Category: Students

  • Student Debt by Ethnicity | HESA

    Student Debt by Ethnicity | HESA

    Hi all. Just a quick one today, this time on some data I recently got from StatsCan.

    We know a fair a bit about student debt in Canada, especially with respect to distribution by gender, type of institution, province, etc. (Chapter 6 of The State of Postsecondary Education in Canada is just chock full of this kind of data if you’re minded to take a deeper dive). But to my knowledge no one has ever pulled and published the data on debt by ethnicity, even though this data has been collected for quite some time through the National Graduates Survey (NGS). So I ordered the data, and here’s what I discovered.

    Figure 1 shows incidence of borrowing for the graduating class of 2020, combined for all graduates of universities and graduates, for the eight largest ethnicities covered by the NGS (and before anyone asks, “indigeneity” is not considered an ethnicity so anyone indicating an indigenous ethnicity is unfortunately excluded from this data… there’s more below on the challenges of getting additional data). And the picture it shows is…a bit complex.

    Figure 1: Incidence of Borrowing, College and University Graduates Combined, Class of 2020

    If you just look at the data on government loan programs (the orange bars), we see that only Arab students have borrowing rates in excess of 1 in 2. But for certain ethnicities, the borrowing rate is much lower. For Latin American and Chinese students, the borrowing rate is below 1 in 3, and among South Asian students the borrowing rate is barely 1 in 5. Evidence of big differences in attitudes towards borrowing!

    Except…well when you add in borrowing from private sources (e.g. from banks and family) so as to take a look at overall rates of borrowing incidence, the differences in borrowing rates are a lot narrower. Briefly, Asian and Latin American students borrow a lot more money from private sources (mainly family) than do Arab students, whites, and Blacks. These probably come with slightly easier repayment terms, but it’s hard to know for sure. An area almost certainly worthy of further research.

    There is a similarly nuanced picture when we look at median levels of indebtedness among graduates who had debt. This is shown below in Figure 2.

    Figure 2: Median Borrowing, College and University Graduates Combined, Class of 2020

    Now, there isn’t a huge amount of difference in exiting debt levels by ethnicity: the gap is only about $6,000 between the lowest total debt levels (Filipinos) and the highest (Chinese). But part of the problem here is that we can’t distinguish the reason for the various debt levels. Based on what we know about ethnic patterns of postsecondary education, we can probably guess that Filipino students have low debt levels not because they are especially wealthy and can afford to go to post-secondary without financial assistance. But rather because they are more likely to go to college and this spend less time, on average, in school paying fees and accumulating debt. Similarly, Chinese students don’t have the highest debt because they have low incomes; they have higher debt because they are the ethnic group the most likely to attend university and spend more time paying (higher) fees.

    (Could we get the data separately for universities and colleges to clear up the confound? Yes, we could. But it cost me $3K just to get this data. Drilling down a level adds costs, as would getting data based on indigenous identity, and this is a free email, and so for the moment what we have above will have to do. If anyone wants to pitch in a couple of grand to do more drilling-down, let me know and I would be happy to coordinate some data liberation).

    It is also possible to use NGS data to look at post-graduate income by debt. I obtained the data by in fairly large ranges (e.g. $0-20K, $20-60K, etc.), but it’s possible on the basis of that to estimate roughly what median incomes are (put it this way: the exact numbers are not exactly right, but the ordinal rank of income of the various ethnicities are probably accurate). My estimations of median 2023 income of 2020 graduates—which includes those graduates who are not in the labour market full-time, if you’re wondering why the numbers look a little low—are shown below in Figure 3.

    Figure 3: Estimate Median 2023 Income, College and University Graduates Combined, Class of 2020

    Are there differences in income here? Yes, but they aren’t huge. Most ethnic groups have median post-graduate incomes between $44 and $46,000. The two lowest-earning groups (Latin Americans and Filipinos) re both disproportionately enrolled in community colleges, which is part of what is going on in this data (if you want disaggregated data, see above).

    Now, the data from the previous graphs can be combined to look at debt-to-income ratios, both for students with debt, and all students (that is, including those that do not borrow). This is shown below in Figure 4.

    Figure 4: Estimated Median 2023 Debt-to-Income Ratios, College and University Graduates Combined, Class of 2020

    If you’re just dividing indebtedness by income (the blue bars), you get a picture that looks a lot like Figure 2 in debt, because differences in income are pretty small. But if you are looking at debt-to-income ratios across all students (including those that do not borrow) you get a very different picture because as we saw in Figure 1, there are some pretty significant differences in overall borrowing rates. So, for instance, Chinese students go from having the worst debt-to-income ratio on one measure to being middle of the pack on another because they have relatively low incidence of borrowing; similarly, students of Latin American origin go from being middle-of-the-pack to nearly the lowest debt-to-income ratios because they are a lot less likely to borrow than others. Black students end up having among the highest debt-to-income ratios not because they earn significantly less than other graduates, but because both the incidence and amount of their borrowing is relatively high.

    But I think the story to go with here is that while there are differences between ethnic groups in terms of borrowing, debt, and repayment ratios, and that it’s worth trying to do something to narrow them, the difference in these rates is not enormous. Overall, it appears that as a country we are achieving reasonably good things here, with the caveat that if this data were disaggregated by university/ college, the story might not be quite as promising.

    And so ends the first-ever analysis of student debt and repayment by ethnic background. Hope you found it moderately enlightening.

    Source link

  • How Spokane Public Schools is helping kids engage in real life

    How Spokane Public Schools is helping kids engage in real life

    Key points:

    Social media has connected kids like never before, but what they get in likes and shares, they lose in real, meaningful engagement with their peers and classmates. Lunch hours are spent hunched over smartphones, and after-school time means less sports and more Snapchat.

    The adverse effects of this excessive screen time have significantly impacted students’ social- emotional health. Forty-one percent of teens with the highest social media usage struggle with mental health issues, and between 2010 and 2020, anxiety among adolescents skyrocketed by 106 percent.

    At Spokane Public Schools (SPS), educators and administrators are reversing the side effects of social media by re-connecting with students through school-based extracurricular activities. Through its transformative Engage IRL (Engage in Real Life) initiative, the district is encouraging kids to get off their devices and onto the pickleball court, into the swimming pool, and outside in the fresh air. With more than 300 clubs and sports to choose from, SPS students are happier, healthier, and less likely to reach for their smartphones.

    An innovative approach to student engagement

    Even before the pandemic, SPS saw levels of engagement plummet among the student population, especially in school attendance rates, due in part to an increase in mental health issues caused by social media. Rebuilding classroom connections in the era of phone-based childhoods would require district leaders to think big.

    “The question was not ‘How do we get kids off their phones?’ but ‘How do we get them engaged with each other more often?’” said Ryan Lancaster, executive director of communications for SPS. “Our intent was to get every kid, every day, involved in something positive outside the school day and extend that community learning past the classroom.” 

    To meet the district’s goal of creating a caring and connected community, in 2022, school leaders formed a workgroup of parents, community members, coaches, and teachers to take inventory of current extracurriculars at all district schools and identify gaps in meeting students’ diverse interests and hobbies.

    Engaging with students was a top priority for workgroup members. “The students were excited to be heard,” explained Nikki Otero Lockwood, SPS board president. “A lot of them wanted an art club. They wanted to play board games and learn to knit. No matter their interests, what they really wanted was to be at school and be connected to others.”

    Working with community partners and LaunchNW, an Innovia Foundation initiative focused on helping every child feel a sense of belonging, SPS launched Engage IRL–an ambitious push to turn students’ ideas for fun and fulfillment into real-life, engaging activities.

    Over the past two years, Engage IRL has been the catalyst for increasing access and opportunities for K-12 students to participate in clubs, sports, arts activities, and other community events. From the Math is Cool Club and creative writing classes to wrestling and advanced martial arts, kids can find a full range of activities to join through the Elite IRL website. In addition, five engagement navigators in the district help connect families and students to engagement opportunities through individual IRL Plans and work with local organizations to expand programming.

    “All day, every day, our navigators are working to break down barriers and tackle challenges to make sure nothing gets in the way of what kids want to be involved in and engaged in,” said Stephanie Splater, executive director of athletics and activities for SPS. “For example, when we didn’t have a coach for one of the schools in our middle school football program, our navigators mobilized for really good candidates in a short amount of time just from their personal outreach.”

