Blog

  • Quality assurance needs consideration, not change for change’s sake

    Quality assurance needs consideration, not change for change’s sake

    It’s been a year since publication of the Behan review and six months since OfS promised to “transform” their approach to quality assessment in response. But it’s still far from clear what this looks like, or if the change is what the sector really needs.

    In proposals for a new strategy published back in December OfS suggested a refocus of regulatory activity to concentrate on three strategic priorities of quality, the wider student experience and financial resilience. But while much of the mooted activity within experience and resilience themes felt familiar, when it came to quality, more radical change was clearly on the agenda.

    The plans are heavily influenced by findings of last summer’s independent review (the Behan review). This critiqued what it saw as minimal interaction between assessment relating to baseline compliance and excellence, and recommended bringing these strands together to focus on general improvement of quality throughout the sector. In response OfS pledged to ‘transform’ quality assessment, retaining TEF at the core of an integrated approach and developing more routine and widespread activity.

    Current concerns

    Unfortunately, these bare bones proposals raised more questions about the new integrated approach than they answered and if OfS ‘recent blog update was a welcome attempt to do more in the way of delivering timely and transparent information to providers, it disappointed on detail. OfS have been discussing key issues such as the extent of integration, scope for a new TEF framework, and methods of assessment. But while a full set of proposals will be out for consultation in the autumn, in the meantime, there’s little to learn other than to expect a very different TEF which will probably operate on a rolling cycle (assessing all institutions over a four to five year period).

    The inability to cement preparations for the next TEF will cause some frustration for providers. However, if as the tone of communications suggests, OfS is aiming for more disruptive integration above an expansion of the TEF proposals may present some bigger concerns for the sector.

    A fundamental concern is whether an integrated approach aimed at driving overall improvement is the most effective way to tackle the sector’s current challenges around quality. Behan’s review warns against an overemphasis on baseline regulation, but below standard provision from a significant minority of providers is where the most acute risks to students, taxpayers and sector reputation lie (as opposed to failure to improve quality for the majority performing above the baseline). Regulation should support improvement across the board too of course.

    However, it’s not clear how shifting focus away from the former, let alone moving it within a framework designed to assess excellence periodically, will usefully help OfS tackle stubborn pockets of poor provision and emerging threats within a dynamic sector.

    There is also an obvious tension inherent in any attempt to bring baseline regulation within a rolling cycle which is manifest as soon as OfS find serious concerns about provider quality mid cycle. Here we should expect OfS to intervene with investigation and enforcement where appropriate to protect the student and wider stakeholder interest. But doing so would essentially involve regulating on minimum standards on top of a system that’s aiming to do that already as part of an integrated approach. Moreover, if whistle blowing and lead indictors which OfS seem keen to develop to alert them to issues operate effectively, and if OfS start looking seriously at franchise and potentially TNE provision, it’s easy to imagine this duplication becoming widespread.

    There is also the issue of burden for both regulator and providers which should be recognised within any significant shift in approach. For OfS there’s a question of the extent to which developing and delivering an integrated approach is hindering ongoing quality assessment. Meanwhile, getting to grips with new regulatory processes, and aligning internal approaches to quality assurance and reporting will inevitably absorb significant provider resource. At a time when pressures are profound, this is likely to be particularly unwelcome and could detract significantly from the focus on delivery and students. Ironically it’s hard to see how transformative change might not hamper the improvements in quality across the board that Behan advocates and prove somewhat counter-productive to the pursuit of OfS’ other strategic goals.

    The challenge

    It’s crucial that OfS take time to consider how best to progress with any revised approach and sector consultation throughout the process is welcome. Nevertheless, development appears to be progressing slowly and somewhat at odds with OfS’ positioning as an agile and confident regulator operating in a dynamic landscape. Maybe this should tell us something about the difficulties inherent in developing an integrated approach.

    There’s much to admire about the Behan review and OfS’ responsiveness to the recommendations is laudable. But while Behan looks to the longer term, I’m not convinced that in the current climate there’s much wrong with the idea of maintaining the incumbent framework.

    Let’s not forget that this was established by OfS only three years ago following significant development and consultation to ensure a judicious approach.

    I wonder if the real problem here is that, in contrast to a generally well received TEF (and as Behan highlights), OfS’ work on baseline quality regulation simply hasn’t progressed with the speed, clarity and bite that was anticipated and necessary to drive positive change above the minimum were needed. And I wonder if a better solution to pressing quality concerns would be for OfS to concentrate resources on improving operation of the current framework. There certainly feels room to deliver more, more responsive, more transparent and more impactful baseline investigations without radical change. At the same time, the feat of maintaining a successful and much expanded TEF seems much more achievable without bringing a significant amount of assurance activity within its scope.

    We may yet see a less intrusive approach to integration proposed by OfS. I think this could be a better way forward – less burdensome and more suited to the sector’s current challenges. As the regulator reflects on their approach over the summer with a new chair at the helm who’s closer to the provider perspective and more distanced from the independent review, perhaps this is one which they will lean towards.

    Source link

  • Moving beyond the quality wars

    Moving beyond the quality wars

    A decade since his passing, David Watson’s work remains a touchpoint of UK higher education analysis.

    This reflects the depth and acuity of his analysis, but also his ability as a phrasemaker.

    One of his phrases that has stood the test of time is the “quality wars” – his label for the convulsions in UK higher education in the 1990s and early 2000s over the assurance of academic quality and standards.

    Watson coined this phrase in 2006, shortly after the 2001 settlement that brought the quality wars to an end. A peace that lasted, with a few small border skirmishes, until HEFCE’s launch of its review of quality assessment in 2015.

    War never changes

    I wasn’t there, but someone who was has described to me a meeting at that time involving heads of university administration and HEFCE’s chief executive. As told to me, at one point a registrar of a large and successful university effectively called out HEFCE’s moves on quality assessment urging HEFCE not to reopen the quality wars. I’ve no idea if the phrase Pandora’s box was used, but it would fit the tenor of the exchange as it was relayed to me.

    Of course this warning was ignored. And of course (as is usually the case) the registrar was right. The peace was broken, and the quality wars returned to England.

    The staging posts of the revived conflict are clear.

    HEFCE’s Revised operating model for quality assessment was introduced in 2016. OfS was establishment two years later, leading to the B conditions mark I; followed later the same year by a wholesale re-write of the UK quality code that was reportedly largely prompted and/or driven by OfS. Only for OfS to decide by 2020 that it wasn’t content with this; repudiation of the UK quality code; and OfS implementing from 2022 the B conditions mark II (new, improved; well maybe not the latter, but definitely longer).

    And a second front in the quality wars opened up in 2016, with the birth of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF). Not quite quality assessment in the by then traditional UK sense, but still driven by a desire to sort the sheep from the goats – identifying both the pinnacles of excellence and depths of… well, that was never entirely clear. And as with quality assessment, TEF was a very moveable feast.

