Since the conflict began in 2023, I have interviewed numerous higher education students and academics, both in Gaza and those displaced elsewhere.
Their stories are profoundly inspiring and speak to the resilience and determination of a community that refuses to let adversity extinguish its aspirations. For students in Gaza, education is far more than a pathway to personal advancement – it is a fragile lifeline, a stabilising force in the midst of chaos, and a source of hope for the future.
For academics, their passion for teaching and inspiring the next generation endures, even as universities lie in ruins and teaching becomes a voluntary effort.
Education cannot wait
In a region devastated by conflict, young Palestinians – particularly those pursuing critical fields such as medicine, pharmacy, and engineering – demonstrate extraordinary resilience as they strive to continue their education under unimaginable circumstances. For these students, education is not merely a personal milestone; it is a transformative force for the public good, equipping them with the skills needed to rebuild their society and economy. UK universities are uniquely positioned to play a pivotal role in addressing these challenges. Having recently supported Ukrainian students and academics during a time of crisis, they have developed valuable experience and insights into providing meaningful and structured support. The need to act now is pressing, as education cannot wait.
The immediate priority is access to online resources – lecture recordings, virtual labs, digital textbooks, and open-access courses – that can sustain continuity in education for Gaza’s students, particularly those in fields like medicine and pharmacy. For instance, final-year medical students in Gaza have been unable to graduate due to the ongoing conflict, creating an urgent need for virtual alternatives to traditional clinical training. Palestinian academics have stressed the importance of accessible online lecture materials and virtual labs to ensure these students can complete their education and serve their communities where they are desperately needed.
For UK universities, supporting these students is not just an act of compassion but a reinforcement of the broader mission of education: to empower, rebuild, and promote peace and stability. Given the logistical and security challenges that make physical attendance in schools and universities nearly impossible, the solution must be digital. UK universities could, for example, create licenses to share lecture materials such as recordings, slides, and lab simulations with students in Gaza.
Virtual mentorship, remote internships
Virtual mentorship programmes could also be established, enabling UK healthcare professionals to guide Palestinian medical students through remote internships and online training modules, equipping them with vital knowledge and practical skills. Collaborating with technology partners to provide devices, software, and secure internet access could further bridge the digital divide, ensuring that students can continue their education even amidst displacement.
This approach could extend to pharmacy and engineering students, who face similar challenges. Pharmacy students could benefit from virtual labs and training programmes, while engineering students could access workshops on sustainable design, structural engineering, and public works – fields critical to Gaza’s rebuilding efforts. These initiatives would not only address immediate educational needs but also help create a pipeline of skilled professionals prepared to contribute to their communities’ recovery.
Beyond individual training, research partnerships between UK universities and Palestinian institutions could provide both short- and long-term educational support. Establishing an interdisciplinary Centre for Palestine Studies within UK universities, for instance, would create a platform for collaborative research on pressing issues such as public health, environmental sustainability, and renewable energy. These partnerships could amplify Palestinian academics’ voices through joint publications, international conferences, and shared funding opportunities, while providing mentorship and resources that are otherwise inaccessible in Gaza.
Our educators could also support the economic recovery in Gaza, which requires more than just rebuilding physical infrastructure; it necessitates cultivating an entrepreneurial spirit. UK universities with strong business and social entrepreneurship programmes could offer virtual training, mentorship, and incubator partnerships for Gaza’s students. Skills workshops on sustainable finance, small business management, and social entrepreneurship could empower young Palestinians to rebuild their economy, fostering resilience and independence.
Beyond education
However, significant challenges remain, including the reconstruction of homes, schools, and infrastructure. For now, support can only reach those students with access to the internet and devices, such as laptops. In the long term, UK universities should partner with charities, NGOs, and funding bodies such as the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society to help rebuild Gaza’s educational and healthcare infrastructures. Dialogue with Palestinian colleagues is essential to developing a strategic framework for digitisation and reconstruction that is both practical and impactful.
Imagine British universities collaborating with Palestinian institutions to create start-up incubators focused on renewable energy, healthcare technology, or sustainable agriculture. These ventures could foster economic independence, create jobs, and lay the foundation for a stronger and more resilient Gaza. Students in Gaza don’t just want access to education – they want the tools to contribute actively to their communities, creating a sustainable future for themselves and their families.
UK universities now stand at a critical juncture. By extending support to students and academics in conflict zones, they have the opportunity to reaffirm the transformative power of education. Young Palestinians, who continue their studies amidst tremendous adversity, exemplify education’s potential to not only uplift individuals but to rebuild communities.
The UK’s academic community has long championed education as a force for peace, progress, and the public good. By sharing resources, expertise, and a commitment to equity, UK universities can help rebuild Gaza—not just in physical terms, but in spirit, knowledge, and skill.
This is a moment for UK universities to step up – for Gaza’s students, for the future of Gaza, and for the enduring promise of education as a beacon of hope and resilience.
Imagine you’re a student, a member of staff, a parent or even an MP trying to work out what type, level or nature of “duty of care” is owed by a university to students.
The other day Janet Daby, whose day job is Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing but who also moonlights as a kind of spokesperson for HE given that Jacqui Smith is in the Lords, was asked about duty of care.
The department’s position is that a duty of care in HE may arise in certain circumstances. Such circumstances would be a matter for the courts to decide, based on the specific facts and context of the case being considered, and will be dependent on the application by a court of accepted common law principles.
That’s unhelpful enough – but the courts don’t seem to be very clear either. Of relevance down this rabbit hole, there’s a fairly lurid bit of press coverage doing the rounds on a case involving a law student at Cambridge who has sued the university for its refusal to award him a PhD.
The Mail, with its usual insinuative air quotes, runs the headline as follows:
Cambridge law student sues university after he failed his PhD, claiming it held up his career as a barrister because he was “less able” to write a thesis.
The case itself is interesting because of the way in which the judge in a recent appeal has differentiated between different bits of law that are supposed to protect students.
Jacob Meagher is a disabled PhD student at Cambridge who alleges that he was not provided with an adequate supervisor or advisor, and was denied certain scholarships – acts which he claims were acts of victimisation.
He previously brought a claim against the university on those issues in 2017, and reached a settlement in 2019 which involved him restarting his PhD. But he alleges he was subjected to a number of detriments after the settlement – crucially, that in connection with his PhD examination, the university was aware of the adjustments he needed to avoid a disadvantage because of his disability, but failed to provide them.
That’s partly because they had been recommended by the university’s Accessibility and Disability Resource Centre (ADRC) in a plan, but not implemented in the department, which is the sort of scenario that Disabled Students UK’s research suggests is common.
That, Meagher claims, led to a suicide attempt and hospital admissions – things he claims the university was made aware of but refused to help or support him. Then following complaints, the university recognised the issues with the initial viva and is working to ensure a fair process for his re-examination.
But even though the university agreed to let the student re-defend his thesis and implement reasonable adjustments, he took the university to court for several reasons:
The case includes additional claims beyond the failure to implement reasonable adjustments during the initial viva. He alleges various breaches of the Equality Act 2010, including victimisation and discrimination, stemming from incidents throughout his PhD program. These include claims of inadequate supervision, vetoing of scholarships, and mishandling of complaints.
Meagher is seeking compensation for damages already incurred. He claims that the university’s actions have caused him financial losses, including missed opportunities for a tenancy as a barrister due to the delay in completing his PhD. He is also seeking general damages for the distress and harm to his mental health caused by the university’s alleged actions.
He is seeking a legal declaration that the university unlawfully discriminated against him, validating his claims and potentially influencing future practice at the university. He is also seeking to clarify legal issues concerning the university’s obligations ahead of that agreed re-examination.
The university or individuals?
When he initially brought his claim in August 2023, he included six individuals as defendants in the case – all senior employees of the university that held specific leadership roles within the departments and committees relevant to his complaints.
He argued that in addition to the liability of their employer under section 109, section 110 of the Equality Act 2010 allows individuals to be held personally liable for acts of discrimination committed in the course of their employment.
Meagher’s argument was that these individuals, by virtue of their positions, were responsible for the university’s decisions and actions that he alleged were discriminatory and caused him harm. So he sought a declaration from the court that these individuals had discriminated against him, in addition to the declaration sought against the university.
The university’s legal team argued that including these individuals as defendants provided no tangible benefit to Meagher as the university had acknowledged its liability for discriminatory acts committed by its employees, and that the claims against them were duplicative and unnecessarily increased the cost and complexity of the legal proceedings.
The County Court Judge hearing the initial applications in the case agreed with the university’s arguments and struck out the claims against the individuals, citing the “Jameel principle” that allows the courts to strike out claims that are technically valid but considered an abuse of process due to the disproportionate costs and burden they impose on the defendants compared to the potential benefit to the claimant.
And on appeal, a High Court judge has now agreed – hence the headlines. But it’s where the High Court has disagreed with the County Court where things get interesting.
