Category: Students

  • Counslr Launches in New Mexico and Illinois; Expands Footprint in New York to Increase Access to Mental Health Support

    Counslr Launches in New Mexico and Illinois; Expands Footprint in New York to Increase Access to Mental Health Support

    NEW YORK, NY – Counslr, a leading B2B mental health and wellness platform, announced today that it has expanded its footprint into the State of New Mexico starting with a partnership with Vista Nueva High School, Aztec, NM; and into the State of Illinois starting with a partnership with Big Hollow School District, Ingleside, IL. These initial partnerships will empower students and staff to prioritize their mental health by enabling them to access unlimited wellness resources and live texting sessions with Counslr’s licensed and vetted mental health support professionals, who are available on-demand, 24/7/365. By increasing accessibility to Counslr’s round-the-clock support, Vista Nueva and Big Hollow aim to bridge gaps in mental health support for students and staff, enabling those who previously did not or could not access care, whether due to cost, inconvenience, or stigma, to receive the support they desire.

    1 in 6 youth suffer from a mental illness, but the majority do not receive mental health support due to substantial obstacles to care. Additionally, mental health is even a bigger challenge in rural America due to unique barriers, including fewer providers resulting in longer wait times or insufficient access to crucial mental health services. This resource scarcity underscores the urgency for additional resources and innovative solutions to bridge this critical gap in mental health care for school communities.

    “We are happy to be able to offer students another tool that they can use to support their mental well-being. Knowing that students have been able to speak with a professional outside of school hours helps us know this app was needed and is useful,” states Rebekah Deane, Professional School Counselor, Vista Nueva High School. “We hope this tool also assists students in learning how to navigate systems so that when they graduate high school they know these options exist and they can continue to seek out support when necessary.”

    As factors such as academic pressures, social media influence, burnout and world events contribute to heightened stress levels and mental health challenges, schools throughout the country are recognizing the growing need to offer more accessible resources and preventative mental health services to both students and staff.

    “Counslr provides an extremely easy-to-access platform for those who otherwise may not seek the help they need, and we are very excited to join Counslr in this partnership. We are all very well aware of the impact that technology has had on the mental health of our students and we feel that Counslr can meet our students in a setting they are comfortable with,” states Bob Gold, Big Hollow School District Superintendent. “Outside of our students, we are thrilled to be able to offer this service to the amazing adults who work with our students every day. There are so many families dealing with some sort of trauma, and the life of an educator is no different.  These adults tend to give so much of themselves to their students, so we strongly feel that our efforts here to join with Counslr is our way of providing an opportunity for our educators to focus on their own mental health.”

    In addition to the geographic expansion,Counslr has also expanded its existing footprint in states like New York, most recently partnering with the Silver Creek Central School District to support its students and staff.  

    “We know mental health needs are on the rise, for students and adults.  To me, Counslr is a resource our students and staff both deserve,” states Dr. Katie Ralston, Superintendent, Silver Creek Central. “In the beginning stages at Silver Creek Central, it has proven to be an asset, as it offers access to everyone on the spot, any day, for any situation.”

    “Supporting diverse populations of students and faculty across the country clearly illustrates that mental health knows no boundaries,” said Josh Liss, Counslr CEO. Adding that, “With 86% of Counslr’s users being first-time care seekers, we strive to reach these silent sufferers who need help, but do not or cannot access it, no matter where they are located.”

    ABOUT COUNSLR

    Counslr is a text-based mental health support application that provides unlimited access to robust wellness resources and live texting sessions with licensed professionals, 24/7/365. Users can access support on-demand within two minutes of opening the app, or by scheduled appointment. Through real-time texting, users enjoy one-on-one, private communication with a licensed counselor that can be conducted anytime, anywhere. Counslr was designed to help individuals deal with life’s day-to-day issues, empowering individuals to address concerns while they are “small” to help ensure that they stay “small”. Counslr partners with organizations of all shapes and sizes (companies, unions, nonprofits, universities/colleges, high schools, etc) so that these entities can provide Counslr’s services to their employees/members/students at no direct cost. For more information, please visit www.counslr.com.

    eSchool News Staff
    Latest posts by eSchool News Staff (see all)

    Source link

  • Fun with Participation Rate Data

    Fun with Participation Rate Data

    Just a quick one today, mostly charts.

    Back in the fall, StatsCan released a mess of data from the Labour Force Survey looking at education participation rates—that is, the percentage of any given age cohort that is attending education—over the past 25 years. So, let’s go see what it says.

    Figure 1 shows total education participation rates, across all levels of education, from age 15 to 29, for selected years over the past quarter century. At the two ends of the graph, the numbers look pretty similar. At age 15, we’ve always had 95%+ of our population enrolled in school (almost exclusively secondary education, and from age 26 and above, we’ve always been in the low-tweens or high single digits. The falling-off in participation is fairly steady: for every age-year above 17, about 10% of the population exits education up until the age of 26. The big increase in education enrolments that we’ve seen over the past couple of decades has really occurred in the 18-24 range, where participation rates (almost exclusively in universities, as we shall see) have increased enormously.

    Figure 1: Participation rates in Education (all institutions) by Age, Canada, select years 1999-00 to 2023-24

    Figure 2 shows current participation rates by age and type of postsecondary institution. People sometimes have the impression that colleges cater to an “older” clientele, but in fact, at any given age under 30, Canadians are much more likely to be enrolled in universities than in colleges. Colleges have a very high base in the teens because of the way the CEGEP system works in Quebec (I’ll come back to regional diversity in a minute), and it is certainly true that there is a very wide gap in favour of universities among Canadians in their mid-20s. But while the part rate gap narrows substantially at about age 25, it is never the case that the college participation rate surpasses the university one.

    Figure 2: Participation Rates by Age and Institution Type, Canada, 2023-24

    Figure 3 shows college participation rates by age over time. What you should take from this is that there has been a slight decline in college participation rates over time in the 19-23 age range, but beyond that not much has changed.

    Figure 3: College Participation Rates by Age, Selected Years, 1999-2000 to 2023-24

    Figure 4 uses the same lens as figure 3 only for universities. And it’s about as different as it can be. In 1999, fewer than one in ten Canadians aged 18 was in university: now it is three in ten. In 1999, only one in four 21 year-olds was in university, now it is four-in-ten. These aren’t purely the effects of increased demand; the elimination of grade 13 in Ontario had a lot to do with the changes for 18-year-olds; Alberta and British Columbia converting a number of their institutions from colleges to universities in the late 00s probably juices these numbers a bit, too. But on the whole, what we’ve seen is a significant increase in the rate at which young people are choosing to attend universities between the ages of 18 and 24. However, beyond those ages the growth is less pronounced. There was certainly growth in older student participation rates between 1999-00 and 20011-12, but since then none at all.

    Figure 4: University Participation Rates by Age, Selected Years, 1999-2000 to 2023-24

    So much for the national numbers: what’s going on at the provincial level? Well, because this is the Labour Force Survey, which unlike administrative data has sample size issues, we can’t quite get the same level of granularity of information. We can’t look at individual ages, but we can see age-ranges, in this case ages 20-24. In figures 5 and 6 (I broke them up so they are a bit easier to read), I show how each province’s university and college participation rates in 2000 vs. 2023.

    Figure 5: University Participation Rates for 20-24 Year-olds, Four Largest Provinces, 2000-01 vs. 2023-24

    Figure 6: University Participation Rates for 20-24 Year-olds, Six Remaining Provinces, 2000-01 vs. 2023-24

    Some key facts emerge from these two graphs:

    • The highest participation rates in the country are in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia.
    • In all provinces, the participation rate in universities is higher than it is for colleges, ranging from 2.5x in Quebec for over 4x in Saskatchewan.
    • Over the past quarter century, overall postsecondary participation rates and university participation rates have gone up in all provinces; Alberta and British Columbia alone have seen a decline in college participation rates, due to the aforementioned decision to convert certain colleges to university status in the 00s.
    • Growth in participation rates since 2000 has been universal but has been more significant in the country’s four largest provinces, where the average gain has been nine percentage points, and the country’s six smaller provinces, where the gain has been just under five percent.
    • Over twenty-five years, British Columbia has gone from ninth to second in the country in terms of university participation rates, while Nova Scotia has gone second to ninth.
    • New Brunswick has consistently been in last place for overall participation rates for the entire century.

    Just think: three minutes ago, you probably knew very little about participation rates in Canada by age and geography, now you know almost everything there is to know about participation rates in Canada by age and geography. Is this a great way to start your day or what?

    Source link

  • Curtain call on traditional time-intensive drama training

    Curtain call on traditional time-intensive drama training

    Recent closures of renowned actor training courses, including the Bristol Old Vic Theatre School’s undergraduate provision and the abrupt collapse of the Academy of Live and Recorded Arts, have laid bare a crisis in drama training. This isn’t only about funding shortfalls; it’s about the very structures and traditions of training, which risk shutting out those able to succeed.

