Blog

  • Podcast: Governance, apprenticeships, trends | Wonkhe

    Podcast: Governance, apprenticeships, trends | Wonkhe

    This week on the podcast we examine the OfS penalty imposed on Leeds Trinity over subcontractual partnerships oversight. What does the £115,000 fine and a new proposed code of “ethical” governance tell us about decision-making at the top?

    Plus we discuss the government’s decision to axe level 7 apprenticeships from levy funding, and explore incoming OfS chair Edward Peck’s ten trends shaping the future of campus universities.

    With Alex Stanley, Vice President for Higher Education at the National Union of Students, Pam Macpherson Barrett, Head of Policy and Regulation at the University of Leeds, David Kernohan, Associate Editor at Wonkhe and presented by Mark Leach, Editor-in-Chief at Wonkhe.

    Read more

    Poor quality teaching and student outcomes. But where?

    The new OfS chair identifies ten trends

    A code of ethical university governance is overdue

    Should governance reform be horizontal or vertical?

     

    Source link

  • Our drop-out and pace miracle is harming students’ health and learning

    Our drop-out and pace miracle is harming students’ health and learning

    One of the most alarming things about the Department for Education (DfE) commissioned National review of higher education student suicide deaths is the apparant role of academic pressure.

    Well over a third of the serious incidents reviewed made explicit reference to academic problems or pressures – often tied to exams or exam results.

    Other pressures included anxiety about falling behind, upcoming deadlines, perceived pressure to perform, and involvement in “support to study” procedures.

    And just under a third of those reviewed had submitted requests for mitigating circumstances – often citing personal reasons, mental health issues, or anxiety about academic performance.

    The review concluded that students struggling academically should be recognised as at-risk and provided with enhanced, compassionate support – and noted the need for greater awareness at critical points in the academic calendar, particularly around exam times, given that March and May saw peaks in suicide and self-harm incidents.

    Basically, academic pressure was not a sole cause but a consistent co-factor – frequently present and potentially exacerbating existing vulnerabilities. The report calls for better early detection, more proactive outreach, and a systemic rethink of how institutions respond to academic distress before it becomes a crisis.

    But what if the system, and its associated rhythms and traditions, is itself causing the problems?

    See the mess and trouble in your brain

    In our recent polling on health, academic culture emerged as a significant but often overlooked determinant, with students describing patterns of overwork, presenteeism, and what we’ve heard called a “meritocracy of difficulty” in some countries – one that rewards suffering over learning outcomes.

    My department seems to pride itself on how much we struggle,” wrote one student, while another observed that “lecturers brag about how little sleep they get, as if that’s something to aspire to.” In some departments in some providers, unhealthy work patterns are normalised and even celebrated.

    Assessment strategies featured prominently in student concerns about academic pressure. “Having five deadlines in the same week isn’t challenging me intellectually – it’s just testing my ability to function without sleep” and “I’ve had to skip meals to finish assignments that seem designed to break us rather than teach us” are two of the comments that got the highlighter treatment.

    Some spoke of the way in which assessment approaches particularly disadvantage students with health conditions:

    When everything depends on one exam, my anxiety disorder means I can’t demonstrate what I actually know.

    The glorification of struggle appears deeply embedded in some disciplines. “There’s this unspoken belief that if you’re not miserable, you’re not doing it right,” noted one respondent. Another observed:

    …completing work while physically ill is treated as a badge of honor rather than a sign that something’s wrong with the system.

    Students also highlighted the disconnect between health messaging and academic expectations – “The university sends emails about wellbeing while setting impossible workloads” and “We’re told to practice self-care but penalised if we prioritise health over deadlines.”

    Many articulated a vision for healthier academic cultures – with comments like “Learning should be challenging but not damaging,” and “I want to be pushed intellectually without being pushed to burnout.” As one student noted:

    The university keeps trying to teach us resilience when what we really need is a system that doesn’t require being superhuman just to graduate.

    Students called for workload mapping across programmes to identify assessment bottlenecks and unreasonable clustering, alongside assessment strategies that offer more flexibility and multiple ways to demonstrate learning.

    They advocated for mandatory staff training on setting healthy work boundaries and avoiding “struggle” glorification, as well as health and wellbeing impact assessments for all new curriculum and assessment designs.

    Their asks included “reasonable adjustments by design” policies ensuring assessments are accessible by default, clear policies distinguishing between challenging academic content and unnecessary stress, and the revision of attendance policies to discourage presenteeism during illness.

    One comment pushed for student workload panels with the authority to flag unsustainable academic demands. As the respondent put it: “If workload is such an issue for UCU, why isn’t an issue for the SU”?

    You feel lazy but stop the fantasies and bubble butts

    Even when we were in the EU, the UK for some reason always declined to take part in Eurostudent – a long-running cross-national research project that collects and compares data on the social and economic conditions of higher education students in Europe.

    But we can do some contemporary comparisons.

    First we can look at the World Health Organisation’s Well-Being index (WHO-5), which invites respondents to consider whether, over the past two weeks:

    • They have felt cheerful and in good spirit
    • They have felt calm and relaxed
    • They have felt active and vigorous
    • They woke up feeling fresh and rested
    • Their daily life has been filled with things that interest me

    Cibyl’s Mental Health Research is the largest UK study of university students and recent graduates’ mental health – and if we consider its results via the Eurostudent comparison, we are at the upper end of low well-being.

    We can also look at students’ general perceptions of their own health – a big part of which will be their mental health:

    The question asked in Eurostudent is the one we asked in our recent health polling. If we sort by the percentage of students responding positively, we don’t fare well – and the temptation would be to assume that if we can act to improve students’ health, we might ease academic pressures.

    Students are diverse, of course. Here’s what our scores look like by disability:

    The mind drifts to improvements to the NHS, increased awareness, cheaper and more nutritious food or easier access to sports facilities. But as we know, causation is not correlation. What if, rather than good health being a solution to academic pressure, that pressure is a cause of the bad health?

    In this detailed Eurostudent 2024 analysis, higher study demands – specifically long hours spent on coursework, preparation, and class attendance – were directly associated with lower wellbeing scores.

    The findings are grounded in a Study Demands-Resources (SD-R) framework, which distinguishes between stress-inducing demands (like excessive workload or time pressure) and supportive resources (such as peer contact or teacher guidance).

    In multivariate regression analyses, students who reported the highest time spent studying were consistently more likely to report poor well-being, defined by WHO-5 scores of ≤50. The trend held even after controlling for social and financial variables.

    Students studying more than 40 hours per week consistently reported lower wellbeing scores, while those studying 30-40 hours show optimal outcomes. Interestingly, students studying under 20 hours also experienced reduced wellbeing, likely reflecting disengagement or underlying difficulties rather than lighter workloads being beneficial.

    Commuting time created additional strain, with wellbeing decreasing progressively as travel time increases – students commuting over 60 minutes each way showed notably lower scores than those with shorter journeys.

    The relationship between paid work and wellbeing followed a pattern where moderate employment (1-20 hours weekly) actually enhanced student well-being, possibly through increased financial security or beneficial structure. But working more than 20 hours weekly eroded those benefits and became detrimental to mental health.

    Childcare responsibilities initially appeared to correlate with slightly higher wellbeing, but the effect disappeared when support systems were factored in – suggesting external support rather than the caring role itself influenced outcomes.

    Excessive academic pressure drained cognitive and emotional reserves. Without adequate recovery, connection, or flexibility, students began to internalise stress, which eroded their self-efficacy and increased the risk of burnout, depression, and anxiety. As students fall behind, the pressure compounds – creating a feedback loop of academic struggle and psychological deterioration.

    Running from the debt in the battle of cyber heads

    Intertestingly, age played a crucial role – older students tended to report higher levels of well-being compared to younger students. This was attributed to more effective coping strategies such as increased support-seeking and greater use of engagement strategies, while younger students are more likely to use avoidance strategies.

    EUROSTUDENT’s model explicitly included age as a socio-demographic factor that shaped a student’s “contextual conditions” – such as their academic and personal study environments – which in turn influenced study demands, access to resources, and ultimately mental health outcomes.