Breach of contract?
In the County Court, Meagher argued that the university’s failure to implement adjustments recommended by the ADRC for his viva constituted not just breaches of the Equality Act 2010, but also breaches of contract and tort – and once you’re in that space the legal principles of foreseeability of harm, and the duty of care in providing services with reasonable skill and care, kick in.
On the duty to avoid foreseeable harm, the principle basically means that individuals and organisations have a legal responsibility to take reasonable steps to prevent harm that is reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of their actions or omissions. If the Court determines that the harm Meagher experienced (e.g. psychological distress, academic setbacks) was a foreseeable consequence of the university’s failure to implement the adjustments, that would strengthen his claim for breach of contract and tort.
Then there’s the duty of care in carrying out a service with reasonable skill and care issue. That’s enshrined in section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and also applies under common law principles of negligence – and requires service providers, in this case, the university, to exercise reasonable skill and care in the provision of their services to consumers, in this instance, Meagher as a student.
The question in this case is whether the university, by failing to implement the adjustments recommended by its own ADRC, breached this duty of care by not conducting his PhD viva with the requisite skill and care, considering his disability. Meagher argues that the university’s failure to implement the ADRC’s recommendations, which he says were specific to his needs and aimed at ensuring a fair and accessible assessment process, constitutes a breach of this duty.
And at the heart of all that is the question of competence standards and how they intersect with reasonable adjustments for disabled students under the Equality Act 2010.
Competence standards
Competence standards are essentially the academic benchmarks used to assess whether a student has attained the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities for a particular qualification. You’ll recall from the Natasha Abrahart case that there was disagreement about whether presenting in-person to a lecture theatre was itself a required competence, or merely a way of assessing competence that could be (reasonably) adjusted.
The Equality Act doesn’t require universities to adjust competence standards to accommodate disabled students – but it does require universities to make reasonable adjustments to the assessment processes used to evaluate a student’s competence.
This distinction is crucial in Meagher’s case because he argues that the university’s failure to implement certain adjustments, specifically those recommended by the ADRC, resulted in him being disadvantaged in demonstrating his competence during his viva.
He argues that requiring him to take the viva in a standard format, without the recommended adjustments, placed him at a substantial disadvantage due to his disabilities, and that they were necessary to enable him to fairly demonstrate his understanding of the subject matter and meet the PhD competence standard.
Meagher proposed that his PhD assessment be based on an analysis of his published academic papers, a method already used for university staff, rather than a traditional thesis. He requested a legally-qualified editor to proofread his thesis for aesthetic and presentation standards, along with significant restructuring or adjustments to the viva process. His proposed adjustments included written feedback from examiners on areas needing improvement, followed by revisions and reassessment, as well as receiving written questions and a detailed agenda seven days prior to the viva to reduce anxiety.
To further support his needs, Meagher requested oral questions be linked to specific thesis sections in active voice, pauses and breaks after oral questions for cognitive processing, and the ability to write down questions for clarity. He also sought the option to clarify ambiguous questions with examiner explanations and breaks of at least ten minutes every hour to manage fatigue and maintain focus during the viva.
The Student Support Document (SSD) created by the ADRC included much of that – but Meagher says that the university failed to provide it to the examiners before the viva, leaving them unaware of his disabilities and the necessary adjustments – only providing a list of adjustments. He also alleges that adjustments to the viva format were not made – the examiners, he says, failed to avoid unnotified topics, clearly signpost questions, and accommodate the thesis format.
He was then granted an interim injunction against the university in July 2024 preventing it from taking any action over his PhD course or examination without consent from both parties pending the conclusion of the legal proceedings.
Two big issues
In other words, there are two things going on. On the one hand, in the discrimination arguments the student wants clarity over the reasonable adjustments/competence standards issue before that re-examination issue goes ahead.
Depending on what happens next, there could be significant implications across the sector as it continues to try to wrangle reasonable adjustments to assessment and the differences between competence standards in a subject that shouldn’t change, and mere methods for assessing them that could.
On the other hand, the potential compensation would be higher if Meagher was able to make the contract/tort arguments for a breach of contract and the implied duty to act with reasonable skill and care. Crucial there is whether, once it was agreed, the plan from the ADRC became part of the contract with the student – where if so we’re into avoiding foreseeable harm and so on. And that matters because it looks like it could create a form of duty of care.
On that issue, in the County Court Meagher argued that the failure to implement adjustments for his viva constituted breaches of contract and tort – but the judge reasoned that that was an attempt to improperly import the statutory duty to make reasonable adjustments under the Equality Act 2010 into contractual and duties of care.
But on appeal in the High Court, the contract and tort claims have been reinstated – the judge found that the County Court judge had got it wrong on “you’re trying to use two bits of law on one issue,” and argued that once it had agreed them, the university had separate contractual and tortious duties to implement the recommendations, irrespective of whether those recommendations aligned with the reasonable adjustments duty under the Equality Act.
And so that’s where things now get very interesting – because of who the pressure goes on now in any tug of war between professional services and academics that disabled students often find themselves in.
Where will the pressure fall?
It is possible that the pressure goes onto academic departments. If universities face potential legal liability for breaches of contract or tort when they fail to implement their reasonable adjustment plans, that could strengthen the hand of frustrated disabled students, and strengthen the authority of disability services departments within universities to ensure that their recommendations are given due weight and followed through.
It could also mean better training for academic staff on disability law, or clearer procedures for communicating and implementing reasonable adjustments so academic departments are aware of their obligations.
But it’s also possible that the risk of legal action causes universities to pressure their professional disability staff to be more cautious in creating and publishing reasonable adjustment plans that they could later be held to account over. They may put in steps like ensuring relevant academics agree first, slowing down already slow processes. There may also be a chilling effect on adjustments that beleaguered staff know will be hard to get academic staff to agree to.
And of course there’s more to run here – in the eventual potential outcome of the case – on what is and isn’t a reasonable adjustment to a PhD viva as a method of assessment.
What is clear is that the chances of an individual student having the money, time or smarts to take a case as far as Meagher has so far are slim. It also remains the case that disabled students’ rights in areas like this are desperately unclear, that the legal frameworks surrounding them interact in potentially unhelpful ways, and their access to support is heavily restricted once at the end of their course.
Someone, somewhere – perhaps OfS’ Disability in Higher Education Advisory Panel – needs to grip these issues properly. And next time Janet Daby is forced to issue an answer like “well it’s for the courts to decide”, perhaps she could remind herself and her boss in the other place that she’s a lawmaker.
West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrisey issued an executive order yesterday to eliminate certain diversity, equity, and inclusion practices in state agencies and organizations that receive state money. While the state may limit certain programs or activities of state agencies, the executive order is written so broadly that it applies to classroom instruction in higher education. As such, the executive order violates the First Amendment and must be rescinded or amended to make clear that it does not affect what’s discussed in college classrooms. If the order is not rescinded or amended, West Virginia’s public institutions must protect faculty academic freedom rights and make sure that classroom teaching is not affected.
If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, FIRE is here for you.
Provision 1.b. sweeps in an enormous amount of expression protected under the First Amendment protected expression at West Virginia’s universities and colleges. It provides:
[No] entity receiving state funds, shall utilize state funds, property, or resources to . . . Mandate any person to participate in, listen to, or receive any education, training, activities, procedures, or programming to the extent such education, training, activity, or procedure promotes or encourages the granting of preferences based on one person’s particular race, color, sex, ethnicity, or national origin over that of another.
This language violates the First Amendment, reaching college classroom instruction and discussion. It is viewpoint-discriminatory, prohibiting faculty from sharing any material that “promotes or encourages” a view while allowing them to criticize that viewpoint. And while other states’ anti-DEI efforts have included language that might protect discussions in university and college classrooms, West Virginia’s does not — instead, it applies to any agency receiving state funds. West Virginia’s public universities cannot both comply with the executive order and their obligations under the first Amendment.
Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction.
Whatever authority states might have to regulate other state agencies (including K-12 education and non academic higher education programming), the university classroom context is different. The First Amendment protects the right of faculty members at public universities and colleges to discuss pedagogically-relevant material in their courses, even if that material is offensive to students, colleagues, the public, or lawmakers. As the Supreme Court held in Keyishian v. Board of Regents of the University of the State of New York (1967), state officials cannot use the law to impose an “orthodoxy over the [college] classroom,” where students learn “through wide exposure to that robust exchange of ideas,” not “authoritative selection,” wrote Justice William Brennan.
FIRE has defended this important right across the ideological spectrum in courts across the country, successfully suing over Florida’s “Stop WOKE Act” and maintaining an ongoing challenge against California’s requirement that faculty incorporate ‘anti-racist’ viewpoints into their classroom teaching.
