Blog

  • Why do people worry about inflation?

    Why do people worry about inflation?

    That’s why central banks have gone to extraordinary lengths in the past decade to banish the specter of deflation. They’ve succeeded. Indeed, stock markets have been rattled by evidence that inflation is stirring in the United States, which might prompt the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates more rapidly than previously thought.

    (On Wednesday, the U.S. government reported that consumer prices rose by 0.5 percent in January, more than expected. “Core” prices excluding volatile food and energy costs marked the biggest monthly gain in a year.)

    But the chances of inflation getting out of control are small.

    First, companies operate globally, so if manufacturing costs rise too high in the United States, they will shift production to cheaper locations overseas.

    Second, there is still slack in the U.S. jobs market because many people who gave up looking for work after the crisis could be lured back into employment, capping wages.

    Third, there is no reason to believe the Fed — or financial markets for that matter — would allow the money supply to spiral out of control.

    The United States is no Venezuela.

    Prices rise and fall all the time in response to factors such as changing consumer tastes and technological innovation. Medical care costs a lot more than in the past, computers a lot less. But a generalized rise in prices across the economy — which is the definition of inflation — is possible only if a country’s central bank prints too much money.

    That’s what’s happened in Venezuela, where the money supply has increased by 4,000 percent in the past two years. The result is hyperinflation, forecast by the International Monetary Fund to reach 13,000 percent this year. Goldilocks’s oatmeal is nearly doubling in price every month. Poverty is rife because wages lag price rises. The economy is on its knees.

    The United States is no Venezuela. Evidence of a pick-up in wages is good news in fact, considering that workers have been taking home less and less of the economic pie in recent years, while the suppliers of capital have benefited handsomely.

    It’s possible that the recently enacted package of U.S. tax cuts and spending increases will cause the economy to run a bit too hot, pushing up prices a bit. But of the many problems facing the U.S. economy, runaway inflation is not one of them.

    In 1981, then Fed Chairman Paul Volcker had to raise short-term U.S. interest rates to 20 percent to crush inflation. History will not need to repeat itself.

    Questions to consider:

    1. What “ripple effect” could a rise in consumer prices cause?

    2. How can inflation be good?

    3. When prices go up significantly, what might you or your family not buy?

    Source link

  • Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Do screens help or hurt K-8 learning? Lessons from the UK’s OPAL program

    Key points:

    When our leadership team at Firthmoor Primary met with an OPAL (Outdoor Play and Learning) representative, one message came through clearly: “Play isn’t a break from learning, it is learning.”

    As she flipped through slides, we saw examples from other schools where playgrounds were transformed into hubs of creativity. There were “play stations” where children could build, imagine, and collaborate. One that stood out for me was the simple addition of a music station, where children could dance to songs during break time, turning recess into an outlet for joy, self-expression, and community.

    The OPAL program is not about giving children “more time off.” It’s about making play purposeful, inclusive, and developmental. At Firthmoor, our head teacher has made OPAL part of the long-term school plan, ensuring that playtime builds creativity, resilience, and social skills just as much as lessons in the classroom.

    After seeing these OPAL examples, I couldn’t help but think about how different this vision is from what dominates the conversation in so many schools: technology. While OPAL emphasizes unstructured play, movement, and creativity, most education systems, both in the UK and abroad, are under pressure to adopt more edtech. The argument is that early access to screens helps children personalize their learning, build digital fluency, and prepare for a future where tech skills are essential.

    But what happens when those two philosophies collide?

    On one side, programs like OPAL remind us that children need hands-on experiences, imagination, and social connection–skills that can’t be replaced by a tablet. On the other, schools around the world are racing to keep pace with the digital age.

    Even in Silicon Valley, where tech innovation is born, schools like the Waldorf School of the Peninsula have chosen to go screen-free in early years. Their reasoning echoes OPAL’s ethos: Creativity and deep human interaction lay stronger cognitive and emotional foundations than any app can provide.