    Its multivariate analysis supported the idea that age has a statistically significant impact on wellbeing, even when controlling for other factors such as financial stress and social isolation. All of which puts two key stats into sharp focus.

    Our undergraduates are pretty young – In Europe only Belgium, Greece and the Netherlands beat us on percentage of 18/19 year olds enrolled, and here’s the mean age of undergraduates on entry across the whole OECD. We’re in the middle of the pack on 22:

    But here’s the distribution for the average age on graduation from a Bachelor’s, which suggests we have the youngest undergraduate graduates in Europe:

    If you then bear in mind that our non-completition rates are lower, it’s hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that at least part of the problem we see with wellbeing and mental health is structural – and that taking steps to cause students to both enrol later, and complete slower, would help.

    Keep you feeling impressed

    In recent years, plenty of other countries have been attempting to speed up their students’ completion – partly because those countries are keen to get often older students out into the labour market.

    But it does mean that the research that has gone into why students take so long in some countries to accrue the 180 credits for a Bachelor’s can be interrogated for signs of those systems’ ability to accommodate and relieve pressure.

    A decade ago, the HEDOCE (Higher Education Dropout and Completion in Europe) project was a large-scale comparative study examining dropout and completion rates across 35 European countries – providing insight into the policies that European countries and higher education institutions employed to explicitly address study success, how these policies were being monitored and whether they were effective.

    It combined a literature review of academic and policy documents with three rounds of surveys among selected national experts from each country, eight in-depth country case studies (Czech Republic, England, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland), institutional case studies within those countries including interviews with policy-makers, institutional leaders, academic staff and students, and statistical analysis of available completion, retention and time-to-degree data.

    It found Denmark providing student funding in a way that explicitly acknowledged that the theoretical three-year timeline may not reflect educational reality. The Netherlands went further, offering students a full decade after first enrolment to complete their degree for loan-to-grant conversion, a policy that helped reduce average time-to-degree from 6.5 to 5.8 years while improving completion rates.

    It’s notable that the populists’ proposal of a study-time penalty to reduce the time further late last year in NL brought swift condemnation from the two national students’ unions – with concerns that forcing the same pace would result in unequal outcomes, worries that students’ high employment-during-studies rates were incompatible with a faster pace for some, and a major concern that the tens of thousands of students attempting less than 30 credits in a semester to fit in a “Board semester” – running the country’s impressive array of student associations – would be under major threat.

    In the HEDOCE report, researchers talk about “pressure reduction” – when students know they have more than three years available, “each individual semester failure is less catastrophic” and systems can “focus on mastery rather than speed.” Students facing temporary setbacks – health issues, family circumstances, financial pressures – were able to reduce their course load temporarily and extend overall duration rather than dropping out entirely.

    Students became “less likely to drop out entirely when facing academic difficulties” and “more likely to persist through temporary setbacks.”

    The Norwegian experience illustrates. Despite – or perhaps because of – allowing extended completion periods, at the time Norway was maintaining completion rates of 71.5 per cent at bachelor level and 67 per cent at master’s level. Students could “explore additional courses and find their optimal path without penalty,” with the well-functioning labour market reducing urgency to complete quickly as “employment opportunities exist even without completion.”

    Extended duration systems acknowledged the reality of student employment. The study found that students working more than 20-25 hours per week in Estonia and Norway showed higher dropout risk – but the systems accommodated it rather than penalising it.

    These systems also enabled what the report termed “assessment flexibility and academic readiness.” Students were able to gauge their preparation for examinations, retake failed modules without catastrophic consequences, and accumulate credits over multiple attempts rather than facing binary pass-fail decisions with immediate ejection consequences.

    Germany’s continuous assessment systems exemplified the approach – allowing students to “gauge their readiness” for progression rather than facing predetermined examination schedules regardless of preparation level. Ditto the Netherlands’ Binding Study Advice system – where students received intensive counselling and multiple opportunities for course correction, with the safety net of extended completion timeframes preventing premature dropout due to temporary academic difficulties.

    It’s also worth noting that countries prioritising completion over speed consistently showed better outcomes. Many European systems were:

    …explicitly designed to prioritise completion over speed, viewing extended duration as preferable to dropout.

    That challenges fundamental assumptions about educational efficiency. If the goal is maximising human capital development and minimising wasted educational investment, then systems that achieve 80 per cent completion over four to five years may be superior to those achieving 60 per cent completion over three years.

    As such, the evidence suggested that policymakers face a genuine trade-off between completion speed and completion rates. Systems optimised for rapid completion – three years maximum, immediate financial penalties for delays – may have achieved faster average graduation times but at the cost of overall completion rates.

    So what are we to make of the UK’s stats – where we seem to manage to combine a lower study hours-per-ECTS credit with lower drop-out rates than average and faster enrolment-to-graduation times?

    Every day we live a miracle

    Rather than extending duration to reduce pressure, the report argued that the UK system maintained “a fairly tight admissions system” combined with:

    …a widespread and embedded expectation that completion is possible in three years except for exceptional circumstances.

    Students and families “do not expect to study for longer than the normal time period,” creating social and cultural momentum toward timely completion, and England’s 2012 funding reforms – shifting to £9,000 annual tuition fees with income-contingent loans – created what the researchers describe as putting “students in the driver’s seat.”

    It seems to suggest that the market-driven approach and a desire to avoid extra debt was generating different behavioural incentives than the extended-support models elsewhere.

    Higher education institutions became “dependent on students and study success for their funding,” creating institutional incentives for retention without requiring extended timeframes. It also noted that in England, the HEFCE Student Premium provided targeted funding for institutions enrolling students “with a higher risk of dropout,” but that that operated within the three-year framework rather than extending it.

    Most significantly, it identified the English approach as creating what might be termed “compressed intensity” rather than “extended accommodation” – noting that “institutions and students are not funded for more than three plus one years (except for longer courses),” creating hard financial boundaries that concentrate educational effort.

    Everyone else in Europe might be scratching their head – England in particular seems to challenge the general finding that extended duration typically improves completion rates.

    It suggests an alternative model – intensive, time-bounded education with high support levels and clear completion expectations may achieve similar or superior outcomes to extended-duration systems. But at what cost?

    You don’t need an upgrade anymore

    The pressures identified in the HEDOCE report have intensified since its publication a decade ago. England’s “tight admissions system” referenced in the research is considerably less tight now as we continue to widen access, yet the temporal constraints remain unchanged. That creates a fundamental mismatch between institutional capacity to support diverse student needs and the rigid three-year framework within which everyone expects them to operate.

    The student premium funding available today is nothing like as helpful as it was a decade ago, EUROSTUDENT’s model is as vivid as any on the interactions between student financial support, and any regular reader of Wonkhe will know how far that has fallen in comparison to costs on all sorts of measures. Here’s how we look on average student incomes:

    And here’s how we look when we adjust for comparative spending power:

    Maybe our comparative wellbeing data looks worse precisely because we’ve created a system that prioritises throughput over student experience. Our high percentage of students living away from home, combined with annual rental contracts and significant financial commitments, makes dropping out extraordinarily difficult even when it might be the healthiest option. Students facing mental health crises may persist not because they’re thriving, but because the economic and social costs of withdrawal are so prohibitive.

    Our student maintenance systems don’t really allow enrolling into less than 60 credits a year even if a student wanted or needed to – and the regulatory pressures in the UK, especially England, to reduce dropout rates has created incentives to push students through.

    Rather than addressing the underlying causes of student distress, institutions focus on retention metrics that may keep struggling students enrolled but not necessarily supported. A “retention at all costs” mentality may well contribute to the compressed intensity that characterises the system.

    No more nap, your turn is coming up

    The temporal aspects are especially telling. Even if you set aside the manifest unfairness of a system whose most popular assessment accommodation for disabled students is “extra time”, it causes chaos – and deep opposition when things like self-certification is clawed back at the altar of “academic standards” that seem to be about pace rather than attainment.

    Then the high costs of student support services coping with the race mean that early intervention – the kind identified as crucial in the suicide review – often come too late or prove inadequate. When institutions are financially incentivised to maintain high completion rates within tight timeframes, the investment required for genuine wellbeing support becomes a secondary consideration.