Executive Order 3-25 violates those First Amendment rights. Under Executive Order 3-25:
A law professor teaching constitutional law cannot present Supreme Court opinions arguing in favor of race-conscious admissions at universities and colleges, including the dissenting opinions in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard College or the plurality or majority opinions in Bakkeand Grutter.
A college professor cannot recount other arguments in favor of affirmative action or racial preferences, which remain legal in many other circumstances outside of the university context.
A professor discussing reparations — including proposals recently introduced in the United States Senate — can only criticize reparations, but could not present arguments in favor, even if they want to dissect those arguments.
A history professor would have to think twice before presenting materials relating to historic immigration policies that limited immigrants by national origin, as that might “promote” preferences based on national origin.
A political science professor cannot present materials arguing in favor of continuing to limit Selective Service (i.e., the military draft) registration requirements to men, or limiting combat roles to men, as those arguments would “promote” preferences based on sex.
Diversity, equity, and inclusion statements FAQ
Issue Pages
Vague or ideologically motivated DEI statement policies can too easily function as litmus tests for adherence to prevailing ideological views on DEI.
Worse still, it is impossible for an educator to know what might “promote or encourage the granting of preferences” with regard to a particular student. For instance, since students reading the Supreme Court decisions in Bakke and Grutter may find their arguments convincing, even teaching about these landmark cases would risk violating the executive order. This cannot be reconciled with the First Amendment and academic freedom rights of West Virginia students and professors.
The plain language of the provision clearly conflicts with West Virginians’ constitutional rights. Governor Morrisey should rescind or amend the Executive Order to make clear that it does not affect higher education classroom instruction. If you are a faculty member whose teaching may be impacted by Executive Order 3-25, please contact FIRE: https://thefire.org/alarm.
When tenured Millsaps College professor James Bowley sent an email sharing his opinion on the outcome of the 2024 presidential election, he didn’t anticipate it would result in his termination. But in a perfect storm of overreach and red tape, that’s exactly what happened.
On Nov. 6, 2024 — the day after the election — Bowley emailed the students in his “Abortion and Religions” class, canceling that day’s session to “mourn and process this racist fascist country.” With only three students in the class, Bowley got to know them quite well, including their political feelings, and knew canceling class would be best for those students. As Bowley told FIRE, “I just want to be caring and kind to my students, whom I knew would be troubled by the election.” Bowley wasn’t just trying to get out of work; he did not cancel the much larger first-year writing class session he taught that same day because he had no reason to know how those students felt about the election.
Two days later, Millsaps Provost Stephanie Rolph informed Bowley that he had been placed on temporary administrative leave pending review, for the bizarre offense of using his “Millsaps email account to share personal opinions with [his] students.”
That’s right: Millsaps didn’t take issue with Bowley canceling class (likely because they’d have to punish lots of people; professors cancel class for all sorts of reasons). The only cited reason was the use of his email to share personal opinions with students, which unsurprisingly is not an actual policy violation. That’s right: The college simply fabricated a policy violation so it could punish a professor for his speech. Frank Neville, president of the private college, has ignored hundreds of calls to reinstate Bowley, who was unable to do his job for over three months until yesterday, when he was eventually fired.
Welcome to Millsaps, a labyrinth of academic bureaucracy where personal opinions may not be shared.
Millsaps College president Frank Neville denied a committee recommendation and doubled down on Bowley’s leave being both justified and necessary, without explanation. (Barbara Gauntt / Clarion Ledger / USA TODAY NETWORK)
Professor punished without due process
Everything about Bowley’s treatment goes directly against Millsaps’ own fundamental principles of “freedom of speech and expression.” While Millsaps is a private institution not bound by the First Amendment, its commitment to free speech leads any reasonable student or faculty member to believe they are being promised expressive rights that align with the First Amendment.
Courts have recognized protection for a great deal of faculty speech on matters of public concern (say, apresidentialelection) because higher education depends on the wide exposure to robust exchanges of thoughts and ideas. But Millsaps’ actions here signal that it doesn’t take its own principles seriously and is making up its own standards for free speech and expression. That’s not okay with us — and it’s unfair to the students and faculty of Millsaps.
Not only did FIRE request that Millsaps drop the investigation and reinstate Bowley, but so did more than 100 students, reportedly, (pretty impressive for a college of only about 600) and over 500 alumni. And when Bowley contested the provost’s decision to place him on leave, a grievance committee made up of faculty members determined that Millsaps couldn’t identify a single policy that Bowley had violated. The committee recommended that Bowley be reinstated immediately.
FIRE remains by Bowley’s side, fighting for his return to teaching — and his right to share his opinions with students.
The grievance committee, like FIRE, also found that Bowley was not afforded proper dueprocess. Bowley was placed on leave before receiving a hearing and final determination. By doing so, the provost created an intermediary step in the process of dismissing a professor that exists nowhere in the handbooks — all without Bowley having any prior violations or disciplinary actions taken against him.
But Neville seemed unfazed by the calls from the Millsaps community and unconvinced by the facts presented to him. On Jan. 10, Neville denied the grievance committee’s recommendation and doubled down on Bowley’s leave being both justified and necessary, without explanation.
Calls to reinstate Bowley continued, this time reaching tens of thousands of people. But that still wasn’t enough. On Jan. 14, Bowley was told in a meeting that he was fired for not exercising restraint and not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s. To be clear: The college fired Bowley for an offense – not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s – of which he wasn’t accused. It’s no surprise that Bowley could not extricate himself from what Millsaps made into an impossible situation.
Ferris State cannot punish professor for comedic — and now viral — video jokingly referring to students as ‘cocksuckers’ and ‘vectors of disease’
News
It’s a joke, people. But violating faculty rights is not.
Even if the college had originally charged Bowley with not clarifying that his views were not that of the college’s, his email to his class still wouldn’t qualify. Whatever interest Millsaps may have in preventing faculty from purporting to speak on its behalf does not justify automatic punishment for simply not asserting that one isn’t speaking for the college. In fact, the Supreme Court has held that a teacher could not be punished for a letter to the editor he wrote in which he identified himself as a teacher at a certain school. Just because Bowley is identified as working at Millsaps (via his faculty email), doesn’t mean his speech is transformed into speech on behalf of the college.
Millsaps cannot overcome this principle just because it wants faculty to indicate whether views expressed “are individual or those of the institution.” Nothing in Bowley’s email can reasonably be interpreted as speaking on behalf of Millsaps, as it is commonly understood that when using their college email, faculty members are speaking for themselves rather than conveying that they speak for their employer. And here, Bowley was very clearly sharing an opinion – a criticism of an election outcome – that any reasonable person would understand as being his own opinion.
Bowley told FIRE yesterday: “I love Millsaps College and even more I love my students, but censorship by an administration by definition means that it is not education anymore; it is not a legitimate college.”
FIRE remains by Bowley’s side, fighting for his return to teaching — and his right to share his opinions with students.
CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — Many students in New Zealand have a story to tell about “streaming” — being grouped into separate math classes based on their perceived ability to master the subject.
Manaaki Waretini-Beaumont, now 18 and an environmental science major at the University of Canterbury, learned about the downside of streaming when she enrolled in Avonside Girls’, a 1,000-student high school in Christchurch.
Avonside starts at Year 9, equivalent to eighth grade in the United States, and ends at Year 13, equivalent to 12th grade. Before the start of her Year 9 term, Waretini-Beaumont and her fellow students were divided up into groups to take tests in “maths,” reading comprehension, and patterns and shapes.
Afterward, the students were separated into lettered groups that spelled out the word B-I-N-O-C-U-L-A-R-S. Waretini-Beaumont was a “9-N” student in mathematics — as she describes it, “the top of the middle block.”
But she said she didn’t feel comfortable as one of the few Māori students in the class.
“I felt like I wasn’t good enough to be in that space,” said Waretini-Beaumont, whose iwi, or tribal affiliations, are Te Āti Haunui-A-Pāpārangi, Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Paoa. “If there was something I wasn’t understanding, I felt like I wasn’t able to say that, because I’m supposed to be in the smart class with all these smart people.”
So she shifted to another mathematics class with her Māori friends, who were in the “S” classes.
“Being in two different spaces, I could really see the change,” Waretini-Beaumont said. “At the top classes, the teachers’ language towards the students was always positive and it was always encouraging. And they really wanted students to learn and were trying to help them.”
Manaaki Waretini-Beaumont experienced the effects of “streaming,” or academic ability tracking, during her time as a high school student at Avonside Girls’ School in Christchurch, New Zealand. Credit: Image provided by Richie Mills/Ngāi Tahu
In the classroom where her friends were assigned, in contrast, the mathematics work mostly amounted to simple worksheets — “coloring pages and word find,” Waretini-Beaumont said.
For years, much like in the United States, New Zealand has worried about sliding student proficiency in mathematics, as captured by both national and international test scores. Later this month — the beginning of the New Zealand school year — the country is launching an overhaul of mathematics instruction that education leaders hope will reverse the trend.
