Blog

  • The battle for authority and children’s autonomy

    The battle for authority and children’s autonomy

    Parental rights have emerged as a central battleground in the culture wars, debated in school board meetings, courtrooms and legislative chambers across the country. As conflicts intensify over what children should be taught, how medical decisions should be made and who has the authority to shape their identity, parental rights have taken on heightened significance.

    This debate is more than a struggle between parents and the state—it reflects deeper societal anxieties about identity, autonomy and control. Whether it’s school policies, medical decisions or the family’s role in public life, parental rights have become a lens through which broader cultural and political struggles are waged.

    Why have parental rights become such a cultural and political flashpoint? What do these debates reveal about shifting power dynamics between families, the state and society? How has this issue become a proxy for larger battles over authority, freedom and the future of societal norms?

    Exploring the historical roots, political significance, human meaning and contemporary implications of the parental rights debate reveals how this seemingly private issue mirrors larger societal tensions between individual freedom, state oversight and evolving social values.

    The humanities can offer critical insights into the rise of parental rights as a flashpoint in the culture wars and provide values to guide this debate. Let me suggest how:

    • Historical context: The humanities reveal how parental rights have evolved, shaped by shifts in family, authority and the state’s role. In ancient times, parental authority was nearly absolute, but by the 19th and 20th centuries, the modern state began intervening in child welfare. This historical perspective explains current tensions between family autonomy and state oversight, driven by changes in social structures like the welfare state and education.
    • Philosophical inquiry into authority and autonomy: Moral and political philosophy helps address the tension between parental control, children’s autonomy and state responsibility. This field can provide frameworks for exploring when parental rights should yield to children’s rights or the state’s duty to protect. This philosophical lens allows for deeper, more sophisticated debates on issues such as identity, health care and education.
    • Cultural analysis of identity and norms: Cultural studies examine how parental rights intersect with identity and societal values. Issues like school curricula on race and gender reflect larger cultural anxieties. The humanities can help unpack these tensions, offering insight into how public perceptions of parenting, authority and the state shape political and cultural conflicts.
    • Ethical frameworks: The humanities offer ethical guidance, balancing parental rights with the best interests of the child. They emphasize pluralism, empathy and dialogue in navigating contentious issues, encouraging solutions that respect diverse perspectives while upholding justice and equality.
    • Critical thinking and civic engagement: The humanities foster critical thinking, teaching us to analyze complex issues, consider multiple viewpoints and engage in reasoned debate. This is essential for moving beyond superficial culture wars and fostering informed civic engagement in debates on education, health care and family authority.

    Several contemporary literary works explore the tension between parental rights, children’s autonomy and the role of the state, offering thought-provoking perspectives on these issues.

    Ashley Audrain’s The Push examines the fraught relationship between a mother and her daughter, raising unsettling questions about parental responsibility, nature versus nurture and the state’s role in protecting children from harmful environments. The portrayal of maternal mental health and a child’s disturbing behavior highlights issues of child protection and parental rights, questioning whether the state should intervene in dysfunctional family dynamics.

    Robin Benway’s Far From the Tree explores adoption, biological parenthood and the foster care system, raising questions about the rights of birth parents versus adoptive parents and the state’s role in determining a child’s best interests. Through the lives of three siblings, the novel examines the competing influences of biological family ties and state-structured family systems, revealing the tensions between personal autonomy and state intervention.

    Kazuo Ishiguro’s Never Let Me Go explores the rights of individuals—particularly children—within a society that controls their fate for the benefit of others. The children in this dystopian world are raised for organ donation, raising ethical questions about autonomy, state control and the violation of human rights. The story poignantly depicts state authority overriding individual autonomy, with children treated as resources rather than individuals with rights.

    Celeste Ng’s Everything I Never Told You examines parental expectations and the pressures parents place on children through the lenses of race, gender and societal norms. The tension between parental control and a child’s autonomy is central to the story, as the parents’ unfulfilled dreams for their daughter ultimately alienate her, with tragic consequences.

    In Ng’s Little Fires Everywhere, a custody battle between an affluent white couple and a Chinese immigrant mother explores themes of race, privilege and the rights of biological versus adoptive parents. The novel raises profound questions about who decides what is in a child’s best interest and the state’s role in such decisions.

    Ann Patchett’s The Dutch House revolves around the inheritance of a family estate, creating a bitter conflict that pits parental rights, sibling loyalty and children’s autonomy against one another. The novel grapples with how much control parents should have over their children’s future, especially when material wealth is at stake, revealing the tension between parental decisions and children’s right to shape their own lives.

    Jodi Picoult’s My Sister’s Keeper addresses parental authority and medical ethics as Anna Fitzgerald sues for medical emancipation after being conceived as a bone marrow donor for her sister, Kate, who has leukemia. The novel explores the conflict between parental rights in making medical decisions and the child’s right to bodily autonomy.

    Jill Santopolo’s The Light We Lost depicts a mother’s fight to retain custody of her child amid state intervention due to her lifestyle choices. The story raises critical questions about how much authority the state should have in determining a child’s best interests and when it is appropriate to intervene in private family matters.

    Lisa Wingate’s Before We Were Yours, based on a real-life adoption scandal, highlights the state’s complicity in forcibly removing children from poor families and placing them with wealthy ones. The novel underscores the tension between parental rights, children’s autonomy and state intervention, particularly when class and privilege influence the state’s decision-making process.

    These works provide valuable insights into the ongoing debates over parental authority, children’s autonomy and the state’s role in deciding what is best for the child. They serve as powerful reflections of contemporary social and legal dilemmas and offer students excellent opportunities to engage with these issues in a thoughtful and nuanced manner.

    Historically, parental rights were rooted in the idea that parents should have control over their children’s education and upbringing, shaping their values, beliefs and development. Today, however, this concept has become a flashpoint in broader debates about autonomy, social norms, children’s rights and state power, highlighting the shifting dynamics of authority and freedom in the public sphere.

    Conservatives often advocate for parental rights as a way to preserve traditional values, emphasizing that parents should have the final say in decisions about their children’s education, medical treatment and social identity. These advocates argue that parents are best suited to determine what their children learn in school, how they are treated medically and how they are recognized by society.

    On the other hand, liberals at times defend parental rights when they clash with state restrictions, such as when states prohibit gender-affirming care or impose rules on dress codes or political expression in schools. In these instances, parental autonomy is framed as a defense against government overreach into personal and familial decisions.

    Certain issues also cut across partisan lines, such as when parents oppose vaccine mandates, seek alternatives like homeschooling or advocate for charter schools and school vouchers. These instances demonstrate that the debate over parental rights transcends simple ideological boundaries, touching on deeper concerns about individual choice and state authority.