    Research supports this caution. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health advises parents and schools to carefully balance screen use with physical activity, sleep, and family interaction. And in 2023, UNESCO warned that “not all edtech improves learning outcomes, and some displace play and social interaction.” Similarly, the OECD’s 2021 report found that heavy screen use among 10-year-olds correlated with lower well-being scores, highlighting the risks of relying too heavily on devices in the early years.

    As a governor, I see both sides: the enthusiasm for digital tools that promise engagement and efficiency, and the concern for children’s well-being and readiness for lifelong learning. OPAL has made me think about what kind of foundations we want to lay before layering on technology.

    So where does this leave us? For me, the OPAL initiative at Firthmoor is a powerful reminder that education doesn’t have to be an either/or choice between tech and tradition. The real challenge is balance.

    This raises important questions for all of us in education:

    • When is the right time to introduce technology?
    • How do we balance digital fluency with the need for deep, human-centered learning?
    • Where do we draw the line between screens and play, and who gets to decide?

    This is a conversation not just for educators, but for parents, policymakers, and communities. How do we want the next generation to learn, play, and thrive?

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • How interactive tech simplifies IT and supercharges learning

    How interactive tech simplifies IT and supercharges learning

    Key points:

    Today’s school IT teams juggle endless demands–secure systems, manageable devices, and tight budgets–all while supporting teachers who need tech that just works.

    That’s where interactive displays come in. Modern, OS-agnostic solutions like Promethean’s ActivPanel 10 Premium simplify IT management, integrate seamlessly with existing systems, and cut down on maintenance headaches. For schools, that means fewer compatibility issues, stronger security, and happier teachers.

    But these tools do more than make IT’s job easier–they transform teaching and learning. Touch-enabled collaboration, instant feedback, and multimedia integration turn passive lessons into dynamic, inclusive experiences that keep students engaged and help teachers do their best work.

    Built to last, interactive displays also support long-term sustainability goals and digital fluency–skills that carry from classroom to career.

    Discover how interactive technology delivers 10 powerful benefits for schools.

    Download the full report and see how interactive solutions can help your district simplify IT, elevate instruction, and create future-ready classrooms.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • How rare are colleges that enroll and graduate high shares of Pell Grant students?

    How rare are colleges that enroll and graduate high shares of Pell Grant students?

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    When it comes to colleges where Pell Grant recipients are at least 55% likely to graduate, there are not a whole lot throughout the U.S. In fact, nearly half of states — many of them Southern with some of the highest poverty rates in the country — don’t have any at all.

    That’s what Becca Spindel Bassett, higher education professor at the University of Arkansas, discovered in a recent analysis in which she sought to identify and map institutions of higher education that she describes as “equity engines.” 

    These are colleges where at least 34% of the students receive Pell Grants and at least 55% of those Pell Grant recipients earn a bachelor’s degree within six years.

    Out of the 1,584 public and private nonprofit four-year institutions that Bassett studied nationwide, she found only 91 — or less than 6% — that qualified for her “equity engine” distinction. 

    And they’re all clustered in 26 states, resulting in what Bassett calls a “spatial injustice” for low-income students who live in one of the states without any equity engines or in areas with limited access to such institutions.

    The almost eight dozen existing equity engines represent a diverse range of institutional types, including regional public universities, small Christian colleges and historically Black institutions. 

    As for whether states can invest more in colleges that are close to being equity engines — a key recommendation of Bassett’s study — it all depends.

    “It’s worth noting that over half of Equity Engines are private colleges and universities, so their relationship to the state and dependency on state funding varies,” Bassett said in an email to Higher Ed Dive.

    But improving Pell graduation rates isn’t only a question of funding models, she said. 

    Leaders at aspiring equity engines can learn best practices and approaches from these colleges and should be prepared to enact “organizational learning and change,” Bassett said. However, much is unknown about what enables colleges to become equity engines, including whether it depends on their programs and services or their policy and funding environments. 

    While Bassett’s study doesn’t answer those questions, a forthcoming book will describe how two of the colleges she identified as equity engines were able to achieve their results, she said. 