But other groups in the country have been trying to approach the problem of academic achievement from a different angle. They believe that streaming is driving achievement gaps in the country, including in mathematics. Tokona te Raki/Māori Futures Collective, a think tank focused on youth, has been working since 2019 to persuade schools to voluntarily end the practice by 2030. The initiative is called “Kōkirihia”— Māori for “take action.”
Streaming is just one of many ways that schools group students by academic ability. Ability grouping can include separating students into vocational or university tracks at different schools as early as age 10, as is common in Germany and other Western European countries. But it could also include teachers creating informal and non-permanent groupings within their own classrooms to provide enrichment or extra support to students who need it.
In New Zealand, critics say streaming pushes two groups into so-called “cabbage,” or lower-level mathematics, at a disproportionate rate: Māori students, who are indigenous to New Zealand, and students who are Pasifika, the New Zealand term for people from Samoa, Tonga and other nations in the Pacific Islands.
In the 14th century, the Polynesian ancestors of today’s Māori migrated thousands of miles by canoe to what they called Aotearoa, the land of the long white cloud. Hundreds of years later, English settlers came to engage in trade and now represent the majority ethnic group in New Zealand. In 1840, the two groups signed the Treaty of Waitangi that established New Zealand’s bicultural identity.
Many youth with Pacific Island backgrounds are descended from people who were encouraged to move to New Zealand after World War II to address a labor shortage.
Both Māori and Pasifika are a fast-growing, and young, population. By the 2040s, more than a third of children in the country are expected to identify as Māori, according to Stats NZ, the country’s official data agency.
The New Zealand Ministry of Education’s official stance discourages streaming, but the country’s more than 2,500 schools operate with a great deal of independence: Principals have similar powers and responsibilities as school superintendents in the United States, and each school has an elected board that sets policy and manages budgets.
New Zealand does not track streaming or ability grouping by race or ethnicity, but surveys show it is common: Eighty percent of students are in schools that group students by ability level in mathematics, according to a 2022 survey conducted by the Program for International Student Assessment.
Other data shows a wide academic gap among students of different ethnicities in New Zealand.
Students at May Road School in Auckland, New Zealand, work through a lesson on fractions. Credit: Becki Moss for The Hechinger Report
In the Auckland region, the country’s most densely populated of 16 regions in all, 76 percent of Asian students left secondary school with the highest of three levels on the country’s National Certificate of Educational Achievement in 2022. Like a high school diploma, the NCEA Level 3 is a minimum qualification to enter college in New Zealand.
About 66 percent of Pākehā, or white, students left school with that credential. About 46 percent of Pasifika students and 40 percent of Māori students did the same.
In comparison, the high school graduation rate by race and ethnicity in the United States in the 2021-22 school year was 94 percent for Asian American/Pacific Islander students, 90 percent for white students, 83 percent for Hispanic students, 81 percent for Black students and 74 percent for American Indian/Alaskan Native students.
Misbah Sadat, the newly appointed principal at Kuranui College, a high school 50 miles northeast of the capital of Wellington, began actively working to “destream” mathematics courses soon after emigrating to New Zealand in 2009 and becoming a teacher there.
As head of mathematics at a high school called Horowhenua College, she started by identifying promising Māori students on her own, moving them to higher level classes, and mentoring them, as described in a Ministry of Education newsletter.
Eventually she convinced her colleagues at Horowhenua to create mixed-ability classes rather than dividing the students. She continued the same work as deputy principal at Onslow College in suburban Wellington, where she worked before her new appointment.
The streaming practice comes from a patronizing mindset, said Sadat, who was also a math teacher in Montgomery County, Maryland.
Schools are telling parents that their children might be lost and overwhelmed in a more rigorous class. In actuality, “We have demoted some students to learn crap,” she said. “And then we are saying that at age 16, ‘You are dumb at maths.’ How dare we decide what a young person is capable of or not capable of?”
Students at Kaiapoi North School in suburban Christchurch, New Zealand, work through a multiplication problem in chalk on the playground blacktop. Credit: Becki Moss for The Hechinger Report
Both of New Zealand’s unions for elementary and secondary teachers signed onto the pledge to end streaming by 2030. In a newsletter to members, the elementary teachers union noted that its members have noticed “a sense of ingrained hopelessness that comes with being in the ‘cabbage’ classes.”
But in the same newsletter, another teacher said educators struggle with the mix of abilities in one classroom, along with managing behavior challenges.
David Pomeroy, a senior lecturer in education at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, is studying schools that have committed to reducing their reliance on streaming.
It’s a difficult task, he said. So many teachers are accustomed to the practice, since they went through it in school themselves. Parents of students in high-level classes are worried their children will be shortchanged. Teachers also say that it is easier to work with students who are all roughly on the same skill level.
And then there is an emotional connection to the practice, Pomeroy said. Unlike in the United States, lower-level mathematics classes are often taught by teachers who have a lot of classroom experience and who express real fondness for their students, he said. Pushing students too hard is seen as setting them up for repeated failure, which teachers were reluctant to do.
Abby Zonneveld’s bulletin board at St. Clair School in Dunedin, New Zealand, asked students to describe their “tūrangawaewae,” or place where they feel a special connection. Credit: Becki Moss for The Hechinger Report
“Even if they accepted streaming wasn’t the right next step, they wanted to protect them from anything that could damage their confidence,” Pomeroy said.
For schools that have made a commitment to reducing or ending streaming, he said, one useful tool has been to bring mathematics teachers in different schools together so they can work through challenges, such as lesson planning, and share successes.
The research into the benefits or harms of academic tracking or streaming show mixed results. In 2016, a group of researchers compiled all the best U.S-based research on ability grouping and acceleration at that point, going back for a century. They found certain kinds of ability grouping, such as placing highly gifted students together, was a benefit to those students. But grouping students in high- or low-performing classes did not show any benefit or detriment for students.
The New Zealand Initiative, a right-of-center think tank, said that the country should conduct its own research on the effects of streaming in the country, rather than relying primarily on research done elsewhere and on qualitative reports that primarily capture feelings about the practice. “Research suggests that lowerstream students are often taught less engaging content by less experienced teachers. So, it may not be streaming itself that increases gaps in achievement but streaming done poorly,” the initiative said in a report.
But the efforts to reduce streaming voluntarily seem to be catching on.
When looking at all academic subjects, not just mathematics, principals on a 2022 PISA survey said 67 percent of students in New Zealand are grouped by ability into different classes for at least some subjects. That’s a drop from 2015, when 90 percent of principals reported that students were grouped into different classes in their schools.
The change is welcome, said Waretini-Beaumont, who works on social media for Tokona te Raki. Streaming “has more impact than just cutting off some opportunities and stopping someone from doing calculus,” she said. “Our grandparents have been streamed and they don’t know it was even a thing. They just thought they were dumb.”
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Secretary of State Bridget Phillipson has delivered a statement to Parliament on her regulatory approach to higher education – specifically, the future of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.
Ahead of her day in court with the Free Speech Union – which is taking her to court over her implementation pause – she announced that key provisions will be brought into force, whilst “burdensome provisions” will be scrapped.
And the good news is that pretty much for the first time from a minister on this issue, there’s an explicit recognition of the fine lines, complexities and contradictions often in play on the issue. A press notice covers largely the same material.
You’ll recall that on taking office back in July, Phillipson paused further commencement of the Act in response to “concerns raised by a cross section of voices” – and controversially, at least for some, a “source” branded the Act as passed a “Tory hate charter”.
In the intro, Phillipson said she was still committed to ensuring the protection of academic freedom and free speech – “vital pillars” of the university system:
Universities are spaces for debate, exploration, and the exchange of ideas, not for shutting down dissenting views… extensive engagement with academics, universities, students, and minority groups revealed concerns about unworkable duties, legal system burdens, and potential impacts on safety, particularly amid rising antisemitism on campuses.
Insights from her work to consult with interested stakeholders (both for and against the act), says Phillipson, have shaped a “balanced, effective, and proportionate approach” to safeguard free speech while addressing minority welfare.
What stays
First up, the government will commence the following requirements currently in the act (in sections 1,2 and 6):
The duties on higher education providers to take reasonably practicable steps to secure and promote freedom of speech within the law
The duty on higher education providers to put in place a code of conduct [practice] on freedom of speech
Those are relatively uncontroversial – most providers were preparing in that spirit already, although the (very) detailed suggestions on compliance previously proposed by OfS may yet change.
Underpinning that, Phillipson also intends to commence the duties on the Office for Students (OfS) (section 5) to promote freedom of speech and the power to give advice and share best practice. And unsurprisingly, the ban on non-disclosure agreements for staff and students making complaints about bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct will also remain.
There was a curious passage on the Director for Free Speech and Academic Freedom role – the Secretary of State said that she had “complete confidence” in Arif Ahmed who will be staying on – but then criticised how he’d been appointed, drawing on interim Chair David Behan’s review of the regulator that had recommended a look at how all OfS executive and board appointments should be made.
