Blog

  • There are three ways to tackle the student loan crisis: one is unwise, one is unaffordable and one is unpalatable. All are unfair.

    There are three ways to tackle the student loan crisis: one is unwise, one is unaffordable and one is unpalatable. All are unfair.

    Author:
    Nick Hillman

    Published:

    HEPI Director Nick Hillman takes a look at the continuing row over whether student loans are turning out to be fair for graduates.

    The weekend media were full (yet again) of the perceived unfairness of Plan 2 student loans. These are the loans taken out by undergraduate students who started their studies in England between 2012 and 2022. They cover both tuition fees and maintenance costs.

    Graduates with Plan 2 loans face a high-ish variable interest rate (6.2% if they are on a salary comfortably over £50,000) and a 30-year payback period before the loans are written off. Plan 2 remains the norm in Wales, where Labour chose not to copy England’s shift to Plan 5 loans (which have no real rate of interest but a 40-year repayment term).

    The first students who took out Plan 2 loans are now graduates in positions of influence, including in Parliament and in the media. They are using this influence to complain about how much money they are having to pay to the Government through income tax, National Insurance and student loan repayments combined – often 51% of salary.

    Many people will feel sympathy for them, both for the large debts detailed on their student loan statements and for the wider ‘failure to launch’ challenges faced by younger people, given the ups and downs of the graduate labour market and high housing costs. But much of the rhetoric on Plan 2 is overblown.

    Some – I stress not all – of the complaints are nothing more than successful graduates wanting someone else to cover their own debts. Intriguingly, given how progressive the loans are, the loudest complaints come from the left – for example, from Oli Dugmore of the New Statesman, Zarah Sultana MP, Nadia Whittome MP and Chris Curtis MP.

    What is to be done? Policymakers tend to work by the rule of three, meaning a tricky policy challenge may only have three possible big solutions. The Pensions Commission, for example, responded to the pensions crisis of the early 2000 by claiming the only options were: later retirement; higher taxes; or more saving.

    The same goes for Plan 2 student loans. There are just three options for tackling the perceived problems, and each is as unattractive as those three pension options. Yet we don’t know which one the complainants would prefer. In other words, those unhappy about Plan 2 loans need clearer answers on how they think the system should be fixed.

    1. One option is to hide the issue by no longer giving access to student loan balances. New graduates don’t worry they will pay hundreds of thousands of pounds in income tax over their careers, as no one ever rolls the total number up. Yet they do worry about comparable student loan payments. We’ve had stealth taxes; in this scenario, student debt would become stealth loans.
    2. Another option would be to reduce student debts. By tweaking the features of Plan 2 loans, such as the repayment thresholds or the interest rate, policymakers could reduce current monthly repayments and / or cut outstanding balances. But someone would have to pick up the tab, including – presumably – those who have not benefited from higher education.
    3. A third option, and the one that has been favoured by policymakers in the past, is to hit graduates harder, so the loans get paid down faster. While comparisons are not always easy, it is thought other countries with student loans have typically had lower repayment thresholds (see page 31). But if you currently dislike watching your total debt grow despite making repayments, you might really hate the larger payments necessary to reduce the total debt even more.

    If policymakers are to fix the supposed problems faced by those with Plan 2 loans, they will have to choose one of these options or a mix of them (or something like them). To me, the first option seems unwise, the second seems unaffordable and the third seems unpalatable. All three seem unfair. It is time for the campaigners to say which they prefer.

    To return to pensions, the Plan 2 protests resemble the failing WASPI campaign by those who say the equalisation of State Pension Ages was so badly communicated that billions in compensation should now be paid. Whether it is WASPI or Plan 2 student loans, people are trying to unwind policies that were specifically designed to aid the bulk of taxpayers.

    Nick Hillman’s previous blog on the row about Plan 2 loans can be read here: Why the current campaign on student loan interest may be misguided, misunderstood and misdirected

    Source link

  • NCAN Report Shows Dramatic Increase in Pell Eligibility Rates

    NCAN Report Shows Dramatic Increase in Pell Eligibility Rates

    A 27 percent increase in the number of students qualifying for the maximum Pell Grant shows the FAFSA simplification process paid off, NCAN says.