    When Denmark had a run at speeding students up, this study found that the majority of students were led by an explorative educational interest that contradicted the reform’s demand that all students complete their education at the same pace. It also found a need to consider wider social interest and engagement among students:

    Rather than focusing exclusively on their own success, the students in the survey were often motivated by the social aspects of the study environment, and in many cases, the study environment appeared crucial for the students’ motivation and their completion times.

    In one telling quote, a first-year student in Computer Science saw the reforms as a risk to students’ voluntary engagement:

    One of the places where I think the Study Progress Reform will shoot itself in the foot is that there will no longer be someone who has the time to be a student instructor, because you have to complete your study in half the time. There is nobody who dares to sacrifice their own studies in order to teach others about what they learned last year.

    Another explained how she might take advantage of the new rules on transferring ECTS credits to gain more time for her bachelor project:

    I have perhaps become a bit rebellious in relation to the new regulations because I would like to enjoy this study… I would like to have more time to go into greater depth. I cannot plan what will happen in ten years, and I cannot see how the job market will look, but at the same time, I just simply need to look forward. … I have decided what I will write about in my bachelor [project], and I could actually use some of those credits from Tibetology, which I studied before.

    A third thought the reform had made her reconsider her own propensity to risk:

    It has always been important for me to have a period of study abroad, and it was an essential objective to learn and speak a decent level of Spanish. But then I found out the other day that the study abroad agreement that the Ethnology Department has in Spain requires that you take an exam in Spanish. And you have to take a language test before you go down there. … I think that now, all of a sudden, there is a lot at stake.

    The paper concludes that an acceleration of time has taken place in late capitalist societies, with movement becoming an objective in itself – institutions and practices are marked by the “shrinking of the present”, a decreasing time period during which expectations based on past experience reliably match the future.

    Can’t you see the link?

    But there’s another dimension to the story that complicates any simple narrative about slowing down or extending duration. The evidence from international skills assessments suggests that our efficient degree production system isn’t actually producing the learning outcomes we might expect.

    The Mincer equation – the fundamental formula in labour economics that models the relationship between earnings, years of schooling, and work experience – has traditionally suggested that each additional year of education participation yields measurable increases in both skills and earning potential. So what does the UK’s speed mean for learning and earning?

    The 2023 PIAAC (Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies) results reveal that UK graduates, particularly those from England, perform relatively poorly compared to graduates in many other OECD countries across literacy, numeracy, and adaptive problem-solving assessments.

    The scale of the underperformance is stark. Adults in Finland with only upper secondary education scored higher in literacy than tertiary-educated adults in 19 out of 31 participating countries and economies, including England. While England has seen a 13 percentage point increase in the proportion of tertiary-educated adults between 2012 and 2023, average skills proficiency has not increased correspondingly. The PIAAC data show no significant gains in literacy or numeracy among our growing graduate population.

    In other words, we’re “producing” graduates faster and more efficiently than most other systems, but they’re demonstrating lower levels of the foundational competencies that their qualifications should represent. UK tertiary-educated adults scored around 280 points in numeracy compared to over 300 in Japan and Finland. In problem-solving in technology-rich environments, only about 37 per cent of UK tertiary-educated adults reached the top performance tiers, compared to over 50 per cent in countries like the Netherlands and Norway.

    That suggests that our model of “compressed intensity” may be producing credentials rather than capabilities. The three-year norm, rigid subject specialisation, grade inflation and high completion expectations all appear to prioritise the award of qualifications over the mastery of skills.

    The implications are profound. If degrees are not effectively developing human capital – the literacy, numeracy, and problem-solving capabilities that employers, society and students themselves expect – then the entire economic justification for higher education expansion with its considerable personal investment comes into question.

    Countries with extended-duration systems may achieve better learning outcomes precisely because they allow time for deeper engagement with material, multiple attempts at mastery, and the kind of reflective learning that develops transferable skills.

    The pressure-reduction mechanisms identified in HEDOCE – the ability to retake modules, explore additional courses, and gauge readiness for progression – may be essential not just for wellbeing, but for genuine learning and subsequent economic activity too.

    Pressure rocks you like a hurricane

    The irony is that students are desperate to slow down. A growing “slow living” movement represents a cultural shift from “hustle culture” to prioritising rest and mental health, driven by widespread burnout and exhaustion.

    Books like Emma Gannon’s “A Year of Nothing” and Jenny Odell’s “How to Do Nothing” advocate for intentional rest and resistance to productivity-obsessed capitalism, particularly resonating with those who’ve experienced chronic burnout from economic instability and social pressure to constantly achieve.

    Easing off won’t be straightforward. Financial pressures in providers seem to be reducing the optionality of slow(er) credit accrual, as more modules become “core modules” and our rigid system of year-groups gets more, rather than less, entrenched.

    Big decisions need to be taken soon re the Lifelong Learning Entitlement. I’ve written before about the way in which universally setting the full-time student maintenance threshold at 60 credits a year is both unreasonable and discriminatory – but even if that was eased off at, say, 45 credits, students will be acutely aware that every extra semester means more cost.

    In an ideal world, we’d kill off fees altogether – but even without free education, the case for linking fees to module credit is seriously undermined by the evidence. Why on earth should a disabled student whose DSA has taken all year to come through be expected to pay for another year’s participation while they attempt to catch up?

    There’s very little that’s fair about a system where some providers’ students need more support to succeed, but don’t get it because they’re sharing support subsidy with more that need it. Especially when much of that support is needlessly aimed at an artificial time pressure coupled with a low drop-out pressure.

    Take the pill to feel the thrill and touch it all

    With central government support in DfE budgets under pressure, there’s no chance of student premium funding stepping in to deliver the top-ups required any more.

    So link maintenance debt to time in study if we have to – but retain (and rebuild) a progressive repayment system that extracts a fair(er) contribution from those that didn’t need the support (interest on loans), all while severing the link between modular student debt and modular institutional income.

    Put another way, if student A needs to take 2 years to get to 180, student B takes 3 years, and student C takes 5 years, if we must have notional (tuition) student debt, they of course should all graduate with the same amount.

    Other options are available, and all have trade-offs. But whatever we do, we mustn’t go into the next decade assuming that the system we have created is some sort of miracle, or somehow advantageous in comparison to our international peers.

    Our traditions, pace, structures and incentives have all created a dangerous combination of pace and pressure that is damaging students’ real educational attainment and their health. It’s causing harm, and it needs to change.

    Source link

  • What First-Generation Students Need for Career Development

    What First-Generation Students Need for Career Development

    Title: First-generation College Students’ Career Entry: College Perspectives

    Authors: Melinda Mechur Karp, Suzanne Lyons, Nancy Stalowski, and Mary Fugate

    Source: FirstGen Forward and Phase Two Advisory

    First-generation college students experience the transition from high school to college and enrollment in higher education in a unique way. While there is significant research on first-generation students’ postsecondary pursuits and how they cross the boundary from the K-12 system into colleges and universities, less attention has been dedicated to exploring first-generation students’ career development and movement into the workplace.

    A new brief by FirstGen Forward helps to close this knowledge gap, drawing on a national survey from 411 colleges and universities across 47 states and Washington, DC, and six focus groups with higher education professionals. Eighty-nine percent of those interviewed work directly with first-generation initiatives and programs, and 72 percent of respondents identify as first-generation graduates themselves.

    Additional highlights and insights include:

    First-generation college student career development is highly unique. First-generation students rely heavily on institutional resources and mentors to help them progress through unfamiliar environments, which include institutions. Focus group participants indicated that students often need additional mentorship and support in understanding how their experiences as first-generation students can be career assets and how they can be reframed in job applications.

    First-generation respondents frequently indicated they need exposure to individuals who share their identities who can help them explore their future career pathways. When asked what students need for future career support, 20 percent of survey respondents said opportunities to build social capital, including networking, mentoring, and internship opportunities.

    Institutional approaches to promoting first-generation career development differ. First-generation students indicated they rely on both general university career services and programs tailored to them. Thirty-six percent of respondents reported their postsecondary institution offers career services tailored to first-generation students, 43 percent stated their institution does not, and the rest were unsure. Of 201 written survey responses about specific knowledge first-generation students need, the most commonly mentioned skill was interview preparation. However, the survey responses indicate that only 66 percent of respondents’ institutions offer this.