    Michael Itzkowitz, founder and president of the HEA Group, a higher ed-focused research firm and consultancy, said in an email that identifying colleges with strong graduation rates is a “good first step” because students who earn a degree “typically earn more than those who do not.” 

    However, Itzkowitz, who under former President Barack Obama served as the director of The College Scorecard — an online federal tool with various data on higher education institutions — added that it’s also critical to consider whether graduates are actually better off economically since “not all institutions and degrees are created equal.”

    “Students who earn a credential at one institution may experience wildly different outcomes if they earned the same degree elsewhere,” he said.

    David Hawkins, chief education and policy officer at the National Association for College Admission Counseling, said in an email that colleges would do well to emulate the equity engines Bassett identified, such as the University of Illinois Chicago. Bassett’s study calls the university a “major driver” of bachelor’s degree completion among Pell Grant recipients in the state, noting those students have a 58% six-year graduation rate.

    Among other things, Hawkins said, such institutions deploy a wide range of services — such as evening or online courses for working students, and transportation to campus — that have been proven to help low-income students cross the finish line.

     “From my perspective, the United States will only remain competitive if we can invest in a postsecondary infrastructure that serves all students who seek opportunity through higher education,” Hawkins said.  

    Source link

  • Tracking the Trump administration’s deals with colleges

    Tracking the Trump administration’s deals with colleges

    It all started with Columbia University. 

    In early March, less than two months after President Donald Trump took office, his administration canceled $400 million in federal research funding to the Ivy League institution. The funding cut came just days after federal officials announced a probe into the university, claiming it failed to protect Jewish students from harassment. 

    More civil rights investigations and funding freezes followed — at Harvard University, University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, University of California, Los Angeles and others. Along with allegations related to antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests, the administration has attacked diversity efforts and policies allowing transgender women to compete on sports teams aligning with their gender identity. 

    The first to face a funding hit, Columbia in March also became the first university to agree to a host of demands from the Trump administration to see its federal funding restored. 

    The university then cut a larger deal in July. That agreement included a $221 million payment to the federal government, as well as academic and policy changes, in exchange for having its suspended funding mostly restored. Despite concerns in the higher education world about Columbia’s concessions, Brown, Penn and the University of Virginia also inked their own accords with the administration to resolve investigations.

    Other deals could follow. Harvard, for example, has been supposedly on the cusp of a deal with the administration for months now — according to periodic news reports — as it seeks an end to a multi-front attack on the university by Trump’s government. 

    Moreover, the administration has directly offered priority for federal funding to select universities that agree to a broad set of terms covering academics, tuition, speech and other areas historically left to institutions to decide. So far, seven have rejected the compact and none have formally accepted, though Trump appeared to open the offer up to all colleges earlier in October.

    Here’s a look at the deals signed so far between colleges and the government — and the impact on the institutions involved.

    Source link

  • UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    UI Bans Considering Race, Sex in Hiring, Tenure, Student Aid

    A UIC official said the system made the decision after “considering the increased risk to our faculty and to the University that these criteria present in the current climate.”

    Just_Super/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    The University of Illinois system is telling its institutions they can’t consider race, color, national origin or sex in hiring, tenure, promotion and student financial aid decisions—a move that’s drawn opposition from a faculty union at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

    Aaron Krall, president of UIC United Faculty, an affiliate of the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors, said the UI system circumvented shared governance.

    “This was a directive that came down and surprised everyone,” Krall said.

    The system implemented a policy saying it and its universities don’t consider race or the other factors in determining eligibility for need- or merit-based financial aid. In a statement, the system further said it “issued guidance to its universities to ensure that hiring, promotion, and tenure processes follow the same standards.”

    The statement said, “There may be some variation in how and when changes are fully operationalized” across its three universities: UIC, Springfield and Urbana-Champaign. The system didn’t provide Inside Higher Ed an interview Tuesday about why it’s making this change now.

    Krall shared communications that he said UIC officials sent out last week. One, from Chancellor Marie Lynn Miranda and others, suggested the student aid change would apply to “donor-funded, college-determined and institutionally funded scholarships” and said “UIC will replace its Affirmative Action Plan with a Nondiscrimination and Merit-Based Hiring Plan.”

