Category: Featured

  • A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    A legislative solution to student suicide prevention: advocating for opt-out consent in response to student welfare concerns

    Authored by Dr Emma Roberts, Head of Law at the University of Salford.

    The loss of a student to suicide is a profound and heartbreaking tragedy, leaving families and loved ones devastated, while exposing critical gaps in the support systems within higher education. Each death is not only a personal tragedy but also a systemic failure, underscoring the urgent need for higher education institutions to strengthen their safeguarding frameworks.

    Recent government data revealed that 5.7% of home students disclosed a mental health condition to their university in 2021/22, a significant rise from under 1% in 2010/11. Despite this growing awareness of mental health challenges, the higher education sector is grappling with the alarming persistence of student suicides.

    The Office for National Statistics (ONS) reported a rate of 3.0 deaths per 100,000 students in England and Wales in the academic year ending 2020, equating to 64 lives lost. Behind each statistic lies a grieving family, unanswered questions and the haunting possibility that more could have been done. These statistics force universities to confront uncomfortable truths about their ability to support vulnerable students.

    The time for piecemeal solutions has passed. To confront this crisis, bold and systemic reforms are required. One such reform – the introduction of an opt-out consent system for welfare contact – has the potential to transform how universities respond to students in crisis.

    An opt-out consent model

    At present, universities typically rely on opt-in systems, where students are asked to nominate a contact to be informed in emergencies. This has come to be known as the Bristol consent model. Where this system exists, they are not always invoked when students face severe mental health challenges. The reluctance often stems from concerns about breaching confidentiality laws and the fear of legal repercussions. This hesitancy can result in critical delays in involving a student’s support network at the time when their wellbeing may be most at risk, leaving universities unable to provide timely, life-saving interventions. Moreover, evidence suggests that many students, particularly those experiencing mental health challenges, fail to engage with these systems, leaving institutions unable to notify loved ones when serious concerns arise.

    Not all universities have such a system in place. And some universities, while they may have a ‘nominated person’ process, lack the infrastructure to appropriately engage the mechanism of connecting with the emergency contact when most needed.

    An opt-out consent model would reverse this default, automatically enrolling students into a system where a trusted individual – such as a parent, guardian or chosen contact – can be notified if their wellbeing raises grave concerns. Inspired by England and Wales’ opt-out system for organ donation, this approach would prioritise safeguarding without undermining student autonomy.

    Confidentiality must be balanced with the need to protect life. An opt-out model offers precisely this balance, creating a proactive safety net that supports students while respecting their independence.

    Legislative provision

    For such a system to succeed, it must be underpinned by robust legislation and practical safeguards. Key measures would include:

    1. Comprehensive communication: universities must clearly explain the purpose and operation of the opt-out system during student onboarding, ensuring that individuals are fully informed of their rights and options.
    2. Defined triggers: criteria for invoking welfare contact must be transparent and consistently applied. This might include extended absences, concerning behavioural patterns or explicit threats of harm.
    3. Regular reviews: students should have opportunities to update or withdraw their consent throughout their studies, ensuring the system remains flexible and respectful of changing personal circumstances.
    4. Privacy protections: institutions must share only essential information with the nominated contact, ensuring the student’s broader confidentiality is preserved.
    5. Staff training: university staff, including academic and professional services personnel, must receive regular training on recognising signs of mental health crises, navigating confidentiality boundaries and ensuring compliance with the opt-out system’s requirements. This training would help ensure interventions are timely, appropriate and aligned with legal and institutional standards.
    6. Reporting and auditing: universities should implement robust reporting and auditing mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of the opt-out system. This should include maintaining records of instances where welfare contact was invoked, monitoring outcomes and conducting periodic audits to identify gaps or areas for improvement. Transparent reporting would not only enhance accountability but also foster trust among stakeholders.

    Lessons from the organ donation model

    The opt-out system for organ donation introduced in both Wales and England demonstrates the effectiveness of reframing consent to drive societal benefit. Following its implementation, public trust was maintained and the number of registered organ donors increased. A similar approach in higher education could establish a proactive baseline for safeguarding without coercing students into participation.

    Addressing legal and cultural barriers

    A common barrier to implementing such reforms is the fear of overstepping legal boundaries. Currently, universities are hesitant to breach confidentiality, even in critical situations, for fear of breaching trust and privacy and prompting litigation. Enshrining the opt-out system in law to include the key measures listed above would provide institutions with the clarity and confidence to act decisively, ensuring consistency across the sector. Culturally, universities must address potential scepticism by engaging students, staff and families in dialogue about the system’s goals and safeguards.