    In only two years, student engagement in extracurriculars has nearly doubled. Furthermore, according to Lancaster, since the Engage IRL launch, SPS hasn’t experienced a day where it dipped below 90 percent attendance. 

    “That’s an outlier in the past few years for us, for sure, and we think it’s because kids want to be at school. They want to be engaged and be part of all the cool things we’re doing. We’ve had a really great start to the 2024-2025 school year, and Engage IRL has played a huge role.”

    Engage IRL also helped SPS weather student blowback when the district launched a new cell phone policy this year. The policy prohibits cell phone use in elementary and middle school and limits it to lunch and periods between classes for high school students. Because students were already building personal connections with classmates and teachers through Engage IRL, many easily handled social media withdrawal.

    Creating opportunities for all kids

    Key to Engage IRL’s success was ensuring partnerships and programs were centered in equity, allowing every child to participate regardless of ability, financial or transportation constraints, or language barriers.

    Establishing a no-cut policy in athletics by creating additional JV and C teams ensured kids with a passion for sports, but not college-level skills, continued to compete on the court or field. Partnering with Special Olympics also helped SPS build new unified sports programs that gave children with disabilities a chance to play. And engagement navigators are assisting English language learners and their families in finding activities that help them connect with kids in their new country.

    For Otero Lockwood, getting her daughter with autism connected to clubs after years of struggling to find school activities has been life-changing.

    “There are barriers to finding community for some kids,” she shared. “We know kids with disabilities are more likely to be underemployed as adults and not as connected to the community. This is something we have the power to do that will have a lasting impact on the children we serve.”

    Through Engage IRL, SPS has redefined student engagement by expanding access and opportunity to 6,000 students across 58 schools. In just two short years, the district has seen attendance increase, student wellness improve, and dependence on smartphones diminish. By continuing to listen to the needs of students and rallying the community to partner on out-of-school activities, Spokane Public Schools is successfully fostering the face-to-face connections every child needs to thrive.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Crafting technology-driven IEPs

    Crafting technology-driven IEPs

    Key points:

    Individualized Education Plans (IEP) have been the foundation of special education for decades, and the process in which these documents are written has evolved over the years.

    As technology has evolved, writing documents has also evolved. Before programs existed to streamline the IEP writing process, creating IEPs was once a daunting task of paper and pencil. Not only has the process of writing the IEP evolved, but IEPs are becoming technology-driven.

    Enhancing IEP goal progress with data-driven insights using technology: There are a variety of learning platforms that can monitor a student’s performance in real-time, tailoring to their individual needs and intervening areas for improvement. Data from these programs can be used to create students’ annual IEP goals. This study mentions that the ReadWorks program, used for progress monitoring IEP goals, has 1.2 million teachers and 17 million students using its resources, which provide content, curricular support, and digital tools. ReadWorks is free and provides all its resources free of charge and has both printed and digital versions of the material available to teachers and students (Education Technology Nonprofit, 2021).

    Student engagement and involvement with technology-driven IEPs: Technology-driven IEPs can also empower students to take an active role in their education plan. According to this study, research shows that special education students benefit from educational technology, especially in concept teaching and in practice-feedback type instructional activities (Carter & Center, 2005; Hall, Hughes & Filbert, 2000; Hasselbring & Glaser, 2000). It is vital for students to take ownership in their learning. When students on an IEP reach a certain age, it is important for them to be the active lead in their plan. Digital tools that are used for technology-driven IEPs can provide students with visual representations of their progress, such as dashboards or graphs. When students are given a visual representation of their progress, their engagement and motivation increases.

    Technology-driven IEPs make learning fun: This study discusses technology-enhanced and game based learning for children with special needs. Gamified programs, virtual reality (VR), and augmented reality (AR) change the learning experience from traditional to transformative. Gamified programs are intended to motivate students with rewards, personalized feedback, and competition with leaderboards and challenges to make learning feel like play. Virtual reality gives students an immersive experience that they would otherwise only be able to experience outside of the classroom. It allows for deep engagement and experiential learning via virtual field trips and simulations, without the risk of visiting dangerous places or costly field trip fees that not all districts or students can afford. Augmented reality allows students to visualize abstract concepts such as anatomy or 3D shapes in context. All these technologies align with technology-driven IEPs by providing personalized, accessible, and measurable learning experiences that address diverse needs. These technologies can adapt to a student’s individual skill level, pace, and goals, supporting their IEP.

    Challenges with technology-driven IEPs: Although there are many benefits to
    technology-driven IEPs, it is important to address the potential challenges to ensure equity across school districts. Access to technology in underfunded school districts can be challenging without proper investment in infrastructures, devices, and network connection. Student privacy and data must also be properly addressed. With the use of technologies for technology-driven IEPs, school districts must take into consideration laws such as the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

    The integration of technology into the IEP process to create technology-driven IEPs represents a shift from a traditional process to a transformative process. Technology-driven IEPs create more student-centered learning experiences by implementing digital tools, enhancing collaboration, and personalized learning experiences. These learning experiences will enhance student engagement and motivation and allow students to take control of their own learning, making them leaders in their IEP process. However, as technology continues to evolve, it is important to address the equity gap that may arise in underfunded school districts.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Students are at the centre of a political uprising in Serbia. Again

    Students are at the centre of a political uprising in Serbia. Again

    Today, after three long months of protests, demonstrators in Serbia have called a general strike – and the government has threatened to retaliate.

    Activists are challenging the authority of a populist, nationalist government following months of demonstrations that have brought, at times, over 100,000 people onto the streets.

    But for me what’s significant about the growing movement – that some think could yet topple the government – is that it has been almost entirely led by students:

    The students in the blockade call on the citizens of Serbia for a total suspension of all activities on Friday, January 24… We don’t go to work, we don’t go to lectures, we don’t do our daily duties. Let’s take freedom into our own hands!

    It is a story partly about authoritarianism and tactics, and about how power reacts to protest. But it’s also a story about student movements – both official and decentralised – and how they can both lead, and be co-opted, by others.

    Back in November, a concrete roof at the railway station in Serbia’s second largest city Novi Sad collapsed, killing 15 people.

    The city is home to the University of Novi Sad – with over 50,000 students and 5,000 staff – and in the wake of the tragedy, a student activist group began to organise protests both in Novi Sad and the capital Belgrade – leaving red handprints at the entrances of government buildings to demand the arrest of officials. Government corruption was their claim.

    The group leading much of the activism has been Students Against Authoritarian Rule (STAV) – formed last January from within the Faculty of Philosophy at the University of Novi Sad, and responsible last summer for a two-week blockade of the Rectorate building over what they saw as undemocratic practices in student representation.

    It’s a fix

    STAV’s dissatisfaction had its origins in a law passed in Serbia back in 2021, when the National Assembly passed a new Law on Student Organizing as part of a broader set of educational reforms designed to enhance student participation and accountability.

    When a small group of us visited the country last year, it all looked pretty positive – it formalises the roles of student parliaments at both faculty and university level, grants them participation in university decision making over issues like teaching, curricula, and regulations, gives them a formal role in advocating for academic and social rights, sets them up to promote extracurricular activities, and establishes them as drivers of national and international collaboration.

    It also sets out detailed rules on elections – eligibility criteria, timelines, and protocols to ensure a fair electoral process. But that’s partly where the trouble started.

    Last October the Center for Science and Innovation for Development (SCiDEV) – a Tirana-based think tank that works to contribute to democratisation in Albania, the Western Balkans and the European Union – published a comparative analysis of of student perceptions and engagement in student governments in Albania, North Macedonia and Serbia.

    It compiled growing concern about the involvement of political parties in the student electoral process in Serbia, a perception of a lack of transparency in election procedures, a belief amongst some students that the electoral process is manipulated or unfair, and a lack of independent mechanisms to monitor election processes and prevent misconduct.

    That’s partly because of perceptions that both locally and nationally within SKONUS (Serbia’s NUS), the ruling Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) appears to have played a key role. Milan Savić, who was elected as SKONUS President in 2016 and 2018, was elected to the National Assembly of Serbia as a member of SNS – and activists argue that since then, its leadership has repeatedly aligned itself with government policies rather than defending the student interest.