    The financial strain on institutions is undeniable. The historical freeze in undergraduate tuition fees and the high-intensity delivery required in drama and other forms of intensive arts training like dance and music education have made traditional models almost unsustainable. Specialist institutions, unable to cross-subsidise, have stretched themselves to the limit – expanding course offerings, increasing intakes, internationalisation and growing postgraduate provision, where costs can be better covered. Meanwhile, government support through welcome specialist funding streams such as Institution Specific Funding have proven insufficient to address the root challenges.

    These efforts, while necessary, have unintended consequences. Over-speedy expansion creates great challenges for the quality of the learning experience, while institutional survival strategies rarely address the deeper, systemic issues at play. The question is not just how to survive in this increasingly precarious environment, but how to rethink the system entirely.

    The hidden barrier of time poverty

    The financial barriers to entering drama training are well-documented, but there is a more insidious form of exclusion that demands urgent attention: time-poverty.

    As highlighted in a recent Unipol and HEPI report, the average cost of student rent in London now exceeds the maximum maintenance loan, leaving students struggling to make ends meet. This financial reality forces many to take on part-time work, but the intensive nature of traditional actor training – 30-40 hours a week, often with irregular schedules – leaves little room for paid employment. The result? Only those who can afford not to work can afford to train.

    Traditional training models require high levels of physical presence and stamina. While these methods have been celebrated for their rigour, they exclude those with caring responsibilities, disabilities requiring time flexibility, or the need to support themselves financially. This isn’t just a financial issue – it’s a fundamental inequity in how time is valued in training.

    Addressing time-poverty isn’t about making marginal adjustments; it requires a paradigm shift. Drama schools must reimagine training models to prioritise accessibility and sustainability without compromising quality. Flexible delivery methods, guaranteed non-contact periods for work or rest, and rethinking the necessity of long, traditional schedules are all potential starting points. If we are to be equitable in the way almost all drama schools claim as a value, we must redesign what “intensity” in training means for excellent students who do not arrive with the economic means required. The current system is exclusionary.

    Some institutions are already leading the way. Identity School and Access All Areas have successfully adapted their training processes to accommodate a broader range of students. The Collective Acting Studio excels at balancing time pressures with rigorous training, redefining how intensity can be delivered. These organisations boast impressive alumni who are actively working successfully in the industry. Notably, Sally Ann Gritton, Principal of Mountview, emphasises in her book, The Independent Actor, that long, gruelling days are neither effective nor beneficial for students. These examples prove that change isn’t just possible – it’s essential if we want the arts to become more inclusive.

    Why it matters

    The stakes couldn’t be higher. The creative industries contribute over £100 billion to the UK economy annually, with drama training forming the backbone of the talent pipeline. Rose Bruford College alumna like Jessica Gunning, who recently won Emmy and Golden Globe awards, or Sara Huxley, whose work on Mr. Bates vs. the Post Office catalysed governmental action, exemplify the global impact of British arts education.

    However, the arts are more than an economic driver – they shape how we see ourselves, societal narratives, build empathy, and are key in defining our cultural identity. If access to training is restricted to the privileged, the stories we tell become narrower and less representative. Equity in the arts is not just an educational issue; it is a societal imperative.

    Nearly a decade ago, calls for greater class diversity in the arts sparked important conversations. In 2016, a report from the London School of Economics revealed that only 27 per cent of actors came from working-class backgrounds. While this discussion was absorbed into the broader issue of societal inequality, solutions remained vague and largely limited to the idea of increased funding. Today, with budgets tighter than ever, this approach feels increasingly out of reach.

    In recent years, established actors, including household names like Julie Walters and Christopher Eccleston have voiced concerns that they would no longer be able to afford the cost of training. Their warnings highlight a system where financial barriers stifle talent, despite the well-meaning calls for bursaries and other competitive financial support. The result? A cycle where potential is lost, and the arts grow less accessible.

    We need bold leadership across the sector. Institutions must collaborate to share best practice, experiment with alternative training models, and advocate for systemic support. There are innovative models, and we must deal with the friction preventing them from spreading. Policymakers and trainers must recognise that funding is only one part of the equation; addressing time-poverty is critical to ensuring a truly inclusive arts education.

    The arts are at their best when they reflect the richness of society. It’s time to move beyond tradition and reimagine drama training for a new generation—one where potential, not privilege, determines success.

    Anyone interested in being part of this conversation is welcome to contact the authors directly.

    Source link

  • There’s nothing certain about the circumstances when a duty of care applies to students

    There’s nothing certain about the circumstances when a duty of care applies to students

    The Secretary of State for Education was recently asked in Parliament if she would meet with campaigners to discuss the “duty of care” owed by higher education providers to their students.

    Janet Daby – the Minister for Children, Families and Wellbeing in the Department for Education (DfE) responded on her behalf, and also outlined the department’s current view on the law for holding negligent institutions to account.

    At first glance, her response was unhelpful – arguing the department’s position is that a duty of care in higher education 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.

    It would be easy to argue that lawmakers, including Janet Daby and skills minister Jacqui Smith, should not simply defer to the courts on matters of law and institutional accountability.

    After all, lawmakers have the power to create laws – so overall responsibility doesn’t rest solely with judges and their judicial interpretation of common law principles.

    But perhaps Daby’s response was more helpful than it looked – because it directly confronts misleading statements that have persisted since 2023, particularly those made by former Minister Robert Halfon.

    Although some might view her answer as a cautious response, in reality, it was a breath of fresh air – a much-need step in addressing the confusion that has clouded our understanding of legal responsibilities in higher education.

    From Halfon’s Law to Daby’s Law

    To grasp the significance of Janet Daby’s correction, we must first revisit the origins of the confusion – what I’ll call here Halfon’s Law.

    Introduced by Robert Halfon in 2023, it laid the foundation for a misrepresentation of the legal duties owed by higher education providers to their students. Halfon’s Law is a belief that stemmed from a misunderstanding of online material, initially presented in a now-deleted AMOSSHE blog that was published in 2015.

    In responding to the 128,000+ registered voters who signed our parliamentary e-petition calling for a statutory duty of care, Halfon asserted his department’s belief that universities already owed their students a broad and generalised duty of care. He said:

    Higher Education providers do have a general duty of care to deliver educational and pastoral services to the standard of an ordinarily competent institution and, in carrying out these services, they are expected to act reasonably to protect the health, safety and welfare of their students. This can be summed up as providers owing a duty of care to not cause harm to their students through the university’s own actions.

    At first glance, this might sound reasonable, but in truth, it was far from accurate. By conflating a general moral and legal principle – to act in a way that avoids causing harm to others – with a formal, court recognised duty of care that only arises in specific, legally-defined circumstances and relationships, Halfon introduced a dangerous oversimplification.

    It was a distortion used to justify dismissing the petitioners’ call for a statutory duty of care, effectively silencing important conversations about the protections that students need.

    Halfon’s Law, with the documented source having now been quietly removed from its original website, was a misstep in understanding the complexities of legal responsibilities in higher education. Its fall from grace is something to be celebrated.

    Enter Daby’s Law: Janet Daby’s response marks a shift towards legal clarity. A duty of care may arise in certain specific circumstances, but ultimately, it is the courts that will determine the existence and application of any such duty on a limited case-by-case basis – should lengthy and costly litigation ever actually occur.

    As it stands therefore, nobody truly knows what protections are in place, leaving students vulnerable, and institutions at risk of being punished for failing to do the right thing. As such, Daby’s position not only corrects the errors of Halfon’s Law, but also raises significant concerns, including the urgent need for a properly codified duty that both universities and their students can understand.

    The advocacy that led to Daby’s law

    Daby’s correction of the record didn’t happen by chance. It was the direct result of relentless behind-the-scenes efforts from advocates, especially ForThe100, who recognised the need to dismantle Halfon’s contention? – since it was a significant barrier preventing meaningful progress.

    For too long, Halfon’s Law and its sweeping and factually incorrect statements had clouded the conversation around student safety and wellbeing, effectively stopping us from moving forward and pushing for the protections students desperately need. Too many policymakers thought it true – and so dismissed the need for a dedicated duty.

    The subtle shift in content and tone, while preferable to outright inaccuracy, introduces its own set of challenges. Without clear or codified guidance, students, families, and institutions are left to navigate a murky and uncertain legal landscape.

    That vagueness is deeply problematic. It means widespread confusion about rights and responsibilities, leaving institutions uncertain of their obligation, and exposed to unforeseen legal liabilities – while students are left unsure of the protections they can depend on.

    Worse, the lack of clear, direct, and upfront standards is a reactive rather than proactive system, shifting the burden onto individuals to seek legal recourse only after harm has occurred.

    This approach neither prioritises prevention nor ensures accountability, leaving gaps in a system meant to put students first.