    There were three iterations of Old TEF between 2016 and 2018. The repeated insistence that subject level TEF was a done deal, leading to huge amounts of time and effort on preparations in universities between 2017 and early 2020 only for subject-level TEF to be scrapped in 2021. At which point New TEF emerged from ashes, embraced by the sector with an enthusiasm that was perhaps to be expected – particularly after the ravages of the Covid pandemic.

    And through New TEF the two fronts allegedly became a united force. To quote OfS’s regulatory advice , the B conditions and New TEF formed part of an “overall approach” where “conditions of registration are designed to ensure a minimum level” and OfS sought “to incentivise providers to pursue excellence in their own chosen way … in a number of ways, including through the TEF”.

    Turn and face the strange

    So in less than a decade English higher education experienced: three iterations of quality assessment; three versions of TEF (one ultimately not implemented, but still hugely disruptive to the sector); and a rationalisation of the links between the two that required a lot of imagination, and a leap into faith, to accept the claims being made.

    Pandora’s box indeed.

    No wonder that David Behan’s independent review of OfS recommended “that the OfS’s quality assessment methodologies and activity be brought together to form a more integrated assessment of quality.” Last week we had the first indications from OfS of how it will address this recommendation, and there are two obvious questions: can we see a new truce emerging in the quality wars; and given where we look as though we may end up on this issue, was this round of the quality wars worth fighting?

    Any assessment of where we are following the last decade of repeated and rapid change has to recognise that there have been some gains. The outcomes data used in TEF, particularly the approach to benchmarking at institutional and subject levels, is and always has been incredibly interesting and, if used wisely, useful data. The construction of a national assessment process leading to crude overall judgments just didn’t constitute wise use of the data.

    And while many in the sector continue to express concern at the way such data was subsequently brought into the approach to national quality assessment by OfS, this has addressed the most significant lacuna of the pre-2016 approach to quality assurance. The ability to use this to identify specific areas and issues of potential concern for further, targeted investigation also addresses a problematic gap in previous approaches that were almost entirely focused on cyclical review of entire institutions.

    It’s difficult though to conclude that these advances, important elements of which it appears will be maintained in the new quality assessment approach being developed by OfS, were worth the costs of the turbulence of the last 10 years.

    Integration

    What appears to be emerging from OfS’s development of a new integrated approach to quality assessment essentially feels like a move back towards central elements of the pre-2016 system, with regular cyclical reviews of all providers (with our without visits to be decided) against a single reference point (albeit the B conditions rather than UK Quality Code). Of course it’s implicit rather than explicit, but it feels like an acknowledgment that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater in 2016.

    There are of course multiple reasons for this, but a crucial one has been the march away from the concept of co-regulation between universities and higher education providers. This was a conscious and deliberate decision, and one that has always been slightly mystifying. As a sector we recognise and promote the concept of co-creation of academic provision by staff and students, while being able to maintain robust assessment of the latter by the former. The same can and should be true of providers and regulators in relation to quality assurance and assessment, and last week’s OfS blog gives some hope that OfS is belatedly moving in this direction.

    It’s essential that they do.

    Another of David Watson’s memorable phrases was “controlled reputational range”: the way in which the standing of UK higher education was maintained by a combination of internal and external approaches. It is increasingly clear from recent provider failures and the instances of unacceptable practices in relation to some franchised provision that this controlled reputational range is increasingly at risk. And while this is down to developments and events in England, it jeopardises this reputation for universities across the UK.

    A large part of the responsibility for this must sit with OfS and its approach to date to regulating academic quality and standards. There have also been significant failings on the part of awarding bodies, both universities and private providers. The answer must therefore lie in partnership working between regulators and universities, moving closer to a co-regulatory approach based on a final critical element of UK higher education identified by Watson – its “collaborative gene”.

    OfS’s blog post on its developing approach to quality assessments holds out hope of moves in this direction. And if this is followed through, perhaps we’re on the verge of a new settlement in the quality wars.

    Source link

  • The world is sorting out the quality of transnational education, but where is England?

    The world is sorting out the quality of transnational education, but where is England?

    If you believe – as many do – that English higher education is among the best in the world, it can come as an unwelcome surprise to learn that in many ways it is not.

    As a nation that likes to promote the idea that our universities are globally excellent, it feels very odd to realise that the rest of the world is doing things rather better when it comes to quality assurance.

    And what’s particularly alarming about this is that the new state of the art is based on the systems and processes set up in England around two decades ago.

    Further afield

    The main bone of contention between OfS and the rest of the quality assurance world – and the reason why England is coloured in yellow rather than green on the infamous EQAR map – and the reason why QAA had to demit from England’s statutory Designated Quality Body role – is that the European Standards and Guidance (ESG) require a cyclical review of institutional quality processes and involve the opinions of students, while OfS wants things to be more vibes risk-based and feels quality assurance is far too important to get actual students involved.

    Harsh? Perhaps. In the design of its regulatory framework the OfS was aiming to reduce burden by focusing mainly on where there were clear issues with quality – with the enhancement end handled by the TEF and the student aspect handled by actual data on how they get on academically (the B3 measures of continuation, completion, and progression) and more generally (the National Student Survey). It has even been argued (unsuccessfully) in the past that as TEF is kind of cyclical if you squint a bit, and it does sort of involve students, that England is in fact ESG compliant.

    It’s not like OfS were deliberately setting out to ignore international norms, it was more that it was trying to address English HE’s historic dislike for lengthy external reviews of quality as it established a radically new system of regulation – and cyclical reviews with detailed requirements on student involvement were getting in the way of this. Obviously this was completely successful, as now nobody complains about regulatory burden and there are no concerns about the quality of education in any part of English higher education among students or other stakeholders.

    Those ESG international standards were first published in 2005,with the (most recent) 2015 revision adopted by ministers from 47 countries (including the UK). There is a revision underway led by the E4 group: the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA), ESU, EUA and EURASHE – fascinatingly, the directors of three out of four of these organisations are British. The ESG are the agreed official standards for higher education quality assurance within the Bologna process (remember that?) but are also influential further afield (as a reference point for similar standards in Africa, South East Asia, and Latin America. The pandemic knocked the process off kilter a bit, but a new ESG is coming in 2027, with a final text likely to be available in 2026.

    A lot of the work has already been done, not least via the ENQA-led and EU-funded QA-FIT project. The final report, from 2024, set out key considerations for a new ESG – it’s very much going to be a minor review of the standards themselves, but there is some interesting thinking about flexibility in quality assurance methodologies.

    The UK is not England

    International standards are reflected more clearly in other parts of the UK.

    Britain’s newest higher education regulator, Medr, continues to base higher education quality assurance on independent cyclical reviews involving peer review and student input, which reads across to widely accepted international standards (such as the ESG). Every registered provider will be assessed at least every five years, and new entrants will be assessed on entry. This sits alongside a parallel focus on teaching enhancement and a focus on student needs and student outcomes – plus a programme of triennial visits and annual returns to examine the state of provider governance.

