Blog

Ten Tiny Experiments to Ease Burnout for Educators – Faculty Focus
I am busy, stressed, perhaps feeling the first prickles of burnout. I feel tension may be getting between me and my students, colleagues, family, and others I care about. I feel that my mind is out of my control, going down rabbit holes, ruminating on the past or stressing about the future. How do I dip my toe into mindfulness, to see if it could work for me, so I can be better for myself and others?

However, my plate is full: I do not have the capacity to take on any new things. So any suggestions must not take much time.

Also, I have never been a fan of the self-help industry and not sure I am such a spiritual person. I am just not interested in woo-woo. Finally, I am not really convinced there’s anything wrong with me that needs to be fixed.

I have heard that mindfulness may be able to help with runaway thoughts and the associated stress, anxiety, and burnout. How can I dip my toe in those calm waters in a way that satisfies all my concerns?

First, you are not alone. People in the helping professions: teachers, counselors, aides, advisors, and others, need help. Stress, anxiety, and burn-out remain at unsustainable levels. People in these professions are especially at risk because they must help others address their own stressors, anxieties, and fears to do their jobs. Failure to do this effectively and consistently means the teacher does not teach, advisors do not advise, and so on. It can also mean that professionals internalize their clients’ challenges, creating a vicious circle. Burnout—a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion, social detachment, and reduced self-confidence —can result from excessive workload and chronic workplace stress that hasn’t been effectively managed. This stress often stems from lacking both the necessary tools and authority to perform our jobs well and achieve meaningful goals. Can mindfulness help?

The scientific literature supports the notion that mindfulness practice, defined by Jon Kabat-Zinn as “Awareness that arises through paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgmentally and with acceptance” can reduce stress, anxiety, and burnout. For example, a 2024 meta-analysis of 49 studies found that two-thirds of mindfulness based interventions reduced the effects of burnout, especially emotional exhaustion.

However, intention matters. Perhaps there really is nothing to fix; no self to improve. People should practice mindfulness not to reduce stress or anxiety or to sleep better, but a good thing to do for its own sake. Tightly focusing on goals like these can make them recede because such goals emphasize the gap between where we are and where we want to be, heightening our dissatisfaction with the present. It also reinforces the falsehood that there’s something wrong with us.

“When you try to stay on the surface of the water, you sink; but when you try to sink, you float.” — Alan Watts

On the contrary, mindfulness is about being open and aware of the present moment, without judgment. While we’re defining terms, meditation refers to the many practices and ways of being deliberately mindful with intention, concentration, and compassion. It can occur sitting down, walking, doing certain tasks, or in moments between tasks.

The best reason to practice is not for self-improvement. It is because it is literally the most human thing we can do. Imagine asking an AI to be mindful for us or for itself. Mindful moments are when we are our best, truest selves, when we experience our connection with the world around us. Ideally, it will make us happier and better for others, but this is not the reason to do it, not least because everyone’s experience is different.

To get started, just experiment. Play around with different techniques, practices, and ideas and see what works for you. Try an experiment from the list below for a minute or two, while you change tasks or locations, so they don’t take away time from other to-dos. (Place a sticky-note reminder on your desk.) Every time you do one of these, give yourself a figurative pat on the back.

Here are ten tiny mindfulness experiments that anyone can do without any practice or instruction:
1. Just notice things as you go about your day. Experience novelty in the quotidian.
1. Breathe deliberately and deeply. Experience all of the different sensations that you can, without judgment.
1. Scan the body from head to toe. Experience all the different sensations that arise, without labels.
1. When working with students or others, see if you can relax the focus on the self when it appears. Turn off self-view on Zoom calls.
1. Let yourself feel connection with and compassion for others, even for those you don’t naturally feel positive about. Experience this in the body, not just cognitively.
1. Be aware of the thoughts that come and go in your consciousness, without you having to do anything about them. Hear unconstructive thoughts in a silly voice (I use Daffy Duck.)
1. When eating, for one piece of food, slow down to one-tenth your normal speed and experience all of the sights, sounds, and sensation of eating it.
1. The next time an unwanted sensation or thought occurs, relax the impulse to resist it. Instead, try RAIN: Recognize the sensation; Accept it; Investigate it (i.e. learn from it); and Nurture yourself.
1. Look at your feet. Slowly scan up the body. What is present when you attempt to look above the chest? What happens when you look for the looker? (This is a way to loosen the hold of our ego and relax.)
1. Take a day off from non-essential smartphone notifications and social media. Reflect on the effects.
You will notice as you try these activities that the mind will wander. That is natural and to be welcomed. The point of being mindful isn’t to eliminate thoughts, but rather to build a practice of returning to the object of attention when you want to, so that you don’t remain in the dreamlike state of being lost in thought.