    The need for legislative action

    To ensure the successful implementation of an opt-out consent system, decisive actions are required from both the government and higher education institutions. The government must take the lead by legislating the introduction of this system, creating a consistent, sector-wide approach to safeguarding student wellbeing. Without legislative action, universities will remain hesitant, lacking the legal clarity and confidence needed to adopt such a bold model.

    Legislation is the only way to ensure every student, regardless of where they study, receives the same high standard of protection, ending the current postcode lottery in safeguarding practices across the sector.

    A call for collective action

    Universities, however, must not wait idly for legislation to take shape. They have a moral obligation to begin addressing the gaps in their welfare notification systems now. By expanding or introducing opt-in systems as an interim measure, institutions can begin closing these gaps, gathering critical data and refining their practices in readiness for a sector-wide transition.

    Universities should unite under sector bodies to lobby the government for legislative reform, demonstrating their collective commitment to safeguarding students. Furthermore, institutions must engage their communities – students, staff and families – in a transparent dialogue about the benefits and safeguards of the opt-out model, ensuring a broad base of understanding and support for its eventual implementation.

    This dual approach of immediate institutional action paired with long-term legislative reform represents a pragmatic and proactive path forward. Universities can begin saving lives today while laying the groundwork for a robust, consistent and legally supported safeguarding framework for the future.

    Setting a New Standard for Student Safeguarding

    The rising mental health crisis among students demands more than institutional goodwill – it requires systemic change. While the suicide rate among higher education students is lower than in the general population, this should not be a cause for complacency. Each loss is a profound tragedy and a clear signal that systemic improvements are urgently needed to save lives. Higher education institutions have a duty to prioritise student wellbeing and must ensure that their environments offer the highest standards of safety and support. An opt-out consent system for welfare contact is not a panacea, but it represents a critical step towards creating safer and more supportive university environments.

    The higher education sector has long recognised the importance of student wellbeing, yet its current frameworks remain fragmented and reactive. This proposal is both bold and achievable. It aligns with societal trends towards proactive safeguarding, reflects a compassionate approach to student welfare and offers a legally sound mechanism to prevent future tragedies.

    The loss of 64 students to suicide in a single academic year is a stark reminder that the status quo is failing. By adopting an opt-out consent system, universities can create a culture of care that saves lives, supports grieving families and fulfils their duty to protect students.

    The time to act is now. With legislative backing and sector-wide commitment, this reform could become a cornerstone of a more compassionate and effective national response to student suicide prevention.

    Source link

  • Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Running a Workshop: Guidelines for Engagement and Impact – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: Student ombudsman Sarah Bendall – Episode 153

    HEDx Podcast: Student ombudsman Sarah Bendall – Episode 153

    The new First Assistant Ombudsman in the Office of the National Student Ombudsman, Sarah Bendall, has a plan to hold universities to account.

    Six days into this new role, she sat down with Martin Betts to outline the background to the office and role, and how she plans to provide a route for students to ensure they have a safe, fair and secure experience.

    Coordinator of Welcoming Universities Cate Gilpin joined the conversation to ask Sarah what her short and long term priorities are and how she expects to action key reform areas outlined in the Universities Accord.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Food insecurity is a problem on campuses: How can we fix it?

    Food insecurity is a problem on campuses: How can we fix it?




    By: Cate Gilpin and Martin Betts

    in On Campus, Top Stories


    February 10, 2025

    Food insecurity is not just a growing issue at a societal level, it’s an urgent crisis for students at Australian universities.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Higher education institutions have invested time, effort and money in level 7 apprenticeships

    Many readers might have had an experience along the following lines. You’re on a call, in a meeting, at an event – and someone just happens to let slip that they are doing a postgraduate apprenticeship through their work.

    Questions bubble up: isn’t this person someone in a position to fund their own studies? Or perhaps: don’t they already have a master’s degree? You might even be thinking: your manager really lets you duck out of work for training so often?

    Now this is pure anecdote – and forgive me if it’s not quite as frequent as I’m assuming – but it’s proved to be a pretty powerful one as debates over apprenticeships have percolated in the press and in the back of policymakers’ minds for the last few years. Allied with controversies over supposed “MBA apprenticeships” (or more recently, MBA top-ups and management training for senior executives), it’s led fairly directly to where we are now.

    The government has announced that “a significant number” of level 7 apprenticeships will be removed from levy eligibility in England. The accompanying enjoinder for employers to fund them by other means (if they so choose) is likely the death knell for most of the affected courses, given that without the incentive of levy spending they will largely look like ungainly, over-regulated and rather long bits of exec ed.