    First-generation College Students’ Career Entry: College Perspectives is the first of six research and policy briefs that will make up a national landscape analysis. Additional briefs will be released over the coming months.

    To read the full report from FirstGen Forward, click here.

    —Austin Freeman

     

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • How State Policies Can Support Dual Enrollment Students

    How State Policies Can Support Dual Enrollment Students

    Headline: How State Policies Can Support Dual Enrollment Students

    Title: Sharing the Cost: Insights From States Funding Dual Enrollment to Expand Access

    Authors: Krista Kaput, Sharmila Mann, and Carrie Hahnel

    Source: Bellwether

    Research demonstrates that participation in dual enrollment programs improves student outcomes, with the potential to increase graduation rates and college enrollment and further students’ postsecondary attainment. While these benefits reach all participating students, students face unequal access to dual enrollment programs, which serve white and high-income students at a higher rate than Black, Hispanic, Indigenous, and low-income students.

    To better understand the policies in place to support dual enrollment programs, a new report published by Bellwether examines dual enrollment programs and policies among four states, finding common themes related to both cost-sharing and access that states can replicate to further promote equity in dual enrollment participation.

    In analyzing the states and programs, the report notes seven themes related to increasing access to dual enrollment programs to serve as models for other states.

    Three of these themes involve funding policies:

    1. States allocate the full, per-pupil cost for dual enrollment students directly to participating school districts, ensuring that districts are not put at a financial disadvantage if students attend dual enrollment courses.
    2. Dual enrollment students are accounted for in community college full-time equivalent calculations, ensuring that community colleges are sufficiently funded for all students during the budget allocation process.
    3. States either fully or partially reimburse community colleges for the tuition costs associated with dual enrollment students, ensuring that costs are kept low for students while supporting the additional costs for community colleges.

    Four more themes concern policies unrelated to funding:

    1. There are specific, state-set goals for dual enrollment programs, which can involve a method for data collection, setting program performance expectations, and alignment with other state attainment initiatives, to ensure that students are receiving high-level programming.
    2. Community colleges and K-12 school districts are responsible for reporting dual enrollment program data to the state, allowing for policy adjustments supporting both strengths and opportunities for growth.
    3. States require the establishment of formal agreements between school districts and community colleges, ensuring that responsibilities for dual enrollment students are acknowledged and upheld among both parties.
    4. Dual enrollment coursework provides experience toward a credential of value or a need among the workforce, increasing the likelihood that credits earned through dual enrollment will support future postgraduation plans.

    Beyond the seven themes that support dual enrollment students found among the four states, the authors of the report go on to note further potential policy changes that states may make to better serve underrepresented populations in dual enrollment programs. To increase access and participation, states ought to establish sustainable funding that provides frequent investment in support of dual enrollment students. Students’ participation can also be supported by increasing the number of instructors among educational areas of high demand, establishing strong advising systems among school districts and community colleges, and allocating funding toward non-tuition costs that may hinder enrollment.

    To read more about specific dual enrollment programs, state policies, and how states can further increase access and participation among dual enrollment students, click here.

    —Julia Napier

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link

  • Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Actions to Dismantle Department of Education – CUPA-HR

    Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Actions to Dismantle Department of Education – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | May 29, 2025

    On May 22, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts issued a preliminary injunction to block the Trump administration from taking action to close the Department of Education (ED). Specifically, the court order blocks the Trump administration from “carrying out the reduction-in-force” at ED previously announced and from implementing the executive order directing the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education.”

    Several Democrat-led states, school districts and teachers unions filed lawsuits challenging the Trump administration’s reduction in force (RIF) at the department, arguing that the RIF would prohibit ED from carrying out its statutory functions. In the order enjoining the Trump administration from enforcing its RIF, the federal judge sided with the plaintiffs, granting the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs “have shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the form of financial uncertainty and delay damaging student education … impeded access to vital knowledge upon which students, districts, and educators rely, and … loss of essential services provided by the office of Federal Student Aid and the Office for Civil Rights.”

    As a result of the preliminary injunction, the Trump administration and ED are blocked from carrying out the reduction in force and implementing the order to close the department. The administration is also blocked from reinstating the reduction in force and executive order under a different name. ED is also directed to reinstate federal employees who were terminated or eliminated on or after January 20, 2025, as part of the RIF, and the Department of Education and the administration are required to file a status report describing the steps they have taken to comply with the order.

    Soon after the preliminary injunction was issued, the Trump administration filed an appeal to the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Further decisions are pending, and CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates from the appeals court.



    Source link

  • El College Board cancela programa de premios para estudiantes negros y latinos de alto rendimiento 

    El College Board cancela programa de premios para estudiantes negros y latinos de alto rendimiento 

    El College Board modificó este mes los criterios de concesión de becas del Programa Nacional de Reconocimiento o National Recognition Program, en una medida que podría desplazar decenas de miles de dólares de becas de estudiantes negros y latinos a estudiantes blancos. 

    Las universidades utilizaban los premios para contratar y ofrecer becas a estudiantes de alto rendimiento procedentes de grupos subrepresentados en la enseñanza superior. Anteriormente, el premio reconocía los logros académicos de estudiantes de cinco categorías: negros, hispanos, indígenas americanos, de primera generación y residentes en zonas rurales o ciudades pequeñas.  

    Las categorías raciales fueron eliminadas.  

    Ahora, los estudiantes que viven en ciudades pequeñas y zonas rurales pueden seguir obteniendo el premio si obtienen en el PSAT -precursor del SAT que se administra en las escuelas secundarias de todo el país- una puntuación que se sitúe en el 10% superior de todos los estudiantes de ciudades pequeñas y zonas rurales de su estado. Lo mismo ocurre con los estudiantes de primera generación, pero no con los de categorías raciales subrepresentadas. 

    Relacionados: ¿Le interesan más noticias sobre universidades? Suscríbase a nuestro boletín sobre educación superior quincenal gratuito . 

    Los críticos se mostraron decepcionados por la decisión del College Board. 

    “Creían que la desigualdad racial era algo importante que había que abordar ayer, y al cambiar eso, están dando a entender que no es algo importante por lo que luchar ahora”, dijo Rachel Perera,  investigadora de estudios gubernamentales en la liberal Brookings Institution.  “Esa es la cuestión central que se debate, aunque no se haga de forma explícita: ¿existe la discriminación racial?”.  

    En una declaración en su sitio web, el College Board recordó la sentencia del Tribunal Supremo de 2023 que prohibió el uso de la raza como criterio en las admisiones, aunque los premios del Programa Nacional de Reconocimiento se utilizaban para becas y contratación, no para admisiones. 

    “Las recientes acciones legales y regulatorias han limitado aún más la utilidad de estos premios para los estudiantes y las universidades”, dice la declaración. Además, el presidente Donald Trump ha dejado claro en repetidas ocasiones que desaprueba las políticas que tienen en cuenta la raza en la educación superior, y algunos estados han prohibido la consideración de la raza en las decisiones sobre becas.   

    En 2023-24, el College Board concedió 115.000 premios de reconocimiento y algo menos de la mitad correspondieron a categorías raciales. El año anterior hubo más de 80.000 premios y la mayoría fueron para estudiantes negros, hispanos e indígenas americanos. Aunque el College Board no reparte dinero por sí mismo, las universidades lo utilizan para seleccionar a los estudiantes que recibirán becas. Según Holly Stepp, directora de comunicaciones del College Board, éste no mantiene una lista de las instituciones que utilizaron las categorías raciales. 

    El College Board inició el programa en 1983 para reconocer a los estudiantes hispanos de alto rendimiento. En 2020, se añadieron las otras dos categorías raciales y las designaciones de ciudad pequeña y rural. Los estudiantes de primera generación pudieron ganar el premio a partir del año pasado. Las ciudades pequeñas podían incluir aquellas con ingresos modestos o enclaves ricos como Aspen (Colorado). Además, todos los estudiantes deben tener al menos una media de B+. 

    Relacionado: El recorte de las becas basadas en la raza bloquea el acceso a la universidad,  los estudiantes según

    Aunque ahora estudiantes de todas las razas pueden obtener los premios, la supresión de las categorías raciales afectará probablemente de forma desproporcionada a los estudiantes negros e hispanos.  