    Over at the Scottish Funding Council the Tertiary Quality Enhancement Framework (TQEF) builds on the success of the enhancement themes that have underpinned Scottish higher education quality for the past 20 years. The TQEF again involves ESG-compliant cyclical independent review alongside annual quality assurance engagements with the regulator and an intelligent use of data. As in Wales, there are links across to the assessment of the quality of governance – but what sets TQEF apart is the continued focus on enhancement, looking not just for evidence of quality but evidence of a culture of improvement.

    Teaching quality and governance are also currently assessed by cyclical engagements in Northern Ireland. The (primarily desk-based) Annual Performance Review draws on existing data and peer review, alongside a governance return and engagement throughout the year, to give a single rating to each provider in the system. Where there are serious concerns an independent investigation (including a visit) is put in place. A consultation process to develop a new quality model for Northern Ireland is underway – the current approach simply continues the 2016 HEFCE approach (which was, ironically, originally hoped to cover England, Wales, and Northern Ireland while aligning to ESG).

    The case of TNE

    You could see this as a dull, doctrinal, dispute of the sort that higher education is riven with – you could, indeed, respond in the traditional way that English universities do in these kinds of discussions by putting your fingers in your ears and repeating the word “autonomy” in a silly voice. But the ESG is a big deal: it is near essential to demonstrate compliance if you want to get stuck into any transnational education or set up an international academic partnership.

    As more parts of the world are now demanding access to high quality higher education, it seems fair to assume that much of this will be delivered – in the country or online – by providers elsewhere. In England, we still have no meaningful way of assuring the quality of transnational education (something that we appear to be among the best in the world at expanding)? Indeed, we can’t even collect individualised student data about TNE.

    Almost by definition, regulation of TNE requires international cooperation and international knowledge – the quasi-colonial idea that if the originating university is in good standing then everything it does overseas is going to be fine is simply not an option. National systems of quality need to be receptive to collaboration and co-regulation as more and more cross-border provision is developed, in terms of rigor, comparability (to avoid unnecessary burden) and flexibility to meet local needs and concerns.

    Of course, concerns about the quality of transnational education are not unique to England. ENQA has been discussing the issue as a part of conversations around ESG – and there are plans to develop an international framework, with a specific project to develop this already underway (which involves our very own QAA). Beyond Europe, the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE – readers may recall that at great expense OfS is an associated member, and that the current chair is none other than the QAA’s Vicki Stott) works in partnership with UNESCO on cross-border provision.

    And it will be well worth keeping an eye on the forthcoming UNESCO second intergovernmental conference of state parties to the Global Convention on Higher Education later this month in Paris, which looks set to adopt provisions and guidance on TNE with a mind to developing a draft subsidiary text for adoptions. The UK government ratified the original convention, which at heart deals with the global recognition of qualifications, in 2022. That seems to be the limit of UK involvement – there’s been no signs that the UK government will even attend this meeting.

    TNE, of course, is just one example. There’s ongoing work about credit transfer, microcredentials, online learning, and all the other stuff that is on the English to-do pile. They’re all global problems and they will all need global (or at the very least, cross system) solutions.

    Plucky little England going it alone

    The mood music at OfS – as per some questions to Susan Lapworth at a recent conference – is that the quality regime is “nicely up and running”, with the various arms of activity (threshold assessment for degree awarding powers, registration, and university titles; the B conditions and associated investigations; and the Teaching Excellence Framework) finally and smoothly “coming together”.

    A blog post earlier this month from Head of Student Outcomes Graeme Rosenberg outlined more general thinking about bringing these strands into better alignment, while taking the opportunity to fix a few glaring issues (yes, our system of quality assurance probably should cover taught postgraduate provision – yes, we might need to think about actually visiting providers a bit more as the B3 investigations have demonstrated). On the inclusion of transnational education within this system, the regulator has “heard reservations” – which does not sound like the issue will be top of the list of priorities.

    To be clear, any movement at all on quality assurance is encouraging – the Industry and Regulators Committee report was scathing on the then-current state of affairs, and even though the Behan review solidified the sense that OfS would do this work itself it was not at all happy with the current fragmentary, poorly understood, and internationally isolated system.

    But this still keeps England a long way off the international pace. The ESG standards and the TNE guidance UNESCO eventually adopts won’t be perfect, but they will be the state of the art. And England – despite historic strengths – doesn’t even really have a seat at the table.

    Source link

  • Blurred lines: Has OfS misunderstood freedom of speech?

    Blurred lines: Has OfS misunderstood freedom of speech?

    Academic year 2013-14 was an interesting one.

    I’d started work at UEA’s students’ union – and in the slipstream of national work on harassment and sexual misconduct and “lad culture”, I’d attracted considerable opprobrium from some working in the campus venue because I’d resolved that we wouldn’t be playing Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke’s “Blurred Lines”.

    This apparent PC-gone-mad crackdown on our DJs’ “freedom of expression” (described as “whining” by Spiked!) was difficult to stomach in an SU that had historically often opposed NUS’ “No Platform” policies – but having seen with my own eyes what happened in the LCR when it came on, I thought I was justified regardless of whether there had been a referendum on the issue.

    I’ve often mused on whether these days, someone would be able to use the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act to block that sort of ban – or at least get a complaint into the Office for Students (OfS) over it.

    Just before Easter that year I took a few days off to get away to Denmark – where I watched Austria win the Eurovision Song Contest in a former shipyard in Copenhagen. Little did I know that the fallout from that win would end up being central to a brewing controversy over freedom of speech regulation in England some 11 years later.

    The winner that year was Conchita Wurst (the drag persona of Thomas Neuwirth) with the song “Rise Like a Phoenix” – a result that was controversial in some Eastern European countries given her “bearded” gender-nonconforming appearance.

    A few days after the contest, two members of the Armenian Jury gave a press conference, explaining that they had given Conchita the fewest points because “of their internal revulsion” at her appearance. They specifically stated:

    …like the mental patient causes repulsion, so does this phenomena.

    Participants at the press conference called out the judges on their discriminatory and offensive remarks – but the following day, Armenian newspaper Iravunk piled on by publishing an article titled:

    They serve the interests of international homosexual lobbying: The blacklist of enemies of state and nation.

    The article included a list of 60 activists and supporters of LGBTI rights, encouraging readers, employers, and public bodies to discriminate against them.

    Neighbors say we’re trouble

    Having first attempted to resolve the issue informally – only to have the paper double down – a group of them tried the Armenian courts, which dismissed the activists’ claims, ruling that the articles did not aim to insult them but simply contained:

    ….an element of exaggeration and provocation, in the exercise of the journalist’s right to free speech.

    And so they filed their case with the European Court of Human Rights – which handed down its judgement in January of this year.

    Armenia’s courts had viewed the newspaper’s tirade as lawful – robust, if unpleasant, political commentary – and so protected by Article 10(1):

    A10(1): Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

    But Strasbourg said that when deciding whether expression is “within the law”, you can’t just stop at a domestic statute book’s explicit offences.