    Now we still don’t know exactly what decision the government is going to take. And Labour’s moves here do have other motivations – the policy intention is to stop employers spending their allowances on (older, already qualified) existing staff, and therefore give them a free hand to take on younger apprentices at lower levels, including with so-called “foundation apprenticeships”, though there is zero detail on how this shift in employer training priorities is expected to come about.

    But still – if this was the only priority, money could have come from elsewhere. The fact remains that level 7 apprenticeships have various black marks hanging over them, whether or not justified, which have made them a safe target to go after. Is it really a good use of taxpayers’ money to fund long and expensive courses of what is overwhelmingly in-work training?

    Whose fund is it anyway?

    A big part of the issue, however, is this sense that the levy is really “taxpayers’ money”. It isn’t – it’s half a per cent of an employer’s annual pay bill, assuming said pay bill is £3m or more. Alison Wolf’s recent report for the Social Market Foundation vividly spells out the issue here – employers have become hyper-aware of what they “owe” and are incentivised to spend it as fast as they can, a perverse incentive of the current system which has made level 7 programmes more attractive than policymakers assumed.

    Much of Labour’s current skills policies have their genesis in a period when employers were not successfully deploying their own levy contributions, and there was a question of how better to direct underspends. This is very much not where we are now. And there are many employers who are not well set-up to pivot to entry-level apprenticeships (think solicitors, for example), or who are stressing their own workforce’s need for higher-level upskilling and pursuing productivity gains rather than a larger headcount.

    It could be that the non-apprenticeship part of the growth and skills levy will help square this circle – employers will be able to invest in shorter, possibly more useful workforce training this way, rather than running headlong towards level 7 programmes as the only game in town. The problem is that the government has gone very quiet about this, and we have no sense of what kind of courses will be in scope here.

    And much like with the employer national insurance rise, it doesn’t seem to have been thought through how publicly-funded bodies are meant to respond here – NHS trusts and local councils being big users of the apprenticeship levy, by dint of their size. If the government doesn’t want them spending their levy funds on this type of provision, is it asking them to spend cash from elsewhere in their budgets?

    Caught in the middle

    Stuck between employers’ wishes and government’s aims (or the imagined taxpayer investment) are those education and training providers who have poured resources into making higher-level apprenticeships work. And when we’re talking about level 7 qualifications, it’s universities that have done a lot of the running.

    If you had said a decade ago that many if not most universities would be founding and scaling up teams dedicated to reaching out to employers, thinking about training needs, even coordinating levy transfers across partners and supply chains (as the Edge Foundation’s recent research found) – well, it would have sounded like something dreamed up by a think tank, a laudable ambition unlikely to ever come true. And yet, here we are.

    The Department for Education and Skills England may decide to limit only a couple of standards – as the chart below shows, simply scrapping the Accountancy and Taxation Professional and Senior Leader standards would dramatically change the landscape (though we’d likely be back in the same position in a few years having a similar conversation about the Senior People Professional and Systems Thinking Practitioner ones).

    But once the government starts taking a pick-and-mix approach to standards (as opposed to letting a properly independent arms-length body do so), it opens the door to it happening again and again. If there is a substantial defunding of level 7 apprenticeship standards, expect the next few years to see targets on the back of others, even at level 6 – and an accompanying disincentive for universities to keep pressing ahead seeking out partnerships with employers.

    The removal from levy eligibility of standards that currently have a high uptake will have an immediate impact on those providers invested in them. Below, DK has charted apprenticeship starts by higher education institution (and a few other public bodies as they are lumped together in the DfE data, though as you may have noticed above some for-profit universities appear in the private sector category instead).

    The default view in this chart shows level 7 starts in 2023–24, broken down by standards, so that you can plumb the impact on different providers of different approaches to defunding. And if you’re getting nervous about what else Skills England might fancy doing once it’s finally got the level 7 announcement out of the way, you can look at provision at other levels too.

    Source link

  • The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    The barriers that must be removed for degree apprenticeships to meet NHS workforce targets

    The recent notion that level 7 apprenticeships will be ineligible for support from the apprenticeship levy has caused consternation amongst training providers, especially in healthcare.

    Training providers and employers are urgently seeking clarity on the government’s position – the current “announcement without action” leaves stakeholders unclear about next steps and further risks the reputation and role of apprenticeships in skills development.

    The development of advanced roles in health or shortened routes to registerable qualifications significantly relies on level 7 apprenticeships. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan is full of examples of how advanced and new roles are needed now and in the future.

    Once again, decisions are being made by the Department for Education without consulting or collaborating with the Department of Health and Social Care, which means that questions are left unanswered. It is not the first time that training providers and University Alliance have called for joined up thinking and, unfortunately, it certainly won’t be the last.