    Current President Margareta Smiljanić has also been linked to the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) through her involvement with something called the Centre for Education and Youth Development in Belgrade (CEROB) – whose headquarters, critics claim, were used to distribute payments for work in the SNS call centre.

    If that sounds fairly tenuous, it’s because it is. It may be that Smiljanić and her predecessors have links to the government – but she’s also one of a long line of “official” student representatives in pretty much every country that get accused of “siding” with university managements or government when engaging in meetings discussing issues like timetabling and food subsidies (two key planks of her manifesto) rather than trying to analyse a broader system and reject a wider administration.

    Either way, if the SCiDEV report provided a backdrop of evidence, the Novi Sad tragedy provided an event to rally over for STAV – the collapsed canopy a symbol of the corruption they saw as endemic in the Serbian political system.

    Wastewater and tear gas

    A week after the tragedy, protests in the two cities had started to grow – flares, red paint and wastewater were thrown onto the City Hall building in Novi Sad, and police responded with tear gas – while a smaller group of angrier protesters wearing masks attempted to enter the building and hand over their demands that those responsible for the canopy collapse face justice.

    That night, President Aleksandar Vučić came out to address the public – saying the police were “showing restraint” while issuing a warning that “horrific, violent” protests were underway:

    People of Serbia please do not think violence is allowed… All those taking part in the incidents will be punished.

    Miran Pogačar, a former philosophy from the Faculty of Philosophy and a prominent activist involved in citizens’ movement “Bravo”, was featured across national news:

    One glass window can be mended but we cannot bring back 14 lives. People are angry. Serbia won’t stand for this.

    At this stage it looked like the government was going to be able to keep the public on its side – highlighting a violent “former/non student” core as somehow manipulating more mainstream student protesters has long been a tactic of governments facing student unrest – a key feature, for example, of the Millbank student protests over tuition fees in London in 2010.

    But days later, the mood changed. CCTV footage of the collapse started to go viral – showing the huge canopy on the outer wall of Novi Sad station building collapsing onto young people below on benches. The government, having attempted initially to draw a line under events by promising a full investigation, was on the back foot.

    And the student activists of STAV – partly conscious of the role that peaceful student activism played across Central and Eastern Europe in bringing down communism – managed to get its more violent elements under control to secure public sympathy, while the banners painted by students started to become more direct – the most common being red paint on cardboard saying “corruption kills”.

    Students leading change

    There are good reasons for students to, for want of a better phrase, feel the hand of history on their shoulders.

    In the 1960s, Belgrade’s new “Student City” had become a central hub for student solidarity and the sharing of experiences and opinions, associations and clubs between students from both across the country and the world. In June 1968, protesting an accommodation shortage, the lack of voice in university structures and President Tito’s reforms (that had led to high unemployment and forced graduates to leave the country and find work elsewhere), students gathered at Block 1 of Studentski Grad to stage the first mass protest in Yugoslavia after World War II.

    Police beat the students and banned all public gatherings, but students then went into a seven-day strike – staging debates and speeches on social justice, and handing out copies of their banned magazines. Tito’s only option was to give in to some of the students’ demands – famously saying that “students are right” during a televised speech. But in the following years, he dealt with the leaders of the protests by sacking them from university and Communist party posts.

    Students were also central to the protests against Slobodan Milošević and the broader Yugoslav Communist Party in the late 1980s – ones that began as educational and economic grievances became infused with demands for political liberalisation, academic freedom and democracy. The economic crisis in Yugoslavia had fueled discontent, and it was students at the University of Belgrade that had started to form dissident groups to oppose censorship, restrictions on academic freedoms, and worsening living conditions.

    Inspired by other anti-communist movements in Eastern Europe, Serbian students began organizing campus forums in 1988, demanding democratic reforms – and by March 1989, the revocation of Kosovo’s autonomy by Milošević’s regime became a turning point, sparking protests against authoritarianism and the use of force. By May, students shifted focus to broader democratic demands, including free elections and minority rights, with their activism peaking during events like the famous Gazimestan rally and widespread “general strikes” across cities.

    Nevertheless, it took another decade for the regime to fall.

    The Student Union of Serbia (SUS) got going in 1992 at the Belgrade Faculty of Law, aiming to promote transparency, democratic elections, and enthusiasm within student organisations. Throughout the 1990s, SUS played a key role in student protests against the autocratic regime, notably during the 1996/97 demonstrations advocating for the recognition of local election results and university autonomy.

    Back home, Living Marxism – the in-house magazine of the Revolutionary Communist Party that went on to morph into libertarian website/group Spiked! (famous now for its Free Speech rankings of universities and its War on Woke) – argued that Western media outlets and international organisations exaggerated Serbian atrocities while downplaying crimes committed by others such as Bosnian Muslims or Croats.

    In 1997, it had published an article claiming that ITN’s footage of emaciated Bosnian Muslim detainees at the Trnopolje camp was misleading – alleging that the camp was not a concentration camp but rather a refugee centre, and that the imagery was manipulated to evoke Holocaust comparisons. It provoked outrage from human rights groups and journalists – and today Spiked! remains resolutely anti-EU  and oddly pro-populism.

    Back in Serbia, student-led Otpor! continued its tactics of nonviolent resistance, creative protests, and grassroots organising to help unify opposition groups, inspire mass demonstrations, and sustain momentum for democratic reforms. By the turn of the millennium, things were coming to a head – Milošević refused to concede defeat in the September 2000 presidential elections, and protests erupted again on October 5, as hundreds of thousands of Serbians from across the country marched to Belgrade demanding his resignation.

    Then, as now, students were accused of being puppets of the West – not least because the slogan Gotov je! had been distributed via 2.5 million stickers and 5,000 spray cans channeled by the U.S. Department of State.

    Student protesters stormed government buildings, including the Federal Parliament, and symbolically burned election ballots believed to be fraudulent. Faced with overwhelming public opposition and a breakdown of loyalty within the police and military, Milošević resigned on October 7, 2000, marking the end of his regime and paving the way for democratic reforms in Serbia.

    Few believe that communism could have fallen in the way it did either in Serbia or across Europe more generally in that period without students – every country in the region has its own set of stories about how students inspired wider movements. The question now, in Georgia, maybe soon in Romania and more generally across the region, is whether students will play a key role again in bringing down populists often accused of being in bed with Russia.

    Legitimate representatives

    By December 5th 2024, unrest was building in Belgrade. A group of students at a protest symbolically turned their backs on the Minister of Construction, Goran Vesić during a public appearance in the capital. Hours later he’d resigned, but they’d secured the support of the Bar Association of Serbia, which announced a one-day strike citing “systematic and long-term interference by the executive branch in the work of the judiciary”, and problems with the separation of powers in a democratic society.

    Dejan Bagarić, a PhD student from the Faculty of Philosophy and one of the perceived ringleaders of STAV, was jailed for up to 30 days on charges of “reckless theft” and “assault on an official” after taking and returning a phone from a journalist filming a protest incident involving his girlfriend. And Branko Rodić, another student from Novi Sad, was reportedly assaulted by two people believed to be members of the National Assembly’s security, who knocked him to the ground and hit him in the face.

    Six days later, students gathered in front of the headquarters of RTS, Serbia’s public television station – protesting over coverage of President Aleksandar Vučić’s claims that the demonstrators were “funded by Western countries seeking to destabilize Serbia”.

    The crisis growing, Vučić then pulled an age-old tactic beloved by governments and university managements over the years – he ostentatiously held a meeting with the SKONUS President Margareta Smiljanić and other “representatives of the legitimately elected students” at which he announced a housing scheme offering young people to purchase €75,000 flats with a deposit of €1000.

    SKONUS had been formed in the slipstream of the fall of Milošević in 2005 – established to inject some resource into student representation and “officially” represent students at accredited universities in Serbia, with its origins tied to the country’s new Law on Higher Education. Initially, it played a key role in higher education reforms like Bologna and promoting student mobility, and in 2014 worked alongside SUS when the Serbian Progressive Party (SNS) came to power and cut the number of exam periods from six to five and cut the funding for students’ fifth year of studies.