    Richard Stephen/iStock/Getty Images Plus

    More than 1.5 million additional students were eligible to receive the maximum Pell Grant this academic year compared to the award cycle before the Free Application for Federal Student Aid simplification process was completed, a recent report from the National College Attainment Network (NCAN) shows. That’s a 27 percent jump over the course of two years.

    NCAN contends that the data, which it collected from the Office for Federal Student Aid, proves that despite a difficult launch, FAFSA simplification is paying off. Combined with this year’s increased FAFSA application and college enrollment numbers, it counters the narrative that students and families no longer trust in the value of a college degree, the organization says.

    “Students are showing they value college by their choices. When we reduce barriers to college access and affordability, more students will apply, enroll, and succeed,” Eddy Conroy, NCAN’s senior communications director, told Inside Higher Ed. “We are seeing the promise of FAFSA Simplification made real with increased enrollment, increasing FAFSA completion rates, and more students than ever eligible for Pell Grants.”

    The report also shows that the number of students eligible for the minimum Pell Grant jumped from 18,453 students in 2023–24 to 326,441 in 2025–26. Overall, the number of Pell eligible students went up by about 418,000, or roughly 4 percent.

    Based on strong numbers so far in the 2026–27 college application cycle, NCAN says the nation is on pace for a record application rate among high school seniors. But worries about the future remain.

    Many have voiced concerns that funding for the Pell Grant program—which is likely to remain level for fiscal year 2026—could run out. Even if it doesn’t this year, NCAN warns that overall college prices are rising and, for many students, the current award isn’t enough.

    “A third year of level funding at $7,395 effectively erodes the grant’s value for students,” Louisa Woodhouse NCAN’s senior associate for policy and advocacy said in the report.

    Source link

  • Data Offers Nuanced Portrait of Self-Supported Transfer Students

    Data Offers Nuanced Portrait of Self-Supported Transfer Students

    Nearly a quarter of transfer applicants who used the Common App last academic year were financially independent.

    rudi_suardi/E+/Getty Images

    New data offers a nuanced profile of students paying their own way through college—and the contextual barriers they face during the transfer process.

    Compared to their younger, financially dependent peers, financially independent transfer applicants were more likely to be first-generation college students, and have greater financial need and more complex academic backgrounds, according to a report published Thursday by the Common App, an online platform through which students can submit applications to more than 1,100 higher ed institutions.

    Using Common App data, researchers analyzed the behaviors and characteristics of three subgroups of students who meet one of the criteria that the Free Application for Federal Student Aid uses to deem an applicant financially independent: being 24 years of age or older, being a veteran or active-duty service member, or having a dependent. (Common App only began collecting data on applicants’ parenting status during the 2024–25 academic year.)

    “Independent students may begin at community colleges close to home or have a need to stop out and then re-enroll in college, and transferring between institutions is essential for facilitating their educational attainment,” the report reads. “Understanding independent applicants’ backgrounds, academic profiles, and application patterns will add important context and insights for policymakers and practitioners supporting these students.”

    And that’s especially important because transfer students make up a growing share of college students, according to both the report and other recent data.

    In 2025, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reported that the number of transfer students increased by 4.4 percent between 2023 and 2024. And according to Common App’s new data, financially independent students are driving some of that overall increase. Between the 2021–22 and 2024–25 academic years, the number of transfer applicants who were either 23 or older (24 by the time they enrolled) or military-affiliated jumped 65 percentage points. And last academic year, financially independent applicants accounted for 22 percent of transfer applications submitted through Common App.

    But when financially independent students apply to transfer, their academic backgrounds, resource levels and application patterns often look different from those of their dependent peers, with “parenting applicants as an extreme case in almost all analyses,” Rodney Hughes, co-author of the Common App report, said at a media briefing Thursday afternoon.

    For example, while independent students across all subgroups were more likely to identify as first-generation compared to other transfer applicants, parenting applicants were 2.1 times as likely to identify as first-generation and applicants 23 or older were 1.7 times as likely. Independent transfer applicants were also 1.5 to 1.7 times more likely than dependents to live in lower income ZIP codes and 1.4 to 1.7 times as likely to qualify for Common App fee waivers; parenting applicants have the highest incidence of both income indicators.

