Blog

  • Institutions, Over Peers and Tribes, Bolster Indigenous Student Belonging

    Institutions, Over Peers and Tribes, Bolster Indigenous Student Belonging

    At all institution types, students living off campus reported a 16 percent higher sense of belonging than those living on campus.

    Daniel de la Hoz/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    A new study from the American Indian College Fund and National Native Scholarship Providers found that Indigenous students report a stronger sense of belonging on campus when their college provides “perceptions of a sense of acceptance, inclusion and identity.”

    They call this “institutional support,” and it’s the primary predictor of belonging, trailed by peer support, campus climate and tribal support, the study showed. 

    The “Power in Culture Report,” released Wednesday, examined Indigenous students’ sense of belonging at the institutional and state level. NNSP surveyed more than 560 students enrolled at 184 institutions across multiple sectors, including tribal colleges and universities, predominantly white institutions, Hispanic-serving institutions, and other minority-serving institutions. The survey was conducted between March and April of 2024. 

    Unsurprisingly, tribal colleges foster a greater sense of institutional belonging among Indigenous students than other institution types. At nontribal institutions, Indigenous students must create belonging via “informal networks and cultural resilience amid institutional neglect or performative inclusion.” Indigenous students at nontribal campuses also report experiencing more microaggressions and cultural isolation. Students at institutions with larger populations of Indigenous students report a 14 percent higher sense of belonging than those at schools with fewer Native peers. 

    When looking at Indigenous student belonging at the state level, students attending college in states with larger tribal populations actually report a lower sense of belonging and say they feel less supported than students in states with smaller tribal populations, “suggesting that population size alone does not equate to meaningful support,” the study noted. Students in states with a tribal college or university reported an 18 percent lower sense of belonging than students in states without a tribal institution. 

    At all institution types, students living off-campus reported a 16 percent higher sense of belonging than those living on-campus. 

    The report includes several policy recommendations to bolster Indigenous student belonging, including recruiting Indigenous faculty and staff, funding Native language revitalization courses, and establishing meaningful relationships with local tribal nations.

    Source link

  • Democratic Lawmakers Amplify Pressure on UVA

    Democratic Lawmakers Amplify Pressure on UVA

    Months after Jim Ryan stepped down as University of Virginia president, state Sen. Creigh Deeds is still waiting for answers on whether political interference and external pressure played a role.

    Ryan resigned in late June, citing pressure from the federal government amid Department of Justice investigations into diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives at the public university. Although the Board of Visitors voted to shutter its DEI office in March, conservative critics accused UVA of failing to dismantle such efforts. The DOJ subsequently launched seven investigations, two of which have been closed. The status of the other five remains unclear.

    Deeds, a Democrat who represents Charlottesville and the surrounding area, has been seeking answers since Aug. 1 through a series of letters sent to the Board of Visitors and a far-reaching Freedom of Information Act request. But so far, university lawyers have largely refused to answer the state lawmaker’s questions, citing ongoing investigations. Faculty members have also said they can’t get straight answers from the university or face time with the board.

    And complaints over an alleged lack of transparency at UVA are piling up as state lawmakers are applying additional pressure over how the university will respond to an invitation to sign on to the proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” that the Trump administration sent to UVA and eight other universities last week.

    Trading Letters

    In office since 2001, Deeds has a long relationship with the university. But for the first time in 20-plus years, the senator said, he’s being shut out by a Board of Visitors that refuses to talk to him.

    “We’re just trying to get to the bottom of what role the federal government, the Justice Department, the president’s office, the governor, the [state] attorney general played in the decision that Jim Ryan made to resign,” Deeds told Inside Higher Ed in an interview.

    Deeds has sent several inquiries to UVA since Ryan resigned. The first letter included 46 questions related to Ryan’s resignation, the DOJ investigations and whether the UVA Board of Visitors “operated within the bounds of its legal and ethical responsibilities.”

    But so far, Deeds says, he’s been given “partial answers” and “gobbledygook.”

    In a series of letters to Deeds from two law firms (Debevoise & Plimpton and McGuireWoods), the outside legal counsel offered little insights into Ryan’s resignation, arguing in an Aug. 15 response that UVA is “is currently focused on navigating an unprecedented set of challenges,” which includes the ongoing DOJ investigations.