    In another message Krall provided, a UIC official wrote that “faculty may no longer submit a Statement on Efforts to Promote Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the dossier, nor may faculty members be evaluated on norms related to” DEI. The official wrote that the system “made this decision after carefully considering the increased risk to our faculty and to the University that these criteria present in the current climate.”

    Krall said. “The most shocking thing to me, really, is they want to change the policy and make it retroactive—so we have [affected] faculty members going up for promotion right now who have already submitted their promotion materials.” He said the union has demanded the right to bargain over these changes.

    Source link

  • Shutting Women Out of Preferred Courses Sets Them Back

    Shutting Women Out of Preferred Courses Sets Them Back

    Getting shut out of a preferred course can have lasting negative effects on incoming female students, a recent working paper found.

    The paper, published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, tracked first-year students at Purdue University who couldn’t take their first-choice classes in 2018 because of a surge in enrollment. Incoming students had to rank their course preferences; 49 percent got into all the courses they wanted, but 51 percent were shut out of a course.

    The study found that female students locked out of a course were 7.5 percent less likely to graduate within four years than women who got to take their desired courses. Their cumulative college GPAs were also slightly lower—by 0.05 points—than those of female students who took their preferred classes their first semester. Women locked out of a course were 5 percent less likely to major in STEM fields and even earned about 3.5 percent less in salary after they graduated, compared to female students who took their top-choice courses their first year.

    The working paper found no statistically significant effects on male students.

    “Our estimates suggest that reducing course shutouts, particularly for STEM courses, can be an effective way to improve female-student outcomes,” co-author Kevin Mumford, an associate dean and professor at Purdue’s Mitch Daniels School of Business, told The Wall Street Journal.

    Source link

  • Addressing Student-Centered Transfer Reform in Los Angeles

    Addressing Student-Centered Transfer Reform in Los Angeles

    California’s community college–to–four-year university transfer pipeline has not delivered the outcomes students need. While 80 percent of community college students intend to transfer, just 19 percent reach a California State University campus within four years. The gap is stark. While there have been numerous statewide efforts to define clear pathways to California State University and the University of California, time and time again it’s taken local innovation and collaboration between sending and receiving colleges to make a real difference.

    In Los Angeles, which enrolls a quarter of the state’s students, educators and partners have spent nearly a decade working to support student-centered transfer innovations by focusing attention on implementation of the associate degree for transfer (A.D.T.), a 2+2 pathway intended to offer community college students guaranteed admission to the CSU and an efficient path to graduation. Cross-sector education and workforce collaboratives like the L.A. Compact and the L.A. Region K–16 Collaborative, both convened by UNITE-LA—a nonprofit advancing equitable education and career pathways—have stewarded this work.

    In 2017, UNITE-LA brought together leaders from California State University, Northridge; the L.A. Community College District; and other local public and private universities to attempt to solve a common challenge: re-engaging students who stopped out. Recognizing that institutions had a shared responsibility to support this student population, California’s first reverse-transfer program was born.

    CSUN Connections went further than traditional reverse-transfer models by helping disengaged students seamlessly transfer their credits to a partnering community college, apply them to an A.D.T. when available and then transfer back to CSUN to complete their bachelor’s with all the benefits of an associate degree. This work required us to take stock of the student data and identify where institutional and systemwide policy barriers, including degree offerings, residency requirements and program misalignments, were costing students additional time and money

    Concurrently, campus partners wanted to better understand A.D.T. pathway availability and student outcomes from a regional perspective. Recognizing that the benefits of the A.D.T. unravel when such degrees are not locally available or, when available, rendered inaccessible by enrollment impaction, 16 community colleges and four CSUs engaged in historic data sharing to assemble a clearer picture.

    The findings were clear: The A.D.T. was not yielding the desired results. Students who earn the A.D.T. transfer to CSU at half the rate of non-A.D.T. earners. A.D.T. earners often did not complete their degree in two years, and many did not enter CSU in the same field of study. This is due, in part, to the fact that A.D.T.s are not offered locally in many high-paying fields in popular majors like STEM and health. Students of color, especially L.A.’s African American student population, were even less likely to earn the degree, transfer or enter high-demand fields.