    But since then, student activist groups have grown suspicious of SKONUS and its leadership’s role in “negotiating” with government and avoiding “non-student” issues. Hence when Margareta Smiljanić responded to Vučić’s deal in December, she both welcomed the announcement, and played up her concern for students’ education:

    The reason we organized this meeting is because we were elected not to hold political positions, but to hold student positions, to answer the students who ask us questions every day about what will happen to the further teaching process and who will ensure the quality of education for the year 2024/2025. We requested from the Government of the Republic of Serbia and the Ministry of Education that we be admitted to the meeting and I would like to thank them for accepting us in record time today.

    She went on to say that no-one had given her an answer on reimbursement of tuition fees, compensation and exam registration, and whether university buildings would re-open at all in the new year:

    These are all questions that are troubling students, and I believe parents as well. We believe that it is of crucial interest for deans, rectors, and the academic community to answer because 230,000 academics are tormented by these questions. We demand urgent answers.

    Whether you believe that Smiljanić was a government stooge that was part of a propaganda effort to brand the activists as extreme and anti-education, or a student leader doing her best to focus on student issues, is fairly moot – either way, Vucic took to the airwaves to build on the divide and rule tactic:

    So, all the [protest] demands have been fulfilled, and we expect those who made the demands to say their demands have been fulfilled and to return to classes. But [if not] it will [then] be clear to the entire public in Serbia … and to all the citizens of Serbia that there were never any demands, but that it was [pure] politics.”

    STAV was having none of that – branding Smiljanić a sell-out and claiming that some of its activists had started to be called in for one-to-one meetings with university managers about their academic “progress”, who had themselves been threatened with the sack if they failed to get students back into classrooms.

    6-7 seconds

    Things continued to escalate. On December 10 a man drove his car into a group of participants, injuring four musicians who’d joined the protests from the Belgrade Philharmonic Orchestra.

    By December 13, farmers in central Serbia had joined the protests by blocking a motorway with tractors, expressing solidarity with the students and amplifying calls for governmental accountability – and two days later visibly frustrated Prime Minister Miloš Vučević responded to question with “you can’t bring down a country because of 15 people who died, nor 155, nor 1,555”, and was forced to apologise.

    By December 22, the crowd of protesters had swelled again – with over 100,000 gathering in Slavija Square in Belgrade where students had been joined by numerous civil society groups. On Christmas Eve Vučić then also mis-stepped in an interview – claiming that if he wanted to, he could deploy special forces to disperse student protesters “in 6-7 seconds”.

    Demonstrators delivered 1,000 letters to the office of Public Prosecutor Zagorka Dolovac, urging her to fulfill her duties and address the protesters’ demands – and stories were swirling that agents from the Security Intelligence Agency (BIA) had made visits to the workplaces and homes of some of the student organisers’ family members.

    And by now, protests had spread to other Serbian student cities too. In Užice, over 2,000 gathered in front of the city hall to express their support for the movement – and authorities attempts’ to kill that off by turning off street lights were met with portable generators.

    Vučić then publicly accused eight Croatian students – led by twin brothers Lazar and Luka Stojakovic from the Faculty of Organisational Science at Belgrade University – identified by pro-government daily newspaper Vecernje Novosti as protest leaders paid by Croatia’s secret service. Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenković dismissed Vučić’s claims as “laughable.” But Lazar and Luka were emboldened:

    Corruption entered every single layer of our society and it is the main cause of roof collapse and killing of 15 people.

    On New Year’s Eve into New Year’s Day 2025, tens of thousands were on the streets, chanting “There is no new year – you still owe us for the old one” – and two weeks later Margareta Smiljanić popped up again on TV, arguing that the the “destruction of the higher education system” was underway, that the protest participants were “not student representatives”, and calling on universities to launch surveys to get a “clear picture” of what the majority of students want:

    We have generations of students who enrolled in studies during the coronavirus. That generation lost two years of normal classes. During the coronavirus, they had make-up and online classes, and now they have classes interrupted again. So we have generations who will graduate with a much lower quality of knowledge… I think that the radicalization of any protests is not good and that through dialogue we can achieve greater goals.

    But Biljana Đorđević – co-president of the Green-Left Front, and an assistant professor at the Faculty of Political Sciences in Belgrade, responded with another allegation often thrown at student representatives – that she’s been studying for a full decade and has been a student official for eight years:

    She was hired… as the President of a student organization that the regime of Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić hires to impersonate students when necessary.

    Since then numbers have grown again – last Friday, during another massive protest in front of the Radio Television of Serbia (RTS) building in Belgrade, tens of thousands of students and academics observed a 15-minute silence to honour the victims of the Novi Sad tragedy, and protesters chanted slogans advocating for a general strike.

    This regime stands no chance

    You can pretty much flip a coin at this point on whether the movement will grow and bring down the government, or whether concerns of students about what is starting to look like a write-off of the academic year altogether will somehow see Vučić and his government survive.

    And as was the case in 1989 throughout the former Yugoslavia, it pretty much rests on whether the wider public’s sympathy with “the students” grows or wanes. There are reports of people donating food, businesses providing supplies, taxi drivers offering free fares, and farmers pledging to protect protesters with tractors – but some sense too that parts of the public are tiring of the disruption as it spreads. Who they blame will matter.

    Ljubica Oparnica, a professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Novi Sad, thinks that STAV and “unofficial” student movement will win out:

    I am truly fascinated by the way students are working together. Their solidarity is a fortress that cannot be breached. If we all share the same vision — and here it is clear that we all want a new system, a new and different era — this regime stands no chance.

    And while the country’s four biggest teaching unions struck a deal with the Serbian government on pay increases earlier this month, plenty of schools and teachers have refused to start the new term – with Vucevic now threatening to send in inspectors and sack teachers in schools that take part and go on strike today.

    “I am not threatening anyone,” said Vucevic to RTS this week. “I am merely urging everyone not to play with children and the education system”. Dusan Kokot of the Independent Union of Education Workers of Serbia said that education can’t thrive in a society “plagued by systemic corruption”:

    Education cannot flourish while decision-makers are plagiarists, forgers, usurpers and manipulators.

    In one final – and some say desperate move – Vucevic this week offered a non-binding “advisory referendum” on the government, while opposition leaders demanded a transitional government to ensure fair elections.

    Much now rests on the success or otherwise of today’s general strike. Some still think that a mixture of propaganda, counter-protests and public concern about the grinding to a halt of education in general will see the protests peter out – but Ljubica Oparnica is less sure:

    They won’t give up easily because they enjoy immense privileges. That’s why change seems impossible. But I believe this government will collapse suddenly, like the fallen canopy [at Novi Sad train station]. We’ll all be surprised. I think they’ve reached the end of their strength.



    Source link

  • Ventriloquising the student interest | Wonkhe

    Ventriloquising the student interest | Wonkhe

    Following the devastating review offered by the 2023 report of the Industry and Regulators Committee of the House of Lords, the Office for Students’ (OfS) proposed strategy makes a great play of being centred around “the student interest”.

    But while it recognises that students have diverse and changeable views about their interests, it is still significant that it characterises these as “the student interest” rather than “students’ interests”.

    The reason for doing this is that it makes it much more rhetorically powerful to claim you are doing something in relation to an interest that is definitive, rather than interests which are multivarious and shifting.

    And be clear, the OfS proposed strategy shows a huge appetite to intervene in higher education in the name of “the student interest”.

    Much talk, no sources

    In the draft, OfS boasts that it has done a great deal of work to renew its understanding of the student interest – polling students, holding focus groups, hosting engagement sessions and talking to their own student panel.

    But two things are particularly noticeable about this work. First, whilst a lot of other sources are referenced in their strategy consultation, this is one area where no evidence is provided.

    This means the OfS interpretation of the outcomes of this consultation cannot be interrogated in any way. Clearly OfS knows best how to interpret this interest and isn’t interested in collective conversations to explore its ambiguities and complexities.

    Second, none of this work involves open ended engagement with students and their representative organisations (who appear to have been excluded completely, or at least their involvement is not detailed). They are all forms of consultation in which OfS would have framed the terms and agenda of the discussions (non-decision-making power, as Steven Lukes would have it). It’s consultation – but within tightly defined limits of what can legitimately be said.

    This seems to explain the remarkable number of priorities in the strategy (freedom of speech, mental health, sexual harassment) that are said to be in the student interest but previously appeared in ministerial letters outlining the strategic priorities of the OfS.