She said will decide on the process of appointing directors to the independent regulator “shortly”.
What’s going
A couple of other measures were “not proportionate or necessary”, so she’ll be seeking repeal.
The duties on students’ unions are to go – because they’re neither “equipped nor funded” to navigate such a complex regulatory environment, and are already regulated by the Charity Commission:
But I fully expect students unions to protect lawful free speech, whether they agree with the views expressed or not, and expect providers to work closely with them to make sure that happens, to act decisively to make sure their students union complies with their free speech code of conduct.
That effectively returns us to the Education Act 1986 position – of providers taking reasonably practicable steps to get their SU to comply – and sensibly removes the prospect of a new student being told about two codes of practice to follow depending on who they’d booked a room with.
Most controversially for some, she will also repeal the legal tort, on the basis that it would have resulted in:
Costly litigation that risks diverting resources away from students at a time when University finances are already strained – remaining routes of redress have plenty of teeth.
Those pro the tort worry that that only leaves OfS’ powers to find as the compliance lever – although others worried that the threat of it would have resulted in more threatening letters than sensible, nuanced decisions.
What’s changing
On the OfS free speech complaints scheme, it will remain in place for university staff and visiting speakers – but there will be two changes. OfS will first be freed up to prioritise the more serious complaints – and be officially empowered to ignore others.
And the government will remove the “confusing duplication” of complaint schemes for students. Students will be diverted to using the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA, and OfS will take complaints from staff, external speakers and university members.
That doesn’t quite remove the potential duplication of the two bodies considering the same incident or issue from different angles/complaints – but it’s a sensible start.
And the government will also amend the mandatory condition of registration on providers to give OfS flexibility in how they apply those conditions to different types of providers – we’d expect that to cover issues like the obvious oversight of 14-year olds in FE colleges caught by the Act suddenly gaining free speech rights.
The government says it will also take more time to consider implementation of the overseas funding measures in the act as it “works at pace” on the wider implementation of the foreign influence registration scheme that was part of the National Security Act 2023. Those two bits of legislation never felt properly aligned – so that also feels pretty sensible.
In the debate that ensued, there was some lingering suspicion from the opposition that that all amounted to the government going soft on China – and regardless of the foreign funding clauses, there were some concerns from providers about the workability of the draft OfS guidance on the main duties re oppressive regimes and TNE. That will be one to watch.
Finally, we will also get a policy paper to set out the proposals in more detail, potentially alongside a decision on information provision for overseas funding.
What’s next
As we signalled back in March, the interaction with allegations and incidents of antisemitism appears to have been a big influence on the decisions – the press notice reminds readers that there were fears that the legislation would encourage providers to “overlook” the safety and wellbeing of minority groups, including Jewish students, and instead protect those who use hateful or degrading speech on campus:
Groups representing Jewish students also expressed concerns that sanctions could lead to providers overlooking the safety and well-being of minority groups.
Phillipson even referenced the faux pas from Michelle Donelan way back in May 2021 when, on the day the Bill was launched, she was unable to explain how the government’s proposals would prevent Holocaust deniers coming to campus.
Phillipson said that she could see “no good reason” why any university would invite a Holocaust denier onto campus to deny the overwhelming evidence that the Holocaust is an “appalling form of antisemitism”. Even when the last government had clarified the position on holocaust denial, it never confirmed that holocaust deniers could be banned – and the point about many external speaker edge cases is that they rarely fill the form in with “I’m going to say something unlawful”.
There’s still a way to go yet on these (and other) fine lines – in the ensuing debate, Phillipson said that she was worried that the regime that was due to launch would have “unduly prioritized” free speech which is hateful or degrading over the interests of those who feel harassed and intimidated – these issues, she said, can be “very finely balanced”. That may well see a push from the SOS that the two sets of guidance – on OfS’ new Harassment and Sexual Misconduct duties, and the drafts on this regime, are integrated more sensibly.
The ongoing questions surrounding the IHRA definition of antisemitism may also yet pop up again too – not least because of Arif Ahmed’s own apparent u-turn on it and the ensuing cases challenging its usage in disciplinary procedures. Questions of pro-Palestinian activism on camps and where that might stray into antisemitism were notably absent from OfS’ guidance drafts.
Overall, some in the debate will be furious at the government’s apparent watering down of the Act, others will be pleased that some of the arguably more unworkable aspects are being amended.
But probably the most important signal from Phillipson was a recognition that the area is complex and decisions often finely balanced – putting a degree of trust in universities (and their SUs) that they will also take it seriously.
Whatever else has happened over the past few years, there’s plenty of evidence that understanding has improved in the sector – it looks it has in Whitehall too. The question now is whether, next time an incident or issue comes along, it is handled by a university (or its SU) in a way that commands confidence.
Each month, CUPA-HR General Counsel Ira Shepard provides an overview of several labor and employment law cases and regulatory actions with implications for the higher ed workplace. Here’s the latest from Ira.
Dartmouth Men’s Basketball Team, SEIU Withdraw Union Petition
In March 2024, the Dartmouth College men’s basketball team voted 13-2 in favor of joining the Service Employees International Union Local 560 after the National Labor Relations Board regional director ruled that the players were employees eligible to vote in an NLRB-supervised representation election. On December 31, 2024, Local 560 pulled back its representation petition, and the NLRB will dismiss the case (Trustees of Dartmouth College (N.L.R.B. No. 01-RC-325633, Petition Withdrawn 12/31/24)).
An SEIU spokesperson stated that they withdrew the petition to preserve the legal precedent of the NLRB regional director’s decision holding that the basketball players were employees of Dartmouth. While SEIU will no longer participate as the collective bargaining representative, the union claims it will pursue its goals via a change in tactics. Dartmouth maintains that the regional director’s decision ruling that the basketball players are employees is legally erroneous.
The employee status of student-athletes is still subject to NLRB litigation in the University of Southern California and Pac-12 case. The NLRB is pursuing unfair labor practice charges against USC and the Pac-12 as joint employers following their refusal to bargain with a union on the grounds that basketball and football players are students and not employees. We will continue to follow developments in this area as they unfold.
Federal Court Allows Muslim Professor to Proceed With Religious Discrimination Claim — Dismisses Age Discrimination Claim
The plaintiff professor, an immigrant from Bosnia and a Muslim, has had a non-tenure-track position for more than a decade with Teachers College, Columbia University. She alleged in federal court that she was discriminated against because of her religion and age when the university did not offer her a tenured position. While the court allowed the religious discrimination and retaliation portions of the complaint to proceed, it dismissed her allegations that she was also denied the tenure-track position because of age and age-related comments (Sabic-El-Rayess v. Teachers College (S.D.N.Y. No.-24-cv-2891, 12/5/24)).
The plaintiff alleged that no Muslim professor has ever received a tenure-track position in Teachers College, despite many being qualified, and that university leaders made remarks that could be construed as anti-Muslim. The plaintiff claims that the university’s rationale for its decision — that she lacked peer-reviewed publications — is false. The court also allowed the plaintiff’s allegations that she was retaliated against by a salary reduction after she made her religious discrimination complaints to proceed, notwithstanding the university’s denial of such allegations.
Employer Sued in Class Action for Allegedly Mismanaging Pension Fund
An employee group has filed a class action lawsuit against a national sports retailer alleging that the employer violated pension plan rules. The employee group alleges REI used non-vested pension fund employee forfeitures to reduce contributions otherwise owed to other employees, rather than adhere to plan provisions requiring the employer to use the funds to pay amounts owed for rehired participants or to pay administrative expenses (Smith v. Recreational Equipment Inc. (W.D. Wash, No. 3:24-cv-03062, complaint, 12/17/24)). Plaintiffs propose to represent a class of 24,000 participant employees.
Plaintiffs claim that the employer used more than $5.8 million in forfeitures incorrectly from 2018 to 2023. Similar claims along these lines have been litigated in other courts, with some courts dismissing the claims in favor of the employer and others allowing the litigation to continue. It appears to be an unsettled issue at this time.
Judge Rules Terminated Athletic Director Entitled to Jury Trial Over Allegations of Sex and Age Discrimination — Case Dismissed Subject to a Confidential Settlement
A university’s first woman athletic director, who was terminated for alleged poor athletic team performance, is entitled to have her claims of age and sex discrimination heard by a federal court jury. The plaintiff alleged that she was discriminated against on the basis of age and sex when she was replaced by a man who was 27 years younger. The judge pointed to this in ruling that a jury could find in the plaintiff’s favor (Ford-Kee v. Miss. Valley State University (2024 BL 460757 N.D. Mis. No. 4:23-cv-00107, 12/17/24)).