    En promedio, los estudiantes asiáticos y blancos obtienen puntuaciones más altas en el PSAT. La puntuación media de los estudiantes blancos en el PSAT del año pasado fue de 994, frente a los 821 de los estudiantes negros, lo que supone una diferencia de 173 puntos. La media de los estudiantes asiáticos fue aún mayor, 1108, mientras que la de los hispanos y los indígenas americanos fue de 852 y 828 puntos, respectivamente.  

    “Se trata de un avance hacia las categorías que no tienen en cuenta la raza, cuando sabemos que la educación y el acceso a la educación no son independientes de la raza”, afirmó Wil Del Pilar, vicepresidente senior de EdTrust, un grupo político de tendencia izquierdista. 

    Sin embargo, algunos conservadores elogiaron la medida, argumentando que los programas de becas y contratación en función de la raza eran formas de eludir las sentencias de la Corte Suprema sobre la acción afirmativa y que constituían una forma de discriminación inversa. 

    Jonathan Butcher, investigador principal de política educativa en la conservadora Heritage Foundation, dijo que cree que la discriminación racial existe y debe abordarse, pero que las políticas educativas que tienen en cuenta la raza son ilegales e ineficaces. 

    “Si se utilizan preferencias raciales, se está preparando a los estudiantes para que pierdan la confianza en sí mismos cuando se enfrenten a una situación para la que no están preparados”, afirma Butcher. 

    Relacionado: Cruzaron la frontera en busca de mejores escuelas. Ahora, algunas familias dejan EEUU

    En lugar de las categorías raciales, este año se ha añadido una nueva designación que reconoce a los estudiantes que obtienen una puntuación en el PSAT dentro del 10% de los mejores de su escuela secundaria.  

    Los expertos afirman que es poco probable que las universidades ofrezcan becas a todos los estudiantes que obtengan las mejores notas del 10% de todos las escuelas secundarias del país, dado el coste que ello supondría. Funcionarios de la Universidad de Nuevo México, por ejemplo, dijeron que dejarían de utilizar las designaciones del College Board a partir del año escolar 2026-27. 

    “Actualmente estamos analizando nuestra estrategia de becas, pero se harán cambios en todos los ámbitos”, dijo Steve Carr, director de comunicaciones de la universidad, en un correo electrónico. 

    En 2023-24, la Universidad de Nuevo México concedió becas por valor de 15.000 dólares cada una a 149 estudiantes negros, hispanos e indígenas americanos. 

    La Universidad de Arizona también ofreció becas a los estudiantes que obtuvieron premios del Programa de Reconocimiento Nacional en las designaciones raciales el año pasado. 

    “La universidad ya estaba evaluando su estrategia de becas y tendrá en cuenta el anuncio del College Board a la hora de determinar la mejor manera de avanzar y apoyar a nuestros estudiantes”, dijo Mitch Zak, portavoz de la Universidad de Arizona, en un correo electrónico. 

    Además de las puntuaciones obtenidas en el PSAT, los estudiantes pueden optar al premio del College Board si obtienen una puntuación de 3 o más en dos de los cinco exámenes de Colocación Avanzada o Advanced Placement realizados durante su noveno y/o décimo curso, aunque muchas escuelas secundarias no ofrecen de manera uniforme cursos AP a los estudiantes de primer y segundo año.  

    “No podemos hablar de méritos si no estamos todos en el mismo punto de partida en cuanto a lo que recibimos de nuestra educación primaria y secundaria”, dijo Del Pilar, “y cómo podemos desenvolvernos en el entorno de preparación de exámenes, o la falta de preparación de exámenes que reciben ciertas comunidades”. 

    Comunícate Meredith Kolodner en el 212-870-1063 o en [email protected] o en Signal en merkolodner.04 

    Esta historia sobre el College Board fue producida por The Hechinger Report, una organización de noticias independiente y sin ánimo de lucro centrada en la desigualdad y la innovación en la educación. Suscríbase al boletín de Hechinger. 

    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

  • Ono’s UF Contract Valued at Roughly $3M a Year

    Ono’s UF Contract Valued at Roughly $3M a Year

    University of Florida presidential pick Santa Ono could earn nearly $3 million a year if confirmed by the Florida Board of Governors next week, according to a copy of the contract proposal.

    Ono’s proposed base salary for the presidential role is $1.5 million, an increase from the $1.3 million he earned at the University of Michigan before stepping down to pursue the Florida job. He could also earn 20 percent annual performance bonuses and a yearly raise of 3 percent.

    In addition, the proposal includes a role for Ono at UF Health, where he will chair the board and serve as a principal investigator, overseeing a lab, which comes with a $500,000 annual salary. That role also earns a 3 percent annual raise and performance and retention bonuses.

    Other elements of the contract, such as benefits and deferred compensation, bring its total value to more than $3 million a year if Ono is approved by the Board of Governors, which has called a special meeting for Tuesday to decide.

    Ono, an ophthalmologist by training, would also receive a tenured faculty role in the UF College of Medicine.

    The contract includes some unusual provisions. It requires Ono to work with the Florida Department of Government Efficiency “to evaluate and reduce administrative overhead, ensuring that University resources are directed to teaching, research, and student success while safeguarding taxpayer and donor investments.” In addition, he would be prohibited from spending “any public or private funds” on “DEI or political or social activism.”

    Though the University of Florida Board of Trustees unanimously approved Ono as president earlier this week, he has faced opposition from conservative critics over past support of diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. Ono spent much of his public interview with the board this week articulating how he changed his mind on DEI. He argued that while he was initially supportive of DEI, he now believes such initiatives are costly, divisive and counterproductive.

    Ono’s public about-face comes amid a campaign from anti-DEI activist Chris Rufo, who circulated numerous videos on social media ahead of the UF Board of Trustees meeting that showed Ono supporting DEI and speaking against systemic racism, which Rufo argued was disqualifying because it ran counter to the goals of Republican governor Ron DeSantis.

    Other conservative figures have since leveled additional criticism at Ono, including state officials and Donald Trump Jr., who wrote online, “This woke psycho might be a perfect fit for a Communist school in California, but how is he even being considered for this role in Florida?” Trump Jr. also encouraged the Florida Board of Governors to vote against confirming Ono.

    While DeSantis, who has wielded considerable influence over university hiring decisions, told local media that Ono’s past comments on DEI have made him “cringe,” he has not joined the chorus of conservatives calling to block Ono and has expressed confidence in the search.

    Source link

  • videos-in-mindtap-for-education – The Cengage Blog

    videos-in-mindtap-for-education – The Cengage Blog

    Reading Time: 3 minutes

    As a professor, I specifically use education TeachSource videos located in the MindTap Learning Path to enhance online lectures and provide students with a “hands-on learning” component.

    However, my students were neither engaging in assignment completion nor providing full answers. Then, I had an “aha” moment, highlighting a common challenge in online education: students need to move beyond surface-level responses towards deeper analytical engagement. My mindset changed from teaching to mentorship.

    To foster genuine analytical thinking in application assignments — especially relating to real-life experiences — I’d consider the following approaches in combination with the use of TeachSource videos:

    Design open-ended, contextualized prompts

    Instead of questions that can be answered with one or two sentences, or mere definitions, frame prompts around real-world scenarios that require students to analyze, evaluate, and apply concepts. For example, in my early childhood education courses using MindTap, I ask students to: “Describe a situation in your classroom or community where you encountered a child throwing a tantrum over something they wanted which was not in their best interest —  aka: noting a specific concept which is applicable. How would you address the challenges in this video situation using what you have learned in this chapter?”

    Encourage reflection and connection

    As the previous example states, ask students to connect theory with personal experiences or current events. This invites them to reflect critically and relate abstract ideas to concrete situations, deepening understanding. In teaching and learning, we call this reflective thinking. This involves critically analyzing one’s own thought processes and experiences to deepen understanding. In the end, educational psychology tells us that the transfer of learning applies abstract ideas or principles to concrete, real-world situations. This enables learners to generalize knowledge beyond the original context. Together, these processes help learners deepen their understanding by connecting theory with practice through critical reflection.