    Get a job

    Perhaps most concerning is that the government/treasury logic that the only real reason for going to university is to get a well-paid job is now central to the student interest. Sometimes this is done more subtly by positioning it in the (never-)popular student language of “a return on investment”:

    …in return for their investment of time, money and hard work they [students] expect that education to continue to provide value into the longer-term, including in ways that they may not be able to anticipate while they study (p.12).

    At other times, we are left in no doubt that the primary function of higher education is to serve the economy:

    Our proposals…will support a higher education system equipped to cultivate the skills the country needs and increase employer confidence in the value of English higher education qualifications. High quality higher education will be accessible to more people, and students from all backgrounds will be better able to engage with and benefit from high quality higher education, supporting a more equal society which makes better use of untapped talent and latent potential. The supply of skilled graduates will support local and national economies alike, while the ‘public goods’ associated with high quality higher education will accrue to a wide range of individuals and communities. Public goods include economic growth, a more equal society and greater knowledge understanding (OfS 2024 p.30-31).

    So what we are left with is a proposed strategy that makes powerful claims to be grounded in the student interest – but which could have easily formed part of the last government’s response to the Augar review.

    Whose priorities?

    Through its consultation on its proposed strategy, OfS has presented the priorities of the previous government as if they are drawn straight from its engagement with students.

    We don’t yet know the higher education priorities of the current government, but given the proposed strategy was published under their watch it looks like we are moving in a depressingly familiar direction.

    It is worth reflecting on the profound injustice of this. Students are expected to pay back the cost of their higher education and now have the previous government’s priorities presented as their interest so that OfS can intervene in higher education.

    Yes, you have to pay – but the government and its friendly neighbourhood regulator are here to tell you why you want to pay! It seems that despite the excoriating criticism of the House of Lords Committee, OfS have not really learned how to engage with students or to reflect and reconcile their interests.

    Source link

  • Higher education should lift students out of poverty – not trap them within it

    Higher education should lift students out of poverty – not trap them within it

    As a former student who benefited from welfare payments, I’ve long been consumed with the educational struggle of students on free school meals (FSM) —the official marker we have of relative poverty.

    That’s why I found recent newspaper headlines in autumn 2024 celebrating “record numbers” of poorer students entering university so troubling. On the face of it, this sounded like welcome progress. But this “record” in fact reflected a grim reality: rising numbers of pupils qualifying for free school meals in a growing bulge of 18-year-olds in the population.

    The government’s framing of the latest university admissions figures as good news was unwittingly celebrating rising levels of poverty. A pupil is eligible for free school meals (FSM) if their parent or guardian receives benefits or earns an annual gross income of £16,190 or less. As of January 2024, a quarter (24.6 per cent) of school pupils in England were on FSM – up from 18 per cent in 2018. This rapid rise meant that in the 2022–23 university intake, around 57,000 FSM students were enrolled (alongside 300,000 non-FSM students).

    The 2022–23 academic year will be remembered for an ignominious distinction – the university progression rate for FSM students declined for the first time since records began in 2005–06. The gap in degree enrolment between FSM and non-FSM students widened to a record-breaking 20.8 percentage points (29 per cent versus 49.8 per cent). A meagre 6.1 per cent of FSM pupils secured places at the UK’s most selective universities.

    These statistics are a damning indictment of our collective failure to uphold the principle that university should be open to all, regardless of background.

    Heating and eating

    This year’s Blackbullion Student Money & Wellbeing Survey, now in its fifth year, brings with it more alarming data, shining a harsh light on the lived realities of these university students. The findings are based on 1200 students, surveyed across the UK. This year they are also categorised by measures of disadvantage, including whether students have been eligible for FSM at any point during their school years.

    Almost three-quarters (72.94 per cent) of FSM students said they’d been too hungry to study or concentrate, compared with 47.32 per cent of their non-FSM peers. Nearly seven in ten (67.82 per cent) said they’d been too cold to focus, avoiding heating their homes because they couldn’t afford it (compared with 42.39 per cent of non-FSM students). They are also much more likely to report not being able to study because they are unable to purchase books. Just under half worry that work commitments get in the way of their study. More than eight in ten worry their final degree grade will be harmed by their lack of money.

    These latest findings lay bare the inequities that scar our higher education system—a system that should lift students out of poverty, not trap them within it. As someone who benefitted from a full maintenance grant during my own time at university, these reports of hunger, cold, and financial stress are heartbreaking. I know what a lifeline financial support can be. My termly cheques were a godsend, enabling me to focus on my studies without having to worry about affording the next meal or keeping the heater on in my room. Shorn of basic support, it’s been little surprise to me that recent waves of FSM students have been far less likely to complete their degrees compared with their better-off counterparts.

    Failure to maintain

    It’s time to reintroduce maintenance grants for FSM students in England as part of the new financial arrangements for universities being considered by the Labour government. The removal of grants in 2016 has meant that FSM students are graduating with the largest loan debts. This could understandably be putting many off applying to higher education in the first place.

    At the same time, maintenance loans should increase with inflation, building on the 3.1 per cent rise already announced for 2025–26, going some way to help all students facing immediate hardship while at university. This would be a fair settlement and mirror similar arrangements in Scotland.

    As education officials brace themselves for the toughest of government spending reviews, I don’t underestimate how hard it will be to fund such a reform. But to fail in this task would be a national travesty, betraying not only these students but also the very principle that a university education should be accessible to all, no matter their background or economic circumstances.

    Source link

  • UKVI is tightening the rules on international student attendance

    UKVI is tightening the rules on international student attendance

    Back in April you’ll recall that UKVI shared a draft “remote delivery” policy with higher education providers for consultation.

    That process is complete – and now it’s written to providers to confirm the detail of the new arrangements.

    Little has changed in the proposal from last Spring – there are some clarifications on how it will apply, but the main impact is going to be on providers and students who depend, one way or another, on some of their teaching not being accessed “in person”.

    The backstory here is that technically, all teaching for international students right now is supposed to be in-person. That was relaxed during the pandemic for obvious reasons – and since, the rapid innovations in students being able to access types of teaching (either synchronously or asynchronously) has raised questions about how realistic and desirable that position remains.

    Politics swirls around this too – the worry/allegation is that students arrive and then disappear, and with a mixture of relaxed attendance regulation (UKVI stopped demanding a specific number of contact points a few years ago for universities) and a worry that some students are faking or bypassing some of the attendance systems that are in place, the time has come, it seems, to tighten a little – “formalising the boundaries in which institutions can use online teaching methods to deliver courses to international students”, as UKVI puts it.

    Its recent burst of compliance monitoring (with now public naming and shaming of universities “subject to an action plan”) seems to have been a factor too – with tales reaching us of officials asking often quite difficult questions about both how many students a provider thinks are on campus, and then how many actually are, on a given day or across a week.

    The balance being struck is designed, says UKVI, to “empower the sector to utilise advances in education technology” by delivering elements of courses remotely whilst setting “necessary thresholds” to provide clarity and ensure there is “no compromise” of immigration control.

    Remote or “optional”?

    The policy that will be introduced is broadly as described back in April – first, that two types of “teaching delivery” are to be defined as follows:

    • Remote delivery is defined as “timetabled delivery of learning where there is no need for the student to attend the premises of the student sponsor or partner institution which would otherwise take place live in-person at the sponsor or partner institution site.
    • Face-to-face delivery is defined as “timetabled learning that takes place in-person and on the premises of the student sponsor or a partner institution.

    You’ll see that that difference isn’t (necessarily) between teaching designed as in-person or designed as remote – it’s between hours that a student is required to be on campus for, and hours that they either specifically aren’t expected to come in for, or have the option to not come in for. That’s an important distinction:

    Where the student has an option of online or in-person learning, this should count as a remote element for this purpose.

    Then with those definitions set, we get a ratio.

    As a baseline, providers (with a track record of compliance) will be allowed to deliver up to 20 per cent of the taught elements of any degree level and above course remotely.

    Then if a provider is able to demonstrate how the higher usage is consistent with the requirements of the relevant educational quality standards body (OfS in England, QAA in Wales and Scotland) and remains consistent with the principles of the student route, they’ll be able to have a different ratio – up to 40 per cent of the teaching will be allowed to be in that “remote” category.