    Ultimately, the modern fight over parental rights reflects a long-standing tension between family autonomy and state intervention. As societal norms around identity, health care and education evolve, the debate over parental rights reveals the complexities of balancing the needs of the child, the authority of the parent and the responsibilities of the state. This tension has made parental rights a defining issue in today’s political and cultural landscape, influencing not only how children are raised but also how society is structured.

    The outcome of this debate will have profound implications for the future of education, health care and social policy, shaping how society balances individual freedoms with collective responsibilities. The struggle over parental rights serves as a microcosm of larger societal challenges, making it a pivotal issue in the ongoing evolution of modern governance and cultural norms.

    The debate over parental rights reveals significant shifts in the power dynamics between families, the state and society, as well as changing views on authority, autonomy and social norms.

    At its core, the issue of parental rights centers on who gets to make critical decisions regarding a child’s upbringing, education and medical care. Historically, parental authority—especially for middle-class parents—was paramount, with families largely insulated from external intervention, particularly by the state. Parents were viewed as the primary custodians of their children’s moral, educational and physical well-being. This emphasis on family privacy often limited public intervention, even in cases of abuse or neglect.

    However, the state’s role has evolved, particularly in areas like public education, health-care regulation and child protection laws. Starting as early as the 1830s, several legal doctrines increased the state’s ability to intervene within families:

    • Parens patriae is a legal principle granting the state the authority to act as the guardian of individuals who cannot care for themselves, such as minors, the mentally ill or incapacitated individuals. This doctrine, meaning “parent of the country,” allows the state to step in when a child’s welfare is at risk, such as in cases of abuse, neglect or custody disputes. While it justifies state intervention to protect children’s health, safety and education, it also raises tension between family autonomy and state authority.
    • The best interests of the child doctrine guides decision-making in child-related cases like custody disputes, adoption and child welfare. This principle prioritizes a child’s well-being, safety and development over the rights of parents or guardians. In determining a child’s best interests, courts typically consider factors such as the child’s emotional and physical well-being, the stability of their living environment, parental capacity to provide care, and the child’s own preferences, especially as they grow older. Judges, along with social workers and child welfare agencies, use these criteria to make decisions that promote the child’s overall welfare.

    These doctrines reflect broader societal changes in how we view the state’s role in family matters. The shift from a model of near-total parental control to one where the state has the authority to intervene has been driven by the need to protect children’s rights and welfare. However, it also exposes the ongoing tension between parental autonomy and the state’s duty to protect vulnerable children.

    The evolving role of the state in matters of parental rights highlights the delicate balance between protecting children’s welfare and respecting family authority. As societal norms continue to shift, so too will the boundaries between parental rights and state intervention, making this an enduring and complex issue in legal and cultural debates.

    In the late 19th and much of the 20th century, the idea that the state had both the right and duty to intervene in children’s lives to protect their best interests was often applied selectively, disproportionately targeting marginalized and impoverished families. These interventions reflected broader societal prejudices about poverty, class and race and often extended beyond cases of extreme abuse or exploitation to situations of neglect—neglect that frequently resulted from the pressures on single parents or low-income families to work.

    Families in poverty faced heightened scrutiny from the state, as poverty itself was often equated with neglect. Children from poor families were regularly removed from their homes under the assumption that their parents could not adequately meet their material needs. Wealthier families, by contrast, were largely spared such interference, while poor, urban families were subjected to visits from social workers and child protection services, who monitored their living conditions.

    These families were seen as morally deficient, prone to vice and incapable of instilling proper values in their children, according to middle-class reformers. Their child-rearing practices were often deemed inadequate, not based on actual harm but on the biases of those overseeing them.

    While state interventions were intended to protect children’s welfare, they frequently resulted in the disruption of families, severing the bonds between parents and children. For many poor families, the threat of losing their children loomed, not due to abuse or neglect but because of their financial struggles.

    The state’s duty to protect children’s best interests also intersected with racial inequalities. Indigenous and African American families were especially vulnerable to intervention, as white authorities often deemed their cultural practices and parenting styles as inferior or harmful. Black children were disproportionately placed in foster care or removed from their families, reinforcing racial inequality. Indigenous children were forcibly taken from their families, placed in boarding schools or adopted by white families under the pretext of protecting their welfare, with the goal of erasing Indigenous identities through assimilation.

    While many of these interventions were motivated by genuine concern for child welfare, they were also deeply influenced by classist, racist and moralistic attitudes that viewed poverty and cultural differences as threats to children’s well-being. As a result, state intervention often reinforced social inequalities by punishing families for their economic status rather than addressing the root causes of poverty.

    This historical context illuminates the ongoing tensions between the state, family autonomy and social inequality in child welfare today. The legacy of these selective interventions continues to shape modern debates about the role of the state in protecting children and the impact on marginalized communities.

    The contemporary battle over parental rights stems from the increasing involvement of state institutions in areas once considered the sole domain of the family, such as school curricula, health-care decisions (especially around vaccines and gender-affirming care), and the balance between children’s autonomy and parental authority. The state often frames these interventions as efforts to promote the public good, protect children’s welfare or enforce social standards, but they can clash with individual parental preferences.

    This conflict has turned parental rights into a proxy for larger societal debates about authority and freedom. Conservatives, in particular, push back against what they see as government overreach, advocating for greater parental control over education—especially regarding how schools address race, gender and sexuality. They argue that such state involvement undermines the family’s role in shaping children’s values. On the other hand, progressives contend that the state has a duty to protect children from harmful ideologies or practices, such as religiously motivated science denial, intolerance of gender diversity or a lack of comprehensive sex education.

    Parental rights also tap into broader questions of individual autonomy, especially concerning children’s identity and health care. Debates over whether parents should be informed if a child requests a different gender identity at school or whether they should have the final say in health-care decisions for transgender children highlight tensions between children’s emerging autonomy and parental control. In these cases, parental rights are weighed against the belief that children have independent rights, particularly concerning their identity and well-being.

    This debate reflects shifting societal norms around family structures and authority. As traditional family models evolve to include single-parent households, same-sex parents and cohabiting families, the definition of parental rights is being reconsidered. These shifts complicate long-held assumptions about family authority and the state’s role in regulating or supporting diverse family forms.

    The politicization of parental rights reveals broader anxieties about control and autonomy in a rapidly changing society. For conservatives, defending parental rights often serves as a defense of traditional values, viewing the family as a safeguard against progressive cultural changes. For liberals, advocating for state intervention or children’s autonomy is framed as advancing social justice and protecting vulnerable populations from harmful practices.