    It is now crucial that the government corrects the public response to our petition without delay. Halfon’s Law remains embedded in the official narrative, and its continued presence in government communications perpetuates confusion, and blocks meaningful progress.

    More importantly, for over five decades, students have been without adequate legal protection, and this gap continues to undermine their safety and wellbeing.

    Nobody should be reassured by a duty that arises in “certain circumstances” where those circumstances would be a matter for “the courts to decide”. Students and universities need instead to know where they stand – with the same sort of clarity on offer for the duty of care that universities as employers owe to their staff.

    The next step is for the government to act – taking concrete steps toward enacting statutory reform that holds higher education institutions accountable for their acts and omissions with regard to student safety and wellbeing, and giving students and their families the confidence that when they enrol into a university, they know the minimum “duty of care” that they can actually expect.

    Source link

  • Fairness and protection for students is coming – but not for those that need it now

    Fairness and protection for students is coming – but not for those that need it now

    As well as a new condition of registration on governance (covered elsewhere on the site by my colleague David Kernohan), the Office for Students (OfS) has announced a new approach focussed on providers “treating students fairly”.

    There will be a new condition of registration – replacing existing ones on consumer protection guidance and student protection plans – aimed at institutions providing students with clear, easy to access information about what will happen if changes are made to their course, and fair processes for refunds and compensation and complaints.

    Broadly, OfS will shift from expecting providers to pay “due regard” to guidance from the Competition and Markets Authority towards itself making judgements – both about compliance with consumer law, and some of its own higher standards for fairness.

    It says that students have told the regulator that they want to receive a high quality education that reflects their financial investment and the experience they were promised, and that they want to be treated fairly – but that while many students do not explicitly refer to their experiences as consumers, words such as “fairness” and “honesty” are often used when they describe specific experiences and promises that have not been met.

    As cuts continue across the sector, a heavy focus on financial sustainability both inside providers and the regulator almost certainly means an enhanced risk that students will feel unfairly treated when their courses or wider experiences shoulder the burden of savings reductions. Often those feelings will be legally justified.

    But the jaw-to-the-floor astonishing thing – given OfS’ positioning as a risk-based regulator – is that none of the new proposals in this area will apply to currently regulated providers:

    We recognise that proposing to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for students of providers registered under [new] proposed initial condition C5 would mean that different arrangements would be in place for different groups of students, depending on when their provider was registered.

    Changes to ongoing regulatory requirements for registered providers are not within the scope of the current consultation. However our ultimate aim is to strengthen protections and ensure consistency of information for all students at all OfS-registered providers. In doing so, we would aim to align ongoing requirements for all registered providers, and we therefore envisage that having different requirements for different providers would be an interim position.

    Proposals to achieve this alignment, and to ensure that all students are treated fairly on an ongoing basis, would form part of a future consultation on ongoing requirements for currently registered providers.

    That’s right – well over five years since the bones of its new approach were set out in a paper to its board, in a context where the risks to students in this space have intensified significantly, better protecting students inside providers already on the register is parked as an “ultimate aim” with an unspecified date. And so for some, what follows below shifts from “need to get across” to “of mild passing interest for the time being”.

    Doing so much harm, doing so much damage

    The main thrust of the new approach to “fairness” – telegraphed by Director for Fair Access and Participation John Blake last summer – has a couple of key components.

    First, rather than relying on the Competition and Markets Authority, or the courts, or National Trading Standards to take action or make a judgement over an issue, it’s taking that in-house.

    And to go alongside that, it’s taking existing legislation – mainly consumer protection law, but there’s other bits too – and adding to it to form a new mega-definition of what it considers to represent “fairness”, partly to address the cat-nip nature of the “consumer” nomenclature.

    As well as the engagement feedback it’s had from students, it’s doing this based on experience. Examples it has seen include omitting material information, like additional course costs or registration fees, leading students to make uninformed decisions.

    It says it’s come across providers withdrawing offers after acceptance due to over- or under-subscription, leaving students unable to secure alternative options and stuck with financial commitments like accommodation. It has also come across – and referred to trading standards – like contractual terms that limit providers’ obligations during staff industrial disputes that may prevent students from receiving adequate teaching or compensation.

    It’s also seen issues involving complaints processes that impose unreasonable barriers, like short submission windows, which hinder students from seeking redress and compensation.

    And it’s picked up on false or misleading advertising, including claims about financial aid, course accreditation, or a provider’s status as a university, that may mislead students into pursuing programs that fail to deliver expected outcomes – where as a result, students may complete courses only to find that their certificates lack the value or recognition they anticipated.

    One might ask, if it’s seen all of that in its current crop of registered providers, why it’s consulting on souping up its regulation only in newly registered providers for the time being.

    But you don’t wanna get involved

    But on the assumption (which, from experience, is a dangerous one) it gets there in the end, it’s worth looking at what it’s proposing in detail.

    First thing on fairness. Currently, providers have to demonstrate compliance with consumer protection law when they apply to be on the register – but are not required to show how they more broadly ensure “fair treatment” of students.

    This, it says, can result in situations where providers meet regulatory conditions but still have unfair policies or terms affecting students. So the proposed changes aim to better protect students by ensuring that providers’ policies and practices are fair and safeguard consumer interests consistently – avoiding a situation where students end up having to legally challenge unfair terms, and moving towards an approach of requiring providers to act fairly from the outset.

    In that lovely OfS way, it will then assess whether a provider treats students fairly through a requirement that identifies when a provider does not treat students fairly. The old “I don’t know what a seminar is, but a 100 people in a room isn’t one” is the vibe here.

    A bunch of negative behaviours will be set out, and assessments will evaluate whether providers meet the condition by identifying the presence or absence of those negative behaviours – a “streamlined process” that it says will result in a clear “satisfied” or “not satisfied” outcome.

    The specifics of that run like this. If actions (or omissions) either fall within one or more descriptions, which it proposes to set out in a separate “OfS prohibited behaviours list”, or give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student (except where reasonable in all the relevant circumstances), then the application gets the big red “unfair” stamp.

    The definition of unfair treatment it’s proposing draws on consumer protection law and CMA guidance, which it says are already familiar to higher education providers (notwithstanding that a whole chunk of it is changing, which I looked at earlier on the site here). The key bit is that OfS is aiming to offer an additional layer of protection beyond editing legal requirements – the proposed list of negative behaviours is not confined to those explicitly prohibited by law.

    And for consumer law fans, contract terms that may be regarded as unfair according to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (the so-called “grey list”) will always be unfair in OfS-world – particularly over changes to courses, refund and compensation policies and contract terms and conditions:

    We are proposing to consider documents beyond those that may ordinarily have contractual effect and the condition therefore has a wider scope than consumer protection law. Our initial view is that this is appropriate because students may rely on a wider range of documents in practice.

    Some will regard that as overreach – others will feel reassured that the square peg/round hold of applying consumer law to the relationship between student and university will be properly addressed.

    The other thing in here for consumer law detail fans is that the draft condition proposes that a provider would not be regarded as treating a student fairly if, in OfS’s reasonable opinion, its actions or omissions (including those that are proposed or likely) give rise to a likelihood of detriment or actual detriment to the student.

    That’s odd because, as I explained on the site a few days ago, consumer law and the way the CMA is proposing to apply it is moving away from a “detriment test” and towards banning some behaviours regardless.

    And excuses will be available – whether it is reasonable to argue that the course of action proposed or taken is, or was, necessary in the circumstances; whether those circumstances are, or were, in the control of the provider; and whether the provider is doing, or has done, everything possible to limit the extent of any detriment. That opens up all sorts of “what ifs” – including those on “but we were about to collapse and you told us not to collapse” – that OfS officials will doubtless be fielding on webinars in the coming weeks.

    One curious aspect of the proposal – at least as it’s set out here – concerns the difference between an “initial” condition and an “ongoing” condition of registration. OfS is proposing new C5 on fairness explicitly here as an “initial” condition – so it’s principally proposing to look at a bunch of documents and policies before it lets a provider onto the register.

    Of course not only can those policies change, it’s often the way they’re implemented (or not) and interpreter that matters more – the consultation is oddly silent on whether new C5 will also become an ongoing condition of registration that OfS could intervene on later.

    In fact it feels like OfS is under pressure to get registrations going again, isn’t quite ready on this fairness stuff, and so has half slipped it into an announcement on new registrations for the time being.

    I know you wanna live yourself

    This being OfS, you actually have to fish your way to page 72 of the consultation document at Annex D to see what it’s proposing as prohibited behaviours – and it’s in seven sections, covering key documents, descriptions relating to conduct and omissions, the clarity and legibility of key documents and other information for students, policies on changes to courses, complaints processes, refund and compensation policies and fake reviews.

    The first of those picks up much of the casework that it’s been referring to National Trading Standards – clauses that deny students the ability to offset payments due to provider failures, clauses that allow providers to withdraw offers at their discretion, particularly due to oversubscription, penalties for withdrawing or unmet obligations, and those that give universities the ability to terminate contracts or define terms at will.