    Providers keen to use that higher limit will need to apply to do so via the annual CAS allocation process – and almost by definition will attract additional scrutiny as a result, if only to monitor how the policy is panning out. They’ll also have to list all courses provided to sponsored students that include remote delivery within that higher band – and provide justification for the higher proportion of remote learning based on educational value.

    (For those not immersed in immigration compliance, a CAS (Confirmation of Acceptance for Studies) is an electronic document issued by a UK provider to an international student that serves as proof of admission, and is required when applying for a student visa. The CAS includes a unique reference number, details of the course, tuition fees, and the institution’s sponsorship license information – and will soon have to detail if an international agent is involved too.)

    One question plenty of people have asked is whether this changes things for disabled students – UKVI makes clear that by exception, remote delivery can permitted on courses of any academic level studied at a student sponsor in circumstances where requiring face to face delivery would constitute discrimination on the basis of a student’s protected characteristics under the Equality Act 2010.

    A concern about that was that providers might not know if a student needs that exception in advance – UKVI says that it will trust providers to judge individual student circumstances in cases of extenuating circumstances and justify them during audits. The requirement to state protected characteristics on the CAS will be withdrawn.

    Oh – and sponsors will also be permitted to use remote delivery where continuity of education provision would otherwise be interrupted by unforeseen circumstances – things like industrial action, extreme weather, periods of travel restriction and so on.

    Notably, courses at levels 4 and 5 won’t be able to offer “remote delivery” at all – UKVI reckons they are “more vulnerable to abuse” from “non-genuine students”, so it’s resolved to link the more limited freedoms provided by Band 1 of the existing academic engagement policy to this provision of “remote” elements – degree level and above.

    Yes but what is teaching?

    A head-scratcher when the draft went out for consultation was what “counts” as teaching. Some will still raise questions with the answer – but UKVI says that activities like writing dissertations, conducting research, undertaking fieldwork, carrying out work placements and sitting exams are not “taught elements” – and are not therefore in scope.

    Another way of looking at that is basically – if it’s timetabled, it probably counts.

    Some providers have also been confused about modules – given that students on most courses are able to routinely choose elective modules (which themselves might contain different percentages of teaching in the two categories) after the CAS is assigned.

    UKVI says that sponsors should calculate the remote delivery percentage on the assumption that the student will elect to attend all possible remote elements online. So where elective modules form part of the course delivery, the highest possible remote delivery percentage will have to be stated (!) And where hours in the timetable are optional, providers will have to calculate remote delivery by assuming that students will participate in all optional remote elements online.

    The good news when managing all of that is that the percentage won’t have to be calculated on the basis of module or year – it’s the entire course that counts. And where the course is a joint programme with a partner institution based overseas, only elements of the course taking place in the UK will be taken into account.

    What’s next

    There’s no specific date yet on implementation – IT changes to the sponsor management system are required, and new fields will be added to the CAS and annual CAS allocation request forms first. The “spring” is the target, and there’s also a commitment to reviewing the policy after 12 months.

    In any event, any university intending to utilise (any) remote delivery will need to have updated their internal academic engagement (ie attendance) policy ahead of submitting their next annual CAS allocation request – and UKVI may even require the policy to be submitted before deciding on the next CAS allocation request, and definitely by September 2025.

    During the consultation, a number of providers raised the issue of equity – how would one justify international and home students being treated differently? UKVI says that distinctions are reasonable because international students require permission to attend a course in the UK:

    If attendance is no longer necessary, the validity of holding such permission must be reassessed.

    There’s no doubt that – notwithstanding that providers are also under pressure to produce (in many cases for the first time) home student attendance policies because of concerns about attendance and student loan entitlements – the new policy will cause some equity issues between home and international students.

    In some cases those will be no different to the issues that exist now – some providers in some departments simply harmonise their requirements, some apply different regs by visa status, and some apply different rules for home students to different dept/courses depending on the relative proportion of international students in that basket. That may all have to be revisited.

    The big change – for some providers, but not all – is those definitions. The idea of a student never turning up for anything until they “cram” for their “finals” is built into many an apocryphal student life tale – that definitely won’t be allowed for international students, and it’s hard to see a provider getting away with that in their SFE/SFW/SAAS demanded home student policy either.

    Some providers won’t be keen to admit as such, but the idea of 100 per cent attendance to hours of teaching in that 80 per cent basket is going to cause a capacity problem in some lecture theatres and teaching spaces that will now need to be resolved. Module choice (and design) is also likely to need a careful look.

    And the wider questions of the way in which students use “optional” attendance and/or recorded lectures to manage their health and time – with all the challenges relating to part-time work and commuting/travelling in the mix – may result in a need to accelerate timetable reform to reduce the overall number of now very-much “required” visits to campus.

    One other thing not mentioned in here is the reality that UKVI is setting a percentage of a number of hours that is not specified – some providers could engage in reducing the number of taught hours altogether to make the percentages add up. Neither in the domestic version of this agenda nor in this international version do we have an attempt at defining what “full-time” really means in terms of overall taught hours – perhaps necessarily given programme diversity – but it’ll be a worry for some.

    Add all of this up – mixing in UKVI stepping up compliance monitoring and stories of students sharing QR codes for teaching rooms on WhatsApp to evade attendance monitoring systems – and for some providers and some students, the change will be quite dramatic.

    The consultation on the arrangements has been carried out quite confidentially so far – I’d tentatively suggest here that any revision to arrangements implemented locally should very much aim to switch that trend away from “UKVI said so” towards detailed discussion with (international) student representatives, with a consideration of wider timetabling, housing, travel and other support arrangements in the mix.

    Source link

  • Daring students to take risks and be wrong is key to solving the campus culture wars

    Daring students to take risks and be wrong is key to solving the campus culture wars

    Goodbye then, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act parts A3, A4, A7 and parts of A8 – we hardly knew you.

    The legal tort – a mechanism that seemed somehow to be designed to say “we’ve told the regulator to set up a rapid alternative mechanism to avoid having to lawyer up, but here’s a fast track way to bypass it anyway”, is to be deleted.

    The complaints scheme – a wheeze which allowed an installed Director for Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom to rapidly rule on whatever it was that the Sunday papers were upset about that week – will now be “free” (expected) to not take up every dispute thrown its way.

    Students themselves with a complaint about a free speech issue will no longer have to flip a coin between a widely respected way of avoiding legal disputes and an untested but apparently faster one operated by the Director which was to be flagged in Freshers’ handbooks. The OIA it is.

    Foreign funding measures – bodged into the act by China hawks who could never work out whether the security services, the Foreign Office or the Department for Education were more to blame for encouraging universities to take on Chinese students – will now likely form part of the revised “Foreign Influence Registration Scheme” created by the National Security Act 2023.

    A measure banning universities from silencing victims of harassment via a non-disclosure agreement will stay, despite OfS saying it was going to ban NDAs anyway – although nobody seems able to explain why their use will still be fine for other victims with other complaints.

    And direct regulation of students’ unions – a measure that had somehow fallen for the fanciful idea that their activities are neither regulated nor controlled by powerless university managements and the Charity Commission – will also go. The “parent” institution will, as has always been the case, revert to reasonably practicable steps – like yanking its funding.

    As such, save for a new and vague duty to “promote” free speech and academic freedom, the new government’s intended partial repeal of legislation that somehow took the old one two parliaments to pass – a period of gestation that always seemed more designed to extend the issue’s prevalence in the press than to perfect its provisions – now leaves the sector largely back in the framework it’s been in for the best part of 40 years.

    That the Secretary of State says that all of the above is about proceeding in a way that “actually works” will raise an eyebrow from those who think a crisis in the academy has been growing – especially when the government’s position is that the problem to be fixed is as follows:

    In a university or a polytechnic, above all places, there should be room for discussion of all issues, for the willingness to hear and to dispute all views including those that are unpopular or eccentric or wrong.

    Actually, that was a quote from Education Secretary Keith Joseph in 1986, writing to the National Union of Students over free speech measures in the 1986 act. But Bridget Phillipson’s quote wasn’t much different:

    These fundamental freedoms are more important—much more important—than the wishes of some students not to be offended. University is a place for ideas to be exposed and debated, to be tried and tested. For young people, it is a space for horizons to be broadened, perspectives to be challenged and ideas to be examined. It is not a place for students to shut down any view with which they disagree.