    Some information included in the responses is already in the public sphere, such as how the board voted to shutter DEI initiatives, and details on the presidential search committee, which Deeds had also asked about. UVA also included letters sent by the DOJ to the university when it closed two investigations; while the DOJ referenced “appropriate remedial action” by the university, it did not offer specifics. But the focus across several letters sent to Deeds by university lawyers was mostly on why UVA can’t respond.

    “Counsel handling the discussions with the Department of Justice has indicated that providing a substantive response to the August 1 letter while negotiations are ongoing would be inconsistent with the need for confidentiality. Counsel has therefore requested that the Board refrain from doing so until a resolution with the Department of Justice is finalized,” wrote David A. O’Neil, an attorney with Debevoise & Plimpton.

    UVA lawyers also repeatedly took issue with Deeds’s characterization of the events surrounding Ryan’s resignation.

    In an Aug. 29 response, O’Neil wrote that the board “would like to correct a number of inaccurate premises and assumptions in your letter” but was “duty-bound to place the University’s interests above all else” and honor its “fiduciary obligation to the University.” However, UVA legal counsel did not specify what, if anything, was inaccurate.

    O’Neil also asked the senator not to “draw conclusions or promote unfounded speculation.”

    Deeds responded in a Sept. 4 letter that he was “surprised and concerned” that the Board of Visitors “felt the need to secure outside counsel to respond to a legislative request.” He added that he was equally troubled by the failure to fully answer any questions.

    Frustrated by UVA’s response, Deeds filed a FOIA request Sept. 18, seeking a trove of documents related to Ryan’s resignation and the DOJ investigations. UVA has not yet fulfilled the FOIA request but did send Deeds a $4,500 bill to process the information, which he plans to pay.

    Deeds then followed up in a Sept. 29 letter, pressing the university on what it agreed to in exchange for the DOJ closing two investigations and for more details on where the other five currently stand.

    To date, Deeds is still seeking answers.

    UVA spokesperson Brian Coy told Inside Higher Ed by email that the university has offered “as much information as possible at the time” in its multiple responses to Deeds. However, he said, the university is constrained by “active discussions with the Department of Justice regarding several investigations, and publicly disclosing information that relates to those investigations could hamper our ability to resolve them in a way that protects the institution from legal or financial harm.” He added that UVA is processing Deeds’s FOIA request in accordance with state law.

    Coy did not address several specific questions sent by Inside Higher Ed asking about potential political interference, remedial action for closed investigations or the status of the active DOJ investigations.

    Mounting Pressure

    Deeds isn’t the only one struggling to get answers from UVA’s Board of Visitors.

    Jeri Seidman, UVA Faculty Senate chair, said the board has declined to answer faculty questions about Ryan’s resignation and DOJ investigations. She added that the board has been less responsive since the Faculty Senate voted no confidence in the Board of Visitors in July.

    “We have not had interactions with the rector or the vice rector since July 11,” Seidman said, adding that the board had declined an invitation to address the Faculty Senate last month.

    Seidman credited UVA interim president Paul Mahoney with being accessible, though, she noted, he and other leaders have also declined to answer faculty questions due to DOJ investigations.

    “We appreciate his willingness to come and answer questions. Those questions are never gentle. But it’s disappointing that the rector has not acknowledged any [faculty] resolutions or requests for information, even if the response were simply to say that now is not the right time,” Seidman said.

    Recent Faculty Senate resolutions include demands for an explanation on Ryan’s resignation, the no-confidence vote and calls for UVA leadership and the board to reject the proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” The compact would require changes in admissions and hiring and a commitment to institutional neutrality, while simultaneously suppressing criticism of conservatives, among other demands. In exchange, the administration says signatories would receive preferential treatment from the federal government on research funding, though the document also threatens the institution’s funding if it doesn’t sign or comply.

    Virginia Democrats have also opposed the compact and threatened to restrict funding to the university if it signs on. That threat comes as lawmakers are ratcheting up pressure on UVA and waging a legal battle to block Republican governor Glenn Youngkin’s board appointments.

    The letter, sent Tuesday by Senate majority leader Scott Surovell, expressed “grave concern” over the compact and referenced Ryan’s resignation, which, he wrote, was “forced” by the DOJ via alleged “extortionate tactics—threatening hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding and the livelihoods of employees, researchers, and students unless he stepped down.”

    Surovell warned that “the General Assembly will not stand by while the University surrenders its independence through this compact” and that there would be “significant consequences in future Virginia budget cycles” for UVA should the Board of Visitors agree to the arrangement.