You will also notice how everything you experience changes on its own. Many of the ideas and sensations you experience you don’t have to do anything about, they just come and go on their own. You may even notice that ideas and sensations themselves don’t come packaged with good/bad judgements: we just tend to automatically and mindlessly layer those on ourselves. Experiment with just being with experiences, pleasant or otherwise, and seeing what that’s like.

Where to go from there? There are many organizations, podcasts, and apps to try (I like Waking Up for its variety of teachers, learning opportunities, and guided meditations). Consider setting a time every day for a short “sit”, for example, as part of your morning routine. I have found mindful practice an excellent supplement to other kinds of self-care including psychotherapy. Consider also working with a therapist on issues relating to stress, anxiety, and similar challenges. Finally, invite a friend or loved one to join you in these experiments. Sharing can make the experiences more fun, meaningful, and help you to persist.

To be sure, reducing stress and burnout it’s not only up to us as individuals. As employees, labor union members and voters, we must also advocate for employer and government policies that support safer, more sustainable working and living environments. Excessive workloads, lack of autonomy, poor labor relations, job insecurity, and low pay may all contribute to chronic stress and burnout. Managers and policymakers must address these issues even as they support worker mindfulness and self-care.

In sum, mindfulness need not be time consuming, woo-woo, unscientific, or frustrating. Be playful and experimental about it. Try some of the activities above during the interstices of your day. Over time, you will see what works for you and create habits and rituals that make them more automatic. The Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron argues that over time, as life gets smoother, we build capacity to “move closer” to help people in need. Isn’t this what all of us in the helping professions need?

Note: The above reflects my personal opinion only and may not reflect the views or position of CUNY or BMCC.

Brett Whysel is a lecturer in finance and decision-making at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY, where he integrates mindfulness, behavioral science, generative AI, and career readiness into his teaching. He has written for Faculty Focus, Forbes, and The Decision Lab. He is also the co-founder of Decision Fish LLC, where he develops tools to support financial wellness and housing counselors. He regularly presents on mindfulness and metacognition in the classroom and is the author of the Effortless Mindfulness Toolkit, an open resource for educators published on CUNY Academic Works. Prior to teaching, he spent nearly 30 years in investment banking. He holds an M.A. in Philosophy from Columbia University and a B.S. in Managerial Economics and French from Carnegie Mellon University.

References

Brach, T. (2024). RAIN: Recognize, allow, investigate, nurture. Retrieved October 2, 2025, from https://www.tarabrach.com/rain/

Chödrön, P., & Kullander, J. (2022, July 17). Turning toward pain: An interview with Buddhist nun Pema Chödrön. Beliefnet. https://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/health/physical-health/pain-management/turning-toward-pain.aspx

Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2014). The paradoxical effects of pursuing positive emotion: When and why wanting to feel happy backfires. In J. Gruber & J. T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion: Integrating the light sides and dark sides. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199926725.003.0020

Langer, E. J. (2023). The mindful body: Thinking our way to chronic health. Ballantine Books.

Steiner, E. D., Levine, P. R., Doan, S., & Woo, A. (2025). Teacher well-being, pay, and intentions to leave in 2025: Findings from the State of the American Teacher Survey (RR-A1108-16). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-16.html

Watts, A. W. (1951). The wisdom of insecurity: A message for an age of anxiety (p. 40). Pantheon Books.
Source link
January 5, 2026
Ten Tiny Experiments to Ease Burnout for Educators – Faculty Focus
I am busy, stressed, perhaps feeling the first prickles of burnout. I feel tension may be getting between me and my students, colleagues, family, and others I care about. I feel that my mind is out of my control, going down rabbit holes, ruminating on the past or stressing about the future. How do I dip my toe into mindfulness, to see if it could work for me, so I can be better for myself and others?

However, my plate is full: I do not have the capacity to take on any new things. So any suggestions must not take much time.

Also, I have never been a fan of the self-help industry and not sure I am such a spiritual person. I am just not interested in woo-woo. Finally, I am not really convinced there’s anything wrong with me that needs to be fixed.

I have heard that mindfulness may be able to help with runaway thoughts and the associated stress, anxiety, and burnout. How can I dip my toe in those calm waters in a way that satisfies all my concerns?

First, you are not alone. People in the helping professions: teachers, counselors, aides, advisors, and others, need help. Stress, anxiety, and burn-out remain at unsustainable levels. People in these professions are especially at risk because they must help others address their own stressors, anxieties, and fears to do their jobs. Failure to do this effectively and consistently means the teacher does not teach, advisors do not advise, and so on. It can also mean that professionals internalize their clients’ challenges, creating a vicious circle. Burnout—a state of physical, emotional, and mental exhaustion, social detachment, and reduced self-confidence —can result from excessive workload and chronic workplace stress that hasn’t been effectively managed. This stress often stems from lacking both the necessary tools and authority to perform our jobs well and achieve meaningful goals. Can mindfulness help?