    Expansion of opportunity

    Health apprenticeships at the University of Derby started small with level 5 provision about ten years ago (subsequently expanding to levels 6 and 7) – we could not have foreseen the enormous expansion of opportunity both in health and other industries that would follow.

    I am proud to say that “I was there” when the nurse degree apprenticeship standard was approved in 2017 – the culmination of two years’ collaboration between the Nursing and Midwifery Council, government, Skills for Health, employers and training providers.

    There were challenges, but we made it, and it opened the door to transformation in how healthcare professionals are educated.

    A bumpy road

    But the journey remains bumpy, and apprenticeships seem to be experiencing a particular period of turbulence. New research conducted by the University of Derby on behalf of University Alliance demonstrates the need for change in how the levy is utilised, the importance of partnership working, and the support that those involved with apprenticeship delivery need in order to secure successful outcomes.

    While the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan of 2023 is itself being refreshed, we can be confident that apprenticeships will continue to have a significant part to play in workforce development. However, our new research has shown how and where employers and training providers need support to make this happen.

    Employers told us how expensive they find it to support apprenticeships, with apprentice salaries, backfill and organisational infrastructure contributing to the financial burden. We know that apprentices need significant support through their learning journey, taking time and investment from employers.

    To make apprenticeships truly successful, the support required is over and above that normally expected in healthcare programmes, yet apprenticeships are specifically excluded from the NHS Healthcare Education and Training tariff. This feels like a double whammy – no support from the tariff and no flexibility in how the levy could be utilised differently, meaning that the responsibility remains with the employer to resource.

    Equally, training providers reported the additional activities and responsibilities associated with the delivery of apprenticeships. The University of Derby has recently successfully completed its inspection by Ofsted. The week of the inspection required input from teams across the University, but the enduring responsibilities of compliance and record keeping make this a continuous activity for a skilled and specialist team.

    The Education and Skills Funding Agency then came hot on the tails of Ofsted – while this is not unexpected, it has again required teams from across the University working long hours to be audit ready. These inspections have served as a reminder of the regulatory burden placed on training providers, especially in healthcare.

    A matter of commitment

    Today marks the start of National Apprenticeship Week. At the University of Derby, we are hosting a week of activities and events, encouraging aspirant apprentices and a range of employers to come and find out more about what apprenticeships can do for them. It is heartening to hear that the number of young people coming to the campus this year has more than doubled since last year’s event.

    Finally, the word is beginning to spread about apprenticeships, and we find school leavers are increasingly well informed about their post-16 and post-18 options.

    The week’s events will be ably supported by our employer partners and apprentices, truly reflecting the partnerships that have developed over the years. These partnerships take a significant amount of investment on all sides – anyone in the vocational education and training world will know that strong partnerships take time and effort to build and maintain. But even the briefest of conversations with apprentices will tell you that it is all worth it. Their confidence, passion and knowledge (their skills and behaviours too) shine through. In a city like Derby, the awareness of the positive difference you are making not only to the apprentice, but also to their family and friends, is never far from your thoughts.

    It is difficult to know how the advent of Skills England will impact the pace and scale of reform, but the present inertia may set the country back – and it certainly will if a blanket approach to level 7 apprenticeship funding is adopted, and lack of join-up between DfE and DHSC remains the status quo.

    National Apprenticeship Week 2025 has the potential to be a force for good – and should be the week that all stakeholders commit to making a difference.

    Source link

  • A blanket removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships will damage government plans to boost infrastructure

    A blanket removal of funding for level 7 apprenticeships will damage government plans to boost infrastructure

    Level 7 apprenticeship growth has been one of the higher education success stories of recent years.

    Our technical education system is weak by international standards, yet high level technical skills will be vital to the urban planning and infrastructure improvement ambitions of our current government, while at the same time boosting social mobility by allowing those who can’t afford to study on a traditional course at university the opportunity to gain a postgraduate qualification.

    It therefore would appear counterintuitive that the government has been hinting that many if not all level 7 apprenticeships could have their eligibility for levy funding removed, couched in language of prioritising spending on growing lower level and new “foundation” apprenticeships.

    This proposed redistribution fails to acknowledge that progression benefits apprentices at all levels, as those moving into senior roles create new vacancies or advancement opportunities via the positions they vacate.

    Build baby build?

    Nowhere is this clearer than in the built environment sector. The UK’s housing crisis is the pivotal issue that this government has promised to tackle. Their promise to build 1.5 million new homes by 2030 is ambitious – it has been labelled unachievable by the CEO of the UK’s largest housebuilding company because of skills shortages, and most councils are reporting that it won’t be possible to achieve.

