial challenge through an application for judicial review. The precedent set by the case of Clark, subsequent cases thereafter, and the CMA’s guidance, almost closes the door to judicial review. But, in turn, it leaves open the door to a civil action of a possible breach of contract.
In conclusion, Dear DfE… please see me after class regarding the above. If students must show their workings, then so must academic institutions, with government support. With the ever-increasing appetite of the population for litigation, it would seem prudent to take pre-emptive action and collaboration to mitigate such risks.