    There’s also stuff on contracts that limit students’ access to legal recourse or impose restrictive dispute resolution processes, those that allow providers to transfer their obligations to other entities without student consent, and ones that allow a provider to determine whether the services supplied conform with the contract.

    In the actions and omissions bit, there’s claiming OfS registration or the right to use the term “university” without permission; offering degrees without appropriate authority or contracts; falsely asserting validation, accreditation, or endorsement by another body; displaying unauthorised logos, trust marks, or quality marks; and making definitive claims about future registration, university status, or authorisations that have not been granted.

    Pleasing to these eyes at least is also advertising or promoting courses, services, or facilities without disclosing reasonable doubts about the provider’s ability to deliver them; intending not to deliver what was advertised and/or planning to provide an alternative, and applying pressure to force immediate decisions, such as falsely claiming that an offer or its terms are available for a limited time only, depriving students of the opportunity to make an informed choice.

    There’s also communicating with prospective students in a non-English language without disclosing that services will be provided in English (!), presenting legal rights as unique features of the provider (!!) and using paid media content to promote services without clearly identifying it as advertising (!!!). It all goes on.

    In fact this list gets better as you move down it. Publishing false or inaccurate information about market conditions or competitors to induce students to sign contracts, offering prizes or rewards without delivering them or without disclosing associated costs, and falsely describing services as free when hidden costs exist are in there too – as well as making persistent, unwanted contact with applicants or students through various communication channels – defined partly in reference to harassment legislation.

    Maybe you work in a provider where you assume that the further down that list you get, the less likely it is that any of that happens. If you’re paying agents – either domestically or internationally – I can pretty much assure you that there’s a real iceberg below that tip.

    Clarity and legibility covers off documents that are hard to read or use unclear language, or fail to specify how they apply to different time periods or categories of students. Complaints unfairness includes strict time limits, no clear contact point, a lack of clear and reasonable timescales, and the one derisory mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator’s complaints scheme.

    And the section on changes hedges its bets a bit – there has to be clear stuff on the circumstances where changes may occur (like alterations to course content, qualifications, mode of study, teaching location, and fees), measures to address the needs of specific student groups, such as those with accessibility needs, and those policies must ensure that all students are treated fairly if such changes are implemented. Examples of where providers reserve too much of a right to make changes after the fact (“but all of those optional modules that you chose here for were not material”, and so on) are missing in action.

    Oh – and refund and compensation policies have to clearly outline the circumstances under which students are entitled to refunds or compensation (along with the methods used to calculate both!), and picking up some of that DMCC 2024 stuff, fake reviews are called out too – which include falsely claiming authorship by a student, concealing incentives provided for reviews, manipulating reviews by hiding or removing negative ones, and not taking reasonable steps to prevent or remove fake reviews.

    But could you forgive yourself

    Some other aspects of note. OfS expects all providers to comply with the law and as a starter any provider found not to have done so gets that “not fair” stamp. That includes consumer protection law, the Education Reform Act 1988 (unrecognised degrees), the Companies Act 2006 (failure to comply with a Secretary of State direction to change a company name, or a name giving misleading indication of activities).

    It’s also chucking in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 to address circumstances where a provider imposes academic sanctions for non-payment of non-tuition fee debts, the thing that originally led the then Office for Fair Trading to start thinking about the way consumer law applied to students in the first place in the last decade.

    Of particular interest is scope. It covers relationships with current, prospective, and former students – the first and third of that list theoretically pick up rights that they often don’t have now. It obviously applies to all modes and levels of study, including online, face-to-face, or hybrid delivery. It naturally extends to providers operating through partnerships or intending to do so. But it also includes ancillary services and the provision of student information – including marketing and advertising.

    Ancillary services are defined here as services provided between a provider and a student as part of their higher education experience, including library services, disability support, scholarships, accommodation, and sports facilities:

    These services can influence a student’s decision on where to study and their overall higher education experience. Unclear or inaccurate information about these services may affect a student’s choice of provider or course, while unclear or unfair terms of service may negatively impact their experience.

    This is very good news for students who, from experience, are often told that stuff on or adjacent to that list can be cut because it’s not “part of the contract” or “on the CMA material information list” (it’s in the footnotes, actually). It should make it much harder to slash that intercampus bus, or cut 24 hour libraries down to 12.

    I stand in front of you

    What’s that you say? What happens to student protection plans? I’ve written extensively on the failure of that regime on the site before, suffice to say that the Higher Education and Research Act still mentions them, and OfS’ way around that is to argue that Condition C4, introduced in 2021, allows it to issue student protection directions if there is a material risk of a provider ceasing higher education provision – so C3 (have an SPP) is being deleted, and instead the suite of documents it will look at in pursuit of all of the above will, in effect, constitute a provider’s student protection plan.

    This makes lots of sense – SPPs were inconsistent, protections were assessed on OfS’ judgement of provider risk rather than the granularity pockets of students face in a large provider, and in theory means consistency from their point of view.

    So the silly SPP “risk assessment” goes – the one that right now probably says your university is swimming in cash as it announces a round of redundancies – and instead all of the above will have to appear on a single webpage to allow a “one stop shop” for students.

    You might also wonder where that strategy proposal has gone – the one that Jo Johnson proposed before OfS was born, and the one that Gavin Williamson proposed too – a “model contract” that sets out students’ rights and obligations, alongside the obligations of providers. It’s being parked for now as a potential addition:

    We may therefore explore development work in this area through further discussion and engagement with the sector, outside the current consultation process and alongside, rather than instead of, the introduction of a new initial condition of registration.

    On reflection, one glaring omission in here concerns what a provider can and can’t do when it comes to fee increases for continuing students – a cynic might argue that that’s controversial enough right now without OfS wading in and… protecting students. But given Ofcom has now banned in-contract price increases altogether, it does look like a huge hole.

    The other thing I’m surprised to see missing is the protection aspects of progression. There are plenty of providers that advertise a “BA in Wonkhe studies with an integrated foundation year” which technically and internally consists of an FY and a degree course – where the closure of the degree course seems to not trigger the same protections for those left high and dry as a second or third year disappearing. See also students who were “sold” a UG on the basis of progression to a vital PGT qualification.

    It’s also disappointing to see little mention of the sort of pressure that students can be under to make what the CMA, in its draft guidance on the DMCC, would call a “transactional decision” like agreeing to a (contract) variation. CMA’s definition of consumer vulnerability and its insistence than in practice, offering students the chance to exit a contract if they’re not happy with changes is not one most can make is a huge issue across the sector right now – and both is and will be a big driver of those “dishonesty” and “unfairness” perceptions that OfS leads the consultation off with. The lack of mention of the issues in the ongoing Student Group Claim – especially when OfS was pontificating about those issues during Covid – is wild.

    The single mention of the Office of the Independent Adjudicator (OIA) is also one to ponder on – partly because it’s the OIA that has tended to take the lead on judging (conceptually at least) fairness for students. Even if we set aside the politics, it won’t help for two sets of guidance to be floating around on what “fairness” means in practice – and students surely deserve these two grown-ups getting in a room to reconcile their advice on rights.

    One other thing that continues to vex me about the proposals and the approach is the obsession with OfS’ powers over student power. Some of this sort of stuff is about providers doing the right thing – but so much of it is about students understanding their rights, so that when someone says “well all those optional modules aren’t contractual”, they can put up a fight.

    It really wouldn’t be hard for OfS to write in something similar to that which we saw in Poland recently – where it’s the law that SUs are given the support to tell students about their rights (and responsibilities) in a way that barely goes near the catnip of consumerism. Beyond the wording of policies, some students are going to be treated unfairly sometimes – steps that ensure they know it beyond a feeling are surely a precursor to effective regulation. It’s hard to ever accept OfS announcements about student focus or student empowerment without that shift in approach that other regulators seem to understand.

    As such, the framing of it all is a bit odd given, as I say, this is being proposed as an initial rather than an ongoing condition of registration at this stage – sat within this need to announce what it’s doing about a growing backlog of applications. Some of the wording only really makes sense in terms of what providers do in practice, not what some PDF says on a website. We’re left assuming that what’s in here will, at some later date, apply beyond the day OfS says yes or no to a new provider – but even critiquing that appears to be outside of the scope of the consultation.

    It’s certainly interesting for OfS to be consulting providers, SUs and students and students on stuff that won’t apply to most of them, but might, in a slightly different way, apply them at an unspecified future time.

    Overall, this looks like great news for students – finally, an education regulator properly thinking through the ways in which students are treated unfairly. But to return to the astonishing aspect of all of this – what is being proposed here is one set of rights for students in a new(ly registering) provider, and another set of much weaker ones for everyone else, all in the name of “fairness”, at just the point that providers are under pressure to not deliver on some of the promises they made to students.