    The message for vice chancellors who fail to take this seriously couldn’t have been clearer – “protect free speech on your campuses or face the consequences”. But if it’s true that for “too long, too many universities have been too relaxed about these issues”, and that “too few took them seriously enough” – what is it that that must now change?

    Back to the future

    There is no point rehearsing here the arguments that the “problem” has been overblown, centring on a handful of incidents in a part of the sector more likely to have been populated by the lawmakers and journalists whose thirst for crises to crack down on needs constant fuel. And anyway, for those on the wrong end of cancellation, the pain is real.

    There is little to be gained here from pointing out the endless inconsistencies in an agenda that seemed to have been designed to offer a simplistically minimalist definition of harassment and harm and a simplistically maximalist definition of free speech – until October 7th 2023 turned all that on its head.

    There isn’t a lot of benefit in pointing out how unhelpful the conflation between academic freedom and freedom of speech has been – one that made sense for gender-critical academics feeling the force of protest, but has been of no help for almost anyone involved in a discipline attempting to find truth in historic or systemic reasons for other equality disparities in contemporary society.

    Others write better than me, sometimes in ways I don’t recognise, sometimes in ways I do, about the way in which the need to competitively recruit students, or keep funders happy, or to not be the victim of a fresh round of course cuts inhibits challenge, drains the bravery to be unpopular, and is the real cause of a culture of “safetyism” on campus.

    And while of course it is the case that higher education isn’t what it was – which even in its “new universities” manifestations in the 1960s imagined small parts of the population engaging in small-group discussions between liberal-minded individuals able to indulge in activism before a life of elitism – I’ve grown tired of pointing out that the higher education that people sometimes call for isn’t what it is, either.

    What I’m most concerned about isn’t a nostalgic return to elite HE, or business-as-usual return to whatever it was or wasn’t done in the name of academic freedom or freedom of speech in a mass age – and nor is it whatever universities or their SUs might do to either demonstrate or promote a more complex reality. I’m most concerned about students’ confidence.

    The real crisis on campus

    Back in early 2023, we had seen surveys that told us about self-censorship, pamphlets that professed to show a culture of campus “silent” no platforming, and polling data that invited alarm at students’ apparent preference for safety rather than freedom.

    But one thing that I’d found consistently frustrating about the findings was the lack of intelligence on why students were responding the way they apparently were.

    For the endless agents drawing conclusions, it was too easy to project their own assumptions and prejudices, forged in generational memory loss and their own experiences of HE. Too easy to worry about the 14 per cent of undergrads who went on to say they didn’t feel free to express themselves in the NSS – and too easy to guess “why” that minority said so.

    As part of our work with our partners at Cibyl and a group of SUs, we polled a sample of 1,600 students and weighted for gender and age.

    We found that men were almost ten percentage points higher than women on “very free”, although there was gender consistency across the two “not free” options. Disabled students felt less free than non-disabled peers, privately educated students felt more free than those from the state system, and those eligible for means-tested bursaries were less confident than those who weren’t.

    In the stats, those who felt part of a community of students and staff were significantly more likely to feel free to express themselves than those who didn’t – and we know that it’s the socio-economic factors that are most likely to cause feelings of not “fitting in”.

    But it was the qualitative comments that stuck with me. Of those ticking one of the “not free” options, one said that because the students on their course were majority white students, they “often felt intimidated to speak about certain things”.

    Another said that northern state school students are minorities – and didn’t really have voices there:

    Tends to be posher middle class private school educated students who are heard.

    Mature students aren’t part of the majority and what I have said in the past tends to get ignored.

    Many talked about the sort of high-level technical courses that policymakers still imagine universities don’t deliver. “Engineering doesn’t leave much room for opinion like other courses”, said one. “Not a lot of room in my degree for expression” said another.

    And another gave real challenge to those in the culture wars that believe that all opinions are somehow valid:

    My course doesn’t necessarily allow me to express my freedom as everything is researched based with facts.

    Ask anyone that attempted to run a seminar on Zoom during Covid-19, and you get the same story – switched-off cameras, long silences, students seemingly afraid to say something for fear of being ostracised, or laughed at, or “getting it wrong”.

    As a former SU President put it on the site in 2023:

    This year there have been lecture halls on every campus stacked with students who don’t know how to start up a conversation with the person sat next to them. There were emails waiting to be sent, the cursor flashing at the start of a sentence, that the struggling student didn’t know how to word… This question is whether or not the next generation is actually being taught how to interact and be comfortable in their own skin… They have to if they’re claiming to.

    Freedom from fear?

    The biggest contradiction of all in both the freedom of speech and academic freedom debates that have engulfed the sector in recent years was not a lack of freedom – it was the idea that you can legislate to cause people to take advantage of it:

    In lectures and seminars there is often complete silence. The unanimity of asking a question or communicating becomes daunting when you’re the only one.

    Fear you’ll be laughed at or judged if you get it wrong

    In terms of lectures, the students in my class feel shy to share opinions which affects me when I want to share.

    Again this is a personal thing I don’t often like expressing my points of view in person to people I don’t know very well. Also they probably won’t be listened to so I don’t see the point.

    I feel very free amongst my other students in our WhatsApp groups (not governed by the university). However, freedom of expression in support sessions often ends up not occurring as everyone is anxious due to how the class has been set up.

    Once in class I simply got one word mixed up with another and the lecturer laughed and said. ‘yes…well…they do mean the same thing so that has already been stated.’ Making me and also my fellow students reluctant to ask any questions at all as we then feel some questions are ridiculous to ask. How are we to express our thoughts if we feel we will be ridiculed or made to feel ridiculous?

    For those not on programmes especially suited to endless moral and philosophical debates, a system where the time to take part in extracurriculars is squeezed by part-time work or public transport delays is not one that builds confidence to take part in them.

    The stratification of the sector – where both within universities and between them, students of a particular type and characteristic cluster in ways that few want to admit – drives a lack of diversity within the encounters that students do have in the classroom.

    And even for those whose seminars offer the opportunity for “debate”, why would you? Students have been in social media bubbles and form political opinions long before they enrol. And Leo Bursztyn and David Yang’s paper demonstrates that people think everyone in their group shares the same views, and that everyone in the outgroup believes the opposite.

    As Harvard political scientist David Deming argues here:

    Suppose a politically progressive person offers a commonly held progressive view on an issue like Israel-Palestine, affirmative action, or some other topic. Fearing social sanction, people in the out-group remain silent. But so do in-group members who disagree with their group’s stance on that particular issue. They stay silent because they assume that they are the only ones in the group who disagree, and they do not want to be isolated from their group. The only people who speak up are those who agree with the original speaker, and so the perception of in-group unanimity gets reinforced.

    Deming’s solution is that universities should tackle “pluralistic ignorance” – where most people hold an opinion privately but believe incorrectly that other people believe the opposite.

    He argues that fear of social isolation silences dissenting views within an in-group, and reinforces the belief that such views are not widely shared – and so suggests making use of classroom polling tech to elicit views anonymously, and for students to get to know each other privately first, giving people space to say things like “yes I’m progressive, but my views differ on topic X.”

    Promoting free speech?

    Within that new “promote” duty, it may be that pedagogical innovation of that sort within the curriculum will make a difference. It may also be that extracurricular innovation – from bringing seemingly opposed activist groups on campus together to listen to each other, through to carefully crafted induction talks on what free speech and academic means in practice – would help. Whether it’s possible to be positive about EDI in the face of the right to disagree with it remains to be seen.

    Upstream work on this agenda might help too – it’s odd that a “problem” that must be partly about what happens in schools and colleges is never mentioned in the APP outreach agenda, just as it’s frustrating that the surface diversity of a provider is celebrated while inside, the differences in characteristics between, say, medical students and those studying Business and Management are as vast as ever.

    Students unions – relieved of direct scrutiny on the basis that they are neither “equipped nor funded” to navigate such a complex regulatory environment – might argue that the solution is to equip them and fund them, not remove the regulation. They might also revisit work we coordinated back in 2021 – much of which was about strengthening political debate in their own structures as a way to demonstrate that democracy can work.