    “Supports already in place for first-generation students in areas like course scheduling, academic advising, and career services may be just as relevant for incoming independent transfer students,” the report reads. “Incoming independent students may also have needs specific to their own contexts, such as needs for affordable child care and flexible course scheduling.”

    In addition, independent transfer applicants are typically more experienced students.

    According to the report, they are between 1.5 (military-affiliated) to 1.9 (age 23 or older) times as likely to have completed 60 or more prior credits compared to students outside of those categories. At the same time, independent students—37.3 percent of military-affiliated and 45.9 percent of parenting applicants—are more likely to apply for transfer after not being enrolled the previous academic year, compared to only 3.6 percent of transfer applicants outside the three independent subgroups.

    And the majority of independent students are transferring from community colleges, according to the report.

    Compared to 34.9 percent of students outside of the independent subgroups, 52.9 percent of parenting applicants and 51.2 percent of applicants age 23 or older most recently attended an institution that grants associate degrees.

    As the number of independent transfer applicants continues to climb, universities should make sure they’re well-equipped to help them adjust to a new environment, Hughes said.

    For example, “They may have now had a Promise Scholarship to cover much of their tuition and fees at the two-year institution, and maybe they go to a four-year institution that’s not [covered under] the Promise program. And now they’re paying for college for the first time and taking out loans for the first time,” he said. “They have some college experience, but that may be a new part of the experience. [The university needs to offer] intake counseling and student loan counseling for that transfer population.”

    Source link

  • Sisters Drop Sponsorship of Benedictine College

    Sisters Drop Sponsorship of Benedictine College

    The sisters of Mount St. Scholastica, the religious order affiliated with Benedictine College, is cutting ties with the institution, KCTV reported.

    “After much prayer and consideration, we have discerned it is time to discontinue active sponsorship of Benedictine College,” Sister Mary Elizabeth Schweiger, the Prioress of the Mount, said in a video statement. “Today, we believe God continues to call us to educate, to offer spiritual enrichment and to serve and advocate for the poor, particularly women.”

    The nuns nonetheless promised to continue collaborating on college activities and programs and maintain relationships with students, faculty and staff.

    The order, which has 78 members remaining, founded Mount St. Scholastica College; it merged with St. Benedict’s College in 1971 to create the institution that exists today.

    The sisters’ relationship with the college has had ups and downs. Notably, the nuns publicly slammed a controversial commencement speech given by Kansas City Chiefs kicker Harrison Butker in 2024, which praised women wanting to become homemakers and mothers.

    “It is with heavy hearts but with grateful understanding, that we accept the decision of the Sisters of Mount St. Scholastica Monastery to withdraw from the governing responsibilities related to sponsorship of Benedictine College,” read a joint statement from the St. Benedict’s Abbey and Benedictine College. “While the formal, juridical connection between us will end, our close relationship and our friendship in Christ will not.”

    The move represents a trend in Catholic higher education as sponsoring religious orders pull away from the colleges and universities they founded because of limited membership and governance capacity.

    Source link

  • A Conversation With Dr. Brian K. Bridges

    A Conversation With Dr. Brian K. Bridges

    Nearly three decades ago, I went to graduate school at Indiana University with many brilliant people who have remained amazing friends. We motivated each other then and have consistently reciprocated inspiration along our professional paths. These dear friends are now in high-impact roles in our field. 

    For example, one is vice president for student life at the University of Oregon. Another is an education school dean. Two are provosts at historically black universities. And then there is my bestie, who is a tenured full professor with an endowed chair at the University of California Los Angeles; she also was the first Black woman elected president of the Association for the Study of Higher Education and is a National Academy of Education inductee. I always knew these IU alumni, like so many others who came before and after us, would be extraordinarily successful. I am proud of them.