    If such a goal is to be accomplished, it will demand highly skilled professionals to streamline planning processes, deliver housing projects, and support regional infrastructure development.

    At my institution, London South Bank University (LSBU), 70 per cent of our level 7 apprentices are on the chartered town planner standard. On a day-to-day basis they address planning bottlenecks and ensure that housing and infrastructure projects meet the various regulatory and environmental standards. Only last month the first level 7 chartered town planner apprentices in England graduated successfully from LSBU having joined their employer with no prior experience in the planning sector aged 18 after completing school.

    Over half of the employers we work with at LSBU on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of increased demand and reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful. The legacy of austerity has left one in four councils expecting to apply for an emergency government bailout in the next two years. If the Treasury decides to remove levy funding, employers will not be able to fill the gap.

    If the UK hopes to comply with the Future Homes Standard and the National Retrofit Strategy V2, more highly trained architects are required. The profession is in high demand but short supply – it had been on the Shortage Occupation List until the previous government abolished the list last April.

    Level 7 architect apprentices, of which LSBU currently train 78, design energy-efficient buildings and support urban regeneration. They contribute to both public housing schemes and private sector developments by driving innovation in sustainable construction and are already supporting the government’s ambition to retrofit five million homes by 2029.

    Growth ambitions

    In addition to their clear role in developing infrastructure, level 7 apprenticeships are vital for social mobility. They open doors for individuals from underrepresented groups, in part because apprentices earn whilst they learn and aren’t put off by the prospect of incurring student debt. A true leveller of the playing field, they provide excellent career progression opportunities and higher earnings potential. A greater proportion of our level 7 apprentices are from black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds (55 per cent) and are female (52 per cent) than those studying apprenticeships at lower levels.

    Most of our level 7 apprentices are under the age of 25, so the characterisation that they are simply the reserve of older learners is unfounded. For example, at LSBU, we provide tailored pathways for young learners to embark on higher level apprenticeships in regionally relevant sectors from level 2 to level 7 through our unique group model which includes London South Bank Sixth Form (a new technically focused sixth form academy concept) and London South Bank Technical College (the first technical college for a generation).

    Level 7 apprenticeships are central to this government’s ambitions around growth, sustainability, and equality of opportunity. Despite recent increases in uptake, they have actually accounted for a slightly smaller proportion of the total apprenticeship budget over the last couple of years.

    Every standard addresses unique challenges and supports sector-specific needs. A blanket removal of funding from level 7 apprenticeships will risk planning reforms and housing developments. At the very least, apprenticeships in the ten sectors prioritised by Skills England as growth-driving need to be protected from Treasury cuts.

    Source link

  • How AI is reshaping the learning experience

    How AI is reshaping the learning experience

    Since late 2022, generative AI has disrupted all levels of education, and higher education must adapt quickly to ensure that the integrity of qualifications is not compromised.

    New technologies can be disruptive and present challenges and opportunities. They influence how we work, interact with others, source information, and learn.

    Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been around for decades, generative AI has emerged as both a risk to traditional learning and an opportunity for students to use new technologies responsibly and ethically. Generative AI is disrupting all levels of education, and higher education must adapt quickly to ensure that the integrity of the qualifications awarded is not compromised.

    Recently, researchers examined policies and guidelines documents from 116 US universities on the use of GenAI. They found a lack of concern in these documents for ethics and privacy associated with using GenAI while encouraging its use by both staff and students. That is, intellectual property and student privacy seem to be an afterthought.

    The introduction of GenAI has added complexity to the detection of plagiarism, and some argue that using GenAI tools should not be deemed academic dishonesty because they enhance the learning experience and improve productivity. 

    In June 2024, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) asked all registered higher education providers for action plans addressing the risk-generative AI in their courses. There was a 100 per cent response rate from providers to this request.

    TEQSA then analysed responses to develop resources to support the higher education sector and released Gen AI strategies for Australian higher education: Emerging practice in late November 2024[1]. This document is designed as a toolkit to assist higher education providers. The toolkit is structured into three key dimensions: Process, People and Practice. The toolkit notes that:

    There is no single form of assessment that can enable students to demonstrate achievement of all learning outcomes or support development of all appropriate uses of gen AI. Similarly, no single tool or technology can be deployed to guarantee assessment security (p43).

    Therefore, the higher education sector needs to be agile and adapt to the ubiquitous adoption of GenAI, so that we can adapt the learning experience so that students meet the learning outcomes of their course. This requires a significant shift for institutions and educators to achieve these objectives in a GenAI world.