    In a diverse, politically divided society, addressing the issue of parental rights requires carefully balancing family autonomy, children’s well-being and societal values like equality and justice. Because parental rights touch on deeply personal matters such as education, health care and identity, navigating this debate demands a thoughtful approach that accounts for differing worldviews, cultural values and ethical considerations.

    To best address parental rights, society should adhere to certain moral and ethical principles:

    • The best interests of the child: The child’s well-being must be at the heart of any discussion on parental rights. While parents play a crucial role, their authority is not absolute. Decisions around education, health care and identity should prioritize the child’s physical, emotional and psychological welfare. This principle, widely accepted in legal and ethical frameworks, underscores the understanding that children deserve protection, care and the opportunity to thrive. In health care, for example, choices such as vaccinations or gender-affirming care should center on the child’s long-term health, rather than parental ideologies.
    • Respect for parental autonomy: Parents are central in shaping their children’s values and upbringing, and their autonomy should be respected within reasonable limits. Families vary in their cultural, religious and philosophical beliefs, and a pluralistic society must allow room for those differences. However, this respect must be tempered by recognizing that children are not the property of their parents—they are individuals with rights. As children grow, their autonomy, especially regarding identity and health care, must be increasingly respected.
    • Balance between individual rights and state responsibilities: The tension between family authority and the state’s role in protecting children is a key challenge. The state has a legitimate interest in safeguarding children from harm and ensuring access to quality education and health care. State intervention is justified when parental decisions put a child’s well-being at risk. However, in areas like educational curricula, the state’s role is more nuanced, needing to balance parental preferences with society’s responsibility to provide a broad-based education that fosters critical thinking and prepares children for a diverse world.
    • Protection of children’s emerging autonomy: As children mature, their ability to make decisions grows. The debate over parental rights often involves how much autonomy children should be granted, particularly in personal matters such as gender identity or health care. Ethical considerations demand that as children approach adolescence, their voices and autonomy be increasingly respected, especially in cases where parental rejection could cause harm.
    • Commitment to pluralism and mutual respect: A diverse society must allow families to raise their children according to their cultural and moral values, as long as these do not violate basic human rights or endanger the child. In a politically divided environment, dialogue and mutual respect are essential. The goal should not be to impose a uniform set of values but to find common ground in safeguarding children’s well-being while respecting diversity in parenting styles.
    • Ensuring equality and justice: The debate over parental rights must be informed by a commitment to equality and justice. Marginalized families often face greater scrutiny and state intervention than more privileged families. Policies must ensure that all families are treated fairly and that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately targeted or penalized. This is crucial in areas like education, where equal access to resources must be guaranteed regardless of a family’s background.
    • Transparent decision-making and public accountability: When the state intervenes in parental matters, transparency and accountability are critical. Parents and communities need clear information about why decisions are being made, how rights are being balanced and how they can engage with or challenge these processes. This is especially important in contentious areas like child protection services and educational policies.

    Grounding the debate in these principles—pluralism, justice and mutual respect—will allow society to navigate these complex tensions and create a framework for parental rights that promotes both family autonomy and children’s well-being in an increasingly diverse world.

    The debate over parental rights is not just about the authority of parents—it’s a broader struggle over the future of societal norms, values, children’s autonomy and the balance of power between families and the state. This issue cuts to the core of how we understand freedom, responsibility and the rights of children, revealing deep cultural and political divides.

    The stakes are high. On one side is the preservation of parental authority and family autonomy, rooted in the belief that parents should have primary control over their children’s upbringing, education and health care. On the other side is the state’s responsibility to protect and empower children, ensuring their rights and well-being, especially when parental choices may conflict with broader social values or the child’s best interests.

    In a pluralistic society, navigating these conflicts requires a careful balancing act. Respecting family autonomy is crucial, but so are children’s rights and the state’s role in upholding justice, equality and the well-being of all citizens, particularly the most vulnerable. How we resolve this debate will shape not only the future of parental rights but also the evolving relationship between family authority, child autonomy and the state’s role in safeguarding the interests of its youngest members. This conversation will ultimately define how we balance personal freedoms with collective responsibilities in the fabric of modern society.

    Steven Mintz is professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and the author, most recently, of The Learning-Centered University: Making College a More Developmental, Transformational and Equitable Experience.

    Source link

  • Making better decisions on student financial support

    Making better decisions on student financial support

    By Peter Gray, Chief Executive and Chair of the JS Group.

    As the higher education sector starts to plan its next budget cycle and many may need to make savings, there is a concern about the impact of any cuts on students and how this could negatively affect their university experience and performance.

    Universities are bound to look at a range of options to save money, especially given the stormy operating context. But one less-often highlighted aspect of university finances is the cost (and benefit) of the additional financial support universities devote to many of their students. Through cash, vouchers and other means, many universities provide financial help to support with the costs of living and learning.

    Using Universities UK’s annual sector figures as one indicator, roughly 5% of universities’ overall expenditure has gone towards financial support and outreach, equivalent to around £2.5 billion. Although some of this money will inevitably not go directly to students themselves, this is still a significant amount of spending.

    There are, naturally, competing tensions when it comes to considering any changes to targeted financial support. With significant financial pressures on students, exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis, there is always a very justifiable case for more money. However, with the significant financial pressures universities are facing, there is an equally justifiable case to control costs to ensure financial sustainability. Every university has to manage this tension and trade-offs are inevitable when understanding just how much financial support to give and to whom.

    In many respects, the answers to those questions are partially governed by Access & Participation Plans, with the clear intention that these financial interventions really change student outcomes. However, properly measuring those outcomes is incredibly difficult without a much deeper understanding of student ‘need’ – and understanding these needs comes from being able to identify student spending behaviour (and often doing this in real-time).

    It always amazes me that some APPs will state that financial support ‘has had a positive impact on retention’ and some quite the opposite and I think part of this is a result of positioning financial support from the university end of the telescope rather than the student end.

    Understanding real and actual ‘need’ helps to change this. Knowing perhaps that certain groups (for example Asylum Seekers or Gypsy, Roma, Traveller, Showman and Boater students) across the sector will have similar needs would be helpful and data really help here. Having, using, and sharing data will allow us to draw a bigger picture and better signpost to where interventions are most effectively deployed so those particular groups of students who need support are achieving the right outcomes.

    Technology is at hand to help: Open Banking (for example) is an incredible tool that not only can transform how financial support can be delivered but also helps to build an understanding of student behaviour.

    Lifting the bonnet and understanding behaviour poses additional questions, such as: When is the right time to give that support? And what form should that support take?