    Surovell’s warning shot comes amid a broader dispute over who can serve on Virginia boards. While a Senate committee has blocked a recent slate of gubernatorial appointments, including at UVA, Youngkin has insisted that members can still serve until they are rejected by the full Legislature. A related legal case will be heard by the Virginia Supreme Court later this month.

    Board leadership and Mahoney replied to Surovell’s letter Wednesday with a noncommittal reply shared with Inside Higher Ed that did not indicate whether the university intended to sign on to the proposed compact or not. They wrote in part that UVA’s “response will be guided by the same principles of academic freedom and free inquiry that Thomas Jefferson placed at the center of the University’s mission more than 200 years ago, and to which the University has remained faithful ever since.”

    Source link

  • Senate OKs Richey to Lead ED Civil Rights Office

    Senate OKs Richey to Lead ED Civil Rights Office

    Kim Richey recently served as a senior chancellor in the Florida Department of Education.

    Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee

    The Senate voted this week to confirm Kimberly Richey as the Education Department’s assistant secretary for civil rights—returning her to a role she held in an acting capacity from August 2020 until November 2021, spanning the end of President Trump’s first term and the start of President Biden’s. Richey also worked in the department during the George W. Bush administration.

    The vote was 51 to 47 along party lines, with Democrats and Independents all voting nay.

    Over the past few years, Richey worked in state positions as a senior chancellor in the Florida Department of Education and a deputy superintendent in the Virginia Department of Education. She now returns to the federal government to lead a greatly diminished Office for Civil Rights—the Trump administration laid off nearly half the OCR staff in March—with a significant case backlog.

    The administration is using what’s left of the office as an arm of its campaign against transgender rights, programs aimed at helping minorities and allegations of antisemitism. The OCR has been investigating both K–12 school districts and universities over these issues. Richey told senators during her June confirmation hearing that she’s committed to pursuing cases related to antisemitism and trans women playing on women’s sports teams.

    According to a résumé published by government watchdog American Oversight, Richey has also worked with conservative organizations to draft education legislation and policies. Those policy proposals mostly centered on K–12 and included promoting school choice and banning critical race theory (although the topic is not taught in K–12 schools). A 2022 receipt American Oversight uncovered indicated that Richey’s consultancy, RealignEd LLC, was paid $10,000 to “provide subject matter expertise, review and evaluation, and policy advice related to inherently divisive topics and other provisions” shortly after Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin signed an executive order prohibiting “the use of inherently divisive concepts, including critical race theory,” in schools.

    Craig Trainor, the principal deputy assistant secretary for civil rights, has led the office as acting secretary since Trump took office earlier this year. In that post, he sent out controversial guidance banning race-based programming and activities, which was later blocked by the courts. He’s now moving to Department of Housing and Urban Development, where he’ll be the assistant secretary for fair housing and equal opportunity.

    Source link

  • Universities Are Curators of Knowledge, Not Chaos (opinion)

    Universities Are Curators of Knowledge, Not Chaos (opinion)

    In a year already defined by polarization and violence, the assassination of Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University plunged higher education into crisis. The killing of one of the nation’s most prominent conservative activists on a college campus has been weaponized by political factions, prompting administrative crackdowns and faculty firings. What were once familiar battles in the campus culture wars have escalated into something more dangerous: a struggle over the very conditions of inquiry, where violence, scandal and political pressure converge to erode academic freedom. And now, a proposed “compact” with higher education institutions would seek to condition federal funding on requirements that colleges ensure a “broad spectrum of viewpoints” in each academic department and that they abolish “institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas.”

    At the center of this struggle lies a persistent illusion: that the university should provide a platform for “every perspective.” Critics claim campuses suppress conservative voices or silence dissenting students, arguing institutions should resemble open marketplaces where all viewpoints compete for attention. Enticing as this rhetoric may be, the expectation is both unworkable and misguided. No university can present every possible outlook in equal measure, nor should it. The mission of higher education is more demanding: to cultivate, critique and transmit knowledge while attending to perspectives that have shaped history and public life. The contrast between an endless marketplace of opinion and the rigorous pursuit of knowledge is crucial to understanding what universities are for.

    Karl Mannheim once distinguished between ideology and knowledge, cautioning against their uncritical conflation. That warning remains essential. Universities are not platforms for unchecked ideology but institutions dedicated to showing how knowledge emerges through observation, interpretation, critique and debate. Perspectives matter, but exposure alone is insufficient; they must be contextualized and weighed against evidence. Free speech and academic freedom overlap but are not the same. Free speech protects individuals from state repression in public life. Academic freedom protects scholars in their pursuit of inquiry and ensures students gain the tools to test claims critically. The distinction is central: The university has an obligation not to amplify all voices equally, but to cultivate discernment.