The university president testified that hundreds of people recommended that the athletic director be fired, but he refused to identify people calling for the termination. The court concluded that this did not evidence any discriminatory intent by the president, but it did raise the question of whether the president was influenced by discriminatory views of others. The plaintiff alleged that the poor team performance was an after-the-fact rationalization and that the university president was swayed by the “sexist” views of the athletic foundation and key alumni. The plaintiff claimed the president did not raise poor team performance as a reason for the termination during her final meeting, but rather stated it was time for a change.
Bloomberg later reported that the parties reached a confidential settlement dismissing the case, which will no longer go to trial.
Federal Appeals Court Rules No Private Right to Sue Under Law Prohibiting Employment Discrimination Against Marijuana Users
Under the New Jersey Cannabis Regulatory, Enforcement Assistance, and Market Place Modernization Act (CREAMMA), employers are specifically prohibited from discriminating against workers over the age of 21 for their use or non-use of cannabis. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the decision of the federal trial court, dismissing the case in which the plaintiff alleged cannabis use employment discrimination (Zanetich v. Walmart Stores East Inc. (0:23-cv-01996, 3rd Cir. 12/9/24).
The plaintiff alleged that his job offer was rescinded after he tested positive for cannabis use. Nonetheless the appeals court dismissed the case, holding that the CREAMMA statute contains no language creating or suggesting a private remedy. The appeals court also denied the plaintiff’s request to remand the case to the New Jersey Supreme Court so that the New Jersey court could interpret the statute. The appeals court concluded that the absence of an express remedy providing a private right to sue under CREAMMA was a deliberate choice of the legislature rather than an oversight.
University Prevails in Gender Bias Claim Raised by Former Athletic Director
The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a split 2-1 decision, held that a university was entitled to a dismissal of a gender-based pay discrimination claim brought by the university’s former athletic director. The former athletic director claimed that her male successor was discriminatorily paid $170,000 annually compared to her last salary of $135,000. The court concluded that the university raised legitimate factors other than gender which led to its decision to pay the male athletic director more (Williams v. Alabama State University (11th Cir., No. 23-121692, unpublished, 12/23/24)). The majority of the three-judge appellate panel concluded that the university was justified in paying the male athletic director more because of his 10 years of experience in athletic administration leadership and because of his Ph.D. This compared to the plaintiff’s two years of relevant experience and a master’s degree.
The appeals court pointed out that this is not a case of two employees being employed contemporaneously at different salaries to perform the same job. Rather, the court concluded that the employer met the salary demands of a more experienced leader for the job in order to secure him. One judge dissented from the decision to dismiss the case. The dissenting judge concluded that university leaders made a number of comments concerning this selection that a jury should be able to hear and consider.
Now more than ever, knowing how to recruit students online is essential for success. In 2025, brochures and campus visits alone are no longer enough. A successful student recruitment plan requires a blend of innovative digital tools, personalized engagement, and a deep understanding of student behavior.
At Higher Education Marketing, we’ve spent years refining our approach to online student recruitment, and we’re excited to share ten proven strategies that can take your recruitment efforts from awareness to enrollment this year. Keep reading for a deeper understanding of the enrollment process, actionable tips on recruiting students online, and access to our student recruitment resources.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Understanding the Enrollment and Decision-Making Process
The journey from awareness to enrollment as illustrated by the enrollment funnel is complex, often involving multiple stages of research, evaluation, and emotional investment. For prospective students and their families, choosing a school is a decision that balances academic aspirations, career goals, financial considerations, and personal preferences.
Understanding this process is essential for creating a recruitment strategy that aligns with their needs and motivations.
Stage 1: Awareness
At the beginning of the journey, students and their families are typically exploring broad options. They may be influenced by online advertisements, social media content, or recommendations. During this phase, your goal as a school is to make a positive first impression and provide easily accessible, engaging content. Students are looking for reasons to consider your institution, such as program variety, campus culture, or career outcomes. For families, financial feasibility and safety often rank high as priorities.
A strong online presence is crucial here, including a well-optimized website with clear messaging, visually appealing social media accounts, and engaging videos that spark curiosity. For instance, showcasing testimonials from students with similar backgrounds or aspirations can help prospective students visualize themselves as part of your community.
Stage 2: Consideration
Once students identify potential schools, they begin in-depth research. At this stage, they often turn to your website, virtual campus tours, and program details, comparing your institution to others. Families may analyze cost, scholarship opportunities, and academic flexibility, while students might focus on extracurricular activities, study-abroad opportunities, and campus life.
To meet these needs, your content should highlight differentiators, such as unique programs, industry partnerships, or alumni success stories. Transparent communication is key—clearly outlining tuition fees, application requirements, and scholarship opportunities builds trust. Including testimonials from alumni and current students in similar fields can help students and families see the real-world value of your programs.
Stage 3: Decision
When students are ready to make their final decision, the process becomes personal. Students and families are likely reaching out for additional information, attending virtual or in-person events, and engaging with admissions counselors. They want answers to specific questions, such as “What internships are available in this program?” or “What percentage of graduates find jobs in their field within six months?”
Personalized follow-ups play a crucial role in this stage. Schools that demonstrate a genuine interest in the student’s goals and address family concerns are more likely to earn their trust. Hosting webinars with faculty and student panels can also provide authentic insights that make prospective students feel more connected to your institution.
Stage 4: Enrollment
After narrowing down their options, students proceed with the application process. For many, this stage can feel overwhelming, particularly if they’re applying to multiple schools or navigating complicated requirements. Families, on the other hand, may focus on evaluating financial aid packages and understanding the return on investment.
Streamlining the application process is critical here. Ensure that your application portal is user-friendly, deadlines are clearly communicated, and the required documents are easy to upload. Offering guidance through a dedicated admissions counselor or chatbot can alleviate stress and improve the overall experience. Schools that simplify this process often see higher application completion rates.
After submitting applications, the waiting period begins. At this stage, communication should remain active. Personalized acceptance letters, invitations to exclusive admitted-student events, or detailed guides on the next steps can keep students and their families engaged while reinforcing their decision to enroll.
Source: HEM
Need support in your school’s online student recruitment efforts? Reach out to learn more about our services!
How to Recruit Students Online
Want to explore how to recruit students online in more detail? The answer lies in combining data-driven insights, engaging content, and personalized communication to guide students through their enrollment journey as discussed above. From leveraging SEO and social media ads to creating interactive virtual tours and using chatbots for instant support, online student recruitment requires a multi-faceted approach that captures attention, builds trust, and inspires action. In the sections that follow, we’ll discuss ten proven strategies that can help you move prospective students seamlessly from awareness to enrollment. Let’s get started!
1. Start With Data-Driven Audience Insights
The foundation of any successful recruitment strategy is understanding your target audience. Relying on broad demographics is no longer enough. Why is that? Today’s students expect hyper-personalized messaging at each level of the enrollment funnel.
Tools like Google Analytics, CRM systems, and social media insights provide invaluable data on prospective students’ preferences, online behavior, and decision-making patterns. The information you glean from your detailed demographic research will help you make informed campaign decisions.
Behavioral information such as the length of each session, the devices used, bounce rates, and session attribution provides insight into how people are engaging with your site, when and why they may lose interest, and whether your site is optimized for desired actions such as filling out contact forms or subscribing to newsletters. If you’re looking to revamp your school’s online recruitment efforts, the use of data analytics tools is an excellent way to start planning.
2. Invest in Search Engine Optimization (SEO)
Visibility is key in the awareness phase, and SEO ensures your school appears where prospective students are searching. Optimizing your website and blog content for high-ranking keywords can drive organic traffic from search engines. Long-tail keywords tend to be the most effective.
Long-tail keywords are highly specific search terms that prospective students use when looking for educational opportunities. These phrases, such as “best online MBA programs for working professionals” or “affordable graphic design diploma in Vancouver,” often reflect a searcher’s intent more clearly than generic keywords.
For schools, targeting long-tail keywords can drive qualified traffic to your website by connecting with students who are already in the decision-making phase. Unlike broader keywords, long-tail terms face less competition, making ranking higher in search engine results easier.
To effectively use long-tail keywords, start with thorough keyword research. Tools like Google Keyword Planner, SEMrush, or AnswerThePublic can uncover phrases students frequently search for. Analyze internal data, such as search terms used on your site, or interview current students to understand how they found your programs.
Pay close attention to questions students ask during open houses or information sessions—these often provide insight into potential long-tail keywords. Incorporating these terms naturally into blog posts, program pages, and FAQs can help your school align with the needs of prospective students, driving meaningful engagement and boosting enrollment. Additionally, focusing on local SEO—like “business schools in New York”—can capture the attention of students looking for programs within a specific region.
Source: Google | Matthew’s Hall
Example: If you want to maximize the effects of local SEO, you need a Google My Business account like the one pictured above. Prospects looking for schools in a particular geographic location are more likely to come across your school’s profile which reveals all the information they need to get in contact with you and even visit you in person. A Google My Business account also provides an official first impression of your school
3. Leverage Social Media Ads with Predictive Targeting
How does predictive targeting work on social media? By leveraging advanced algorithms, platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok analyze user behavior and identify prospective students who are most likely to engage with your content or apply to your programs.