    Use scaffolded questions

    We understand that our students might be at different levels when it comes to understanding a theory or concept. So, how do we use TeachSource videos to share teaching concepts?

    Start with pre-assessment questions of basic application. In basic application, you identify what the learner’s knowledge of the concept in the video is.

    Then, progress towards deeper analysis. For example:

    • Step One: Identify the concept in a scenario (basic application).
    • Step Two: Explain why it is relevant (interpretation).
    • Step Three: Propose alternative solutions or outcomes (evaluation and synthesis).
    • Step Four: Post assessment of learning outcomes.

    Role playing in class or online

    Role playing is a concept that’s important to scaffolding the “transfer of learning.” For example, a future education student is wired with curiosity to imagine what their classroom will look like and how they will interact with future students. Instructors can create this experience for them in a variety of ways. Linking our teaching of real-life experiences to standards of learning provides the opportunity for instructors to role play. It provides the opportunity to fail and learn from real world mistakes. Therefore, students can develop more marketable skill sets.

    Linking workforce standards to teaching and learning

    We discussed role playing, but how do we link real life to workforce standards using TeachSource MindTap videos? In my early childhood course, I link all course concepts to the National Association for the Education of the Young Child (NAEYC) Professional Standards. This process begins in the syllabus but also in the course shell modules built around MindTap. By doing so, students can see themselves as future employees.

    In conclusion, closing the learning process gap means we teach with purpose and in a systematic cycle. Therefore, my teaching has become a cycle of learning, rather than just a video assignment linked to chapter information. MindTap TeachSource videos happen to be my vehicle for the transfer of learning.

    Dr. Maria C. Rutherford is a Full Professor at Bluegrass Community and Technical College and Cengage Faculty Partner.

    Explore our full education course offerings by downloading the course guide.

    Source link

  • Once, international students feared Beijing’s wrath. Now Trump is the threat.

    Once, international students feared Beijing’s wrath. Now Trump is the threat.

    This essay was originally published in The Los Angeles Times on May 28, 2025.

    American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.

    Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.

    Harvard stands firm, rejects Trump administration’s unconstitutional demands

    News

    After Trump demanded that Harvard make multiple changes to its leadership, admission, hiring and more, Harvard refused to bend the knee.


    Read More

    In a May 22 letter, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced she revoked Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning the university’s thousands of international students must transfer immediately or lose their legal status. Harvard can no longer enroll future international students either.

    Noem cited Harvard’s failure to hand over international student disciplinary records in response to a prior letter and, disturbingly, the Trump administration’s desire to “root out the evils of anti-Americanism” on campus. Among the most alarming demands in this latest missive was that Harvard supply all video of “any protest activity” by any international student within the last five years.

    Harvard immediately sued Noem and her department and other agencies, rightfully calling the revocation “a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” and within hours a judge issued a temporary restraining order against the revocation.

    “Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,” Noem wrote on X about the punishment. And on Tuesday, the administration halted interviews for all new student visas.

    This is not how a free country treats its schools — or the international visitors who attend them.

    Noem’s warning will, no doubt, be heard loud and clear. That’s because universities — which depend on international students’ tuition dollars — have already had reason to worry that they will lose access to international students for displeasing censorial government officials.

    In 2010, Beijing revoked recognition of the University of Calgary’s accreditation in China, meaning Chinese students at the Canadian school suddenly risked paying for a degree worth little at home. The reason? The university’s granting of an honorary degree to the Dalai Lama the year before. “We have offended our Chinese partners by the very fact of bringing in the Dalai Lama, and we have work to resolve that issue,” a spokesperson said.

    Beijing restored recognition over a year later, but many Chinese students had already left. Damage done.

    Similarly, when UC San Diego hosted the Dalai Lama as commencement speaker in 2017, punishment followed. The China Scholarship Council suspended funding for academics intending to study at UCSD, and an article in the state media outlet Global Times recommended that Chinese authorities “not recognize diplomas or degree certificates issued by the university.”

    This kind of direct punishment doesn’t happen very frequently. But the threat always exists, and it creates fear that administrators take into account when deciding how their universities operate.

    American universities now must fear that they will suffer this penalty too, but at an even greater scale: revocation of access not just to students from China, but all international students. That’s a huge potential loss. At Harvard, for example, international students make up a whopping 27% of total enrollment.

    FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration

    News

    Harvard vs. Trump isn’t just a headline, but a battle to decide whether the government can use funding to force ideological conformity. In this explainer, FIRE makes clear why not.


    Read More

    Whether they publicly acknowledge it or not, university leaders probably are considering whether they need to adjust their behavior to avoid seeing international student tuition funds dry up.

    Will our colleges and universities increase censorship and surveillance of international students? Avoid inviting commencement speakers disfavored by the Trump administration? Pressure academic departments against hiring any professors whose social media comments or areas of research will catch the eye of mercurial government officials?

    And, equally disturbing, will they be willing to admit that they are now making these calculations at all? Unlike direct punishments by the Trump administration or Beijing, this chilling effect is likely to be largely invisible.

    Harvard might be able to survive without international students’ tuition. But a vast number of other universities could not. The nation as a whole would feel their loss too: In the 2023-24 academic year, international students contributed a record-breaking $43.8 billion to the American economy.

    And these students — who have uprooted their lives for the promise of what American education offers — are the ones who will suffer the most, as they experience weeks or months of panic and upheaval while being used as pawns in this campaign to punish higher ed.

    If the Trump administration is seeking to root out “anti-Americanism,” it can begin by surveying its own behavior in recent months. Freedom of expression is one of our country’s most cherished values. Censorship, surveillance, and punishment of government critics do not belong here.

    Source link

  • Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    There’s a huge story going on right now in Australian higher education, one that hasn’t made many ripples outside the country yet, but really should have.

    In January of 2026, two of the country’s major universities will be merging. The old research intensive University of Adelaide, one of the country’s so-called sandstone — meaning prestigious — universities, will be joining with the newer post Dawkins i.e., created in the early 1990s, University of South Australia, which began its life as the South Australian Institute of Technology.

    The new institution, Adelaide University, will be a behemoth of a multiversity, among the five largest institutions in the country. I’m fairly certain I’m right in saying this is the largest merger ever of two anglophone universities. But there are a lot of questions about how this is gonna work out. How will the new institution manage to maintain two separate missions? One is a research institution and one is an access institution. How can two very distinct cultures be bridged? And also, how do you create a distinct curricular or pedagogical identity for a new institution?

    With me today is David Lloyd. He’s the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia, and until the merger happens, also the Deputy Vice Chancellor at the University of Adelaide, and as you probably guessed, he’s one of the architects of the merger.

    In the course of this interview, we cover a range of issues such as what are the benefits of mergers? Why these two institutions? Why now? And how on earth do you possibly make a merger of this scale actually work? I can’t do any of this justice in an intro, so let’s just turn it over to David.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.33 | Opening January 2026: Inside One of the Biggest University Mergers in Australia

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): David, why merge these two institutions—and why now? What made this the right moment to bring these two very different institutions together?

    David Lloyd (DL): I guess sometimes we joke and say there’s never going to be a better time. I’m not sure there ever is a perfect time. In this case, it’s not our first attempt. Ever since UniSA was established in 1991, people have questioned why another university was needed in South Australia.

    Right now, though, the political landscape is aligned in support of this. There’s institutional ambition on both sides of the ledger—coming from different motivations, but ultimately converging. You’ve got leaders who’ve known each other for a long time, strong financial positions in both institutions, and a shared history—we came very close before. We nearly merged in 2012. We nearly did it again in 2018. So in some ways, it’s like—third time lucky.

    AU: What do you gain together that you don’t already have apart? What’s the advantage here?

    DL: One of the biggest advantages is scale. Australian universities are large organizations. UniSA has about 40,000 students and Adelaide has about 30,000. So combined, you’re looking at 70,000 students—which makes it a $2.1 billion enterprise. It’s a big operation. Now, big isn’t automatically better, but it does mean you’re more financially robust and resilient.

    At that scale, the student mix is also important—about 75% domestic and 25% international on day one. That gives you a really strong foundation, making the institution more shockproof in the face of events like the pandemic or future geopolitical disruptions. You get a very robust organization.