    You also have to factor in the built-in brakes of Article 10(2) – which insist that speech rights are limited by respect for the rights and freedoms of others and by what is necessary in a democratic society:

    A10(2): The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

    In other words, once you’ve worked out if there’s an explicit law that restricts some speech, 10(2) then causes you to think about whether speech tramples on someone’s Article 8 dignity, or discriminates under Article 14, or engages any other of the rights in the Convention.

    If otherwise legal speech stirs up hostility or encourages discrimination, depending on the context, it slides towards a zone where Article 10 protection shrinks – or even disappears under Article 17’s “abuse of rights” clause.

    The Court ruled in favour of the activists, finding that Armenia had violated their rights. It held that the newspaper articles went beyond legitimate political discourse and constituted hate speech that could incite violence and discrimination.

    Acknowledging the importance of press freedom, Strasbourg emphasised that the articles’ call for readers, employers, and public bodies to discriminate against named individuals crossed the line from protected speech into harm. And the Armenian courts’ failure to provide any protection against this targeting represented a breach of the state’s positive obligations under the Convention.

    The competing rights – in the Armenia case of speech on the one hand, and privacy and equality on the other – do still have to be seen through the lens of necessity and proportionality. But it’s the two stage process taken together that sets out what is “within the law”.

    Walking over glass

    This all matters because when the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill was being debated in the Lords, this question of the meaning of “freedom of speech within the law” came up. Lord Hope of Craighead wanted to know what it meant:

    I should explain that the way the Bill expresses the idea of freedom of speech is to encompass it as freedom of speech within the law. It seemed to me that the words “within the law” beg the question of what exactly that expression means.

    He initially proposed an amendment defining freedom of speech directly by reference to Article 10(1), but Lord Moylan worried that omitting Article 10(2) would create confusion.

    The government eventually proposed a compromise, defining freedom of speech as referring to Article 10(1) “as it has effect for the purposes of the Human Rights Act 1998.”

    Lord Hope ultimately accepted that formulation, noting that the phrase “as it has effect” implicitly imports the whole balancing test from the Human Rights Act – including Article 10(2)’s limitations.

    But it’s not immediately clear that the Office for Students (OfS) noticed.

    Go about your business

    In its consultation on Regulatory advice 24: Guidance related to freedom of speech, restrictions on freedom of speech are treated as binary (lawful/unlawful) rather than explaining that Article 10 requires a nuanced balancing exercise.

    It listed specific legal restrictions (harassment, discrimination, anti-terrorism laws) but doesn’t frame these within the broader Article 10(2) framework that Parliament apparently intended to incorporate.

    The Armenia case shows why this matters – speech that doesn’t violate domestic criminal law can still lose Article 10 protection if it unnecessarily tramples on others’ rights.

    In their response to the consultation, Naomi Waltham-Smith, Julius Grower, and James Murray argued that advice could mislead providers and SUs because insufficient consideration was given – in either the guidance or the worked examples – to the balancing acts that would need to be undertaken in difficult cases.

    They also specifically criticised OfS for failing to explain how Article 10(2) operates, noting that:

    …while Article 10(2) is quoted in the guidance, its operation is neither explained nor applied in either the guidance or the examples.

    That omission, they warned, risked universities thinking they only needed to check whether speech violated explicit legal provisions, rather than conducting the fuller proportionality assessment that both the European Convention and Parliament’s incorporation of it into the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act required.

    So they proposed a four step test:

    Step 1: Is the speech completely beyond the pale? (Article 17 ECHR)

    Does the speech abuse human rights to destroy human rights themselves – like promoting terrorism or calling for genocide? Article 17 of the ECHR says such extreme speech gets no protection at all. If yes, the university’s duty under the HEFoSA doesn’t apply. If no, move to step 2.

    Step 2: Does the speech break UK law?

    Is what they’re saying illegal under any UK statute or common law (like hate speech, harassment, inciting violence, or defamation)? If yes, the university’s duty doesn’t apply. If no, move to step 3.

    Step 3: Can the university restrict this speech? (Article 10(2) ECHR)

    Article 10(2) of the ECHR allows some limits on free speech for things like national security, public safety, or protecting others’ reputation. BUT – in academic contexts this is extremely hard to justify because academic freedom is so important. If the university can show a restriction is necessary under Article 10(2), their duty doesn’t apply or is satisfied. If not, move to step 4.

    In this step, there’s a proportionality test:

    1. Is the objective important enough? – The reason for restricting speech must be sufficiently weighty to justify limiting a fundamental right.
    2. Is the restriction rationally connected? – The measure must actually help achieve the objective, not just be vaguely related to it.
    3. Is this the least restrictive option? – Could you achieve the same goal with less impact on free speech? If yes, you must use the less intrusive approach.
    4. Does the benefit outweigh the harm? – Even if the first three tests are met, you must still balance the severity of restricting speech against how much the restriction actually helps achieve your objective. The restriction fails if the damage to free expression outweighs the benefit gained.

    Step 4: Has the university taken “reasonably practicable steps”?

    Has the university done what’s realistically possible to enable the speech (like providing security, booking suitable venues, managing protests)? If yes, they’ve discharged their duty. If no, they’ve breached it.

    The London Universities Council for Academic Freedom (LUCAF) disagreed with that approach. They argued that the European Convention on Human Rights sets the minimum level of free speech protection – but that UK law can (and does) give you more protection than the minimum.

    They argued that Article 10(2) lists when speech can be limited (like for public safety), but it doesn’t require limits. And given the legislation says universities must protect speech unless it’s actually illegal or violates someone’s human rights, in their view Article 10(2) doesn’t add any new reasons to restrict speech beyond what’s already in UK law.

    For them, the guidance extensively discussed protecting people from discrimination and harassment, didn’t force universities to allow “vicious, sustained and personal attacks”, and that universities could still have rules about behaviour – as long as they applied equally regardless of viewpoint.

    For them, all the draft did was ensure that universities can’t use vague concerns about “harm” to shut down legitimate debate and academic discussion.

    Act as if you’re free

    In the final version of the guidance, OfS adopts a three-stage process that then runs underneath its examples:

    Step 1 asks simply whether speech is “within the law” – defined as speech not prohibited by primary legislation, legal precedent, or secondary legislation. Crucially, university regulations and contracts don’t count as “law” here. If not, don’t allow it. If it is, move to Step 2.

    Step 2 considers whether there are “reasonably practicable steps” to enable the speech. Universities should consider factors like legal requirements (including any formal duties), maintaining essential functions, and physical safety – but explicitly cannot consider the viewpoint expressed, whether it’s controversial, or reputational impact. If steps can be taken, take them. If not, move to Step 3.