    The lack of justification or explanation for that is alarming – and while I often do my best to not speculate or attribute motive, it would be hard for students braving a read of this to conclude anything other than OfS has resolved that the financial sustainability horse needs to have fully bolted before the regulatory framework stable door is closed in their interests.

    Source link

  • Honesty and accuracy is about to get even more important

    Honesty and accuracy is about to get even more important

    Businesses selling to consumers – and yes, that includes universities selling courses to students – need to comply with new rules, or face heavy fines.

    The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC Act) was passed back in May 2024, but isn’t set to come into force until the autumn.

    In the meantime the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been running a consultation on the detail of the act and its extensive new fining and enforcement powers, and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA)’s Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP) has been consulting over amendments to its codes.

    There could be some pretty significant implications for universities – especially when it comes to international (and, increasingly, domestic) agent activity, and for the way in which courses are promoted and sold, and changes implemented as cuts rain down on provision across the sector.

    Even typing the word “consumer”, let alone referencing the detail of consumer protection law, can be like catnip to some – but in the continued absence of a set of rights bespoke to the relationship between student and university, it’s the framework that applies whether folk like the nomenclature or not.

    And in reality, once you remove the word “consumer”, it’s hard to argue with most of what’s in here unless you’re keen that higher education providers be able to mislead students signing up for 3-4 year course and an up to 40 year commitment to pay for it.

    All along they could see

    The first aspect that catches the eye surrounds omissions of material information. Previously an omission was only considered unfair if it both met the definition of “material information” and demonstrably influenced a consumer’s decision. The new rules remove the dual burden – so if material information – like course content, fee structures, or additional costs – is omitted in an invitation to purchase (e.g., a prospectus or offer letter), the omission is deemed inherently unfair, and there’s no longer a requirement to prove that the omission led to a changed decision. Information gaps now carry automatic compliance risks.

    If, for example, a university fails to disclose that core modules (or a pathway of optional ones) will only be available at a particular campus, a student might enrol under the impression that they can study all aspects of their course on the main campus, only to find out after enrolment that they need to travel to another city. Under the previous rules, this could have been debated based on whether the omission was truly significant to the student’s decision. Now, the omission would likely be considered unfair without further discussion.

    There are plenty of OIA decisions, for example, that seem to rest on whether a student actually experienced detriment.

    Similarly, a university might promote a programme as offering “access to industry-standard facilities.” However, if students later discover that access is heavily restricted to certain hours or that equipment must be booked weeks in advance, this could be considered a misleading practice. In the past, universities could have argued that the promotional wording was reasonable marketing. Ambiguity or exaggeration are the problem now.

    A university might outline tuition fees clearly but neglect to inform students about additional costs, like charges for field trips or specialist equipment. This could now be deemed a serious breach because these costs represent material information – and while in the past a university might have argued that failing to mention a minor fee did not affect a student’s decision to enrol, that defence is no longer viable.

    There’s plenty of students who, in the past, have tried to challenge a misleading or incomplete disclosure only to be asked to demonstrate that it caused significant harm or confusion in their decision-making. Now, they can raise complaints without needing to prove the degree of impact. Crucially given the cuts context, a student who accepts an offer without being informed that certain modules are being (or are likely to be) phased out could now make a decent case.

    I was blind to the truth

    Professional diligence is about the standard of skill, care, and honesty that a university is expected to demonstrate in its dealings with students and applicants.

    We’re talking transparency (clear communication of key information about courses, fees, terms, and conditions), care (ensuring that processes like admissions, marketing, and complaint handling are conducted in a manner that is fair, accurate, and sensitive to the needs of students), and prevention of exploitation (practices that take unfair advantage of students’ lack of knowledge, experience, or specific vulnerabilities.)

    Under the old regime, breaches of professional diligence had to be proven to cause “material distortion” of consumer decision-making. In practical terms, this theoretically meant (and you’ll see a pattern here) that a university could only be held accountable if there was demonstrable evidence that a practice significantly influenced students’ choices.

    The DMCC Act has lowered the threshold – requiring only that the practice be “likely to cause” a different transactional decision. The adjustment simplifies enforcement and increases accountability by focussing on the practice, rather than proof of its impact.

    So if a university markets a course as “fully accredited,” professional diligence would require verifying that this is accurate and ensuring students know exactly which accrediting body is involved. Hidden or ambiguous fees would breach the standard of professional diligence. If a course structure is subject to change, professional diligence requires that this possibility be clearly outlined at the offer stage – and no, the mere fact that a module is optional doesn’t make it immaterial, especially if it’s part of a collection of modules forming a definable pathway or is heavily promoted.

    Similarly, if a university’s marketing materials bang on about high employment rates but fail to clarify that these figures only apply to graduates from a single, high-performing faculty, that would also likely represent a lack of professional diligence – because they mislead by omission or misrepresentation, with students potentially making uninformed decisions. See also claims of student satisfaction in the NSS that a PGT applicant might think apply across the board.

    Such a fool to believe

    Misleading practices are those that create a false impression that could cause students (consumers) to make decisions they might not otherwise have made. There are two main types of misleading practices under the DMCC Act:

    • Misleading omissions: Failing to provide necessary information that students need to make informed decisions.
    • Misleading actions: Providing false or deceptive information or presenting it in a way that misleads students about key aspects of a course or service.

    Previously, misleading actions had to involve predefined “features” of a product, like price, availability, or performance. The DMCC Act broadens this, covering any misleading information relevant to a consumer’s transactional decision.

    This in theory means that universities will have to be much more vigilant about how they present information in promotional materials, course descriptions, and enrolment documents. So if a university claims that a programme provides “strong industry links” but fails to clarify that placements are limited and highly competitive, this could be seen as misleading. And omitting critical information – like the fact that modules (or collections of them) have limited enrolment caps or are, given cuts, unlikely to run, could lead to non-compliance.

    The interaction between honesty over how many academics a university expects to still be in post (and therefore the breath of electives) in a faculty or department while officially a consultation is on, and the standard of honesty required for prospective students about what the course could look like by the time they arrive, becomes quite a fraught line to tread – especially when SSRs form the basis of plenty of league table positions.

    And you hurt me this way

    Aggressive practices involve using intimidation, coercion, or undue influence to pressure students (consumers) into making decisions. Previously for a practice to be deemed aggressive, it needed to significantly impair a consumer’s ability to make a free choice – but again the new rules remove the need to demonstrate a significant impairment.

    Universities now have to ensure that their interactions with students – especially in financial and administrative matters – do not involve undue pressure or aggressive tactics. So pressuring a student to settle an outstanding fee under threat of immediate expulsion (or via communication with UKVI, implied deportation) could be seen as undue influence. And insisting that students make immediate decisions about enrolment offers under tight, artificial deadlines could also be considered undue pressure.

    Changes matter too. A student facing demands to agree to a last-minute course or provision change – without much of an opportunity to seek advice – could argue that this constitutes undue influence too, as could not being upfront and clear about a right to alternatives like compensation.

    Didn’t I treat you right

    The old regime maintained a list of so-called “banned practices” – the new Act updates the list to include new ones like manipulating consumer reviews, and revises current ones over stuff like commercial “intent”.

    The practice of posting fake positive reviews, suppressing negative feedback, or otherwise manipulating review platforms will now be explicitly banned. Universities might showcase testimonials, student reviews, or satisfaction survey results in marketing materials – if they selectively hide negative comments or fabricate positive ones, this is now a clear breach of the rules, and are prohibited outright, regardless of whether they affect a consumer’s transactional decision.

    Crucially, this also extends to partnerships with third parties, such as educational agents or recruitment services. If agents engage in misleading promotions on behalf of the university, the institution can be held directly accountable.

    So-called “drip-pricing” refers to practices where consumers are shown an initial price but encounter additional, unavoidable charges later in the purchase process. So if hidden fees (e.g., for lab materials, field trips, or administrative costs) are only revealed after students have accepted an offer, this would breach the new rules.

    So if a university says that tuition fees for subsequent years may increase by “inflation” but does not define the specific measure (e.g., CPI, RPI), students may be misled about their future financial commitments. Similarly, a university that says it might raise fees to the “maximum permitted by the UK government” would not be giving students a concrete understanding of how much their fees might increase. The lack of clarity over what the government could do or how inflation might spike makes the practice inherently risky under drip-pricing rules.

    Well you cheat, and you lie

    Pre-existing rules on “commercial intent” have also been given an update – and key here is that it becomes automatically unfair to fail to identify when there is a commercial motive behind a practice. So if a university engages agents – whether international or domestic – to promote itself and its courses, and those agents (or their sub agents) are being paid to do so, they’re acting under a commercial arrangement.

    The new rules require that any promotional materials or advice provided by these agents clearly disclose the nature of that relationship – so that students don’t get misled into believing that a recommendation is impartial or based solely on academic merits. A lack of active curiosity about what’s being said would also be a professional diligence issue.