    This does not mean shielding students from offensive or discredited ideas. On the contrary, a serious education requires grappling with perspectives that once commanded influence, however abhorrent they may now appear. Students of American history must study the intellectual justifications once advanced for slavery—not because they deserve validation, but because they shaped institutions and legacies that continue to structure society. Students of religious history should encounter theological controversies that once divided communities, whether or not they resonate today, because they explain enduring traditions and conflicts. To include such perspectives is not to offer them equal standing with contemporary knowledge, but to illuminate their historical weight and consequences.

    Confusing exposure with endorsement—or opinion with knowledge—risks leaving students adrift in noise. Universities are not megaphones for any thesis but arenas where students learn how to evaluate sources, test claims and trace the consequences of ideas over time. Academic freedom does not mean a free-for-all. Instead, it allows scholars to curate, critique and contextualize knowledge—including ideas that are controversial, even offensive or (as in the study of slavery or fascism) historically consequential. Education that multiplies opinions without cultivating methods of judgment undermines critical capacity; education that fosters discernment equips students to enter public debates wisely and responsibly.

    Recent events in higher education reveal how fragile these principles have become. Violence itself intimidates expression, but administrative and political overreaction magnifies the threat. Faculty have been disciplined for social media posts. In Texas, a lecturer was dismissed for teaching about gender identity. In California, University of California, Berkeley administrators released to federal authorities the identities of more than a hundred students and faculty whose names appeared (as accused, accuser or affected party) in complaints about antisemitism. Faculty watch colleagues punished unjustly, while students—especially international and marginalized ones—face surveillance and potential charges. Across the country, dissent is mistaken for hate, controversial speech treated as threat and scandal avoidance prioritized over defending expressive rights.

    Academic freedom has long enjoyed special constitutional protection, granting professors wide latitude in teaching and research. But this protection depends on public trust: the sense that higher education fosters critical inquiry rather than partisan indoctrination. When professors behave as ideologues or exercise poor judgment in public, that trust erodes. Yet the greater danger comes not from individual missteps but from capitulating to the demand that every perspective deserves equal standing—or from letting violence and political pressure set the boundaries of what may be said. Higher education should not resemble a bazaar of endless opinion but a community dedicated to the disciplined creation, transmission and critique of knowledge. By training students not to hear every voice equally but to weigh evidence and evaluate claims, universities preserve both their scholarly mission and their democratic role. Institutions that cave to intimidation, or that mistake neutrality for abdication, abandon their responsibility to defend inquiry.

    Equally important, universities serve as legitimating institutions. To place a perspective within their walls signals that it merits serious study, that it has crossed the threshold from private belief to public knowledge. This conferral of legitimacy makes curatorial responsibility critical. Treating perspectives as interchangeable voices distorts the university’s purpose, but so does admitting or excluding them solely under political pressure. Both compromises undermine credibility. External actors understand this and exploit universities’ legitimating authority, pressing institutions to provide platforms that elevate discredited or dangerous views into claims of scholarly validation. The responsibility of the university is not to magnify every claim in equal volume but to steward the line between ideas worth engaging and those demanding correction or refusal. Only in this way can institutions preserve their academic mission and their democratic contribution.

    The way forward is neither unbounded opinion nor fearful silence. It is the principled defense of creating, critiquing and reimagining knowledge through inquiry guided by evidence and protected from violence and censorship. To retreat from this responsibility is to weaken not only higher education but democracy itself.

    Gerardo Martí is the William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Sociology at Davidson College.

    Source link

  • How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    How the manufactured narrative of ‘failure’ is distracting us from resolving the systemic problems holding back the study of Modern Languages – Part 2. 

    This post was kindly written by Vincent Everett, who is head of languages in a comprehensive school and sixth form in Norfolk. He blogs as The Nice Man Who Teaches Languages. 

    In Part 1, I looked at how the low grades given at GCSE languages – up to a grade lower than in pupils’ other subjects – is a manufactured situation, easily solved at the stroke of a pen. The narrative around languages being harder is nothing to do with the content of the course or the difficulty of the exam. It is simply a historical anomaly of how the grades are allocated. There is also a false narrative that this unfair grading is due to pupils’ individual ability, the nation’s ability, or the quality of teaching. And I made a subtle plea for commentators to avoid reinforcing this narrative to push their own diagnosis or solutions. 