    I am a big proponent of providing financial support as soon as a student starts. When I talk to universities, however, it is clear that the data needed to identify particular groups of students are not readily available at the point of entry and students’ needs are not met. Giving a student financial support in December, when they needed it in September, is not delivering at the point of student need, it is delivering at the point where the university can identify the student. I think there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the large drop off in students between September and December is, in part, because of this.

    Some universities in the sector give a small amount of support to all students at the start of the year, knowing that by doing so they will ensure that they can meet the immediate needs of some students. But clearly, some money must also go to those who do not necessarily need it.

    However, and this is where the maths comes in, if the impact of that investment keeps more students in need at university, then I would argue that investment is worth the return. And the maths is simple: it really doesn’t take many additional students to stay to have a profoundly positive impact on university finances. Thus it is certainly worthy of consideration.

    To me, this is about using financial support to drive the ultimate goal of improving student outcomes, especially the retention of students between September and December, which is when the first return is made, where the largest withdrawal is seen and where the least amount of financial support is given.

    As to the nature or format of support: of course, in most cases, it is easier to provide cash. However, again, this is about your investment in your student, and, for example, if you have students on a course with higher material and resource costs, or students who are commuting, then there is an argument to consider more in-kind support and using data to support that decision.

    Again, I am a proponent of not just saying ‘one size fits all’. Understanding student need is complex, but solutions are out there. It is important to work together to identify patterns of real student need and understand the benefits of doing so.

    My knowledge draws on JS Group’s data, based on the direct use of £40 million of specialist student financial support to more than 160,000 students across 30 UK universities in the last full academic cycle.

    I have also looked at the student views on such funding and there is an emerging picture that connects student financial support with continuation, participation and progress. A summary of student feedback is here: https://jsgroup.co.uk/news-and-views/news/student-feedback-report-january-2025/

    The real positive of this is that everyone wants the same goal: for fewer students to withdraw from their courses and for those students to thrive at university and be successful. We need to widen the debate on how financial support is delivered, when, and in what format to draw together a better collective understanding of student need and behaviour to achieve that goal.

    Source link

  • A dismal report card in math and reading

    A dismal report card in math and reading

    The kids are not bouncing back. 

    The results of a major national test released Wednesday showed that in 2024, reading and math skills of fourth and eighth grade students were still significantly below those of students in 2019, the last administration of the test before the pandemic. In reading, students slid below the devastatingly low achievement levels of 2022, which many educators had hoped would be a nadir. 

    The test, the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), is often called the nation’s report card. Administered by the federal government, it tracks student performance in fourth and eighth grades and serves as a national yardstick of achievement. Scores for the nation’s lowest-performing students were worse in both reading and math than those of students two years ago. The only bright spot was progress by higher-achieving children in math. 

    The NAEP report offers no explanation for why students are faltering, and the results were especially disappointing after the federal government gave schools $190 billion to aid in pandemic recovery. 

    “These 2024 results clearly show that students are not where they need to be or where we want them to be,” said Peggy Carr, the commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, in a briefing with journalists. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    More than 450,000 fourth and eighth graders, selected to be representative of the U.S. population, took the biennial reading and math tests between January and March of 2024. 

    Depressed student achievement was pervasive across the country, regardless of state policies or instructional mandates. Student performance in every state remained below what it was in 2019 on at least one of the four reading or math tests. In addition to state and national results, the NAEP report also lists the academic performance for 26 large cities that volunteer for extra testing.

    An ever-widening gap

    The results also highlighted the sharp divergence between higher- and lower- achieving students. The modest progress in fourth grade math was entirely driven by high-achieving students. And the deterioration in both fourth and eighth grade reading was driven by declines among low-achieving students. 

    “Certainly the most striking thing in the results is the increase in inequality,” said Martin West, a professor of education at Harvard University and vice chair of the National Assessment Governing Board, which oversees the NAEP test. “That’s a big deal. It’s something that we hadn’t paid a lot of attention to traditionally.”

    The starkest example of growing inequality is in eighth grade math, where the achievement gap grew to the largest in the history of the test.

    Source: NAEP 2024

    The chart above shows that the math scores of all eighth graders fell between 2019 and 2022. Afterward, high-achieving students in the top 10 percent and 25 percent of the nation (labeled as the 90th and 75th percentiles above) began to improve, recovering about a quarter of the setbacks for high achievers during the pandemic. That’s still far behind high-performing eighth graders in 2019, but at least it’s a positive trend. 

    The more disturbing result is the continuing deterioration of scores by low-performing students in the bottom 10 percent and 25 percent. The huge pandemic learning losses for students in the bottom 10 percent grew 70 percent larger between 2022 and 2024. Learning losses for students in the bottom 25 percent grew 25 percent larger.

    “The rich get richer and the poor are getting shafted,” said Scott Marion, who serves on the NAEP’s governing board and is the executive director of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, a nonprofit consultancy. “It’s almost criminal.”

    More than two-thirds of students in the bottom 25 percent are economically disadvantaged. A quarter of these low performers are white and another quarter are Black. More than 40 percent are Hispanic. A third of these students have a disability and a quarter are classified as English learners. 

    By contrast, fewer than a quarter of the students in the top 25 percent are economically disadvantaged. They are disproportionately white (61 percent) and Asian American (14 percent). Only 5 percent are Black and 15 percent are Hispanic. Three percent or fewer of students at the top have a disability or are classified as English learners.  

    Related: Six puzzling questions from the disastrous [2022] NAEP results

    Although average math scores among all eighth grade students were unchanged between 2022 and 2024, that average masks the improvements at the top and the deterioration at the bottom. They offset each other. 

    The NAEP test does not track individual students. The eighth graders who took the exam in 2024 were a different group of students than the eighth graders who took the exam in 2022 and who are now older. Individual students have certainly learned new skills since 2019. When NAEP scores drop, it’s not that students have regressed and cannot do things they used to be able to do. It means that they’re learning less each year. Kids today aren’t able to read or solve math problems as well as kids their same age in the past.

    Students who were in eighth grade in early 2024, when this exam was administered, were in fourth grade when the pandemic first shuttered schools in March 2020. Their fifth grade year, when students should have learned how to add fractions and round decimals, was profoundly disrupted. School days began returning to normal during their sixth and seventh grade years. 

    Harvard’s West explained that it was incorrect to assume that children could bounce back academically. That would require students to learn more in a year than they historically have, even during the best of times.