    Similarly, if an agent is doling out brochures at a fair, or operating a “central casting photos” website that portrays itself as an “independent educational consultant” without disclosing that it’s getting commission from the university for promoting certain courses, students might not realise that the advice or marketing materials they receive are influenced by financial incentives. Also banned.

    Finally in this section, the scope of what counts as material information has expanded beyond those defined by EU obligations, and misleading actions are no longer restricted to predefined “features” of a product or service – now, any information relevant to a student’s decision can trigger a breach.

    So again, if a university claims to offer “state-of-the-art facilities” but fails to mention that construction delays may affect access for the first academic year, that would be a problem. See also the breadth of optional modules, the actual availability of placements, the ease with which a student might find a house or a job, and capacity restrictions on key facilities or services (the contrast between mental health messaging and counselling appointment delays springs to mind here).

    Cause I couldn’t see it coming

    There’s a few complementary bits about scope and definitions.

    “Commercial practice” will now mean any act, omission, or representation by a trader relating to the promotion or supply of goods, services, or digital content to a consumer. This now includes single acts, promotions by third parties, and indirect transactions. “Product” now explicitly includes both physical and intangible items, such as services, digital content, and rights (e.g., cancellation rights).

    And “transactional decision” is now broadly defined to cover decisions about whether, how, or on what terms to enter into, retain, modify (that’s changes to provision right there), or terminate a contract. That will include choices about enrolment, course selection, or exercising rights (like refunds/compensation if a student chooses to not accept a change).

    That expanded scope means universities should be mindful of how all their interactions, promotions, and partnerships influence student decisions. Even actions that indirectly affect decisions – like partnerships with online platforms or agents – fall within these rules.

    For example, a university’s website might feature rankings or third-party endorsements. If these create an inaccurate impression of the university’s offerings, this could be subject to enforcement even if no immediate enrolment occurs. Similarly, information presented by student advisors or student ambassadors, whether in-person or online, must reflect complete and accurate details about course availability and associated costs.

    Even if a student travels to attend an open day based on claims of available scholarships and later learns that the advertised funding does not apply to their circumstances, this could trigger a valid complaint under the expanded rules. If a university’s online application portal promotes a “guaranteed placement year” but later informs students that placements are competitive and limited, that would be a problem. And if a university uses social media influencers to promote courses but does not disclose that these influencers are paid by the institution, that may also fall foul.

    Oh – and if a course closes to new students, and a commitment to “teach it out” is offered to a student without being clear about alternatives or without specifying what is being guaranteed (“the award” is obviously not enough), that would also be a problem.

    I know it sounds funny

    It’s also worth briefly explaining some changes relating to (consumer) vulnerability. It’s no longer viewed as a peripheral issue – and instead is now embedded within the broader assessment of fairness in commercial practices. The rules explicitly acknowledge that certain groups may experience disproportionate harm from practices that might not affect others to the same degree, but the change shifts enforcement priorities to focus more on the experiences of those in vulnerable situations rather than just their characteristics.

    Universities must now proactively identify and mitigate risks to vulnerable students as part of their duty of professional diligence, and enforcement bodies can act if a practice is likely to disadvantage or mislead vulnerable students, even if the practice is not harmful to others.

    That raises questions where a university might have marketed courses to international students without fully explaining complex visa restrictions, or if a disabled student faced unexpected additional costs for accommodation, or accommodations.

    Aggressive fee collection tactics might now be evaluated over whether they cause undue stress or confusion for those thousands away from home, and crucially telling students they can exit a contract when they’re only told about changes in September might represent a problem too, even if the CMA thought it realistic they could exit – which it notably doesn’t – because a student agreeing to a contract change is very much a transactional decision when their vulnerability is situationally heightened.

    The ASA’s consultation largely reflects all of the above. Central to changes it is proposing is the requirement for price transparency – marketers must now include all mandatory fees upfront and clearly outline optional costs. Misleading by omission, such as failing to disclose future price increases, is prohibited, as is the use of fake reviews or selectively promoting favourable feedback. Stricter oversight will also apply to marketing targeting vulnerable groups, with particular sensitivity to factors like age and mental health.

    If, for instance, a university advertises tuition fees that may rise “by inflation,” it’s pretty clear that they’d need to specify the inflation index (CPI, RPI, or others) they are referencing, along with the specific timing or source of that data. If different universities adopt varied approaches to calculating inflation-linked fee increases, different students would end up being charged more in ways they were unable to choose between – a real problem.

    Its proposed new regs also boost up that focus on professional diligence. Marketing practices that impair a consumer’s ability to make well-informed choices will be judged as unfair, marketing towards children (under 16) must avoid direct appeals to buy products or services, and children over 16 are textbook vulnerable. And yes agents – and agents of agents – are covered.

    That just won’t do

    A cynic might argue that there’s little for universities to worry about here – in England, the Office for Students (OfS) hasn’t exactly been proactive over this agenda, and it’s pretty unclear as to who might be doing active enforcement elsewhere in the UK.

    In theory the big change in the DMCC Act is that the CMA gets enhanced enforcement powers – and will now be able to directly assess and enforce breaches of consumer protection rules without having to rely on court decisions, impose civil penalties for unfair commercial practices (up to a whopping 10 per cent of turnover, no less), and hold corporate officers liable for offences if they are found to have consented to or negligently allowed breaches of consumer protection law to occur.

    That’s breaches of consumer protection law in general, by the way – suggesting that a university sat on legal advice that says something along the lines of “it’s probably a breach but the risk is low given the number of complaints and so on” might need to re-evaluate the angle of the see-saw.

    That would all matter more if the CMA had shown anything other than a passing interest in universities over consumer law complexities during Covid and strikes, the big question marks over the legality of fee increases for continuing students, or the ongoing questions that surround making changes to what was offered and promised to continuing students as cuts get implemented.

    One of OfS’ excuses in this space – that it was never given enforcement powers over consumer law, and so has to instead test whether providers have paid due regard, and refer cases of concern to National Trading Standards – at least in theory could get interesting if interim chair David Behan’s request for OfS to be given those powers got picked up by government. Either way, none of that sounds like it’s coming soon.

    There are some wider questions concerning both the CMA and the EU. The CMA’s chair was all but sacked a few weeks ago by a government keen to signal that red tape from regulators was holding back growth. On the other hand, much of what’s in the DMCC Act aligns us with developments in EU law – and it’s alignment that matters for the closer relationship that Keir Starmer is trying to deliver without crossing any of the formal “red lines”. Whether all of that impacts the results of the consultation remains to be seen.

    The interactions with everything from the soon-to-be-mandatory Agent Quality Framework (where plausible deniability looks to be soon getting less plausible and less deniable) to student protection (an issue both for OfS and, soon, Medr) are fascinating – in the latter’s case partly because the duties here go well beyond “cessation”, partly because cuts to things are often defined as immaterial in ways that this legislation would surely prevent, and partly because even where changes are material, students are under intense pressure to just accept them – because what are the alternatives?

    As such we might reasonably have expected OfS, Medr and even the SFC to have drawn the CMA and ASA consultations to the attention of a sector for whom the changes could be profound. If that has happened, I’ve not heard about it.

    Taken at face value, this all looks pretty sensible from a student point of view – be (more) honest about what’s on offer, be careful about who’s offering it (especially when you’ve incentivised them to do so), think about who’s vulnerable (both characteristically and situationally) and then deliver what you’ve promised – they all sound like the sort of thing that should be in law even if it wasn’t through the optic of “consumer”.

    But it continues to be the case that all of that sits uneasily with a sector that is used historically, and is now being expected by government and regulators actively, to scale up and down what it offers in a given year based on the (previously public) funding available to it. It’s a set of circumstances that, in theory, should have been making it much harder to implement cuts, but doesn’t seem to have so far. If the stable door is about to get a new lock on it, it does feel like the horse will have long bolted by the time that lock could have helped.

    Source link

  • The higher education sector needs to come together to renew its commitment to enhancing student engagement

    The higher education sector needs to come together to renew its commitment to enhancing student engagement

    “Engagement, to me, is probably…getting the most out of university…taking and making the most of available opportunities.”

    This quote, from Queen’s University Belfast students’ union president Kieron Minto sums up a lot of the essential elements of what we talk about when we talk about student engagement.

    It captures the sense that the higher education experience has multiple dimensions, incorporating personal and professional development as well as academic study. Students will be – and feel – successful to the extent that they invest time and energy in those activities that are the most purposeful. Critically, it captures the element of student agency in their own engagement – higher education institutions might make opportunities available but students need to decide to engage to get the most from them.