    Ensuring equitable access to AI

    A key challenge for integrating GenAI in education is ensuring equitable access to AI-powered tools and resources for all students, regardless of their socio-economic background or geographical location. GenAI’s promise for student learning can only be achieved if students’ and staff’s access to GenAI tools is equitable, inclusive, and free from bias.

    TEQSA cautions that higher education institutions need to carefully consider the needs of diverse student populations and prioritise an inclusive and equitable educational environment when integrating GenAI in teaching, learning and assessment. This includes ensuring everyone recognises their responsibility to implement and engage in culturally safe practices.

    References

    Eden, C.A., Chisom, O.N. and Adeniyi, I.S., 2024. Integrating AI in education: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(2), pp.006-013.

    McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A. and Hingle, A., 2024. Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01659.

    Yusuf, A., Pervin, N. and Román-González, M., 2024. Generative AI and the future of higher education: a threat to academic integrity or reformation? Evidence from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), p.21.

    [1] Available from: https://www.teqsa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2024-11/Gen-AI-strategies-e…

    Hear more from A/Professor Yvette Blount and other education leaders at the Generative AI for Education Leaders Summit 2025 and gain access to cutting-edge insights and strategies that will put your institution ahead of the curve. Learn more.

    To access the detailed conference program, download the brochure here.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Families Unaware of How Alternate Assessments Impact Students with Disabilities – The 74

    Families Unaware of How Alternate Assessments Impact Students with Disabilities – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Before starting at his Harlem high school, Jeurry always assumed he was progressing appropriately in school, despite having significant learning challenges.

    However, in his freshman year, he began to notice himself struggling to read longer words and more complex sentences.

    As he grew increasingly overwhelmed, it became clear that the small classes exclusively for students with disabilities that he had been in since kindergarten had not adequately prepared him for high school.

    Still, Jeurry managed to pass nearly all his classes. His final meeting with his Committee on Special Education — which consisted of Jeurry’s mom and several faculty members — took place in December 2016. By then, the senior had earned 45 credits — 44 were required to graduate — and a C+ average, records show.

    But Jeurry was devastated to learn that he would not earn a diploma.

    The reason was based on a decision the committee made when Jeurry was in sixth grade and, according to records, never revisited while he was in high school. At that time, the educators concluded that Jeurry could not learn grade-level curriculum. They decided he would be “alternately assessed,” or evaluated based on lower achievement standards. New York State students who take alternate assessments through high school cannot earn a diploma, a prerequisite for military service, many jobs, and most degree- or certificate-granting college and trade school programs.

    Heartbroken, he begged the faculty to find a solution during the 2016 meeting. “They didn’t even care,” Jeurry said. “They just wanted me to ‘graduate’ and get out.”

    Jeurry, who is now 26 and was diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability after graduating high school, requested that his last name be withheld over concerns about the stigma surrounding intellectual disabilities.

    Special education advocates say the systemic failures that led to Jeurry’s situation eight years ago continue to jeopardize the futures of similar students. Last school year, 6,116 New York City students took the New York State Alternate Assessment, according to state data. Federal law requires that states offer such assessments for students with disabilities who are incapable of taking state tests. Importantly, it also states that only “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” can take the alternate assessment, and that schools must fully inform parents of the potential ramifications. (State education departments are responsible for ensuring compliance with these mandates.)

    Too often, however, those standards are neither maintained nor enforced, special education advocates, teachers, and families told Chalkbeat. Instead, factors like under-resourcing, nebulous procedures, and a failure to equip parents to make fully informed decisions have led schools to place some students without significant cognitive disabilities on a non-grade-level, non-diploma track. Students who take alternate assessments are typically placed in non-inclusive, low-rigor settings, which can deprive them of academic and socialization opportunities.

    At the December 2016 meeting, the members of Jeurry’s special education committee said their hands were tied. According to documentation from the meeting, Jeurry’s mother said “she was not made aware of the long-term effects of alternate assessment when it was first initiated or during any supplemental [meetings].”

    “They would always tell my mom, ‘His diploma is going to be real,’” Jeurry said. “She kept believing them.”

    Throughout his time as a K-12 student in Harlem, Jeurry received inadequate academic support and struggled to advance past a first- or second-grade reading level.

    In response to requests to interview state special education leadership, a New York State Education Department spokesperson said in an email: “NYSED is committed to working with schools and parents to determine the appropriate participation of students with disabilities in [the alternate assessment] and to fully understand the impact it has on these students.”

    Since New York’s alternate assessment is used to meet federal special education law requirements, the spokesperson said, “there are very strict criteria for its development, administration, and applicability to students.”