    In Part 2, I will consider what happens in post-16 language learning. This has also been the subject of reporting in the wake of A-Level results and the recent HEPI report. I am not going to deny that A-Level languages are in crisis. But the crisis in A-Level and the crisis of language learning post-16 are not one and the same. 

    There are specific problems with the current A-Level specification for languages. The amount of content to be studied, comprising recondite details of every aspect of the Spanish / French / German speaking world, is unmanageable. Worse, as this post explains, the content is out of kilter with the exam. All the encyclopaedic knowledge of politics, history, popular culture and high culture which takes up the bulk of the course, is ultimately only required for one question in just one part of the Speaking Exam. The difficulty of the course is compounded by the extremely high standards required, especially for students who have learned their language in the school context. I personally know of language teachers and college leaders who have discouraged their own children from taking A-Level languages in order not to jeopardise their grades for university application. It is getting to the point where I can no longer, in good conscience, let ambitious students embark on the course without warning them of the overwhelming workload and doubtful outcomes. 

    So A-Level could be improved. But as an academic course, it will always remain the domain of a tiny few. Similarly, specialist Philology degrees at university – the academic study of the language through the intersection of literary and textual criticism, linguistics and the history of the language – only attract a very small minority. Neither university language degrees, nor A-Level, are a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    It is a particularly British mentality to only value language learning if its intellectual heft is boosted by the inclusion of essays, abstruse grammar, linguistics, literature, politics, history, and a study of culture. In other words, philology. Philology is not the same as language learning.  

    Universities do offer language learning opportunities for students of other disciplines. However, in sixth form, because of the funding requirement to offer Level 3 courses, there are no mainstream language learning options available to the vast majority of students who do not study A-Level languages. We have a gap in 16-19 provision where colleges do not offer a mainstream language learning pathway. 

    This gap is fatal to language study. It means GCSE is seen as a dead-end. It means that universities have a tiny pool of students ready and able to take up language degrees or degrees with languages as a component. 

    The crisis is not one of how to channel more people into studying A-Level languages. It is a question of finding radical new ways of offering mainstream language learning post-16, and how to make this the norm. We know from the HEPI report that young people in the UK are among the most avid users of the online language learning app Duolingo. Young people are choosing to engage with language learning, but in terms of formal education, we are leaving a two-year gap between GCSE and the opportunities offered by universities. 

    If this hiatus in language learning is the problem, is there a solution? I have two suggestions. One of which is relatively easy, if we agree that action is needed. If universities genuinely believe that a language is an asset, then they could send a powerful message to potential applicants. 

    Going to university means joining an international organisation, including the possibility of studying abroad, using languages for research, engaging with other students from across the globe, and quite possibly taking a language course while at university. The British Academy reports that universities are calling for language skills across research disciplines, so I hope that they would be able to send a strong message to students in schools and colleges. 

    The message around applications and admissions could be that evidence of studying a language or languages post-16 is something that universities look for. At the very least, they could signal that an interest in self-directed language learning is something they would value. 

    I understand that most universities would stop short of making a qualification in a language a formal entry requirement, because they fear it could exclude many applicants, especially those from disadvantaged groups. But a strong message could help reverse the situation where language learning opportunities are currently denied to many under-privileged school pupils, who aren’t getting the message around the value of pursuing a language. 

    And my second, more difficult suggestion? Would it be possible to plug the two-year gap with a provision at sixth form or college? An app such as Duolingo has attractions. There is the flexibility and independence of study, as well as the focus on motivation by level of learning, hours of study or points scored. It is very difficult to imagine how a sixth form or college could provide language classes for their varied intake from schools, with different language learning experiences in different languages. 

    Is there scope here for a new Oak Academy to step in and create resources? Or for the government to commission resources from an educational technology provider? Is there a role for universities here? The inspiring Languages for All project shows what can happen when a university engages with local schools to identify and tackle obstacles to language learning. The pilot saw Royal Holloway University working with schools across Hounslow, to increase participation at A-Level in a mutually beneficial partnership. Many of the strategies could equally apply to more mainstream (non A-Level) language learning partnerships. These included strong messaging, co-ordinated collaboration between colleges, face-to-face sessions and events at the university, and deployment of university students as mentors. 