    In recent years “student engagement” has suffered from the curse of ubiquity. Its meanings and applications are endlessly debated. Is it about satisfaction, academic success, personal growth, or a combination of factors? There is a wealth of examples of discrete projects and frameworks for thinking about student engagement, but often little read-across from one context to another. We can celebrate the enormous amount of learning and insight that has been created while at the same time accepting that as the environment for higher education changes some of the practices that have evolved may no longer be fit for purpose.

    Higher education institutions and the students that are enrolled in them face a brace of challenges, from the learning and development losses of the Covid pandemic, to rising costs and income constraints, to technological change. Institutions are less able to support provision of the breadth of enriching opportunities to students at the same time as students have less money, time, and emotional bandwidth to devote to making the most of university.

    The answer, as ever, is not to bemoan the circumstances, or worse, blame students for being less able to engage, but to tool up, get strategic, and adapt.

    Students still want to make the most of the opportunities that higher education has to offer. The question is how to design and configure those opportunities so that current and future students continue to experience them as purposeful and meaningful.

    Fresh student engagement thinking

    Our report, Future-proofing student engagement in higher education, brings together the perspectives of academic and professional services staff, higher education leaders, and students, all from a range of institutions, to establish a firm foundation of principles and practices that can support coherent, intentional student engagement strategies.

    A foundational principle for student engagement is that students’ motivations and engagement behaviours are shaped by their backgrounds, prior experiences, current environments, and hopes and expectations for their futures – as explained by Ella Kahu in her socio-cultural framework for student engagement (2013).

    It follows that it is impossible to think about or have any kind of meaningful organisational strategy about student engagement without working closely in partnership with students, drawing on a wide range of data and insight about the breadth of students’ opinions, behaviours, and experiences. Similarly, it follows that a data-informed approach to student engagement must mean that the strategy evolves as students do – taking student engagement seriously means adopting an institutional mindset of preparedness to adapt in light of feedback.

    Where our research indicates that there needs to be a strategic shift is in the embrace of what might be termed a more holistic approach to student engagement, in two important senses.

    The first is understanding at a conceptual level how student engagement is realised in practice throughout every aspect of the student journey, and not just manifested in traditional metrics around attendance and academic performance.

    The second is in how institutions, in partnership with students, map out a shared strategic intent for student engagement for every stage of that journey. That includes designing inclusive and purposeful interventions and opportunities to engage, and using data and insight from students to deepen understanding of what factors enable engagement and what makes an experience feel purposeful and engaging – and ideally creating a flow of data and insight that can inform continuous enhancement of engagement.

    Theory into practice

    Our research also points to how some of that shift might be realised in practice. For example, student wellbeing is intimately linked to engagement, because tired, anxious, excluded or overwhelmed students are much less able to engage. When we spoke to university staff about wellbeing support they were generally likely to focus on student services provision. But students highlighted a need for a more proactive culture of wellbeing throughout the institution, including embedding wellbeing considerations into the curriculum and nurturing a supportive campus culture. Similarly, on the themes of community and belonging, while university staff were likely to point to institutional strategic initiatives to cultivate belonging, students talked more about their need for genuine individual connections, especially with peers.

    There was also a strong theme emerging about how institutions think about actively empowering students to have the confidence and skills to “navigate the maze” of higher education opportunities and future career possibilities. Pedagogies of active learning, for example, build confidence and a sense of ownership over learning, contributing to behavioural and psychological engagement. Developing students’ digital literacy means that students can more readily deploy technology to support connection with academics and course peers, make active critical choices about how they invest time in different platforms, and prepare for their future workplace. Before getting exercised about how today’s students do not arrive in higher education “prepared to engage,” it’s worth remembering just how much larger and more complicated the contemporary university is, and with these, the increased demands on students.

    While there is a lot that institutions can do to move forward their student engagement agenda independently, there is also a need for a renewed focus on student engagement from the higher education sector as a whole. The megathemes contributing to shifting student engagement patterns are shared; they are not distinctive to any institution type, geography, or student demographic.

    The promise of higher education – that you can transform your life, your identity and your future through a higher education experience – only holds true if students are willing and able to engage with it. This demands a unified effort from all involved.

    Institutions must prioritise student engagement, placing it at the heart of their strategies and decisions. Furthermore, the higher education sector as a whole must renew its focus on student engagement, recognising its fundamental role in achieving the goals of higher education. Finally, as regulatory bodies evolve their approach to the assessment and enhancement of academic quality, student engagement must once again be put front and centre of the higher education endeavour.

    This article is published in association with evasys. You can download a copy of Future-proofing student engagement here.

    Source link

  • Shaping higher education for commuter students

    Shaping higher education for commuter students

    For the first time, there are now more commuter students in the UK – students who continue to live at home whilst studying, rather than relocating to attend university – than traditional residential students.

    Surprised? You’re not alone. My research on commuter students suggests that even commuter students themselves don’t realise that there are others like them. In common with most of those who shape higher education pedagogy, policy, practices and plans for the future, they believe that they are a minority, an anomaly, inconsistent with the (presumed) majority of “normal,” residential students.

    The sector is increasingly waking up to the needs and experiences of commuter students, supported by the inclusion of commuters in the Office for Students Equality of Opportunity Risk Register in England – Emma Maslin has explored this further on the site.

    It is essential, for students, higher education institutions and the future viability of our sector, that we increase awareness of commuter students – who they are and what they need – and that we reshape higher education provision for this growing cohort.

    Students will benefit from a better experience and outcomes. Institutions will benefit from higher retention, league table position and therefore recruitment. The sector as a whole will benefit from greater financial stability and clear evidence to the government that we are meeting their priorities and truly expanding access and improving outcomes for non-traditional students.

    Who commutes – and why?

    Commuter students are diverse. However, there is a strong correlation between being a non-traditional student – those targeted by widening participation initiatives – and being a commuter student.

    This is because many of the reasons that students have historically been unable or unwilling to enrol in higher education are the same as those that make them unable or unwilling to relocate. These include affordability, being first in family to higher education, from a low-participation neighbourhood, having caring or family commitments, over 25. Commuters are also likely to be in employment, be home owners, to be studying part time, at lower-tariff universities. Finally, my research suggests that commuter students are more likely to be local students, not long-distance learners.

    This said, commuting isn’t always about widening participation. It is likely that the undersupply of student accommodation and resultant increasing prices, alongside the cost-of-living crisis, are encouraging traditional students to remain at home. There is also evidence to suggest that international and postgraduate students are more likely to be commuters, both key target markets for UK higher education institutions.

    Relocation as a predictor of success

    But why does this matter? Data tell us that commuter students have a poorer experience throughout the student lifecycle. Choice of institution, access to learning, resources, support and extra-curricular activities, are all restricted. Commuters are less able to engage with in-person learning activities and are isolated from their learning community.

    They feel less a sense of belonging, more a sense of burden. In consequence, commuter students have lower attainment, continuation and graduate outcomes than their residential counterparts.

    In part, this is because higher education has been designed without consideration of the need to travel. Pedagogy, policy and processes have historically been and continue to be shaped around residential students. Assessments, extracurricular activities, facilities, learning and wellbeing support, teaching activities, timetabling—all continue to be premised on the residential model, structured for the residential student, provided at a time and in a place that assumes that students live on or near to campus.

    What next?

    The first step is to see our commuters. Count them, to make them count. Make them visible, not only to decision makers and practitioners, but also to each other. Provide information for commuters, before, during and after application. Create a sense of belonging, building community through awareness, acceptance and actions such as repurposing unused parts of the estate, for commuter students – a common room, sleeping areas.

    Next, review all policies for accessibility, with particular focus on timetabling, attendance, learning and teaching, support services and skills development.

    Make changes where necessary, enabling students to maximise access, whilst minimising travel. Rethink in-person learning and make attendance worth it. Consider online learning, but avoid hybrid learning and include on-commute learning options.

    Myth busting

    For commuter students, access to learning isn’t just about distance. It’s not even just about transport. We need to look at the acceptability, accessibility, affordability and availability of transport. However, we also need to recognise that access and participation are also about students’ activities, responsibilities and relationships, outside of the classroom.

    The data tell us that our commuter students are struggling to adapt to pedagogy, policies and practices that are based on the assumption that they will relocate to attend university. Our ability to adapt our provision to their needs is likely to be key to the future sustainability of many of our institutions, if not the sector as a whole.

    This article is the first in our series on commuter students where we’ll explore their student journey and what support institutions and the sector can provide to enhance their experience. If you’d like to get involved in the series, we’d welcome further contributions, email team@wonkhe.com to pitch us an article.

    Source link

  • Chicago Public Schools Launches Long-Awaited Site to Show How Schools Are Doing – The 74

    Chicago Public Schools Launches Long-Awaited Site to Show How Schools Are Doing – The 74


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

    Chicago Public Schools launched new school profiles on its website — a milestone in the district’s five-year push to change how it portrays the quality of its campuses.