    Christina Foti, the city Education Department’s deputy chancellor for inclusive and accessible learning, acknowledged that there is room for more robust safeguards, and she said the Education Department recently recommended that the state consider several alternate assessment-related policy changes. They include clarifying definitions and participation criteria, requiring the use of a decision-making flowchart and checklist, and mandating that special education committees “conduct a complete and up-to-date battery of psychoeducational assessments” before making assessment decisions.

    The Education Department is also pursuing local-level reforms, but officials are still in the early stages of developing a “definitive language and shift in practice [and] policy,” Foti said.

    Inequitable outcomes for students on non-diploma track

    In New York, special education committees determine annually how students will be assessed, usually starting around third grade. Although the state has established participation criteria for the alternate assessment, deciding whether students meet those criteria can be a relatively subjective process.

    Data obtained through a public records request show that students placed on the non-diploma track are disproportionately Black or English language learners. Last school year, 29% of New York City students who took the alternate assessment were Black, while Black children represented only 20% of all students and 26% of those with disabilities. More than 29% of students who were alternatively assessed were English learners, while such students accounted for just 19% of the school system’s overall population and 14% of students with disabilities.

    There have been some signs of progress toward ensuring that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are placed on the non-diploma track. Participation is declining in New York City and statewide, and racial disproportionalities among alternatively assessed students decreased between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years, according to the data.

    The New York City Education Department has worked to minimize subjectivity in assessment decisions “over the past five or six years,” said Arwina Vallejo, the department’s executive director of school-based evaluations and family engagement.

    To more holistically determine students’ aptitude for grade-level learning and test participation, schools now administer “specialized assessments in reading, in writing, in math, in executive functions, in neurological abilities,” Vallejo said.

    The Education Department also trains school psychologists in “culturally responsive, non-discriminatory assessment practices” to mitigate the impact of bias, she said.

    But special education advocates and families say more must be done. School officials sometimes change the graduation track of children with mild intellectual disabilities or disruptive behaviors when they don’t have the will or means to try other options, said Juliet Eisenstein, a special education attorney and former assistant director of the Postsecondary Readiness Project at Advocates for Children of New York.

    “It’s just a box that’s checked and not really talked about, because it’s an easier solution than figuring out a program that fits this more complex student profile,” she said.

    Resources that could help such students — like one-on-one tutors or specialized placements — are often limited or nonexistent. This is especially true in New York City, where around 300,000 students qualify for special education services, and government audits have found that the Education Department regularly fails to meet its obligations to them. An estimated 2,300 special-education staff vacancies exist citywide.

    Trevlon, 18, has been both alternatively and regularly assessed. He has a history of behavioral problems, an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and an intellectual disability classification from the Education Department. Trevlon struggled to keep up academically in elementary school and attended a middle school in District 75, a citywide district that caters to students with significant disabilities. There, he received intensive academic and behavioral support and made major strides, but he was not on a diploma track.

    Trevlon, who requested that his last name be withheld because a complaint he filed against the Education Department has yet to be resolved, said he was unhappy in the highly restrictive environment. He committed himself to proving that he could be successful at a community high school. By the time Trevlon graduated middle school as valedictorian of his eighth grade class, his special education committee had agreed that he could transition back to the diploma track and into a community school.

    However, Trevlon was placed in a school that did not offer the learning environment the Education Department had determined most appropriate for him: a self-contained special education classroom for 15 students. Instead, he attended large classes that integrated students with disabilities and their general education peers. He said he struggled to focus and keep up. As he fell behind academically, he became increasingly frustrated and started acting out.

    After his tumultuous freshman year, Trevlon was moved back onto a non-diploma track in a District 75 school, where he felt out of place and insufficiently challenged. He begged for a different placement that might offer a path back to community school — or a diploma, at least — but nothing changed, he said.

    Knowing he would never have a “real” high school experience, Trevlon grew disillusioned, started attending school infrequently, and finally dropped out last year.

    “It’s not just, ‘Oh, I stopped going to school because I don’t like school,’” Trevlon said. “I feel like the system gave up on me to a certain extent, as a Black male. … All I ever really wanted to do was to work and sit down and be like everybody else.”

    Parents often unaware of children’s placement on non-diploma track

    Schools are legally mandated to inform a student’s parents abou

    When Jeurry was in middle school, the faculty members of his Committee on Special Education pointed to his lack of academic progress and recommended that he be “alternately assessed.” Although his mother agreed to the change, she did not realize that the decision would take away her son’s opportunity to earn a high school diploma. (Sarah Komar for Chalkbeat)

    t the long-term ramifications of the alternate track. However, special education advocates said they regularly work with parents who had no idea their children were on a non-diploma path — often until it was too late.