    Brian K. Bridges is one of those friends and colleagues. In my early 20s, I looked up to him, somewhat like a big, but only slightly older brother. I have continued to be in awe and inspired by his character, achievements and enormous contributions to higher education. After earning our doctorates in 2003, Brian went on to a fantastic trio of administrative roles at the American Council on Education, Ohio University (where he was vice provost) and the United Negro College Fund (UNCF) (where he served as Vice President). He also has taught at George Washington University.

    Here, I engage with Brian about his most recent role as New Jersey Secretary of Higher Education.

    Resident Scholar: When you were 18-years-old, what did you think you’d be when you grew up?

    Brian K. Bridges

    Brian K. Bridges: You’re taking me back 40 years, so I had to think about this a bit! I remember telling people I would become a lawyer without fully knowing what that entailed. I knew I had to go to law school, but beyond that I didn’t have a clue about the breadth and scope of what it meant to be a lawyer. I think I chose that because it was one of the popular, high-profile professions that was regularly on TV. However, I didn’t have a clear plan for what type of attorney I would be.

    RS: When we left IU, looking 20–25 years ahead into your professional future, where did you think your career would take you?

    BKB: After completing my doctorate at IU, I remained in Bloomington for a couple years working at the National Survey of Student Engagement [NSSE]. That’s an important distinction because when I finished my dissertation, I thought I would work on campuses the rest of my life, culminating as a college president somewhere. However, during those two additional years that I worked at NSSE, I got exposure to the scope of career possibilities in higher education, particularly in the association, advocacy and philanthropic worlds. After that exposure, I wasn’t wedded to being solely on a campus the rest of my career. So, I left Bloomington thinking all possibilities within higher ed and adjacent were on the table.

    RS: What about your career surprises you?

    BKB: If anything comes close to surprising me, it’s my most recent role as secretary of higher education for New Jersey. I had entertained the idea of working for the federal government, but never thought about being employed by a state to oversee its higher ed sector. So, that comes closest to being surprising. I’ve always been attracted to work that I find interesting. Working in a state is one context that is different from a campus or association.

    RS: Reflecting on your five years as New Jersey’s top higher education leader, what is the one accomplishment of which you are most proud?

    BKB: I’m really proud of a number of accomplishments that include re-enrolling almost 15,000 stopped-out learners, implementing a telehealth platform that is serving over 20,000 college students across the state, and distributing over $700 million in capital improvement bonds to colleges and universities across New Jersey, among other wins. However, I’m most proud of the internal work within the Office of the Secretary of Higher Education. We more than doubled the number of staff lines, significantly improved salaries and created a culture of collegiality that enhanced the working experience and output of the staff. That’s what I think of first when I reflect on my time as New Jersey’s top higher ed leader.

    RS: What advice would you offer a brand new state higher education executive officer [SHEEO]?

    BKB: Learn the particular politics of your state and who the power brokers are, whether they’re in the governor’s office, in the legislature, in unions, or in local advocacy organizations. Every policy proposal will have supporters and opponents—understanding why certain individuals and groups will fall on one side or the other can be the difference between success and failure. Also, make certain that you surround yourself with an effective team of people who are as invested in your success as they are in that of the agency.

    RS: Not many professionals of color have served as state higher education executive officers. How can greater racial diversity be achieved in these positions, especially in this anti-DEI political climate?

    BKB: SHEEO roles are tricky because they tend to go to people who are state-based and who are known by or connected to political movers and shakers in those state contexts. So building a national pipeline is difficult and the current anti-DEI climate makes diversifying these positions even more challenging. I would encourage people who might be interested in serving as a future SHEEO to seek out roles in their current SHEEO office or within their governor’s office to gain exposure to the issues, understand how politics work at that level, and strategically position themselves for consideration as potential future candidates. Working high-level on a campaign is another way to gain visibility, but you want to hedge your bets to work with a successful campaign. Of course, the requisite experience and sector knowledge is necessary, but the credibility as a valued commodity who delivers results in a policy context cannot be underestimated.

    RS: Who are your top five favorite rappers?

    BKB: Not necessarily in order: Rakim, The Notorious B.I.G., A Tribe Called Quest, De La Soul and Mobb Deep (I know the last three are groups, but I’d rather listen to them than any other single artist.)