    The aim would be to transform the landscape. Currently we have a dead-end GCSE where unfair grading serves as a deterrent, and where there is no mainstream option to make continuing with language learning the norm. A strong message from universities, along with an end to unfair grading, could make a big difference to uptake at GCSE. A realisation that A-Level and specialist philology degrees are not sufficient for the language learning needs of the country could lead to alternative, imaginative and joined-up options post-16. It could also boost the provision or recognition of self-study of a language and may even lead to the reinvigoration of adult education or university outreach language classes. And it could even see a larger pool of candidates for philology degrees at university. 

    Source link

  • The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    The Possibility of Our Problems: Educating for the Futures Our Students Will Face – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • OfS Access and Participation data dashboards, 2025 release

    OfS Access and Participation data dashboards, 2025 release

    The sector level dashboards that cover student characteristics have a provider-level parallel – the access and participation dashboards do not have a regulatory role but are provided as evidence to support institutions develop access and participation plans.

    Though much A&P activity is pre-determined – the current system pretty much insists that universities work with schools locally and address stuff highlighted in the national Equality of Outcomes Risk Register (EORR). It’s a cheeky John Blake way of embedding a national agenda into what are meant to be provider level plans (that, technically, unlock the ability to charge fees up to the higher level) but it could also be argued that provider specific work (particularly on participation measures rather than access) has been underexamined.

    The A&P dashboards are a way to focus attention on what may end up being institutionally bound problems – the kinds of things that providers can fix, and quickly, rather than the socio-economic learning revolution end of things that requires a radicalised cadre of hardened activists to lead and inspire the proletariat, or something.

    We certainly don’t get any detailed mappings between numeric targets declared in individual plans and the data – although my colleague Jim did have a go at that a while ago. Instead this is just the raw information for you to examine, hopefully in an easier to use and speedier fashion than the official version (which requires a user guide, no less)

    Fun with indicators

    There are four dashboards here, covering most of what OfS presents in the mega-board. Most of what I’ve done examines four year aggregations rather than individual years (though there is a timeseries at provider level), I’ve just opted for the 95 per cent confidence interval to show the significance of indicator values, and there’s a few other minor pieces that I’ve not bothered with or set a sensible default on.

    I know that nobody reads this for data dashboard design tips, but for me a series of simpler dashboards are far more useful to the average reader than a single behemoth that can do anything – and the way HESA presents (in the main) very simple tables or plain charts to illustrate variations across the sector represents to me a gold standard for provider level data. OfS is a provider of official statistics, and as such is well aware that section V3.1 of the code of practice requires that:

    Statistics, data and explanatory material should be relevant and presented in a clear, unambiguous way that supports and promotes use by all types of users

    And I don’t think we are quite there yet with what we have, while the simple release of a series of flat tables might get us closer

    If you like it you should have put a confidence interval on it

    To start with, here is a tool for constructing ranked displays of providers against a single metric – here defined as a life cycle stage (access, continuation, completion, attainment, progression) expressed as a percentage of successful achievements for a given subgroup.

    Choose your split indicator type on the top right, and the actual indicator on the top right – select the life cycle stage on the box in the middle, and set mode and level (note certain splits and stages may only be available for certain modes and levels). You can highlight a provider of interest using the box on the bottom right, and also find an overall sector average by searching on “*”. The colours show provider group, and the arrows are upper and lower confidence bounds at the standard 95 per cent level.

    You’ll note that some of the indicators show intersections – with versions of multiple indicators shown together. This allows you to look at, say, white students from a more deprived background. The denominator in the tool tip is the number students in that population, not the number of students where data is available.

    [singles rank]

    I’ve also done a version allowing you to look at all single indicators at a provider level – which might help you to spot particular outliers that may need further analysis. Here, each mark is a split indicator (just the useful ones, I’ve omitted stuff like “POLAR quintiles 1,2,4, and 5” which is really only worth bothering with for gap analysis), you can select provider, mode, and level at the top and highlight a split group (eg “Age (broad)”) or split (eg “Mature aged 21 and over”).

    Note here that access refers to the proportion of all entrants from a given sub-group, so even though I’ve shown it on the same axis for the sake of space it shows a slightly different thing – the other lifecycle stages relate to a success (be that in continuation, progression or whatever) based on how OfS defines “success”.

    [singles provider]

    Oops upside your head

    As you’ve probably spotted from the first section, to really get things out of this data you need to compare splits with other relevant splits. We are talking, then, about gaps – on any of the lifecycle stages – between two groups of students. The classic example is the attainment gap between white and Black students, but you can have all kinds of gaps.