    “Many parents do not even know to ask questions about alternate assessment, because they’re never informed,” said Young Seh Bae, executive director of the Queens-based Community Inclusion and Development Alliance and a parent of a student with disabilities. It’s only when graduation approaches that many parents say, “‘Oh, I didn’t realize my child wouldn’t receive a high school diploma … The school didn’t explain my child never will be able to go to college or get a license for certain things.’”

    In New York, diploma-track students must pass a certain number of Regents exams, making it one of eight states that require high school seniors to pass standardized tests to earn a diploma. (New York State is planning to phase out Regents as a graduation requirement in fall 2027.)

    Because Jeurry was on a non-diploma track and never took his Regents, he could only earn a Skills and Achievement Commencement Credential, which cannot be used to apply for college, trade school, the military, or many jobs.

    Jeurry was reading and doing math on a first-grade level by the start of middle school and on second- to third-grade levels by the end of high school, records show. Over the years, the Education Department classified him with several different kinds of disabilities, including a learning disability at one point and an intellectual disability at another. While he was a student, he was not evaluated by an outside provider, which some families pay for if they think their children have been improperly classified by district professionals. Faculty members repeatedly told Jeurry’s mother he was incapable of progressing academically, his academic records show, and they eventually used his lack of progress to justify placing him on the non-diploma track.

    From kindergarten through eighth grade, he remained in self-contained classes, receiving only speech language therapy as a supplementary service. In high school, Jeurry moved from a self-contained setting into integrated classrooms, which benefited him socially but only further highlighted how far his academics lagged behind his peers.

    At no point did Jeurry’s special education committee suggest additional services or more intensive support, records show. Federal law mandates more intensive intervention if a special education student is not making progress toward his goals.

    Kim Swanson, the principal of Jeurry’s high school who overlapped with him during his last year there, declined to comment on Jeurry’s situation. She said her school “always follows state guidance.”

    The school’s special education committees have always informed parents of the ramifications of alternate assessment, but the school has implemented additional safeguards during Swanson’s 11-year tenure as principal, she said. These include sending home a form letter that was developed by the state with input from the city Education Department (a requirement of all New York schools since 2019), and ensuring that faculty members discuss students’ progress toward their goals before special education committee meetings.

    Vallejo, who oversees school-based evaluations, said the Education Department worked with the state to develop the form letter because “there was a point where little information was available to students and families regarding alternate assessment and the impact of that designation.” Education Department faculty are committed to fully involving students’ parents in assessment decisions and revisiting them annually, Vallejo said.

    Special education advocates have lobbied the state for specific alternate assessment reforms for years, with little success — including a 2022 push for policy changes that could have helped demystify the assessment decision-making process.

    In August 2024, for the first time in at least five years, the state proposed policy tweaks of its own, including seeking feedback from special education advocates and families on how to clarify the existing eligibility criteria for alternate assessment and update existing decision-making tools and training materials.

    In the future, Jeurry hopes to earn a four-year degree and go into marketing before someday opening his own restaurant.

    After legal battle, NYC pays for more than 1,300 hours of services

    Knowing that he wouldn’t receive a diploma, Jeurry skipped his June 2017 graduation.

    He then languished in a city-funded GED program for more than a year. In fall 2018, on the recommendation of a teacher, Jeurry contacted Advocates for Children. Within months, a pro-bono legal team arranged by the organization filed an action against the city school system, accusing it of denying Jeurry a free, appropriate public education as required by law.

    While the legal process unfolded, Jeurry’s advocates helped him apply for his diploma through a “superintendent determination,” a safety net for students with disabilities who are unable to earn the Regents scores needed for graduation but meet all other requirements. In June 2019, he received his high school diploma.

    As part of the 10-month legal process, a neuropsychologist evaluated Jeurry and diagnosed him with a mild intellectual disability, concluding that he could have benefited from more rigorous support, such as one-on-one literacy tutoring.

    The city ultimately agreed to compensate Jeurry for what he missed during his 14 years of school by paying for 1,308 hours of academic tutoring, life skills training, and transition services. For more than a year, he attended all-day tutoring sessions that started with phonics and built upward.

    “At first, I was like, ‘It’s not helping,’” Jeurry said. But then, little by little, I started noticing my reading level going up … and I was like, ‘Oh, it is working!’”

    Although it has required him to work through significant education-related trauma, Jeurry now attends community college online while working full time. He’s considering transferring to a four-year institution after he earns his associate degree in business administration.

    “I didn’t want to go back, but I had to do it, you know?” Jeurry said. “I needed to get a better education.”

    Sarah Komar is a New York City-based journalist. She reported this story while at the Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link