    In response, UNITE-LA convened a 2021 community of practice focused on improving transfer pathways in the region, asking, to what extent do our educational systems yield inequities in transfer, and for whom? Why is this happening? And how might we bring change? The group surfaced systemic challenges and also revealed that meaningful solutions must be developed at the campus level.

    From 2022 to 2024, UNITE-LA piloted a new approach: the Student-Centered Transfer Redesign Process. In partnership with California State University, Dominguez Hills; Cal Poly Pomona; and their feeder community colleges, campus administrators and staff in academic affairs, student services and enrollment management worked together alongside faculty to diagnose barriers and design strategies to improve transfer and bachelor’s attainment.

    The process went beyond policy change—it built campus capacity. Participants gained deeper understanding of equity gaps, stronger cross-campus relationships and hands-on tools for problem solving. Empathy interviews with transfer students shifted the focus from what students did or didn’t do to what they experienced, learned and overcame. This perspective is critical to making a student-ready system instead of making students conform to existing policies that don’t serve them.

    For example, through the Transfer Redesign Process, CSUDH looked at data-backed recommendations of the statewide AB 928 Committee and assessed the viability of expanding its campus emergency aid program for prematriculated transfer students. Such aid could help incoming transfer students navigate unexpected expenses associated with transfer, such as moving costs, childcare costs and additional transportation expenses like up-front parking or transit pass fees.

    In another example, Cal Poly Pomona sought to partner with a feeder community college to implement eTranscript in order to create faster and more consistent transcript and data-sharing processes to support transfer student success. As noted in a recent study of five public institutions in California, despite improvements in available technology, transcript sharing remains a highly manual process that can delay transfer students in receiving final credit-evaluation decisions that are needed for accurate advisement and on-time course registration.

    These efforts underscore a core lesson: Localized collaboration is essential for effective implementation of state policy, to diagnose new challenges as they arise, to develop responsive solutions from the ground up and then to advocate for the scaling of innovations that work. The size of California’s higher education systems and complexity of degree pathways require more robust investments to support this type of cross-campus work. State-funded initiatives like the K–16 Collaboratives have provided flexible funding to make it possible in places like Los Angeles. But sustained, dedicated funding is key to turning localized innovation into statewide reforms that reach all Californians. With the state’s Cradle-to-Career Data System, the new Master Plan for Career Education and proposed Education Interagency Council, California has an opportunity to embed these lessons statewide.

    Los Angeles is fortunate in that it has a coalition of education leaders willing to cut through the bureaucracy and advance change for the well-being of students. It’s taken data sharing, relationship building, intermediaries and a creative blend of funding, but our students deserve systems that work. Campuses deserve resources to improve them. By aligning funding, policy, practice and partnership, we can ensure their success—and, in turn, the prosperity of our communities and our state.

    Adam Gottlieb is the director of postsecondary strategy and policy at UNITE-LA. 

    Source link

  • Summer Courses to Help Incoming College Students Adjust

    Summer Courses to Help Incoming College Students Adjust

    National data suggests today’s college students are less prepared to succeed in college than previous cohorts, due in part to the COVID-19 pandemic and remote instruction. Students lack academic and socio-emotional readiness, administrators say, prompting colleges to implement new interventions to get them up to speed.

    For years, Mount Saint Mary’s University in California has offered a summer bridge program for students who may be less prepared to make the transition to college, such as first-generation students.

    This summer, MSMU launched Summer Pathways, which is designed for all incoming students to get a head start on college. They complete two college courses for free and are able to connect with peers and explore campus before starting the term.

    “We felt the earlier we can engage students, the better,” said Amanda Romero, interim assistant provost.

    How it works: Summer Pathways is a six-week, credit-bearing experience that takes place in the middle of the summer, after orientation in June but before classes start in August.

    During the program, students complete a Summer Pathway seminar and one additional introductory course, choosing among sociology, English and mathematics.