    ——————————

    Nothing about Secretary Bridges’ career surprises me. I could have easily predicted in 1998, the first year we met at IU, that he would ascend to huge, high-impact roles in higher education. It has been wonderful to see the secretary lead so magnificently in New Jersey. As the state’s newly elected governor took office last month, Brian transitioned out of the role. I am excited to see what my big brother does next.

    Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Public Policy and Business at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.

    Source link

  • UCSD Can Live Without the SAT (opinion)

    UCSD Can Live Without the SAT (opinion)

    Should colleges and universities require the SAT/ACT again? More than 2,000 colleges and universities remain test-optional or test-free. The debate on testing continues to evolve as new data points emerge.

    One recent controversy is the rise of students needing remedial math at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD), as documented in a report from the UCSD Academic Senate. The UC system has used test-free admissions since 2020. Some think the UC admissions policy is setting students up to fail. They argue that without required testing, the UC system lacks the tools that it needs to keep these students out.

    As an expert on college admissions and testing policy, I’m well-acquainted with these arguments. They’re basically a rehash of the old mismatch hypothesis, which contends that some students of color are better off attending a “slower track school,” to quote the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

    The argument that the UC system is setting students up to fail might be more compelling if it were true. However, analysis of data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System indicates that first-to-second year retention at UCSD stayed consistent after the adoption of test-free admissions in 2020. In 2018, when the UC system still required tests, the retention rate was at 94 percent. Ditto for 2023 and 2024. These numbers are notably stable.

    Retention is just one data point, and math remediation is another. As noted in the UCSD math report, the number of students needing developmental math rose from less than 1 percent of the first-year class in 2020 to 11.8 percent in 2025. Current UCSD students experienced online learning during a crucial time in their math development. There are other reasons why students fall behind in math. Math proficiency is cumulative, so gaps in skill development can have negative repercussions down the line. Wealthier parents will schlep their kids to Kumon to address the holes. Guess who gets left behind?

    It’s counterintuitive, but students with gaps in academic preparation can still succeed at an institution like UCSD. As explained by Princeton University economist Zachary Bleemer: “There’s no advantage to the student to being pushed into a less selective university. Instead, you’re just taking away the advantages that a school like UC San Diego offers them.” Studying the UCs, Bleemer found that students from historically under-resourced backgrounds, including those with lower test scores, experienced better outcomes when they attended more selective institutions. His work and that of others debunk the mismatch hypothesis.

    More UCSD students need support in math, so it’s a good thing they’re attending one of the nation’s best-resourced institutions. Indeed, UCSD’s math department mapped out a plan of attack on how they can target students for earlier intervention and support.

    Federick Ngo, an associate professor at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas and an expert on developmental education, commented, in regards to UCSD, “The pain points that inevitably come with reform are an opportunity for campus leaders, faculty and staff to come together and devise new ways to support today’s college students.” The UCSD math report reflects pain points in the UC system’s evolution, but they also represent an opportunity to help UCSD grow as an institution.

    Unfortunately, not everyone sees it that way. Spurred by the report, U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy announced plans to investigate math instruction at selective institutions. He needs to understand that UCSD is a bad test case for a national referendum on standardized tests or even math placement, given the complex dynamics affecting math instruction at the institution.

    Yes, there are many challenges with K-12 math preparation. Accordingly, university departments need to rework their practices to support students, and they should receive the necessary resources. Still, it’s hard to see what returning to required standardized testing would bring. If the goal is to exclude students who still have a very high chance of graduating, then perhaps it’s the right approach. However, if the goal is to advance both excellence and social mobility, the test-free experiment at the UCs actually seems to be going pretty well. Maybe not if you own a test prep company, but that’s another story.

    Source link

  • College Board Prohibits Wearing Smart Glasses During SAT

    College Board Prohibits Wearing Smart Glasses During SAT

    Students will not be allowed to wear the devices, even if they are prescription glasses.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Izusek and Spiderplay/E+/Getty Images

    The College Board will prohibit students from wearing smart glasses—wearable, internet-connected computers that allow users to see a computer display in the lenses—while taking the SAT, starting in March 2026.