    “There’s nothing in the science of learning and development that would lead us to expect students to learn at a faster rate after they’ve experienced disruption and setbacks,” West said. “Absent a massive effort society-wide to address the challenge, and I just haven’t seen an effort on the scale that I think would be needed, we shouldn’t expect more positive results.”

    Learning loss is like a retirement savings shortfall

    Learning isn’t like physical exercise, West said. When our conditioning deteriorates after an injury, the first workouts might be a grind but we can get back to our pre-injury fitness level relatively quickly. 

    “The better metaphor is saving for retirement,” said West. “If you miss a deposit into your account because of a short-term emergency, you have to find a way to make up that shortfall, and you have to make it up with interest.”

    What we may be seeing now are the enduring consequences of gaps in basic skills. As the gaps accumulate, it becomes harder and harder for students to keep up with grade-level content. 

    Another factor weighing down student achievement is rampant absenteeism. In survey questions that accompany the test, students reported attending school slightly more often than they had in 2022, but still far below their 2019 attendance rates. Eleven percent of eighth graders said that they had missed five or more school days in the past month, down from 16 percent in 2022, but still far more than the 7 percent of students who missed that much school in 2019. 

    “We also see that lower-performing readers aren’t coming to school,” said NCES Commissioner Carr. “There’s a strong relationship between absenteeism and performance in these data that we’re looking at today.”

    Eighth graders by the number of days they said they were absent from school in the previous month 

    Source: NAEP 2024

    Fourth grade math results were more hopeful. Top-performing children fully recovered back to 2019 achievement levels and can do math about as well as their previous peers. However, lower-performing children in the bottom 10 percent and 25 percent did not rebound at all. Their scores were unchanged between 2022 and 2024. These students were in kindergarten when the pandemic first hit in 2020 and missed basic instruction in counting and arithmetic.

    Reading scores showed a similar divergence between high- and low- achievers.

    Source: NAEP 2024

    This chart above shows that the highest-performing eighth graders failed to catch up to what high-achieving eighth graders used to be able to do on reading comprehension tests. But it’s not a giant difference. What’s startling is the steep decline in reading scores for low-achieving students. The pandemic drops have now doubled in size. Reading comprehension is much, much worse for many middle schoolers. 

    It’s difficult to say how much of this deterioration is pandemic related. Reading comprehension scores for middle schoolers had been declining for a decade since 2013. Separate surveys show that students are reading less for pleasure, and many educators speculate that cellphone use has replaced reading time.

    Related: Why reading comprehension is deteriorating

    The biggest surprise was fourth grade reading. Over the past decade, a majority of states have passed new “science of reading” laws or implemented policies that emphasize phonics in classrooms. There have been reports of improved reading performance in Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee and elsewhere. But scores for most fourth graders, from the highest to the lowest achievers, have deteriorated since 2022. 

    One possibility, said Harvard’s West, is that it’s “premature” to see the benefits of improved instruction, which could take years.  Another possibility, according to assessment expert Marion, is that being able to read words is important, but it’s not enough to do well on the NAEP, which is a test of comprehension. More elementary school students may be better at decoding words, but they have to make sense of those words to do well on the NAEP. 

    Carr cited the example of Louisiana as proof that it is possible to turn things around. The state exceeded its 2019 achievement levels in fourth grade reading. “They did focus heavily on the science of reading but they didn’t start yesterday,” said Carr. “I wouldn’t say that hope is lost.”

    More students fall below the lowest “basic” level 

    The results show that many more children lack even the most basic skills. In math, 24 percent of fourth graders and 39 percent of eighth graders cannot reach the lowest of three achievement levels, called “basic.” (The others are “proficient” and “advanced.”) These are fourth graders who cannot locate whole numbers on a number line or eighth graders who cannot understand scientific notation. 

    The share of students reading below basic was the highest it’s ever been for eighth graders, and the highest in 20 years for fourth graders. Forty percent of fourth graders cannot put events from a story into sequential order, and one third of eighth graders cannot determine the meaning of a word in the context of a reading passage. 

    “To me, this is the most pressing challenge facing American education,” said West.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595 or barshay@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about the 2024 NAEP test was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for  Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Five-Minute Starts: Fifteen Ideas to Ignite Your Class – Faculty Focus

    Five-Minute Starts: Fifteen Ideas to Ignite Your Class – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: Professor Genevieve Bell on AI – Episode 151

    HEDx Podcast: Professor Genevieve Bell on AI – Episode 151

    Professor Genevieve Bell is vice-chancellor and president of the Australian National University.

    In this episode, she reflects on her journey as a scientist, engineer and humanist in the United States and Australia. The professor shares lessons learned in Silicon Valley and leading Australia’s national university.

    Professor Bell also identifies short term challenges and the long term trajectory of higher education, specifically in relation to technology and AI.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email rebecca.cox@news.com.au

    Source link

  • Monash underpays $7.6m as ‘expert council’ on uni governance members announced

    Monash underpays $7.6m as ‘expert council’ on uni governance members announced

    CEDA CEO Melinda Cilento interviewing Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in August last year. Picture: Irene Dowdy



    By: Erin Morley and NCA Newswire

    in News, Top Stories, Workforce


    January 29, 2025

    The members who will sit on the council overseeing university governance and advising government on “universities being good employers” have been announced.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Ministerial Direction 111: What you need to know

    Ministerial Direction 111: What you need to know

    Jason Clare implemented the direction after his Bill was downvoted by the Coalition and Greens. Picture: Brett Hartwig



    By: Erin Morley

    in International Education, Top Stories


    January 29, 2025

    Ministerial Direction 111 (MD111) is the new way of processing international student visa applications and has replaced Ministerial Direction 107. It came into effect on December 19, 2024.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • HESA Spring 2025: staff | Wonkhe

    HESA Spring 2025: staff | Wonkhe

    HESA Spring 2025 kicks off in earnest with a full release of the staff data for 2023-24.

    Unlike in previous years, there’s been no early release of the headlines – the statistics release (which provides an overview at sector level) and the full data release (which offers detail at provider level) have both turned up on the same day.

    Staff data has, in previous years, generally been less volatile than student data. Whereas recruitment can and does lurch alarmingly around based on strategic priorities, government vacillation about student visas, and the vagaries of the student market – staff employment tends to be something with a merciful degree of permanency. Even if it isn’t the same staff working under the same terms and conditions, it does tend to need broadly the same number of people.

    With the increasing financial pressures felt by universities you would expect 2023-24 to be a deviation from this norm.

    Starters and leavers

    We’ll start by looking at the numbers of starters and leavers from each provider. This chart shows the change in academic staff numbers year on year between your chosen year and the year before (as the thick bars) and the total number of full and part time staff in the year of your choice (as the thin bars). Over on the other side of the visualisation under the controls you can see total staff numbers, broken down into full and part time as a time series – mouse over a provider on the main chart to change the provider focus here. You can filter by year, and (for the main chart) mode of employment.