    Step 3 – only reached if no reasonably practicable steps exist – then asks whether any restrictions are “prescribed by law” and proportionate under the European Convention. This involves checking if there’s a specific legal rule authorising the restriction, and runs through that same four-part proportionality test weighing the importance of the objective against the severity of limiting the right.

    In other words, OfS has gone with AFAF’s interpretation – which is a key architectural difference.

    OfS’ process treats Article 10(2) considerations as a final backstop – something you only reach after exhausting practical options. But the Armenia case suggests these considerations should infuse the entire analysis from the start.

    When Strasbourg said speech must be “within the law,” it meant not just checking against explicit prohibitions, but understanding that Article 10 protection can shrink or disappear when speech unnecessarily tramples on others’ dignity or encourages discrimination.

    That matters because universities following the OfS guidance might think they’re obliged to host speakers who, while not technically breaking actual laws, are using their platform to create hit lists of activists or stir up discrimination – “permissive environments”.

    The guidance’s linear process could lead institutions to conclude they must exhaust all “reasonably practicable steps” before even considering whether the speech itself has already lost its Article 10 protection by targeting individuals for harassment.

    That’s not just a theoretical concern – it’s precisely what happened in Armenia, where domestic courts protected speech that Strasbourg found had crossed the line from legitimate discourse into unprotected speech.

    And for Waltham-Smith, Grower, and Murray, this leaves universities in an impossible position.

    No one could have witnessed

    They argue that the final OfS guidance seems to be confused about Article 17 (the “abuse of rights” clause). While it mentions Holocaust denial as an example, it then suggests universities still have duties to take “reasonably practicable steps” even for Article 17 speech.

    For Waltham-Smith, Grower, and Murray, this makes no sense – Parliament explicitly defined “freedom of speech” by reference to the Convention standard, which includes Article 17. You can’t cherry-pick which bits of the Convention apply.

    They note that OfS seems to have ignored the idea raised during the Lords debate that incorporating Article 10(2) was “axiomatically required” by the statutory definition. They suggest OfS has misunderstood that Article 10(2) isn’t just about defining what’s “within the law” – it’s baked into the very definition of “freedom of speech” that Parliament adopted.

    Their key criticism is that the guidance requires universities to exhaust all “reasonably practicable steps” before even considering proportionality and competing rights like Article 8 (privacy/dignity) or property rights. But for them, that gets the analysis backwards – you need to consider whether speech tramples on others’ Article 8 rights from the start, not as an afterthought.

    Crucially, in Minasyan v Armenia, Strasbourg struck down Armenia’s approach precisely because it over-privileged Article 10 without properly balancing Article 8 rights. OfS’ guidance arguably puts universities in exactly the same position – following an analytical framework that’s already been ruled non-Convention compliant.

    Put another way, universities following OfS guidance could find themselves breaching the Human Rights Act 1998 by using an approach that Strasbourg has explicitly rejected – OfS’ linear, checkbox approach misses the fundamental point that human rights require holistic balancing from the outset, not sequential consideration.

    And that takes us back where the see-saw all started – holocaust denial.

    Cause you wouldn’t know me today

    Back in 2021 on the day that the then universities minister Michelle Donelan appeared on PM, the exchange with presenter Evan Davies went as follows:

    Michelle: What this Bill is designed to do is ensure that we protect and we promote free speech that is lawful so any free speech that is lawful…

    Evan: It is lawful, Holocaust denial is in this country lawful isn’t it? So Holocaust denial is okay, you would defend a holocaust denier being invited to campus because that is part of the free speech argument?

    Michelle: Obviously it would depend on exactly what they were saying, whether they were straying into racism, whether they were straying into hate crimes, but a lot of these things that we would be standing up for would be hugely offensive and would be hugely hurtful…

    Less than 24 hours later, both her boss Gavin Williamson and PM Boris Johnson had flat out contradicted her – Donelan herself issued a panicky 10.15pm tweet thread making clear her view that antisemitism is abhorrent “and will not be tolerated at our universities”, and met with Charlotte Nicholls MP to:

    …confirm that she had misspoken and it was not the intention of the government that the new bill be used to defend Holocaust denial.

    Presumably to assuage critics, the final guidance simply declares that OfS “will not protect Holocaust denial” – full stop. But it doesn’t really say why – all the consultation response does is try to justify this by saying it’s because Holocaust denial would:

    …likely amount to incitement to racial hatred and harassment.

    That suggests a fundamental confusion about why Holocaust denial isn’t protected. In European human rights jurisprudence, Holocaust denial is the paradigmatic example of Article 17 speech – speech that abuses rights to destroy rights and therefore gets no protection whatsoever. You don’t need to prove it amounts to incitement or harassment – it’s simply outside the scope of protected speech from the start.

    By trying to shoehorn Holocaust denial into UK criminal law categories (incitement) or civil wrongs (harassment), OfS decides that it’s not properly engaging with the Convention framework that Parliament explicitly incorporated. It’s treating it as just another form of potentially illegal speech – rather than recognising it as categorically unprotected under Article 17.

    And that opens the door to all sorts of chaos.

    • We might imagine a speaker or campus group publishing lists of “woke professors undermining British values” or “Marxist students infiltrating the university” with names, photos, and course details. While not explicitly illegal, that would mirror the Armenian newspaper’s tactics and could encourage targeting and harassment.
    • A speaker systematically and deliberately misgenders trans students or staff, encouraging audiences to do the same. While potentially not reaching the threshold for harassment (which requires a “course of conduct”), it could violate dignity rights under Article 8.
    • A rugby club hosting a speaker to give a talk on “team bonding traditions” that promotes hazing rituals targeting women – like “sharking”, “seal clubbing”, or scoring systems for sexual conquests. While not directly instructing assault, it creates a culture where such behaviour is normalised and encouraged.
    • Student societies booking speakers who promote “player culture” – teaching tactics like getting women drunk to “lower resistance,” how to “neg” women to undermine confidence, or running “bootcamps” on manipulating “7s into thinking they’re 4s.” Carefully avoiding anything that could be construed as inciting assault while creating predatory environments.
    • SU comedy events featuring performers whose acts revolve around rape jokes, domestic violence “humor,” and audience participation segments where female students are singled out for sexual humiliation. Defended as “edgy comedy” but designed to normalize violence against women.
    • Student societies hosting speakers who argue that rape statistics are “feminist propaganda,” that most accusations are false, and encouraging male students to “protect themselves” by recording all sexual encounters or avoiding being alone with women. Creating an atmosphere where victims are pre-emptively discredited.
    • Academic presentations arguing certain racial groups are genetically less intelligent, complete with “scientific” graphs and data. While framed as academic discourse and not explicitly inciting violence, such content could encourage discrimination and lose Article 10 protection.
    • A speaker singling out specific LGBTQ+ students by name as “abominations” who will “burn in hell,” while stopping just short of calling for action against them. The speech might not meet the threshold for incitement but could constitute degrading treatment.
    • Presentations warning that specific ethnic groups are “replacing” the native population, using university demographic data to identify departments or residences with high numbers of international students. Technically discussing statistics but designed to stir hostility.
    • A staff member argues that disabled students are a “drain on university resources” and promoting selective admission policies based on genetic screening. Not explicitly calling for discrimination but creating an environment where it’s encouraged.
    • A society running workshops teaching young men that women are “inherently inferior,” should be “controlled,” and are “property” once in relationships might use pseudo-evolutionary psychology to argue women “want to be dominated” and teach tactics for emotional manipulation. While carefully avoiding explicit incitement to violence, the content systematically degrades women’s dignity.
    • A student club encouraging male students to publicly rate and shame female students based on their sexual history, creating websites or social media campaigns to track and expose women’s private lives. Not quite reaching the legal threshold for harassment but creating a fairly hostile environment.
    • Alumni speakers at formal dinners celebrating historical drinking society chants about “consensual non-consent” or sharing “conquest walls” where women’s photos were displayed as trophies. Framed as “preserving tradition” but perpetuating degrading treatment.
    • Presentations arguing women in higher education are “destroying society,” that female students should be “preparing for motherhood not careers,” and encouraging male students to “put women in their place.” Framed as cultural commentary, but intimidating women from participating in university life.