    This first one is across a single provider, and for the four lifecycle stages (this time, we don’t get access) you can select your indicator type and two indicators to get the gap between them (mode, and level, are at the bottom of the screen). When you set your two split, the largest or most common group tends to be on indicator 1 – that’s just the way the data is designed.

    [gaps provider]

    As a quick context you can look for “*” again on the provider name filter to get sector averages, but I’ve also built a sector ranking to help you put your performance in context with similar providers.

    This is like a cross between the single ranking and the provider-level gaps analysis – you just need to set the two splits in the same way.

    [gaps rank]

    Sign o’ the times

    The four year aggregates are handy for most applications, but as you being to drill in you are going to start wondering about individual years – are things getting gradually worse or gradually better? Here I’ve plotted all the individual year data we get – which is, of course, different for each lifecycle stage (because of when data becomes available). This is at a provider level (filter on the top right) and I’ve included confidence intervals at 95 per cent in a lighter colour.

    [gaps provider timeseries]

    Source link

  • OfS characteristics dashboards, 2025 release

    OfS characteristics dashboards, 2025 release

    The Office for Students releases a surprisingly large amount of data for a regulator that is supported by a separate “designated data body”.

    Some of it is painfully regulatory in nature – the stuff of nightmares for registrars and planning teams that are not diligently pre-preparing versions of the OfS’ bespoke splits in real time (which feels like kind of a burden thing, but never mind).

    Other parts of it feel like they might be regulatory, but are actually descriptive. No matter how bad your provider looks on any of the characteristics, or access and participation, indicators it is not these that spark the letter or the knock on the door. But they still speak eloquently about the wider state of the sector, and of particular providers within it.

    Despite appearances, it is this descriptive data that is likely to preoccupy ministers and policymakers. It tells us about the changing size and shape of the sector, and of the improvement to life chances it does and does not offer particular groups of students.

    Outcomes characteristics

    How well do particular groups of students perform against the three standard OfS outcomes measures (continuation, completion, progression) plus another (attainment) that is very much in direct control of individual providers?

    It’s a very pertinent question given the government’s HE Reform agenda language on access and participation – and the very best way to answer it is via an OfS data release. Rather than just the traditional student characteristics – age, ethnicity, the various area based measures – we get a range of rarities: household residual income, socioeconomic status, parental higher education experience. And these come alongside greatly expanded data on ethnicity (15 categories) and detail on age.

    Even better, as well as comparing full time and part-time students, we can look at the performance of students by detailed (or indeed broad) subject areas – and at a range of levels of study.

    We learn that students from better off (residual income at £42,601 or greater) are more likely to progress to a positive outcome – but so are students of nursing. Neither of these at the level of medical students, or distance learning students – but very slightly above Jewish students. The lowest scoring group on progression is currently students taught via subcontractual arrangements – but there are also detriments for students with communication-related disabilities, students from Bangladeshi backgrounds, and students with “other” sexual orientations.

    In some cases there are likely explanatory factors and probably intersections – in others it is anyone’s guess. Again and again, we see a positive relationship between parental income or status and doing well at higher education: but it is also very likely that progression across the whole of society would show a similar pattern.

    On this chart you can select your lifecycle stage on the top left-hand side, and use the study characteristics drop down to drill into modes of study or subject – there’s also an ability to exclude sub-contractual provision outside of registered provider via the population filter. At the bottom you can set domicile (note that most characteristics are available only for UK students) and level of study (again note that some measures are limited to undergraduates). The characteristics themselves are seen as the individual blobs for each year: mouse over to find similar blobs in other years or use the student characteristic filter or sub-characteristic highlighter to find ones that you want.

    [Full screen]

    The “attainment” life cycle stage refers to the proportion of undergraduate qualifiers that achieve a first or upper second for their first degree. It’s not something we tend to see outside of the “unexplained first” lens, and it is very interesting to apply the detailed student characteristics to what amounts to awarding rates.

    It remains strikingly difficult to achieve a first or upper second while being Black. Only 60 per cent of UK full time first degree students managed this in 2023-24 which compares well to nearer 50 per cent a decade ago, but not so well with the 80 per cent of their white peers. The awarding gap remains stark and persistent.