    [Full screen]

    What’s apparent is that across quite a lot of the sector academic staff numbers didn’t change that much. There were some outliers at both end – Coventry University had 585 less academic staff in 2023-24 than 2022-23, while Cardiff University has 565 more (yes, the same Cardiff University that confirmed plans for 400 full time redundancies yesterday).

    If you’ve been following sector news this may surprise you – last year saw many providers announce voluntary or compulsory redundancies. The Queen Mary University of London UCU branch has been tracking these announcements over time.

    Schemes like this take time for a university to run – there is a mandatory consultation period, followed (hopefully) by some finessing of the scheme and then negotiations with individual staff members. It is not a way to make a quick, in year, saving. Oftentimes the original announcement is of a far higher number of staff redundancies than actually end up happening.

    Subject level

    If you work in a university or other higher education provider, you’ll know that stuff like this very often happens across particular departments and faculties rather than the whole university. I can’t offer you faculty level from public data, but there is data available by cost centre.

    [Full screen]

    Cost centres are usually used in financial data, and do not cleanly map to visible structures within universities. Here you can select a provider and choose between cost centre groups and cost centres as two levels of detail. I’ve added an option to select contract type – in the main I suggest you leave this as academic (excluding atypical).

    Zero hours

    I’m sure I say this every year, but not all providers return data for non-academic staff (in England they are not required to), and an “atypical” contract usually refers to a very short period of work (a single guest lecture or suchlike). There is a pervasive myth that these are “zero hours” contracts – even though HESA publishes data on these separately:

    Here’s a chart showing the terms of employment and pay arrangements related to zero hours contracts for 2023-24. You can see the majority of these are academic in nature, with a roughly even split between fixed term and open-ended terms. The majority (around 4,075) are paid by the hour.

    [Full screen]

    This represents a small year-on-year growth in the use of this kind of contract – in 2022-23, there were 3,915 academic staff on a zero hour contract

    Subject, age, and pay

    I often wonder about the conditions of academic staff across subject areas, and how this pertains to the age of the academics involved and how much they are paid. This visualisation allows use to view age against salary (relating to groups of spine points on the standard New JNCHES pay scale used in most larger providers).

    [Full screen]

    As you’d expect, overall there is a positive correlation between age and salary – if you are an older academic you are likely to be paid more. This is particularly pronounced in design, creative, and performing arts: where staff are likely to be older and better paid on average. Compare the physical sciences, where more staff are younger and spine points are lower.

    This chart allows you to select a cost centre (either a group or individual cost centre), and filter by academic employment function (teaching, research, both…) and contract level (senior academics and professors, others…). There’s a range of years on offer as well.

    Ethnicity

    The main news stories that tend to come out of this release relate to academic staff characteristics, and specifically the low number of Black professors. There is some positive movement on that front this year, though the sector at that level is in no way representative of staff as a whole, the student body, or wider society.

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • U of Idaho President Seems To Temper His Cheerleading for U of Phoenix Purchase (David Halperin)

    U of Idaho President Seems To Temper His Cheerleading for U of Phoenix Purchase (David Halperin)

    In testimony Monday before a joint committee of the Idaho
    legislature, University of Idaho president C. Scott Green seemed a
    little less committed to the deal he has relentlessly touted for more
    than a year and a half — for his school to buy, for $685 million, the
    huge for-profit University of Phoenix from private equity giant Apollo
    Global Management.

    According to Idaho Education News, Green said the next move was Apollo’s. “We’re waiting to hear what they would like to do,” Green said.

    Green’s plan has been thwarted again and again, with negative votes in the Idaho legislature, a successful court challenge by the state’s attorney general, criticism from the state treasurer, and sharp scrutiny from news outlets in the state.

    The Green school deal has assumed that operation of Phoenix would
    bring millions in new revenue to fund his university. But it ignores
    that running a for-profit college, one that has repeatedly gotten in trouble with law enforcement,
    would be a tremendous challenge: If Green pushed to end Phoenix’s
    predatory practices and improve student outcomes, it probably would
    start losing money, because predatory practices, coupled with high
    prices and low spending on education, have made up the school’s secret
    sauce. But if Green allowed the deceptive conduct to persist, the school
    could face more legal peril. And, whatever route he took, Green’s
    school might end up assuming massive liability for student loan debt the
    government has cancelled based on past abuses at Phoenix.

    At its peak, Phoenix was the largest for-profit college in the
    country and got upwards of $2 billion a year in federal student aid,
    while boasting dismal graduation rates and high levels of loan defaults.

    Last summer, the University of Idaho and Apollo agreed to a one-year extension of their purchase deal. That arrangement expires June 10. Meanwhile Apollo has the right to talk with other potential buyers.

    Apollo already has sent Idaho $5 million to cover the school’s
    high-priced legal and consulting fees in connection with the deal, and
    it has agreed to pay up to $20 million to Idaho if the deal falls
    through.

    Green told the legislature that $20 million would cover his school’s
    costs with perhaps $2 to $3 to spare. “I think we’re well-protected,” he
    boasted.

    Kind of. Green, whose background is in corporate management and
    finance, could potentially walk away without losing money for the
    school. But he has tied up state university, executive, legislative, and
    judicial resources for many hundreds of hours jousting over an effort
    that would keep alive a predatory school that has buried thousands of
    graduates in debt they can’t afford to repay, while wasting billions in
    federal taxpayer dollars, when that time could have been focused on the
    real challenges of state higher education.

    If Idaho can’t work out a deal, Apollo may run out of options to dump
    the school, and this taxpayer-funded multi-billion dollar disgrace may
    at last be put down.

    [Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.] 

    Source link

  • Data futures, reviewed | Wonkhe

    Data futures, reviewed | Wonkhe

    As a sector, we should really have a handle on how many students we have and what they are like.

    Data Futures – the multi-year programme that was designed to modernise the collection of student data – has become, among higher education data professionals, a byword for delays, stress, and mixed messages.

    It was designed to deliver in year data (so 2024-25 data arriving within the 2024-25 academic year) three times a year, drive efficiency in data collection (by allowing for process streamlining and automation), and remove “data duplication” (becoming a single collection that could be used for multiple purposes by statutory customers and others). To date it has achieved none of these benefits, and has instead (for 2022-23 data) driven one of the sectors’ most fundamental pieces of data infrastructure into such chaos that all forward uses of data require heavy caveats.