    The organization has long banned any wearable electronics, such as Apple AirPods and Apple Watches, said Priscilla Rodriguez, senior vice president of college readiness assessments at the College Board. Such devices, as well as students’ phones, are taken away by the test’s proctor before the test begins; the rule outlawing smart glasses is just an extension of that existing policy.

    Although the first smart glasses emerged in the early 2010s, the technology has risen to prominence in recent years, especially as companies such as Meta and Google have debuted artificial intelligence–enabled versions of the product. As they’ve become more common, professors have also raised alarm bells about whether they will be used for cheating; they fear that students will use them to scan tests and get fed the answers by AI in real time without detection.

    At least one documented example exists of a student using smart glasses to cheat; a student in Tokyo was caught using his spectacles to post questions from a college entrance exam on the social media site X and received answers from other social media users.

    An op-ed by professors at the University of Victoria in Canada also warned that the threat of smart glasses in the classroom goes beyond cheating. They also discussed them as a threat to academic freedom; the glasses could allow students to record their professors without their professors knowing they’re being filmed, allowing them to leak lectures or even create deepfakes, the professors said.

    Outside of higher education, they have been criticized for violating people’s privacy as it has become increasingly common for social media content creators to secretly record their conversations with strangers via smart glasses and post those videos online.

    SAT proctors are now trained to spot and take away students’ smart glasses if they spot them. Although the glasses look similar to a regular pair of spectacles, Rodriguez said most mainstream smart glasses brands have a distinctive look with thick, black rims, and when they’re in use, the camera on the front lights up.

    “It’s a noticeable light, so if someone were taking a video, a photo, having someone talk to them through the glasses, etc., the light shines and that’s kind of like the dead giveaway,” she said.

    Students will not be allowed to wear the devices even if they are prescription glasses, she noted. If students are unable to take the test without their smart glasses, they will be asked to return on a different day to take the test with a regular pair of glasses.

    So far, Rodriguez said, she is unaware of any instances where students have been caught cheating with smart glasses in the SAT, but the step to ban the devices was taken preemptively.

    “We have a really robust test security team here at College Board, coupled with, really, an industry-leading technology team. So, between those two, they’re always looking out to say, ‘what could be next? What’s the next frontier if you’re trying to gain an advantage on this test?’” she said. “They were monitoring the pre-launch announcements of these kinds of glasses and gadgets well before they hit the market, so we were ready.”

    Source link

  • One year until the lifelong learning entitlement kicks in – how should institutions prepare?

    One year until the lifelong learning entitlement kicks in – how should institutions prepare?

    This blog was kindly authored by Rachel Reeds, higher education admissions expert and consultant.

    If you have yet to read yesterday’s part one blog on the LLE click here.

    There’s an uncomfortable truth about institutional readiness that needs addressing: most universities fundamentally underestimate what the LLE will demand of them.

    Senior leaders know the LLE is coming. But there is a dangerous assumption that this is primarily a finance and student funding issue – something for finance teams to monitor and student services to communicate. The reality is that the LLE will require fundamental operational transformation across every function of the university.

    The scale of the challenge reveals itself through uncomfortable questions that institutions are still avoiding:

    • Can student record systems actually track credit accumulation over decades? Most were designed for three-year degree programmes with cohort-based progression, not learners who might take a single Level 6 module this year, return in 2029, and eventually piece together a qualification over a decade, quite possibly at more than one institution.
    • Are modules properly specified at credit level with clear prerequisites? Many institutions have curriculum structures built around programme-level frameworks, not the granular building blocks that modular learning demands.
    • Can admissions teams handle continuous year-round applications? After successive rounds of staffing cuts and efficiency programmes, current teams are already stretched managing UCAS cycles. The prospect of rolling recruitment for individual modules, with no additional resource, is simply unrealistic.

    The operational questions multiply: Are terms and conditions compliant with the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) for students accumulating credits over multiple years? What happens when someone wants just one module with no intention of completing a degree? How do you handle credit transfer at scale when you have never done meaningful Recognition of Prior Learning volumes?