    Under the OfS framework, universities might think they need to find “reasonably practicable steps” to allow all of that – perhaps with security, protests managed at a distance, etc. But following the Armenia logic, all of the above could already lack Article 10 protection because it:

    • Systematically undermines other HRA rights
    • Encourages discrimination based on a protected characteristic
    • Creates an environment hostile to equal participation in education
    • Goes beyond legitimate discourse into targeted degradation

    The real danger is that content is specifically designed to stay just within legal boundaries while maximising harm – exactly the kind of speech that requires the full Article 10 balancing act from the start, not as an afterthought.

    Which is why, I suspect, that while OfS consistently says that it won’t protect holocaust denial, it can never quite bring itself to say that it would be OK to ban holocaust deniers.  

    Universities now face an impossible choice – follow OfS guidance and risk breaching the Human Rights Act, or properly apply Article 10 and risk regulatory action.

    What started as an attempt to protect academic freedom has morphed into a framework that could protect the worst forms of “permissive environments” to promote or condone stuff they’ve been making progress on tackling for years.

    The solution isn’t complex – OfS simply needs to align its guidance with the Convention framework that Parliament explicitly incorporated. Until then, every controversial speaker booking, every protest, every difficult decision will be made in the shadow of guidance that looks like it misunderstands what “freedom of speech within the law” actually means.

    And it’s students – particularly those with protected characteristics who that activity so often targets – who will pay the price.

    Source link

  • UN Security Council holds emergency meeting after U.S. airstrikes on Iran (PBS News Hour)

    UN Security Council holds emergency meeting after U.S. airstrikes on Iran (PBS News Hour)







    Higher Education Inquirer : WATCH LIVE: UN Security Council holds emergency meeting after U.S. airstrikes on Iran (PBS News Hour)




    Source link

  • Texas Students Make Gains in Reading but Struggle with Math, STAAR Scores Show – The 74

    Texas Students Make Gains in Reading but Struggle with Math, STAAR Scores Show – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Texas’ students saw some wins in reading but continued to struggle to bounce back from pandemic-related learning losses in math, state testing results released Tuesday showed.

    Elementary students who took the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness exam this year made the biggest gains in reading across grade levels. Third graders saw a three percentage point increase in reading, a milestone because early literacy is a strong indicator of future academic success. Progress among middle students in the subject, meanwhile, slowed.

    “These results are encouraging and reflect the impact of the strategic supports we’ve implemented in recent years,” said Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath. “We are seeing meaningful signs of academic recovery and progress.”

    This year’s third grade test takers have benefited from state investments in early literacy in recent years. Teachers in their classrooms have completed state-led training in early literacy instruction, known as reading academies. The state also expanded pre-K access and enrollment in 2019.

    Morath did acknowledge students needed more help to make similar gains in math. Five years after pandemic-related school closures, students are still struggling to catch up in that subject, the results showed. About 43% of students met grade-level standards for math, a 2 percentage point increase from the previous year, but still shy of the 50% reached in 2019.

    Low performance in math can effectively shut students out of high-paying, in-demand STEM careers. Economic leaders have been sounding the alarm about the implications that weak math skills can have on the state’s future workforce pipeline.

    The STAAR exam tests all Texas public school students in third through eighth grade in math and reading. A science test is also administered for fifth and eighth graders, as well as a social studies test for eighth graders. Science performance improved among fifth and eighth grades by 3 and 4 percentage points respectively, but students in those grades are still below where they were before the pandemic.

    Students in special education also made small gains. English learners, meanwhile, saw drops in all subjects but one — a 4% decrease in reading, a 2% decrease in math, and a 2% decrease in social studies.

    The test scores give families a snapshot of how Texas students are learning. School accountability ratings — which the Texas Education Agency gives out to each district and campus on an A through F scale as a score for their performance — are also largely based on how students do on the standardized tests.

    The test often casts a shadow over classrooms at the end of the year, with teachers across the state saying they lose weeks of valuable instructional time preparing children to take the test. Some parents also don’t like the test because of its high-stakes nature. They have said their kids don’t want to go school because of the enormous pressure the hours-long, end-of-year test puts on them.

    A bill that would have scrapped the STAAR test died in the last days of the 2025 legislative session. Both Republican and Democratic legislators expressed a desire to overhaul STAAR, but in the end, the House and Senate could not align on what they wanted out of an alternative test.

    Legislators this session did approve a sweeping school finance package that included academic intervention for students who are struggling before they first take their STAAR test in third grade. The package also requires teachers get training in math instruction, mirroring existing literacy training mandates.

    Parents can look up their students’ test results here.

    Graphics by Edison Wu

    This article originally appeared in The Texas Tribune, a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Jeffrey Sachs EXPOSES Israel–U.S.–Iran War Plot: Shocking Claims Uncovered (Times Now World)

    Jeffrey Sachs EXPOSES Israel–U.S.–Iran War Plot: Shocking Claims Uncovered (Times Now World)

    Renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs has launched a scathing critique of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, placing the blame squarely on Washington’s alliance with Israel’s far-right leadership. Speaking at the Antalya Diplomacy Forum, Sachs claimed that American interference—encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—has devastated the region. He cited covert operations like the CIA’s Timber Sycamore as catalysts behind the Syrian civil war and accused Israel of pushing for armed conflict with Iran after having allegedly promoted six previous wars.

    Source link

  • What are your options for student accommodation right now? – Campus Review

    What are your options for student accommodation right now? – Campus Review

    Finding the right accommodation is one of the most important decisions facing university students, especially in cities like Melbourne, where enrolments are high and housing supply is limited. Currently, the market offers a range of options, each differing in cost, support services, and overall stability.

    For many, student housing in Melbourne is about more than proximity to campus. It’s also about access to a secure, well-managed environment that promotes academic progress and social well-being.