    The problem with the future

    In short – after seven years of work (at the point the review was first mooted), and substantial investment, we are left with more problems than we started with. Most commentary has focused on four key difficulties:

    • The development of the data collection platform, starting with Civica in 2016 and later taken over by Jisc, has been fraught with difficulties, frequently delayed, and experienced numerous changes in scope
    • The documentation and user experience of the data collection platform has been lacking. Rapid changes have not resulted in updates for those who use the platform within providers, or those who support those providers (the HESA Liaison team). The error handling and automated quality rules have caused particular issues – indeed the current iteration of the platform still struggles with fields that require responses involving decimal fractions.
    • The behavior of some statutory customers – in frequently modifying requirements, changing deadlines, and putting unhelpful regulatory pressure on providers, has not helped matters.
    • The preparedness of the sector has been inconsistent between providers and between software vendors. This level of preparedness has not been fully understood – in part because of a nervousness among providers around regulatory consequences for late submissions.

    These four interlinked strands have been exacerbated by an underlying fifth issue:

    • The quality of programme management, programme delivery, and programme documentation has not been of the standards required for a major infrastructure project. Parts of this have been due to problems in staffing, and problems in programme governance – but there are also reasonable questions to be asked about the underlying programme management process.

    Decisions to be made

    An independent review was originally announced in November 2023, overlapping a parallel internal Jisc investigation. The results we have may not be timely – the review didn’t even appear to start until early 2024 – but even the final report merely represents a starting point for some of the fundamental discussions that need to happen about sector data.

    I say a “starting point” because many of the issues raised by the review concern decisions about the projected benefits of doing data futures. As none of the original benefits of the programme have been realised in any meaningful way, the future of the programme (if it has one) needs to be focused on what people actually want to see happen.

    The headline is in-year data collection. To the external observer, it is embarrassing that while other parts of the education sector can return data on a near-real time basis – universities update the records they hold on students on a regular basis so it should not be impossible to update external data too. It should not come as a surprise that when the review poses the question:

    As a priority, following completion of the 2023-24 data collection, the Statutory Customers (with the help of Jisc) should revisit the initial statement of benefits… in order to ascertain whether a move to in-year data collection is a critical dependent in order to deliver on the benefits of the data futures programme.

    This isn’t just an opportunity for regulators to consider their shopping list – a decision to continue needs to be swiftly followed by a cost-benefit analysis, reassessing the value of in-year collection and determining whether or when to pursue in-year collection. And the decision is that there will, one day, be in-year student data. In a joint statement the four statutory customers said:

    After careful consideration, we intend to take forward the collection of in-year student data

    highlighting the need for data to contribute to “robust and timely regulation”, and reminding institutions that they will need “adequate systems in place to record and submit student data on time”.

    The bit that interests me here is the implications for programme management.

    Managing successful programmes

    If you look at the government’s recent record in delivering large and complex programmes you may be surprised to learn of the existence of a Government Functional Standard covering portfolio, programme, and project management. What’s a programme? Well:

    A programme is a unique, temporary, flexible organisation created to co-ordinate, direct and oversee the implementation of a set of projects and other related work components to deliver outcomes and benefits related to a set of strategic objectives

    Language like this, and the concepts underpinning it come from what remains the gold standard programme management methodology, Managing Successful Programmes (MSP). If you are more familiar with the world of project management (project: “a unique temporary management environment, undertaken in stages, created for the purpose of delivering one or more business products or outcomes”) it bears a familial resemblance to PRINCE2.

    If you do manage projects for a living, you might be wondering where I have been for the last decade or so. The cool kids these days are into a suite of methodologies that come under the general description of “agile” – PRINCE2 these days is seen primarily as a cautionary tale: a “waterfall” (top down, documentation centered, deadline focused) management practice rather than an “iterative” (emergent, development centered, short term) one.

    Each approach has strengths and weaknesses. Waterfall methods are great if you want to develop something that meets a clearly defined need against clear milestones and a well understood specification. Agile methods are a nice way to avoid writing reports and updating documentation.

    Data futures as a case study

    In the real world, the distinction is less clear cut. Most large programmes in the public sector use elements of waterfall methods (regular project reports, milestones, risk and benefits management, senior responsible owners, formal governance) as a scaffold in which sit agile elements at a more junior level (short development cycle, regular “releases” of “product” prioritised above documentation). While this can be done well it is very easy for the two ideologically separate approaches to drift apart – and it doesn’t take much to read this into what the independent review of data futures reveals.

    Recommendation B1 calls, essentially, for clarity:

    • Clarity of roles and responsibilities
    • Clarity of purpose for the programme
    • Clarity on the timetable, and on how and when the scope of the programme can be changed

    This is amplified by recommendation C1, which looks for specific clarifications around “benefits realisation” – which itself underpins the central recommendation relating to in-year data.

    In classic programme management (like MSP) the business case will include a map of programme benefits: that is, all of the good things that will come about as a result of the hard work of the programme. Like the business case’s risk register (a list of all the bad things that might happen and what can be done if they did) it is supposed to be regularly updated and signed off by the Programme Board – which is made up of the most senior staff responsible for the work of the programme (the Senior Responsible Owners) in the lingo.

    The statement of benefits languished for some time without a full update (there was an incomplete attempt in February 2023, and a promise to make another one after the completed 2022-23 collection – we are not told whether the second had happened). In proper, grown-up, programme management this is supposed to be done in a systematic way: every programme board meeting you review the benefits and the risk register. It’s dull (most of the time!) but it is important. The board needs an eye on whether the programme still offers value overall (based on an analysis of projected benefits). And if the scope needed to change, the board would have final say on that.

    The issue with Data Futures was clarity over whether this level of governance actually had the power to do these things, and – if not – who was actually doing them. The Office for Students latterly put together quite a complex and unwieldy governance structure, with a quarterly review board having oversight of the main programme board. This QRB was made up of very senior staff at the statutory customers (OfS, HEFCW, SFC, DoE(NI)), Jisc, and HESA (plus one Margaret Monckton – now chair of this independent review! – as an external voice).

    The QRB oversaw the work of the programme board – meaning that decisions made by the senior staff nominally responsible for the direction of the programme were often second guessed by their direct line managers. The programme board was supposed to have its own assurance function and an independent observer – it did not (despite the budget being there for it).

    Stop and go

    Another role of the board is to make what are more generally called “stop-go” decisions, and are here described as “approval to proceed”. This is an important way of making sure the programme is still on track – you’d set (in advance) the criteria that needed to be fulfilled in terms of delivery (was the platform ready, had the testing been done) before you moved on to the next work package. Below this, incremental approvals are made by line managers or senior staff as required, but reported upwards to the board.