    And then, if you think about how you can leverage the cash flow of a $2.1 billion enterprise into applications and resources—it throws off a lot more than each institution could alone. That gives you a real capacity for investment.

    AU: You said this isn’t your first go at this, right? That this is actually at least the second time, that I know of, that this has been considered. So take us back. Presumably, at some point after 1991, as UniSA grew from being an old technical institution into what it is now, there would have been various moments when people said, “Hey, there are gains to be had from a merger.” Over this long period—20 or 30 years—what were the big turning points? When did the light go off and people say, “Aha, we should definitely do this”?

    DL: I think it goes back to the origins of the institution in the 1990s. When the policy came through under the Hawke Labor government—John Dawkins was the Minister for Education at the time—the creation of new institutions was happening across the country.

    In that formative period, you had faculties and activities from what had been an Institute of Technology and a College of Advanced Education. There was a bit of a shop-around approach—people were saying, “Well, these parts could go to University X, or those parts could go to University Y, or we could put them together and create something new.” And in South Australia, that led to the creation of a new university.

    So you went from a town with two institutions—the old, established sandstone University of Adelaide, and Flinders University, a 1950s construct—to suddenly having this new kid on the block in 1991. And it quickly became a real challenger to the other two. It grabbed a large share of the domestic market and drove the participation agenda. The national driver at the time was to increase tertiary attainment, and suddenly, a lot of people who’d never gone to university had access.

    Then you fast forward to 2012. There was a desire at that time—between the University of South Australia and the University of Adelaide—to pursue a merger. It didn’t go through, for all sorts of reasons. I think mostly small, local considerations. Peter Høj—who’s now my co–Vice Chancellor at the new Adelaide University—was the Vice Chancellor of UniSA back then. He left to run the University of Queensland.

    And I was recruited to lead UniSA after that particular push toward merger had fizzled. So I came into an institution that had thought about merging, had moved somewhat in that direction, but ultimately hadn’t done it.

    Then in 2018, the same kinds of conversations came up again. These things tend to resurface when there’s a leadership change. When a Vice Chancellor leaves, people say, “Well, we could hire a new one—or we could merge the universities.” It’s a very simple framing, but it does come up.

    In 2018, that cycle happened again. We went quite far down the road exploring a merger. There was a public process. But in the end, UniSA withdrew. We said no, and we said no because of the business case. What was being articulated at that time didn’t look like something that would take the goals and ambitions of the institution to where we believed it needed to be—especially not given the overhead that would come with creating a new university.

    So things settled down again—until we got to the conditions we talked about earlier, the ones that make this moment feel like the right one.

    AU: Let me just ask you—based on what you’ve described, why, from the University of South Australia’s perspective, is Adelaide the right merger partner? Why not Flinders?

    DL: Yeah, yeah, that’s a really good point. I can tell you that in the various machinations over the years—and I’ve been here now for 13 years—there have definitely been times when I thought, you could actually end up with quite a different landscape in South Australia. UniSA and Flinders could have come together to create a kind of younger, more modern university that would have competed in the domestic market against the older, more established University of Adelaide. That would’ve created a local differentiator.

    But the combination that actually came about—and the reason we are where we are today—has a lot to do with a key political shift. In 2021, while still in opposition, the now state government released a policy position saying that, if elected, they would establish a merger commission to examine the merits of a combination—with a view to making it happen. It was a very clear and determinative policy.

    They believed a merger had been a missed opportunity in the past and were committed to a process that would determine the next steps. That put universities in an interesting position. You had the prospect of an external body telling you, “You have to merge—and here’s who you’re going to merge with.” That creates a real risk of losing institutional autonomy and control.

    What stood out in that policy position, though, was the stated ambition to create a university that could rank sustainably in the global top 100. If you look at different combinations, a UniSA–Flinders merger wouldn’t get you there—at least not without a significant uplift in investment. But a UniSA–University of Adelaide merger could. And so that becomes one of the key factors shaping the path we chose.

    AU: There’s one other country that’s really moved in this direction, specifically with the goal of getting institutions into the global top 100, and that’s France. Right? You’ve seen a lot of that in places like Lyon and Paris. Did you spend much time looking at the dos and don’ts from the French experience—or from any other international mergers?

    DL: We did spend some time on that. There’s quite a bit of jurisdictional variability when it comes to amalgamating institutions. The example we really studied, with a kind of weather eye on how to do this properly, was the creation of the University of Manchester.

    But that was quite a while ago now. When we looked at the French experience, what stood out was that their approach often seemed to involve putting a veneer of amalgamation over existing institutions and then dropping a kind of cash bundle on top to make the veneer hold together. So it’s less the creation of a single institution and more the creation of an amalgamated system. From our perspective, this is a non-trivial exercise. We didn’t want to just have an umbrella that said, “This is a merged university.” We wanted to create a new university.

    And from UniSA’s side, the conditions for entering the process were very clear: we would create a new institution—with its own mission, its own purpose—its own values, and all of those things. That’s not really what the French model does. But one interesting lesson from the French approach was that if you apply that veneer—and if you’re something like Paris-Saclay—you can be considered a young university again, which is an intriguing outcome. The Sorbonne, for example, is now viewed as a young university again.

    That was an interesting insight into how these things are perceived. So for us, the goal was to do this really well—to create an integrated, new institution. That way, we’d have the benefits of a young university, with all the pedigree and legacy behind us too.

    AU: David, I assume—though I’m not sure exactly what process you used—there was some kind of letter of intent or memorandum of understanding that said, “We’re going to do this, and we’re serious.” How does the planning process unfold from there? Once you’ve done the initial feasibility and assured each other you’re acting in good faith, how do you move through the bottlenecks of institutional governance, stakeholder engagement, and all those kinds of things? How do you get to the finish line?

    DL: Um, great tenacity—I think that’s key. Peter and I started this as an informal conversation back in 2021, and we’re planning to open the doors of the new university on the first Monday of 2026—January 5th. So it’s a long road from informal talks to delivering a functional, operational, competitive institution.

    On the plus side, we had very strong intent from the state government to enable this. In our system, it’s the state government that legislates the creation of universities. But then you also have to negotiate with the federal government to be recognized as an Australian university—

    AU: And funded.

    DL: Exactly. So, at the local level, we could establish a corporate body, but we still needed legislation to pass through the house. It was much more complex than just signing an MOU.

    We actually had to draft legislation and, mechanistically, we created a new corporate entity—a new university—that sits alongside the two existing ones. So when I’m co–Vice Chancellor of the new Adelaide University, I’m still the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia. These are independent and autonomous institutions—one of which is actively creating the other, even while the original continues to exist legislatively. It’s quite an unusual construct.

    On the federal side, this goes back to why now. The current federal government—a Labor government—has a strong agenda around widening participation. When we approached them and said, “We’re going to have the largest population of domestic Australian students of any institution in the country,” that positioned us as a sovereign educator. We’re delivering an equity and participation agenda at a scale no other Australian university can match. That naturally leads to a conversation about: how do they help us set it up?

    AU: As I understand it, you’ve got some kind of transition council. I’m not sure if that’s a joint council for both institutions, or if each has its own. How does that work? Who’s on that council making the nitty-gritty decisions? And how do you make sure everything stays on track?

    DL: That goes back to the legislation. Adelaide University was formally established in legislation in March 2024. That legislation created a council—capital “C”—with the word “transition” in front of it, which gives you a sense of its purpose.

    The composition of that council was agreed upon by the two institutions, determining how to populate the board of this new university from the existing boards of UniSA and the University of Adelaide. It was set up as a 50/50 split between the two, with UniSA having the right to appoint the chancellor of the new university. That was one of the key elements in the background negotiations—like why it’s called Adelaide University and not the University of South Australia.

    In fact, the act establishing the new university is based on the University of South Australia Act, and UniSA retained the right to appoint the transition chancellor.

    But functionally, this council operates as a fully independent university council, completely autonomous from the two existing institutions. Everyone who joined the council had to step off their former boards and now acts solely in the interest of the new institution, as required by law.