    To help with this decision, here’s a breakdown of some of the most common housing models and how they align with students’ needs.

    Purpose-built student accommodation

    For students balancing academic demands with independent living, accommodation designed specifically for study and support can offer greater stability. This is the approach taken by Journal Student Living. It combines private rooms with shared study, kitchen, and recreational facilities, supported by on-site staff and secure building access.

    At Campus House, students live just 20 metres from the University of Melbourne, 150 metres from Trinity College, and 850 metres from RMIT, with easy access to nearby institutions. The building also includes dedicated study zones, rooftop gardens, and communal areas designed to support focused study and social connection.

    University-operated housing

    Many universities offer accommodation either directly or through affiliated providers, often located near campus. These options provide convenience and a built-in student community. However, places are limited, applications are competitive, and inclusions vary by provider.

    Shared living arrangements

    Shared living is common for students, especially those moving in with friends or joining an existing flat. While it can seem cheaper upfront, it often comes with split bills, unclear responsibilities, and limited privacy. There’s also no formal support, which can make daily life harder for students settling into a new city.

    As a new Journal Student Living location opening in 2026, Market Way offers a purpose-built alternative to shared living. It provides furnished rooms, dedicated study areas, social spaces, and onsite support, all covered by one weekly fee that includes internet, utilities, and building access.

    The building is also centrally located, just 380 metres from RMIT and close to other major institutions. This makes it easier to stay connected to classes and campus life.

    Private market rentals

    Renting through the private market gives students full control over where and how they live, but it also means managing everything independently. Lease terms are often rigid, with tenants responsible for bills, maintenance, and any disputes.

    For students balancing assignments and deadlines, this can add unnecessary stress. Availability can also be limited near major campuses, and students without a rental history may struggle to secure a lease.

    Journal Student Living provides a simpler option, with move-in-ready rooms available in a range of layouts. Options include studios, suites, and two-, three-, and four-bedroom ensuite apartments. All rooms are fully furnished and located close to major universities, helping students stay focused without the complications of renting privately.

    Compare options and find what fits

    Students have access to a range of accommodation types, but not all offer the same level of support, comfort, or convenience. For those looking for well-located, move-in-ready housing with community and privacy built in, Journal Student Living offers a purpose-built model that addresses the gaps found in other types of housing.

    To learn more about availability, room types, and support services, visit the Journal Student Living website.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • High school sleuths search fish guts for clues to plastic pollution

    High school sleuths search fish guts for clues to plastic pollution

    NEW YORK — The fish, glassy-eyed and inert, had been dead for decades. Yet its belly held possible clues to an environmental crisis unfolding in real time.   

    Forceps in hand, Mia Fricano, a high school junior, was about to investigate. She turned over the fish, a bluegill, and slid in a blade, before extracting its gastrointestinal tract. Then, she carried the fish innards to a beaker filled with a solution that would dissolve the biological material, revealing if there were any tiny particles of plastic — known as microplastics — inside.

    Mia and two other high schoolers working alongside her in a lab this spring were part of a program at the American Museum of Natural History designed to give young people hands-on experience in professional science. Called the Science Research Mentoring Program, or SRMP (pronounced “shrimp”), the program enrolls roughly 60 high school juniors and seniors each year who collaborate with scientists on a research project. 

    Mia and her peers were matched with Ryan Thoni, an ichthyologist and curatorial associate in the museum’s division of vertebrate zoology. Thoni’s project to gather information on when and how microplastics began to enter the environment relied on the museum’s vast collection of fish specimens dating from more than a century ago — some 3.2 million in total.

    Concern about the tiny pieces of plastic debris has grown in the last few years, along with early-stage research on the health risks they pose. The particles are found in human blood, breast milk and even the brain — and in animals, including, as it turned out, nearly all the fish in Thoni’s lab.    

    “It was kind of shocking to see just how many we did find,” Mia said later. “We weren’t expecting to find more than two to three per fish but in some fish, we would find over 15.” Specimens from the 1970s or earlier were less likely to contain high levels of microplastic, more than three or so pieces, and fish near urban centers seemed to have more of the plastics, on average, than fish from less populated areas. 

    “It really does make you realize just how much the environment has been affected,” said Mia. “There hasn’t been a lot of research on it yet,” she added. “Our project might be able to help future people who are also doing research on microplastics.”  

    Related: Want to read more about how climate change is shaping education? Subscribe to our free newsletter.

    SRMP, started in 2009, is operating at a time when the federal government is eliminating fellowships and other support for early career scientists, and defunding scientific research broadly. That both amplifies the need for, and complicates the work of, programs like this one, said Amanda Townley, executive director of the nonprofit National Center for Science Education. Over the last 15 years in particular, such programs have played a big role in giving students a chance to do the kind of applied science that is rarely available in K-12 classrooms because of money and time constraints, she said. 

    “Museums, university extensions, sometimes libraries, have really done this tremendous job of creating spaces for high school and younger students to engage with scientists doing science,” said Townley. “Those museums, libraries and universities are all under attack.” She added: “We’re going to see a generational impact.” 

    While the American Museum of Natural History has received some federal government funding, the SRMP program’s money comes from private foundations and individual donors, with additional support from the New York City Council. Students in SRMP participate in a summer institute in August, when they learn basics like how to investigate research questions. Then they spend two afternoons a week during the school year on their projects. 

    Each student receives a stipend, $2,500 over the course of the year. “It’s really important for high school students to know their time is valuable,” said Maria Strangas, the museum’s assistant director of science research experiences. “They are doing something here that is really useful for the researchers; it’s an education program, but they aren’t the only ones who are benefiting.” 

    Students from New York City schools that partner with the museum can apply, as well as those who have participated in programs with the museum in the past. SRMP has also spawned a network of about 30 similar programs across the city, with institutions including Brooklyn College, Bronx River Alliance and many others participating. 

    In the lab on the sixth floor of the museum, Mia, who attends the New York City Museum School, cleaned out a beaker, while Yuki Chen, a senior at Central Park East High School, sat at a metal table, dissecting a pike. Thoni inserted a slide containing material harvested from one of the fish under a microscope, and pointed out a few microplastics, which looked like threads. 

    Ryan Thoni of the American Museum of Natural History, right, with high schoolers Mia Fricano (center) and Freyalise Matasar. Credit: Caroline Preston/The Hechinger Report

    Freyalise Matasar, a junior at the Ethical Culture Fieldston School in the Bronx, plucked a white sucker fish from a jar. She said SRMP had altered her career trajectory. Before the program, she was considering studying journalism in college, but her experience this year persuaded her to focus on engineering and data science instead. 

    “I have totally fallen in love with science,” she said. “It’s been an amazing experience to see what professional science looks like — and more than just see it, to be a part of it.”