    Students take classes Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays; on Tuesdays and Thursdays they participate in workshops about managing their time, dealing with impostor syndrome or maintaining well-being.

    “We’ve invited the whole campus community to come in, meet with our students in person, talk about their careers, their offices, how they ended up at the Mount, what their hopes and aspirations are for the future,” said Elizabeth Sturgeon, interim assistant provost and director for Summer Pathways.

    The goal is to make students aware of campus resources and connect them with faculty and staff early in their college careers.

    The program also takes students on fun excursions around Los Angeles, including to the ballet, the Hollywood Bowl and the Getty Museum.

    The experience is free, and students are given a $250 stipend to help pay for gas and food. They can also pay $3,000 to live in a residence hall for the six-week program if they don’t want to commute to campus each day.

    A community approach: While many faculty work on eight-month contracts and have the summers off, Sturgeon and Romero said it wasn’t difficult to get professors engaged and on campus for the program.

    “We had departments that had never participated in Summer Pathways before, never knew what it was about, opting in and coming down in person to present to our students,” Sturgeon said.

    “It’s important for our core faculty to get in front of students, and this is a great opportunity to do just that,” Romero said.

    Returning students also stepped up to serve as peer mentors for new students.

    The program has paid off thus far, leaders said, with students hitting the ground running at the start of the term.

    “It offers a smoother transition,” Romero said. “A lot of anxiety with starting a new place is ‘where’s this, where’s that, where do I go?’”

    “They know what the resources are, they know where to park, what to order in the cafeteria,” Sturgeon said. “They have a friend group; they have that one peer mentor who’s their friend they can reach out to. From day one, in the business of being a college student, they’re an alum after six weeks.”

    What’s next: In summer 2025, 66 out of 90 incoming students participated in Summer Pathways, engaging in five different courses. And 98.5 percent of them matriculated in the fall.

    In the future, campus leaders hope to introduce project-based learning into the courses, interweaving the university’s mission as a Sisters of St. Joseph of Carondelet institution.

    “We just want to make it bigger going forward, with more classes and students participating,” Sturgeon said.

    The overarching dream is to get all incoming students to sign up, but administrators recognize that those who don’t live in the region may face additional barriers to engaging in in-person activities because they lack housing. Sturgeon and Romero are pushing for additional resources to offer housing and seeking solutions to address the need for additional funding and staffing.

    If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

    Source link

  • The post-16 pivot: why higher education needs to lean into the skills revolution

    The post-16 pivot: why higher education needs to lean into the skills revolution

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr. Ismini Vasileiou, Associate Professor at De Montfort University.

    The government’s new Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper reframes how the UK prepares people for work, learning, and life. It promises a simpler, more coherent system built around quality, parity of esteem, and progression – introducing new V-Levels, reforming Level 3 and below qualifications, and setting out clearer routes into higher education and skilled employment.

    Within it there is an unmistakable message for universities: higher education is no longer a separate tier but a partner in a joined-up skills ecosystem.

    This direction of travel strongly echoes the recommendations of the Cyber Workforce of the Future white paper, which called for a unified national skills taxonomy, stronger coordination between education and employers, and consistent frameworks for developing technical talent. The government’s post-16 reforms, though broader in scope, now seeks to achieve at system level what the cyber sector has already begun to pilot.

    Reimagining pathways: from fragmentation to flow

    At the heart of the White Paper lies the ambition to create “a seamless system where every learner can progress, without duplication or dead ends.” The proposed V-Levels for 16-19-year-olds aim to sit alongside A-Levels, replacing hundreds of overlapping technical qualifications and creating a nationally recognised route into both higher technical and academic study.

    Reforms to Level 2 and entry-level qualifications will introduce new “Foundation Programmes” that build essential skills and prepare learners for work or further study. Alongside these, stepping-stone qualifications in English and Mathematics will replace automatic GCSE resits, acknowledging that linear repetition has failed to deliver progress for many young people.