    Overall, though, someone somewhere is going to get something wrong again. They’ll fail to act to protect something lawful; or they’ll send a signal that something was OK, or wrong, when they should have decided the opposite.

    As such, I’ve long believed that the practice of being “wrong” needs to be role-modelled as strongly as that of being right. If universities really are spaces of debate and the lines between free speech and harassment are contested and context-specific, the sector needs to find a way to adjudicate conflict within universities rather than leaving that to the OIA, OfS, the courts or that other court of public opinion – because once it gets that far, the endless allegations of “bad faith” on both sides prevent nuance, resolution and trust.

    Perhaps internal resolution can be carried out in the way we found in use in Poland on our study tour, using trusted figures appointed from within – and perhaps it can be done by identifying types of democratic debate within both academic and corporate governance that give space to groups of staff and students with which one can agree or disagree.

    If nothing else, if Arif Ahmed is right – and “speech and expression were essential to Civil Rights protestors, just as censorship was their opponents’ most convenient weapon”, we will have to accept that “nonviolent direct action seeks to… dramatize an issue that it can no longer be ignored” – and it has as much a place on campus as the romantic ideals of a seminar room exploring nuance.

    Lightbulb moments need electricity

    But even if that helps, I’m still stuck with the horse/water/drink problem – that however much you promote the importance of something, you still need to create the conditions to take up what’s on offer. What is desired feels rich – when the contemporary student experience is often, in reality, thin. What if the real problem isn’t student protest going too far, but too few students willing to say anything out loud at all?

    Students (and their representatives) left Twitter/X/Bluesky half a decade ago, preferring the positivity of LinkedIn to being piled-onto for an opinion. Spend half an hour on Reddit’s r/UniUK and you can see it all – students terrified that one wrong move, one bad grade, one conversation taken the wrong way, one email to a tutor asking why their mark was the way it was – will lead to disaster. The stakes are too high, and the cushion for getting anything wrong too thin, to risk anything.

    Just as strong messages about the importance of extracurricular participation don’t work if you’re holding down a full-time job and live 90 minutes from campus, saying that exploring the nuances of moral and political debate is important will fall flat if you’re a first-in-family student hanging on by a thread.

    Much of this all, for me, comes back to time. Whatever else people think higher education is there to do, it only provides the opportunity to get things wrong once the pressure is off on always getting things right. Huge class sizes, that British obsession with sorting and grading rather than passing or failing, precarious employment (of staff and students) and models of student finance that render being full-time into part-time are not circumstances that lead anyone to exploring and challenging their ideas.

    Put another way, the government’s desire that higher education offers something which allows horizons to be broadened, perspectives to be challenged and ideas to be examined is laudable. But if it really wants it happen, it does have to have a much better understanding of – and a desire to improve – the hopeless precarity that students find themselves in now.

    Source link

  • LA Wildfires Reduce Classrooms to Ashes, Uproot Students’ Lives – The 74

    LA Wildfires Reduce Classrooms to Ashes, Uproot Students’ Lives – The 74

    Republish This Article

    We want our stories to be shared as widely as possible — for free.

    Please view The 74’s republishing terms.


    Source link

  • PowerSchool Got Hacked. Now What? – The 74

    PowerSchool Got Hacked. Now What? – The 74


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

    Were you a current or former student in the last few decades? Or a parent? Or an educator? 

    If so, your sensitive data — like Social Security numbers and medical records — may have fallen into the hands of cybercriminals. Their target was education technology behemoth PowerSchool, which provides a centralized system for reams of student data to damn near every school in America.

    Given the cyberattack’s high stakes and its potential to harm millions of current and former students, I teamed up Wednesday with Doug Levin of the K12 Security Information eXchange to moderate a timely webinar about what happened, who was affected — and the steps school districts must take to keep their communities safe.

    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    Concern about the PowerSchool breach is clearly high: Some 600 people tuned into the live event at one point and pummeled Levin and panelists Wesley Lombardo, technology director at Tennessee’s Maryville City Schools; Mark Racine, co-founder of RootED Solutions; and Amelia Vance, president of the Public Interest Privacy Center, with questions. 

    PowerSchool declined our invitation to participate but sent a statement, saying it is “working to complete our investigation of the incident and [is] coordinating with districts and schools to provide more information and resources (including credit monitoring or identity protection services if applicable) as it becomes available.”

    The individual or group who hacked the ed tech giant has yet to be publicly identified.

    Asked and answered: Why has the company’s security safeguards faced widespread scrutiny? What steps should parents take to keep their kids’ data secure? Will anyone be held accountable?

    Watch the webinar here.


    In the news

    Oklahoma schools Superintendent Ryan Walters, who says undocumented immigrants have placed “severe financial and operational strain” on schools in his state, proposed rules requiring parents to show proof of citizenship or legal immigration status when enrolling their kids — a proposal that not only violates federal law, but is likely to keep some parents from sending their children to school. | The 74

    • Not playing along: Leaders of the state’s two largest school districts — Oklahoma City and Tulsa — rebuked the proposal and said they would not collect students’ immigration information. Educators nationwide fear the incoming Trump administration could carry out arrests on campuses. | Oklahoma Watch
       
    • Walters filed a $474 million federal lawsuit this week alleging immigration enforcement officials mismanaged the U.S.-Mexico border, leading to “skyrocketing costs” for Oklahoma schools required “to accommodate an influx of non-citizen students.” | The Oklahoman
       
    • Timely resource guide: With ramped-up immigration enforcement on the horizon — and with many schools already sharing student information with ICE — here are the steps school administrators must take to comply with longstanding privacy and civil rights laws. | Center for Democracy & Technology

    A federal judge in Kentucky struck down the Biden administration’s Title IX rules that enshrined civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students in schools, siding with several conservative state attorneys general who argued that harassment of transgender students based on their gender identity doesn’t constitute sex discrimination. Mother Jones

    Fires throw L.A. schools into chaos: As fatal wildfires rage in California, the students and families of America’s second-largest school district have had their lives thrown into disarray. Schools serving thousands of students were badly damaged or destroyed. Many children have lost their homes. Hundreds of kids whose schools burned down returned to makeshift classrooms Wednesday after losing “their whole lifestyle in a matter of hours.” | The Washington Post 

    • At least seven public schools in Los Angeles that were destroyed, damaged or threatened by flames will remain closed, along with campuses in other districts. | The 74

    Has TikTok’s time run out? With a national ban looming for the popular social media app, many teens say they’re ready to move on (and have already flocked to a replacement). | Business Insider

    Instagram and Facebook parent company Meta restricted LGBTQ+-related content from teens’ accounts for months under its so-called sensitive content policy until the effort was exposed by journalist Taylor Lorenz. | Fast Company

    Students’ lunch boxes sit in a locker at California’s Marquez Charter Elementary School, which was destroyed by the Palisades fire on Jan. 7. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

    The Federal Communications Commission on Thursday announced the participants in a $200 million pilot program to help schools and libraries bolster their cybersecurity defenses. They include 645 schools and districts and 50 libraries. | FCC

    Scholastic falls to “furry” hackers: The education and publishing giant that brought us Harry Potter has fallen victim to a cyberattacker, who reportedly stole the records of some 8 million people. In an added twist, the culprit gave a shout-out to “the puppygirl hacker polycule,” an apparent reference to a hacker dating group interested in human-like animal characters. | Daily Dot

    Not just in New Jersey: In a new survey, nearly a quarter of teachers said their schools are patrolled by drones and a third said their schools have surveillance cameras with facial recognition capabilities. | Center for Democracy & Technology

    The number of teens abstaining from drugs, alcohol and tobacco use has hit record highs, with experts calling the latest data unprecedented and unexpected. | Ars Technica


    ICYMI @The74

    Librarians Gain Protections in Some States as Book Bans Soar

    RFK Jr. Could Pull Many Levers to Hinder Childhood Immunization as HHS Head

    Feds: Philadelphia Schools Failed to Address Antisemitism in School, Online


    Emotional Support

    New pup just dropped.

    Meet Woodford, who, at just 9 weeks, has already aged like a fine bourbon. I’m told that Woody — and the duck, obviously — have come under the good care of 74 reporter Linda Jacobson’s daughter.


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

    Source link