    Freyalise said she wanted to build those skills in order to help fight climate change, perhaps by working on weather models to predict climate risks and ideally spur people to action. “It’s the biggest problem faced by our generation. It’s inescapable and unignorable, no matter how much people try,” she said. “It’s everyone’s responsibility to do what they can to fight it.”   

    Related: So much for saving the planet. Science careers, and many others, evaporate for class of 2025

    Microplastics contribute to climate change in several ways, including by potentially disrupting oceans’ ability to sequester carbon and by directly emitting greenhouse gases.

    Interest in climate science among young people is growing, even as the federal government tries to zero out funding for it. Other climate-related topics SRMP students explored this year included the climate on exoplanets, the ecology of sea anemones and aquatic wildlife conservation in New York City.

    Sometimes the fish dissections were gross: Mia, who plans to study biology and machine learning in college, sliced into one large fish to find poorly preserved, rotten innards — and a major stink. Sometimes they provided a lesson beyond pollution: Yuki identified a small pickerel inside a larger one. (Pickerels prey even on members of their own species, the students learned.) 

    The scientists in the program, most of whom are postdoctoral fellows, are trained on how to be effective mentors. “Scientists are often not trained in mentorship; it’s something that people pick up organically seeing good or bad examples in their own lives,” said Strangas. “A lot of it comes down to: ‘Think about the impact you want to have, think about the impact you don’t want to have, think about the power dynamic at play, and what this student in front of you wants to get out of it.’”  

    Thoni earned rave reviews from the students, who said he ensured they understood each step of the research process without being patronizing. 

    Thoni’s next steps include working to publish the microplastics research, which could earn the students their first co-authorship in a scientific journal. “Aside from forgetting to put on gloves,” he said in a playful jab at one student, “they can operate this machine on their own. They do science.”

    Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected]. 

    This story about science careers was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter on climate and education.

    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

  • Survey of 1500 Kids Suggests School Phone Bans Have Important but Limited Effects – The 74

    Survey of 1500 Kids Suggests School Phone Bans Have Important but Limited Effects – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    In Florida, a bill that bans cellphone use in elementary and middle schools, from bell to bell, recently sailed through the state Legislature.

    Gov. Ron DeSantis signed it into law on May 30, 2025. The same bill calls for high schools in six Florida districts to adopt the ban during the upcoming school year and produce a report on its effectiveness by Dec. 1, 2026.

    But in the debate over whether phones should be banned in K-12 schools – and if so, how – students themselves are rarely given a voice.

    We are experts in media use and public health who surveyed 1,510 kids ages 11 to 13 in Florida in November and December 2024 to learn how they’re using digital media and the role tech plays in their lives at home and at school. Their responses were insightful – and occasionally surprising.

    Adults generally cite four reasons to ban phone use during school: to improve kids’ mental health, to strengthen academic outcomes, to reduce cyberbullying and to help limit kids’ overall screen time.

    But as our survey shows, it may be a bit much to expect a cellphone ban to accomplish all of that.

    What do kids want?

    Some of the questions in our survey shine light on kids’ feelings toward banning cellphones – even though we didn’t ask that question directly.

    We asked them if they feel relief when they’re in a situation where they can’t use their smartphone, and 31% said yes.

    Additionally, 34% of kids agreed with the statement that social media causes more harm than good.

    And kids were 1.5 to 2 times more likely to agree with those statements if they attended schools where phones are banned or confiscated for most of the school day, with use only permitted at certain times. That group covered 70% of the students we surveyed because many individual schools or school districts in Florida have already limited students’ cellphone use.

    How students use cellphones matters

    Some “power users” of cellphone apps could likely use a break from them.

    Twenty percent of children we surveyed said push notifications on their phones — that is, notifications from apps that pop up on the phone’s screen — are never turned off. These notifications are likely coming from the most popular apps kids reported using, like YouTube, TikTok and Instagram.

    This 20% of children was roughly three times more likely to report experiencing anxiety than kids who rarely or never have their notifications on.

    They were also nearly five times more likely to report earning mostly D’s and F’s in school than kids whose notifications are always or sometimes off.

    Our survey results also suggest phone bans would likely have positive effects on grades and mental health among some of the heaviest screen users. For example, 22% of kids reported using their favorite app for six or more hours per day. These students were three times more likely to report earning mostly D’s and F’s in school than kids who spend an hour or less on their favorite app each day.

    They also were six times more likely than hour-or-less users to report severe depression symptoms. These insights remained even after ruling out numerous other possible explanations for the difference — like age, household income, gender, parent’s education, race and ethnicity.

    Banning students’ access to phones at school means these kids would not receive notifications for at least that seven-hour period and have fewer hours in the day to use apps.

    Phones and mental health

    However, other data we collected suggests that bans aren’t a universal benefit for all children.

    Seventeen percent of kids who attend schools that ban or confiscate phones report severe depression symptoms, compared with just 4% among kids who keep their phones with them during the school day.

    This finding held even after we ruled out other potential explanations for what we were seeing, such as the type of school students attend and other demographic factors.

    We are not suggesting that our survey shows phone bans cause mental health problems.

    It is possible, for instance, that the schools where kids already were struggling with their mental health simply happened to be the ones that have banned phones. Also, our survey didn’t ask kids how long phones have been banned at their schools. If the bans just launched, there may be positive effects on mental health or grades yet to come.

    In order to get a better sense of the bans’ effects on mental health, we would need to examine mental health indicators before and after phone bans.

    To get a long-term view on this question, we are planning to do a nationwide survey of digital media use and mental health, starting with 11- to 13-year-olds and tracking them into adulthood.

    Even with the limitations of our data from this survey, however, we can conclude that banning phones in schools is unlikely to be an immediate solution to mental health problems of kids ages 11-13.

    Grades up, cyberbullying down

    Students at schools where phones are barred or confiscated didn’t report earning higher grades than children at schools where kids keep their phones.

    This finding held for students at both private and public schools, and even after ruling out other possible explanations like differences in gender and household income, since these factors are also known to affect grades.

    There are limits to our findings here: Grades are not a perfect measure of learning, and they’re not standardized across schools. It’s possible that kids at phone-free schools are in fact learning more than those at schools where kids carry their phones around during school hours – even if they earn the same grades.

    We asked kids how often in the past three months they’d experienced mistreatment online – like being called hurtful names or having lies or rumors spread about them. Kids at schools where phone use is limited during school hours actually reported enduring more cyberbullying than children at schools with less restrictive policies. This result persisted even after we considered smartphone ownership and numerous demographics as possible explanations.

    We are not necessarily saying that cellphone bans cause an increase in cyberbullying. What could be at play here is that at schools where cyberbullying has been particularly bad, phones have been banned or are confiscated, and online bullying still occurs.

    But based on our survey results, it does not appear that school phone bans prevent cyberbullying.

    Overall, our findings suggest that banning phones in schools may not be an easy fix for students’ mental health problems, poor academic performance or cyberbullying.

    That said, kids might benefit from phone-free schools in ways that we have not explored, like increased attention spans or reduced eyestrain.

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link