    What the council does is provide a governance framework for the executive to work within. It approves the strategy, but it’s the executive team—originally Peter and myself, along with a team drawn from both universities—that brings forward the decisions.

    Now, we’ve started appointing deputy vice chancellors who are employees of the new Adelaide University. We’ve brought forward a strategy that actually originated in the business case—a white paper—that both universities had independently agreed was in their best interests.

    If you go back to 2022, we were asking: What will we create? What should it look like? Why are we doing this? How much will it cost? We built a strong business case and rationale. That was then translated into a strategy for the new institution—one that doesn’t just cover the start in 2024, but runs all the way through to 2030. That’s when we aim to have a fully established, steady-state university of scale, delivering everything we set out to achieve: a purposeful, excellent institution.

    AU: One thing that’s really struck me about this process—watching it from 8,000 miles away—is how remarkably smooth it seems to have been. Mergers often stir up a lot of turbulence, especially with alumni communities. And while I don’t know the geography of Adelaide very well, I imagine there can be tensions if one part of town gains certain things and another part doesn’t.

    Then there’s the fact that your two institutions have different origins, stories, and areas of specialization—but still quite a bit of overlap in terms of departments and programs. That’s usually where the real head-butting happens: getting people to play nicely together. But you seem to have managed that really well. What’s the secret to a smooth merger?

    DL: Well, part of it is that this is our third attempt—so maybe it’s third time lucky. As I said earlier, this isn’t our first rodeo. This has been considered before, so there was a certain inevitability in the way we presented it this time. There was a clear policy position, enabling legislation, and strong support from the government behind us.

    But that only takes you so far. You can’t just rely on top-down directives. People can still dig in their heels. If the message had been, “We’re doing this because we were told to,” we could’ve faced a lot of turbulence.

    Instead, what we had were two universities that went through their own internal processes—through their academic boards, their senates—and independently concluded that creating this new institution was in their best interest, and in the best interest of the state. So both came to the table willingly, but from different perspectives.

    Each institution had a view of what it would give up—and what it would become. This is really a baton pass from both organizations to something new.

    And when we looked at the mechanics of creating that new institution, we didn’t take a “lift and shift” approach. We didn’t just bundle together the activities of both universities under a single umbrella. We committed to building a new structure. We committed to delivering a new curriculum. We agreed to design everything—program content included—through a forward-looking Adelaide University lens, rather than from the perspective of UniSA’s past or Adelaide’s past.

    And what was remarkable—and maybe a bit fortuitous—was the way our people responded. Let’s say we brought together two marketing faculties. We told them, “We want you to design a new curriculum that takes the best of both.” And instead of any sense of loss or resistance, what we got was strong academic alignment in shaping that new product.

    We did that across the board—wherever we had overlapping programs: two business degrees, two law degrees, two science degrees. The faculty teams who had once been institutional competitors came together and asked, “If we start with a blank piece of paper—not with the past—what would the ideal program look like?”

    And that approach has been incredibly unifying. Thousands of academics have gone through that process already, and many more will continue to do so between now and 2030.

    AU: You’re talking about new programs here. What’s striking, again from a distance, is the early commitment to pedagogy—a move away from the traditional lecture system. As I understand it, the institution committed to moving away from in-person lectures. Have I got that right? Is that the plan?

    DL: I love having these conversations—especially when the 8,000-kilometer view is, “You guys aren’t going to have lectures anymore.”

    AU: That’s why we’re having this conversation, David!

    DL: Exactly. And we had a similar conversation in Beijing when we were on stage launching the new brand. Journalists there were asking the same thing. But no, we are not getting rid of lectures.

    What we are getting rid of is the idea that students just sit in a room while someone talks at them for an hour, and then leave—as if knowledge has magically transferred from the person at the podium to the students in the seats. Instead, we’re aiming for much richer, more engaging classroom experiences.

    These will still be face-to-face, but students will come prepared. The foundational content—the pre-reading, the prerequisite material—will be delivered online. We’ll expect students to engage with that before attending the in-person component, whether it’s a workshop, tutorial, or some other interactive format.

    And that core online content is being designed so it can also stand alone. If you’re not physically in South Australia, you’ll still be able to engage with the material from anywhere—across the country or internationally.

    AU: So, it’s flipped classrooms at scale?

    DL: Yes. Exactly.

    AU: That’s a significant pedagogical shift. It’s not something you’d typically get from individual departmental committees. Was there wide buy-in for that? Because even when you frame it as flipped classrooms rather than online classes, it still feels like a big change for academics across a wide range of disciplines.

    DL: Yeah, and I think in a post-COVID era, that shift is more understandable. The pandemic showed us all that you can go online—and do it either really well or really poorly. But if you do it well, students can have a great experience.

    We’ve anchored all of our structural decisions through the lens of student experience and student success. And the evidence we have shows that, when done right, students actually report better experiences with these kinds of blended or flipped models than they do with traditional, lecture-heavy formats.

    If you go back to one of UniSA’s strengths: in 2018, we created a division called UniSA Online. Higher education bodies now say we’re number one in Australia for online education—and top ten globally. That means we already had a strong engine for content creation and pedagogical design.

    Now we’re layering that into an institution with the generational pedigree and academic reputation that the University of Adelaide brings. So together, the new Adelaide University will have a really compelling mix.

    And to be clear—it’s not a wholesale replacement of everything that came before. The academic content is still owned by the faculty. What’s changed is how that content is curated and presented in the online environment. That curation is handled institutionally, but the ownership remains firmly with the academics.

    AU: We’re a little more than seven months away from opening day. I have two questions: what are you most looking forward to in all of this? And what do you think the global implications are—what lessons might institutions outside Australia take from this?

    DL: Yeah. The first part—this has been nearly a five-year journey for me, getting this institution to the point of opening. On a personal level, my daughter is just finishing a diploma with the University of South Australia. She’s about to start her degree in the next few weeks, entering mid-year. So she’ll begin at UniSA just as it officially ends—and she’ll graduate from Adelaide University in, hopefully, three years’ time.

    So I have a very real hope that we’ve managed to build an institution that will empower her, her peers, our colleagues, and future learners—to be successful, to find meaningful employment, and to have a great experience along the way. That’s not the reason we did all this, of course, but when I look at the outcomes we aimed for, I want to see that we’ve hit the metrics we set.

    It’s a very ambitious strategy. But we’ve had the financial resources and a long runway to plan—something only a whole-of-institution change like this could make possible.

    Personally, I’m really looking forward to 2030. That’s when I want to look back and assess whether we’ve achieved what we set out to do. Not necessarily from inside the organization—Peter and I won’t be the Vice Chancellors next year. We’ve made a conscious decision to hand over to a new leader who will carry this strategy forward.

    But I want to see how they reach those milestones based on the breadcrumbs and trail we’ve laid down. And in the next few months, we’ll see the inaugural rankings for this institution as we move into its first year of operation. I’m quietly confident we’ll meet our targets.

    And I’ll admit—part of me is looking forward to proving the doubters wrong. The ones who said, “You can’t do this. You’ll go backwards. It’s dilution.” I want them to be left eating humble pie. Glen Davis—the former Vice Chancellor of the University of Melbourne, now working in the Prime Minister’s department—once said to me, “Good luck as you attempt the impossible.” And if we pull this off, that’s where the real satisfaction will come from.

    AU: And from an international perspective—what should others learn from this?

    DL: I think what we’re demonstrating is that there are two ways to approach a merger. You can put up an umbrella, apply a veneer, and say, “Here’s a system.” Or you can take a planned, deliberate, mindful approach—what I wouldn’t call a leap of faith, but an investment in doing it properly.

    And that means proper integration. Proper consideration of what it means to deliver a new organization—not just on paper, but in culture, structure, and purpose. If you do that, you can create something that really is more than the sum of its parts.

    I think we’re showing what’s possible.

    AU: DL, thank you so much for being with us today.

    DL: Pleasure. Thanks, Alex.

    AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week, when our guest will once again be Brendan Cantwell from Michigan State University. You may remember him from last fall’s episode, when he suggested—based on a close reading of Project 2025—that a second Trump administration might shift from a culture war posture to one of active sabotage and destruction of the higher education sector. We’ll see whether he can resist saying, “I told you so.” Bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link