This approach not only increases the precision of your campaigns but also optimizes your marketing budget by focusing on high-intent audiences. Schools can use predictive targeting to showcase program-specific ads to users who have expressed interest in similar fields, ensuring a personalized and relevant experience.
For instance, promoting STEM programs to students who frequently engage with tech or science content creates a stronger connection and improves conversion rates. Predictive targeting helps schools reach the right students at the right time, making it a highly effective strategy for boosting enrollment outcomes.
4. Develop Interactive Virtual Campus Tours
While in-person visits are valuable, virtual campus tours have become indispensable for reaching international and out-of-state students. These tours should be interactive, incorporating 360-degree views of classrooms, dorms, and recreational facilities.
You can go a step further by integrating live Q&A sessions with student ambassadors or faculty during the tours. This provides a personalized touch and provides the opportunity to share valuable information and address concerns or barriers to enrollment.
Source: University of Toronto | Virtual Campus Tours
Example: The University of Toronto provides detailed, user-friendly virtual tours complete with a menu, high-quality 360-degree imagery, clear audio guidance, and valuable information about student life and available on-campus learning resources.
5. Create Engaging Video Content Across Platforms
Video content continues to dominate online engagement. For this reason, schools that prioritize video marketing see higher application rates, as videos create emotional connections with prospective students. From testimonials and alumni success stories to faculty introductions and campus events, video content humanizes your institution.
Platforms like YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, and LinkedIn offer dynamic opportunities for schools to showcase their programs, campus life, and success stories in ways that resonate deeply with their audience. Videos can humanize your institution, create a sense of community, and provide visual storytelling that goes beyond text and images.
To start, consider the wide variety of video formats available and how each can serve a specific purpose. Short, attention-grabbing reels or TikTok videos are perfect for introducing prospective students to your campus culture or highlighting unique aspects of a program. For example, a day-in-the-life video of a current student studying abroad, participating in research, or preparing for a career in their field can inspire viewers to imagine themselves in similar roles.
Longer-form content, such as YouTube campus tours, faculty interviews, or alumni success stories, allows you to dive deeper into the value of your school and its offerings. Interactive live video events are a powerful tool for real-time engagement. Hosting live Q&A sessions with admissions counselors, students, or alumni provides an authentic look at your institution and builds trust with prospective students.
Leverage platform-specific trends like TikTok’s creative, relatable content to showcase your programs and connect with current student interests. Participating in viral challenges or trending audio can make your school approachable and relevant.
Optimize video formats for each platform—vertical for Instagram Reels and TikTok, horizontal for YouTube and Facebook—and include captions for accessibility. Focus on storytelling by highlighting the journeys of students, faculty expertise, and alumni success to create compelling, relatable content.
Source: TikTok | University of Manchester
Example: Here, the University of Manchester shares authentic, student-generated content that viewers will be able to relate to. This tends to be the most effective video format for fostering community among your student body and deepening your relationships with new leads.
6. Use Chatbots for Instant Engagement
Students today expect instant answers, and chatbots provide a seamless way to meet that demand. AI-powered chatbots can handle common inquiries about admissions deadlines, program details, and financial aid, freeing up your staff for more personalized interactions.
Source: Excel Career College
Example: Here, Excel Career College provides an instant chatbot option for site visitors. The tool asks questions to categorize each interaction, determining what information and resources to share with the user. Chatbots help streamline the enrollment process, particularly at the awareness stage, by providing a convenient way for important questions to be answered.
7. Build a Strong Presence on Review Platforms
Prospective students and their families often rely on online reviews to make decisions. Platforms like Google Reviews and specialized education sites are vital in this regard. Proactively managing your online reputation by encouraging current students and alumni to leave positive reviews can enhance trust and credibility. How can you build a strong public reputation?
To start, addressing negative reviews or complaints with empathy and transparency can significantly improve public perception. Schools should respond promptly to concerns, offering solutions where possible and demonstrating a genuine commitment to student and family satisfaction. A well-handled negative review can turn into an opportunity to show your institution’s dedication to improvement and care.
In addition, fostering community connections can garner a positive reputation and good reviews across various platforms. Parents and local communities play a crucial role in shaping your reputation. Hosting events such as open houses, community service projects, or alumni panels fosters goodwill and positions your school as an integral part of the community. Engaging with parents through newsletters, personalized communication, and parent-specific resources further strengthens relationships and encourages positive word-of-mouth.
Positive reviews can also be amplified by showcasing testimonials and case studies from current students and alumni. Create detailed profiles of students who have achieved their goals through your programs and share their stories on your website, social media, and promotional materials.
8. Offer Personalized Email Campaigns
Email remains one of the most effective tools for nurturing leads and guiding them through the enrollment funnel. Unlike many other channels, email provides a direct line of communication that allows your school to build meaningful connections with your audience over time.
By crafting personalized email campaigns tailored to the unique needs and interests of prospective students, schools can significantly enhance engagement and conversion rates. For instance, including program-specific content that highlights key features, career outcomes, and testimonials from current students or alumni can help prospects visualize themselves succeeding in that program.
Additionally, timely reminders about critical application deadlines, scholarship opportunities, or upcoming events like open houses or webinars create a sense of urgency and keep prospective students actively engaged with the admissions process. When done effectively, personalized email campaigns foster trust and rapport while providing valuable, actionable information that empowers prospective students to make informed decisions about their educational journey.
9. Host Webinars on Trending Topics
Webinars are a fantastic way to showcase your expertise and connect directly with prospective students. Hosting sessions on trending topics like “Careers in Artificial Intelligence” or “How to Finance Your College Education” can position your school as a thought leader in the field. During these sessions, including live interactions with faculty, alumni, or current students makes the experience even more compelling.
Source: The Academy of Applied Pharmaceutical Sciences
Example: The Academy of Applied Pharmaceutical Sciences puts itself at the forefront of pharmaceutical education on a variety of topics that appeal to career-seekers in the field by hosting several educational events each month. Their upcoming workshops and webinars are easy to find on their website. Users can also access recorded webinars.
10. Emphasize Alumni and Career Outcomes
Finally, showcasing the success of your alumni is one of the most compelling ways to attract prospective students. Highlighting career outcomes, such as high employment rates or notable employers, demonstrates the tangible value of your programs.
Showcasing alumni success is one of the most impactful ways to attract prospective students and their families. When students see tangible evidence of career achievements—whether it’s high-profile employers, entrepreneurial ventures, or significant industry contributions—they are more likely to perceive your programs as a pathway to their own aspirations.
Alumni stories provide real-world validation of your school’s value and help prospective students envision their future success. Leverage alumni by creating a dynamic “Alumni Success Wall” on your website or use social media campaigns that highlight diverse career paths. Include those in traditional corporate roles as well as entrepreneurs, creatives, and community leaders to represent a broad spectrum of success. Video testimonials can be particularly powerful, capturing the emotions, challenges, and triumphs of alumni journeys.
Schools can also build relationships between alumni and prospective students through mentorship programs, webinars, or networking events. For instance, hosting a virtual panel featuring alumni working in fields related to your school’s programs provides insights and inspiration for prospective students.
Source: John Cabot University
Example: John Cabot University has an Alumni Ambassadors Program designed to provide mentorship to current students and provide alumni with an interconnected network of fellow graduates and faculty members. Prospects like to know that access to your school’s support and resources doesn’t end at graduation. Like JCU, consider hosting regular events, encourage alumni to share their positive experiences with your institution, and foster mentorship within your culture.
Final Thoughts: Aligning Strategy With Student Expectations
In summary, let’s explore how to write a college recruitment planthat works. Online student recruitment is about building meaningful connections with prospective students. By integrating data-driven insights, focussing on connection and personalization, providing value, and streaming the enrollment process, you can create a cohesive, impactful approach that resonates with students at every stage of their journey, from initial awareness to final enrollment.
At Higher Education Marketing, we specialize in helping schools like yours navigate the complexities of digital recruitment. Let’s work together to create campaigns that inspire, engage, and deliver results!
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: How to recruit students online in more detail?
Answer: The answer lies in combining data-driven insights, engaging content, and personalized communication to guide students through their enrollment journey.
Question: How to write a college recruitment plan that works?
Answer: Online student recruitment is about building meaningful connections with prospective students. By integrating data-driven insights, focussing on connection and personalization, providing value, and streaming the enrollment process, you can create a cohesive, impactful approach that resonates with students at every stage of their journey, from initial awareness to final enrollment.
Most of the time when I talk about the history of university financing, I show a chart that looks like this, showing that since 1980 government funding to the sector is up by a factor of about 2.3 after inflation over the last 40-odd years, while total funding is up by a factor of 3.6.