    The emphasis on simplified, stackable routes reflects the very principles behind the Cyber Workforce of the Future model, which proposed interoperable learning pathways connecting schools, further education, higher education, and industry within a single skills continuum. What began as a sector-specific call for alignment in cyber is now being written into national policy.

    Higher education’s new context

    The White Paper links post-16 reform directly to the Industrial Strategy and to Skills England’s mission to align learning with labour-market demand. For universities, several themes stand out:

    • Progression and parity: Higher education is expected to work together with further education and employers to ensure that learners completing V-Levels and higher technical qualifications can progress seamlessly into Level 4, 5, and 6 provision.
    • Higher Technical Qualifications (HTQs): The expansion of HTQs in growth areas such as AI, cyber security, and green technology positions universities as key co-developers and deliverers of technical education.
    • Quality and accountability: The Office for Students will have powers to limit recruitment to poor-quality courses and tie tuition-fee flexibility to demonstrable outcomes, reinforcing the need for robust progression and employability data.
    • Lifelong learning and modularity: The commitment to the Lifelong Learning Entitlement demands interoperability of credits across further education and higher education – another concept long championed in the cyber-skills ecosystem.

    Taken together, these reforms require universities to move beyond disciplinary silos and become brokers of opportunity – enabling flexible, lifelong learning rather than simply delivering three-year degrees.

    From strategy to delivery: lessons from cyber that can scale

    The Cyber Workforce of the Future paper provides a live example of how the government’s post-16 vision can be delivered in practice. Its framework rests on three transferable pillars:

    1. Unified skills taxonomy – mapping qualifications and competencies against occupational standards to create a common language for education and industry.
    2. Education – industry bridge – aligning curriculum design and placements to real-world demand through structured partnerships between universities, FE colleges, and employers.
    3. Inclusive pipeline development – embedding equity and access by designing pathways that work for diverse learners and career changers, not just traditional entrants.

    These principles are not unique to cyber; they represent a template for how any technical or digital field can align with the White Paper’s objectives. The challenge now is scaling this joined-up approach nationally across disciplines – from advanced manufacturing to health tech and green energy.

    Six priorities for universities

    1. Redefine admissions and progression routes
      Recognise new qualifications such as V-Levels and HTQs as rigorous, valued entry points to higher education.
    2. Co-design regional skills ecosystems
      Partner with futher education colleges, local authorities, and industry to map regional growth sectors and align provision accordingly.
    3. Develop flexible, modular curricula
      Build stackable learning blocks that learners can access and re-enter throughout their careers under the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.
    4. Co-create with employers
      Move from consultation to collaboration, embedding placements, apprenticeships, and micro-credentials that reflect labour-market demand.
    5. Support learner transition
      Provide structured academic and digital-skills support for students from vocational or stepping-stone routes.
    6. Measure outcomes transparently
      Track progression, attainment, and employability by qualification route to evidence value and inform continuous improvement.

    Opportunities and risks

    The White Paper’s success will depend on genuine partnership between universities, further education providers, and employers. Without coordination, the new structure could replicate old hierarchies – leaving V-Levels or technical routes seen as second-tier options. Similarly, tighter regulation must not deter universities from widening participation or admitting learners who require additional support.

    The cyber-skills sector demonstrates what can work when these risks are managed: clear frameworks, shared standards, and collaborative delivery that bridges academic and technical domains. Replicating this across disciplines will require sustained investment and policy stability, not short-term pilots.

    A new social contract for tertiary education

    The Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper represents a genuine reset for tertiary education – one that values technical excellence, lifelong learning, and regional growth alongside academic achievement.

    Its goals mirror those already embedded within the Cyber Workforce of the Future initiative: building a national system where education and employment are continuous, mutually reinforcing stages of one journey. The cyber model shows that when universities act as integrators –  connecting further education, employers, and government – policy ambitions translate into measurable workforce outcomes.

    What began as a sector-specific experiment can now serve as a blueprint for system-wide reform. If universities across all disciplines embrace this pivot, they can help turn the White Paper’s vision into reality – a cohesive, agile, and inclusive skills ecosystem ready for the future economy.

    Source link