    What seems to have happened a lot in the Data Futures programme is what’s called conditional approvals – where some of these conditions were waived based on assurances that the remaining required work was completed. This is fine as it goes (not everything lines up all the time) but as the report notes:

    While the conditions of the approvals were tracked in subsequent increment approval documents, they were not given a deadline, assignee or accountable owner for the conditions. Furthermore, there were cases where conditions were not met by the time of the subsequent approval

    Why would you do that? Well, you’d be tempted if you had another board above you – comprising very senior staff and key statutory customers – concerned about the very public problems with Data Futures and looking for progress. The Quarterly Review Board (QRB) as it turned out, only actually ended up making five decisions (and in three of these cases it just punted the issue back down to the programme board – the other two, for completists, were to delay plans for in-year collection).

    What it was meant to be doing was “providing assurance on progress”, “acting as an escalation point” and “approving external assurance activities”. As we’ve already seen, it didn’t really bother with external assurance. And on the other points the review is damning:

    From the minutes provided, the extent to which the members of the QRG actively challenged the programme’s progress and performance in the forum appears to be limited. There was not a clear delegation of responsibilities between the QRG, Programme Board and other stakeholders. In practice, there was a lack of clarity also on the role of the Data Futures governance structure and the role of the Statutory Customers separately to the Data Futures governance structure; some decisions around the data specification were taken outside of the governance structure.

    Little wonder that the section concludes:

    Overall, the Programme Board and QRG were unable to gain an independent, unbiased view on the progress and success of the project. If independent project assurance had been in place throughout the Data Futures project, this would have supported members of the Programme Board in oversight of progress and issues may have been raised and resolved sooner

    Resourcing issues

    Jisc, as developer, took on responsibility for technical delivery in late 2019. Incredibly, Jisc was not provided with funding to do this work until March 2020.

    As luck would have it, March 2020 saw the onset of a series of lockdowns and a huge upswing in demand for the kind of technical and data skills needed to deliver a programme like data futures. Jisc struggled to fill key posts, most notably running for a substantive period of time without a testing lead in post.

    If you think back to the 2022-23 collection, the accepted explanation around the sector for what – at heart – had gone wrong was a failure to test “edge cases”. Students, it turns out, are complex and unpredictable things – with combinations of characteristics and registrations that you might not expect to find. A properly managed programme of testing would have focused on these edge cases – there would have been less issues faced when the collection went live.

    Underresourcing and understaffing are problems in their own right, but these were exacerbated by rapidly changing data model requirements, largely coming from statutory customers.

    To quote the detail from from the report:

    The expected model for data collection under the Data Futures Programme has changed repeatedly and extensively, with ongoing changes over several years on the detail of the data model as well as the nature of collection and the planned number of in-year collections. Prior to 2020, these changes were driven by challenges with the initial implementation. The initial data model developed was changed substantially due to technical challenges after a number of institutions had expended significant time and resource working to develop and implement it. Since 2020, these changes were made to reflect evolving requirements of the return from Statutory Customers, ongoing enhancements to the data model and data specification and significantly, the ongoing development of quality rules and necessary technical changes determined as a result of bugs identified after the return had ‘gone live’. These changes have caused substantial challenges to delivery of the Data Futures Programme – specifically reducing sector confidence and engagement as well as resulting in a compressed timeline for software development.

    Sector readiness

    It’s not enough to conjure up a new data specification and platform – it is hugely important to be sure that your key people (“operational contacts”) within the universities and colleges that would be submitting data are ready.

    On a high level, this did happen – there were numerous surveys of provider readiness, and the programme also worked with the small number of software vendors that supply student information systems to the sector. This formal programme communication came alongside the more established links between the sector and the HESA Liaison team.

    However, such was the level of mistrust between universities and the Office for Students (who could technically have found struggling providers in breach of condition of registration F4), that it is widely understood that answers to these surveys were less than honest. As the report says:

    Institutions did not feel like they could answer the surveys honestly, especially in instances where the institution was not on track to submit data in line with the reporting requirements, due to the outputs of the surveys being accessible to regulators/funders and concerns about additional regulatory burden as a result.

    The decision to scrap a planned mandatory trial of the platform, made in March 2022 by the Quarterly Review Group, was ostensibly made to reduce burden – but, coupled with the unreliable survey responses, this meant that HESA was unable to identify cases where support was needed.

    This is precisely the kind of risk that should have been escalated to programme board level – a lack of transparency between Jisc and the board about readiness made it harder to take strategic actions on the basis of evidence about where the sector really was. And the issue continued into live collection – because Liaison were not made aware of common problems (“known issues”, in fact) the team often struggled with out-of-date documentation: meaning that providers got conflicting messages from different parts of Jisc.

    Liaison, on their part, dealt with more than 39,000 messages between October and December 2023 (during the peak of issues raised during the collection process) – even given the problems noted above they resolved 61 per cent of queries on the first try. Given the level of stress in the sector (queries came in at all hours of the day) and the longstanding and special relationship that data professionals have with HESA Liasion, you could hardly criticise that team for making the best of a near-impossible situation.

    I am glad to see that the review notes:

    The need for additional staff, late working hours, and the pressure of user acceptance testing highlights the hidden costs and stress associated with the programme, both at institutions and at Jisc. Several institutions talked about teams not being able to take holidays over the summer period due to the volume of work to be delivered. Many of the institutions we spoke to indicated that members of their team had chosen to move into other roles at the institution, leave the sector altogether, experienced long term sickness absence or retired early as a result of their experiences, and whilst difficult to quantify, this will have a long-term impact on the sector’s capabilities in this complex and fairly niche area.

    Anyone who was even tangentially involved in the 2022-23 collection, or attended the “Data Futures Redux” session at the Festival of Higher Education last year, will find those words familiar.

    Moving forward

    The decision on in-year data has been made – it will not happen before the 2026-27 academic year, but it will happen. The programme delivery and governance will need to improve, and there are numerous detailed recommendations to that end: we should expect more detail and the timeline to follow.

    It does look as though there will be more changes to the data model to come – though the recommendation is that this should be frozen 18 months before the start of data collection which by my reckoning would mean a confirmed data model printed out and on the walls of SROC members in the spring of 2026. A subset of institutions would make an early in-year submission, which may not be published to “allow for lower than ideal data quality”.

    On arrangements for collections for 2024-25 and 2025-26 there are no firm recommendations – it is hoped that data model changes will be minimal and the time used to ensure that the sector and Jisc are genuinely ready for the advent of the data future.

    Source link