    Deprivation appears to be having a growing impact on continuation – again for UK full time first degree students, the gap between the most (IMD Q1, 83.3 per cent) and least (Q5 93.1 per cent) deprived backgrounds has grown in recent years. And the subject filters add another level of variation – in medicine the different is tiny, but in natural sciences it is very large.

    Population characteristics

    There are numerators (number of students where data is included) and denominators (number of students with those characteristics) within the outcomes dashboard, but sometimes we just need to get a sense of the makeup of the entire sector – focusing on entrants, qualifiers, or all students.

    We learn that nearly 10 per cent of UK first degree students are taught within a subcontractual arrangement – rising to more than 36 per cent in business subjects. Counter-intuitively, the proportion of UK students studying other undergraduate courses (your level 4 and 5 provision) has fallen in previous years – 18 per cent of these students were taught via sub contractual arrangements in 2010, and just 13 per cent (of a far lower total) now. Again, the only rise is in business provision – sub-contractual teaching is offered to nearly a quarter of non-degree undergraduates from UK domiciles there.

    More than a third (33.14 per cent) of UK medicine or dentistry undergraduates are from managerial or professional backgrounds, a higher proportion than any other subject area, even though this has declined slightly in recent years.

    Two visualisations here – the first shows student characteristics as colours on the bars (use the filter at the top) and allows you to filter what you see by mode or subject area using the filters on the second row. At the bottom you can further filter by level of study, domicile, or population (all, entrants, or qualifiers). The percentages include students where the characteristic is “not applicable” or where there is “no response” – this is different from (but I think clearer than) the OfS presentation.

    [by student characteristic]

    The second chance puts subject or mode as the colours, and allows you to look at the make up of particular student characteristic groups on this basis. This is a little bit of a hack, so you need to set the sub characteristic as “total” in order to alter the main characteristic group.

    [by study characteristic]

    Entry qualification and subject

    Overall, UK undergraduate business students are less likely to continue, complete, attain a good degree, or a positive progression outcome than their peers in any other subject area – and this gap has widened over time. There is now a 1.5 percentage point progression gap between business students and creative or performing arts students: on average a creative degree is more likely to get you into a job or further study than one in business, and this has been the case since 2018.

    And there is still a link between level 3 qualifications and positive performance at every point of the higher education life cycle. The data here isn’t perfect – there’s no way to control for the well documented link between better level 3 performance (more As and A*s, less Cs, Ds and BTECs) and socioeconomic status or disadvantage. Seventy two per cent of the best performing BTEC students were awarded a first or upper second, 96 per cent of the best performing A level students.

    This is all taken from a specific plot of characteristics (entry qualification and subject) data – unfortunately for us it contains information on those two topic only, and you can’t even cross plot them.

    [Full screen]

    What OfS makes of all this

    Two key findings documents published alongside this release detail the regulatory observations. The across-the-board decline in continuation appears to have been halted, with an improvement in 2022-23 – but mature entrants are still around 9 percentage points less likely to continue.

    We get recognition of the persistent gap in performance at all levels other than progression between women (who tend to do better) and men (who tend to do worse). And of the counterintuitive continuation benefits experienced by disabled students. And we do get a note on the Black attainment gap I noted above.

    Again, this isn’t the regulatory action end of OfS’ data operations – so we are unlikely to see investigations or fines related to particularly poor performance on some of these characteristics within individual providers. Findings like these at a sector level suggest problems at a structural rather than institutional level, and as is increasingly being made plain we are not really set up to deal with structural higher education issues in England – indeed, these two reports and millions of rows of data do not even merit a press release.

    We do get data on some of these issues at provider level via the access and participation dashboards, and we’ll dive into those elsewhere.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Student protest, TNE, Tory conference

    Podcast: Student protest, TNE, Tory conference

    This week on the podcast as pro-Palestinian student protests mark the anniversary of October 7, an intervention from Keir Starmer sparks a national debate on campus safety, antisemitism, and free speech.

    Plus the Prime Minister is leading a trade delegation to India alongside sector leaders, we explore the growing opportunities in transnational education and ask whether UK universities are ready for a TNE surge – and at Conservative Party Conference, Kemi Badenoch announces plans to slash student numbers and redirect funding.

    With Jess Lister, Director (Education) at Public First, Liz Hutchinson, Chief Executive at London Higher, James Coe, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and hosted by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    OfS rebalances the free speech/harassment see-saw on antisemitism

    Conservatives have a poor quality higher education policy

    A TNE policy primer for anyone seeking new funding streams

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link