    The misconception that the LLE is primarily about funding mechanisms is perhaps the most dangerous assumption of all. Yes, finance teams need to understand new funding flows. But this misses the fundamental point. If the LLE is to work as policymakers from across the policial spectrum envisage, then it will LLE represent a shift from programme-based to credit-based provision that touches curriculum design, quality assurance, academic regulations, timetabling, student support, data reporting and every operational system universities rely on.

    When senior leadership frames this as a finance workstream, the necessary operational transformation does not get the executive attention or resources it requires. If senior leaders are presenting LLE to Council as a finance and student funding matter, governors have no basis to understand the scale of either the opportunity or the risk. They can’t help shape strategic direction on serving new learner markets, nor can they provide proper oversight of the operational transformation and resource investment required to deliver it. Meanwhile, registry, admissions, IT, and academic departments are left trying to solve systemic challenges without the authority or budget to make the fundamental changes needed.

    Professional services teams have been systematically reduced through years of efficiency drives and cost-saving programmes. The people who need to operationalise the LLE are already managing increased workloads with fewer colleagues and creaking systems and processes.

    The assumption seems to be that these teams will simply absorb the LLE as ‘business as usual’. Redesigning processes, implementing new systems, rewriting regulations, all whilst maintaining current operations is not realistic. It is a recipe for implementation failure.

    Registry teams cannot redesign credit accumulation processes in their spare time. Admissions teams cannot develop year-round recruitment models on top of existing multi-intake cycles without additional staff and/or tools. IT teams cannot rebuild student record systems while maintaining business-critical services without investment. Academic departments cannot restructure entire curricula to credit-level specification without time and resource.

    The question is not whether teams understand what needs doing – it is whether anyone realistically has the capacity to do it at a time of financial strain.

    This combination of misunderstood scope and absent resource leads to dangerous diffusion of responsibility. Registry assumes it is an IT systems issue. IT believes it is curriculum design. Academic departments expect professional services to handle operational details. Finance thinks it is about loan administration.

    The LLE is an opportunity, yes, but it’s also a morass of vital operational issues requiring genuine resourcing to meet a compliance deadline. When leadership does not grasp the full scope, and teams lack capacity for transformation, nothing meaningful happens until it is too late.

    Effective implementation requires executive recognition of what it involves:

    • Honest capability assessments. Most institutions will discover significant gaps between current systems and LLE requirements – but only if they’re looking beyond finance processes.
    • Real budget and dedicated people across multiple functions. This cannot be delivered through ‘efficiency’ or by already-overstretched teams finding ‘extra capacity’. It requires investment, backfill, or explicit decisions to stop doing other work.
    • Realistic scope decisions. Should institutions phase introduction?
    • Critical path prioritisation. Curriculum design must come first, followed by systems capability, then policy frameworks. This is a multi-year transformation programme requiring dedicated resource, not a finance adjustment to be absorbed by existing teams.

    Applications open September 2026. The institutions that will navigate this successfully are those whose senior leaders truly understand both the scale of operational change required and the resource investment needed to deliver it.

    The LLE represents a genuine opportunity to serve learners differently and reach new audiences. But opportunities require investment to realise. The operational transformation needed is substantial, but it is achievable – if institutions are honest about what it will take, realistic about timelines, and willing to resource it properly.

    Right now, too many institutions are underestimating the challenge. But there is still time to get this right – if the difficult conversations happen now.

    Source link

  • School closures rarely save much money and often lead to test score declines

    School closures rarely save much money and often lead to test score declines

    by Mara Casey Tieken, The Hechinger Report
    February 2, 2026

    As a researcher who studies school closings and counsels local districts facing closure decisions, I know the pressures are multiple.

    Many districts are facing dropping enrollments. In some places, like Boston, rising housing costs are fueling the decline; in other, more rural, areas, dropping birthrates and a graying population are causing it.

    Lots of students who left public schools for private ones during the pandemic still have not returned, with new voucher programs fueling the exodus. As districts lose students, they also lose state funding. This, coupled with rising costs and uncertain state and federal support, has meant that many districts, including dozens in New York and Maine, have failed to pass school budgets.