Figure 1: Canadian University Income by source, 1979-80 to 2022-23, in billions of constant $2022
That’s just a straight up expression of how universities get their money. But what it doesn’t take account of are changes in enrolment, which as Figure 2 shows, were a pretty big deal. Universities have admitted a *lot* more students over time. The university system has nearly doubled since the end of the 1990s and nearly tripled since the start of the 1990s.
Figure 2: Full-time Equivalent Enrolment, Canada, Universities, 1978-79 to 2022-23
So, the question is, really, how have funding pattern changes interacted with changes in enrolment? Well, folks, wonder no more, because I have toiled through some unbelievably badly-organized excel data to bring you funding data on this that goes back to the 1980s (I did a version of this back here, but I only captured national-level data—the toil here involved getting data granular enough to look at individual provinces). Buckle up for a better understanding of how we got to our present state!
Figure 3 is what I would call the headline graph: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022. Naturally, it looks a bit like Figure 1, but more muted because it takes enrolment growth into account.
Figure 3: University income per student by source, from 1980-81 to the present, in constant $2022
There’s nothing revolutionary here, but it shows a couple of things quite clearly. First, government funding per-student has been falling for most of the past 40 years.; the brief period from about 1999 to 2009 stands out as the exception rather than the norm. Second, despite that, total funding per student is still quite high compared with the 1990s. Institutions have found ways to replace government income with income from other sources. That doesn’t mean the quality of the money is the same. As I have said before, hustling for money incurs costs that don’t occur if governments are just writing cheques.
As usual, though, looking at the national picture often disguises variation at the provincial level. Let’s drill one level down and see what happened to government spending at the sub-national level. A quick note here: “government spending” means *all* government spending, not just provincial government spending. So, Ontario and Quebec probably look better than they otherwise would because they receive an outsized chunk of federal government research spending, while the Atlantic provinces probably look worse. I doubt the numbers are affected much because overall revenues from federal sources are pretty small compared to provincial ones, but it’s worth keeping in mind as you read the following.
Figure 4 looks at government spending per student in the “big three” provinces which make up over 75% of the Canadian post-secondary system. Nationally, per-student spending fell from $22,800 per year to $17,600 per year. But there are differences here: Ontario spent the entire 42-year period below that average, while BC and Quebec spent nearly all that period above it. Quebec has notably seen very little in terms of per-student fluctuations, while BC has been more volatile. Ontario saw a recovery in spending during the McGuinty years, but then has experienced a drop of about 35%. Of note, perhaps is that most of this decline happened before the arrival of the current Ford government.
Figure 4: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Big Three” provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23
Figure 5 shows that spending volatility was much higher in the three oil provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland & Labrador. All three provinces spent virtually the entirety of our period with above-average spending levels but the gap between these provinces and the national average was quite large both in the early 1980s and from about 2005 onwards: i.e. when oil prices were at their highest. Alberta of course has seen per-student funding drop by about 50% in the last fifteen years, but at the same time, it is close to where it was 25 years ago. So, was it the dramatic fall or the precipitous rise that was the outlier?
Figure 5: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and the “Oil provinces”, 1980-81 to 2022-23
Figure 6 shows the other four provinces for the sake of completeness. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were the lowest spenders in the country for most of the period we’re looking at, only catching up to the national average in the mid-aughts. Interestingly, the two provinces took two different paths to raise per-student spending: Nova Scotia did it almost entirely by raising spending, while in New Brunswick this feat was to a considerable extent “achieved” by a significant fall in student numbers (this is a ratio, folks, both the numerator and the denominator matter!).
Figure 6: Per-Student Income from Government Sources, in thousands of constant $2022, Canada and selected provinces, 1980-81 to 2022-23
An interesting question, of course, is what it would have cost to have kept public spending at 1980 per-student levels. And it’s an interesting question, because remember, total spending did in fact rise quite substantially (see Figure 1): it just didn’t rise as fast as student numbers. So, in Figure 7, I show what it would have cost to keep per-student expenditures stable at 1980-81 levels both if student numbers had stayed constant, and what it would have meant in practice given actual student numbers.
Figure 7: Funds required to return to 1980-81 levels of per-student government investment in universities, Canada, in millions of constant $2022
Weird-looking graph, right? But here’s how to interpret it. Per-student public funding did fall in the 80s and early 90s. But it rose again in the early aughts, to the point where per-student funding went back to where it was in 1980, even though the number of students in the system had doubled in the meanwhile. From about 2008 onwards, though, public investment started falling off again in per-student terms, going back to mid/late-90s levels even as overall student numbers continued to rise. We are now at the point where getting back to the levels of 1980-81, or even just 2007-08, would require a rise of between $6 and $6.5 billion dollars.
Anyways, that’s enough sunshine for one morning. Have a great day.
Representative Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, speaks at a press conference following the passage of his Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act in the House of Representatives.
Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images
The House of Representatives voted 218 to 206 to pass a bill that would unilaterally ban trans women from competing in women’s sports Tuesday. The votes were nearly split along party lines, but two Democrats, Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, both from Texas, voted for the bill.
Sponsored by Representative Greg Steube, a Florida Republican, the legislation dubbed the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act, is the latest attempt in Congress to keep trans women off women’s sports teams and builds on efforts in the states to restrict the participation of transgender students in sports that align with their gender identity. Last Congress, identical legislation from Steube passed the House but didn’t move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate.
Now, Republicans hold the majority in both the House and the Senate, making it far more likely that this iteration will be more successful. In nearly half of the country, trans women are banned from playing women’s sports at the K-12 or higher education level, but the legislation would take those bans nationwide.
Passing the bill was a top priority for House Republican leadership, who included it on a list of 12 pieces of legislation to be considered first when the new session of Congress kicked off earlier this month. Its place of prominence seems to indicate that Republican leadership will prioritize rolling back or restricting the rights of transgender people, whom Republicans have often put at the center of a culture war.
Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump have criticized the Biden administration’s effort to amend Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to prevent blanket bans that prohibit transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity. Last month, the Biden administration scrapped that proposal.
Under the bill, institutions that receive federal funding would be prohibited from allowing “a person whose sex is male to participate in an athletic program or activity that is designated for women or girls.” It defines sex as being based on “a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth,” though it doesn’t expound upon how an institution would tell. The bill does not prevent trans men from playing on men’s teams.
Anti-trans activists argue that allowing individuals assigned male at birth to play on women’s sports teams opens cis women athletes up to being injured by athletes who are more naturally powerful due to their physiques. There is sparse research on if this is true; however, the few studies that do exist haven’t backed up the idea that trans women retain significant advantage over athletes assigned female at birth.
Supporters of the legislation—including some cis female athletes, like Riley Gaines, who have competed alongside and against trans athletes at the collegiate level—also argue that trans women take spots on women’s teams, going against Title IX’s promise of equal opportunity, and that it is uncomfortable for cisgender female athletes to share close quarters, like locker rooms, with individuals assigned male at birth.
Representative Tim Walberg, the Michigan Republican who chairs the House Education and the Workforce Committee, echoed these sentiments in his argument on the House floor Tuesday.
“Mr. Speaker, kicking girls off sports teams to make way for a biological male takes opportunities away from these girls,” he said. “This means fewer college scholarships and fewer opportunities for girls. It also makes them second-class citizens in their own sports and puts their safety at risk.”
Some people who agree that trans women should not play on women’s teams say they broadly support transgender individuals but see it as unfair for them to take spots on women’s teams. But Steube took a different approach. When he announced the bill earlier this month, he quoted President-elect Donald Trump’s promise that “under the Trump administration, it will be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders—male and female.”
Meanwhile, Democrats and LGBTQ+ advocates argue that trans women should have the opportunity to play sports—which have been shown to improve outcomes and mental health for youths across the board—on the team that matches their gender.
“Transgender students—like all students—they deserve the same opportunity as their peers to learn teamwork, to find belonging and to grow into well-rounded adults through sports,” said Representative Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat, on the House floor. “Childhood and adolescence are important times for growth and development, and sports help students form healthy habits and develop strong social and emotional skills. Sports provide meaningful opportunities for kids to feel confident in themselves and learn valuable life lessons about teamwork, leadership and communication. Teams provide a place for kids to make friends and build relationships.”
Bonamici and other democrats dubbed the bill the “Child Predator Empowerment Act” and argued it wouldn’t make schools safer for students. In fact, she said that the vague language in the bill about what defines the male sex could lead to invasive examinations.
“There is no way this so-called protection bill could be enforced without opening the door to harassment and privacy violations. It opens the door to inspection, not protection, of women and girls in sports,” she said. “Will students have to undergo exams to prove they’re a girl? We are already seeing examples of harassment and questioning of girls who may not conform to stereotypical feminine roles; will they be subject to demands for medical tests and private information? That’s intrusive, offensive and unacceptable, especially from a party of limited government.”