    The new school accountability dashboards replace the district’s controversial number ratings for schools, which CPS put on hold and then scrapped during the pandemic. Those ratings had drawn the ire of educators and some community members, who said they unfairly stigmatized campuses that serve students with high needs. The old level ratings had also factored into high-stakes decisions about school closures and staff overhauls.

    Some parents who’ve provided feedback on the shift said families welcome having a one-stop repository of information on school performance again. But they said they’d like to see simpler, more accessible language in information about the metrics the district included to put the numbers into context. And they noted that a busy parent must click repeatedly to get to each metric — only to find out in many cases that these numbers aren’t available yet.

    Bogdana Chkoumbova, the district’s chief education officer, said the new system aimed to strike a balance.

    “We didn’t want this to be just another state report card; we are embracing the complexity of the data,” she said. “If it looked like a one-pager in red and green, that just brings in the trauma.”

    The new profiles went up in mid-December, the day after the window to apply to the district’s selective and magnet programs closed. Chkoumbova said the timing was not intentional. After all, families could find most of the information available on the dashboards so far on schools’ Illinois Report Card profiles.

    For now, the profiles include only a portion of the data they’ll eventually feature — mostly traditional metrics such as test scores, chronic absenteeism, and graduation rates. Later this year, the district is gearing up to add long-anticipated information that gets at students’ experience and well-being — metrics that in some cases officials are still weighing how to best capture.

    Still, CPS leaders say the launch of the new dashboards is an important start. They can be a handy tool as the members of a new, partly elected school board learn about the district and its schools. District officials plan to show off the profiles at the board’s monthly meeting on Thursday.

    “We are transitioning to a completely new way of how we view student success and the district’s role in supporting schools,” said Chkoumbova.

    The dashboards are available here by scrolling to the bottom and looking up a school.

    The new profiles are five years in the making

    Chicago first set out to overhaul how it measures and publicly communicates about school quality in 2019. At that time, school board members called on district officials to do away with the School Quality Rating System, or SQRP, policy, which many considered too focused on metrics that are affected by poverty levels and other demographics of the student body. The district formally adopted a new Continuous Improvement and Data Transparency policy in 2023.

    With input from academics, parents, and others, the district tried to design a more holistic approach, bringing in a wider array of metrics, including some that got at the experience students have on campus — and at whether the district is providing schools the resources they need to improve that experience.

    After years of largely behind-the-scenes work, the new dashboards went live quietly in December, giving principals and other educators a chance to weigh in.

    Claiborne Wade, the father of four CPS students, served on a district committee that provided input on the new accountability system. He said he is a big believer in the district’s efforts to take a more holistic look at school performance.

    “It’s more than test scores and attendance rates and graduation rates,” he said. “Those are important, but so is making sure we have funds for extracurricular activities and parents have a seat at the table.”

    Last week, Wade presented the new dashboards to a group of 10 parents actively involved at DePriest Elementary on the West Side, where he works as a family coordinator as part of the Sustainable Community Schools program. Some liked that the new dashboards offer information about each metric and how to interpret it. But many felt these explanations were too heavy on education jargon and terms such as “alternate assessments.”

    Jaqueline Vargas, the mother of two CPS students and two district graduates, said the site asks parents to do too much navigating — especially given that many metrics are not landing on the dashboard until later this year.

    “You have to click a lot, but when you finally get there, the information isn’t there,” said Vargas, who also served on the district’s Transparency Committee.

    She said she would love to see more information on parent leadership groups and parent engagement more generally, photos of principals, and readily accessible listings of the specialized programs and support services a campus offers. One of her CPS graduates was really interested in cooking while in high school, but the family had no idea that even though their neighborhood high school did not offer a culinary program, two nearby campuses did.

    Hal Woods, chief of policy with the parent advocacy group Kids First Chicago, said the dashboards are clearly a work in progress. The layout can be more user-friendly. The metrics available so far are largely what SQRP offered, though the recently released dashboards do include some new information, such as whether a school has quality curriculums.

    Parents are eager to see the full set of metrics later this year, Woods said — including those that show how schools are providing social and emotional support to students, a task that recent research has shown greatly affects outcomes such as high school graduation.

    The district aims to better measure the student experience

    Like districts across the country, CPS is still grappling with how to measure the student experience on campus more fully, said Elaine Allensworth of the University of Chicago’s Consortium on School Research. For the past two years, the district has given students a survey called Cultivate, which was developed by Allenworth’s team at the university. But she says the survey was designed to give teachers information about students’ experiences in their classrooms — not as an accountability tool for families and others.

    “There’s a concern that if the survey becomes public, teachers would feel under pressure to make their schools look good and won’t feel as comfortable using it for their own development,” she said.

    The district also explored how to best present another key piece of the student experience: extracurricular activities. The district could likely do more than simply listing the activities a school offers, Allensworth said. The new dashboards show the portion of students who participate in any activities. But are these activities high-quality? Are outside partners chipping in?

    Chkoumbova said the district will continue to work on improving the platform. In late February, it will include new data on the growth toward math and reading proficiency on state tests that students make — a metric that Ellensworth said is much more telling about how well a school is doing than the portion of students who meet state standards on these tests.

    Chkoumbova feels CPS is on the right track.

    “We are trailblazers,” she said. “There are very few systems that have taken such an innovative and different approach.”

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


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

    Source link

  • The labour of being a student nurse

    The labour of being a student nurse

    It’s 5:15pm and I’ve just finished an extra shift on placement to meet my required 2300 hours. I haven’t had time to change out of my nursing uniform.

    I had to support a deteriorating patient, a patient who was dying, and a patient that needed a new catheter as an emergency – otherwise they could have died too. And then I remembered I was running late to a board of governors’ meeting.

    I run in and apologise: scrubs on, hair ragged, eyes puffy, pouring the first glass of water I have managed to drink since 8am that morning.

    I explain I need to leave a bit early for patient bedtime calls. People were surprised, and suddenly the focus was away from the agenda and the questions flooded. I began to explain what it is really like to be a student nurse.

    I explained about the unpaid placement hours, dealing with real life patients and people who rely on us in some of their most vulnerable moments. The full time studying, having to work alongside it all and the toll on our mental and physical health. I was just scratching the surface.

    According to the Royal College of Nursing (RCN), more than 32,000 student nurses could drop out of their courses by the next parliament and seven in ten are considering quitting due to financial pressures. Statistics like these don’t surprise me, instead they reflect me and my colleagues’ experiences.

    Ultimately, institutions and governments can’t support student nurses, increase numbers and reduce retention issues if they first don’t understand their experience.

    It’s a full-time job on top of a full-time job

    We are told studying a full-time degree is a full-time job. Many students are now working more hours part- or full-time to fill the gap left by an inadequate student maintenance system, but what about student nurses?

    Student nurses juggle between 37.5 and 48 hours a week of unpaid work placements – and also work part-time jobs because the cost of living is so tough. We see student nurses rely on the free tea and toast in the staff rooms as their only source of nutrition for the day.

    In August I was on a five-day week placement. I had hours I had to make up as I was unable to attend a period of placement earlier that year due to my mum being treated for cancer. For student nurses, every time we encounter a barrier, the first thing we think about is the hours we’ll need to make up.

    We’re not entitled to sick pay, special leave or bereavement when it comes to placement. At the time of writing, I am currently on my ninth straight working day, between placement and my job as a sabbatical officer. My rent is due, my bills need paying – this is survival.

    Is it even worth it?

    It’s understandable that nursing students often feel like they exist in a limbo between the university they’re studying at and their placements. Where the student journey is so different, there needs to be different or specialised support to ensure nursing students can succeed.

    Nursing students don’t have the ability to commit to all the things that enrich the student experience – clubs, societies or volunteering – because they don’t have the time for it.

    It makes many question if they can ever actually just be students.

    In a context of an incredibly challenged health care system, student nurses are being asked to do more and more before they are qualified. As future healthcare professionals who signed up for these degrees because we want to take care of others, we are in positions where we can’t care for ourselves.

    The labour of being a student nurse feels heavy but that’s not to say that there isn’t room to make positive change.

    To universities, talk to your healthcare students, celebrate their differences from other students but acknowledge the challenge it can bring. By understanding them and lobbying on their behalf they’ll feel validated and supported by their institution.

    Looking to the government, with future reform of the NHS on the government’s agenda, how will you look at the whole student nurse journey before focusing on only recruitment? Working with trade unions including the RCN to improve the immediate conditions of student nurses is an important first step to ensure retention.

    This could include student discounts on food in hospital trusts, travel bursaries, and flexible working regulations. In order to increase recruitment in the long term, the government should consider livable bursaries and the introduction of a loan forgiveness scheme.

    It’s important that both the health sector and the higher education sector look after our future NHS and healthcare workforce. Because no matter who you are or where you come from, in yours’ or your loved one’s time of need, we want to always be there to help you.

    We’ll only see progress once there is a joined up approach from universities and government to improve the experience, and that starts with better understanding the labour of being a student nurse.

    Source link