    That’s why school closures may seem logical. Close schools, “right-size” districts, save money. Problem solved.

    But, oftentimes, the problem isn’t solved. Because closures usually don’t reduce staff and often incur new transportation or renovation costs, they rarely save much money. They can also lead to declines in test scores in the short term and diminished college completion and employment outcomes in the long term.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our freeweekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Closures can lead to other problems as well. Absenteeism and behavioral issues may increase. In rural areas, students can spend upward of four hours a day on the bus, often on treacherous routes. Closures can mean job loss and shuttered businesses for local communities. The burden of closure is also unequal, disproportionately impacting Black students and low-income students.

    Unfortunately, school closures might be one of the few remaining issues with bipartisan support, with closures now being considered or enacted all over the country.

    Many are in red states. The West Virginia Board of Education, for example, just voted to close schools in six counties. When Mississippi’s legislature reconvenes this month, it will take up the issue of district consolidation, which typically leads to closures. Several thousand miles away, school boards have been closing schools across Alaska.

    But the closures are under way in blue and purple cities and states, too. New Jersey, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania are considering district consolidation laws that could lead to school closures. The St. Louis Public School Board is proposing closing more than half of its 68 schools; Atlanta is closing 16. Even reliably blue New England is jumping on the closure bandwagon: Despite widespread protests, the Boston School Committee just voted to close three schools; Hartford may also debate closures in the coming months; New Hampshire is considering its own district consolidation legislation; and Democratic lawmakers in Vermont have sided with the state’s Republican governor to embrace his consolidation efforts while the tiny state grapples with its declining population.

    Ultimately, these closures are exactly what President Donald Trump is looking for. He has said little about them, but he doesn’t have to. He’s underwriting them.

    Trump’s desire to dismantle public education is clear. He has ravaged the U.S. Department of Education, moving many of its core functions to other federal departments and firing over a thousand staff. He has reduced federal oversight of public schools and used the Office for Civil Rights to drop protections for public school students. He has withheld federal funds for teacher professional development and services for English language learners. And he has created the first federal private school voucher program, at an estimated cost of up to $51 billion each year. From every front, his administration is launching a major assault on public education.

    At the same time, state and local officials are shuttering public schools: December was filled with news of closures. In fact, perhaps unwittingly, these officials — including those in blue states — may be doing just as much to undo public education as Trump is.

    We need to stop the rampant closing of schools.

    There are more reliable strategies for saving money, such as adopting service-sharing agreements that allow multiple districts to collaboratively manage and deliver key services, like transportation. Multi-grade classrooms and virtual options can relieve staffing pressures, and dual-enrollment programs can help small schools support robust curriculums. Meanwhile, states’ funding formulas are often outdated; examining those for possible cuts and expansions could also offer support to struggling districts.

    Related: Schools are closing across rural America. Here’s how a battle over small districts is playing out in one state

    In the rare cases when closures are necessary, there are better ways to close. We can use accurate data to guide planning, involve local communities in closure decisions and repurpose school buildings as community centers or preschools. We can close more judiciously, keeping schools in low-income and Black communities — the places that states most often neglect.

    We also need policies that address the root causes of closure: not only privatization and federal defunding, but also gentrification, economic restructuring and growing inequality.

    Right now, many Democrats and education advocates are just holding their breath, hoping that a new administration in a few years will quickly reverse Trump’s devastating education policies.

    But they might wake up on the next Inauguration Day and find that, even with a new administration ready to revive public education, there are few public schools left to resuscitate.

    Mara Casey Tieken is a professor of education at Bates College in Lewiston, Maine. She is the author of “Educated Out: How Rural Students Navigate Elite Colleges—And What It Costs Them” and “Why Rural Schools Matter.”

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about school closures was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-shuttering-public-schools-is-a-strategy-that-rarely-saves-much-money-and-often-leads-to-test-score-declines/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114617&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-shuttering-public-schools-is-a-strategy-that-rarely-saves-much-money-and-often-leads-to-test-score-declines/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Managing the Load: AI and Cognitive Load in Education – Faculty Focus

    Managing the Load: AI and Cognitive Load in Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link