The scientific literature supports the notion that mindfulness practice, defined by Jon Kabat-Zinn as “Awareness that arises through paying attention, on purpose, in the present moment, non-judgmentally and with acceptance” can reduce stress, anxiety, and burnout. For example, a 2024 meta-analysis of 49 studies found that two-thirds of mindfulness based interventions reduced the effects of burnout, especially emotional exhaustion.

However, intention matters. Perhaps there really is nothing to fix; no self to improve. People should practice mindfulness not to reduce stress or anxiety or to sleep better, but a good thing to do for its own sake. Tightly focusing on goals like these can make them recede because such goals emphasize the gap between where we are and where we want to be, heightening our dissatisfaction with the present. It also reinforces the falsehood that there’s something wrong with us.

“When you try to stay on the surface of the water, you sink; but when you try to sink, you float.” — Alan Watts

On the contrary, mindfulness is about being open and aware of the present moment, without judgment. While we’re defining terms, meditation refers to the many practices and ways of being deliberately mindful with intention, concentration, and compassion. It can occur sitting down, walking, doing certain tasks, or in moments between tasks.

The best reason to practice is not for self-improvement. It is because it is literally the most human thing we can do. Imagine asking an AI to be mindful for us or for itself. Mindful moments are when we are our best, truest selves, when we experience our connection with the world around us. Ideally, it will make us happier and better for others, but this is not the reason to do it, not least because everyone’s experience is different.

To get started, just experiment. Play around with different techniques, practices, and ideas and see what works for you. Try an experiment from the list below for a minute or two, while you change tasks or locations, so they don’t take away time from other to-dos. (Place a sticky-note reminder on your desk.) Every time you do one of these, give yourself a figurative pat on the back.

Here are ten tiny mindfulness experiments that anyone can do without any practice or instruction:
1. Just notice things as you go about your day. Experience novelty in the quotidian.
1. Breathe deliberately and deeply. Experience all of the different sensations that you can, without judgment.
1. Scan the body from head to toe. Experience all the different sensations that arise, without labels.
1. When working with students or others, see if you can relax the focus on the self when it appears. Turn off self-view on Zoom calls.
1. Let yourself feel connection with and compassion for others, even for those you don’t naturally feel positive about. Experience this in the body, not just cognitively.
1. Be aware of the thoughts that come and go in your consciousness, without you having to do anything about them. Hear unconstructive thoughts in a silly voice (I use Daffy Duck.)
1. When eating, for one piece of food, slow down to one-tenth your normal speed and experience all of the sights, sounds, and sensation of eating it.
1. The next time an unwanted sensation or thought occurs, relax the impulse to resist it. Instead, try RAIN: Recognize the sensation; Accept it; Investigate it (i.e. learn from it); and Nurture yourself.
1. Look at your feet. Slowly scan up the body. What is present when you attempt to look above the chest? What happens when you look for the looker? (This is a way to loosen the hold of our ego and relax.)
1. Take a day off from non-essential smartphone notifications and social media. Reflect on the effects.
You will notice as you try these activities that the mind will wander. That is natural and to be welcomed. The point of being mindful isn’t to eliminate thoughts, but rather to build a practice of returning to the object of attention when you want to, so that you don’t remain in the dreamlike state of being lost in thought.

You will also notice how everything you experience changes on its own. Many of the ideas and sensations you experience you don’t have to do anything about, they just come and go on their own. You may even notice that ideas and sensations themselves don’t come packaged with good/bad judgements: we just tend to automatically and mindlessly layer those on ourselves. Experiment with just being with experiences, pleasant or otherwise, and seeing what that’s like.

Where to go from there? There are many organizations, podcasts, and apps to try (I like Waking Up for its variety of teachers, learning opportunities, and guided meditations). Consider setting a time every day for a short “sit”, for example, as part of your morning routine. I have found mindful practice an excellent supplement to other kinds of self-care including psychotherapy. Consider also working with a therapist on issues relating to stress, anxiety, and similar challenges. Finally, invite a friend or loved one to join you in these experiments. Sharing can make the experiences more fun, meaningful, and help you to persist.

To be sure, reducing stress and burnout it’s not only up to us as individuals. As employees, labor union members and voters, we must also advocate for employer and government policies that support safer, more sustainable working and living environments. Excessive workloads, lack of autonomy, poor labor relations, job insecurity, and low pay may all contribute to chronic stress and burnout. Managers and policymakers must address these issues even as they support worker mindfulness and self-care.

In sum, mindfulness need not be time consuming, woo-woo, unscientific, or frustrating. Be playful and experimental about it. Try some of the activities above during the interstices of your day. Over time, you will see what works for you and create habits and rituals that make them more automatic. The Buddhist teacher Pema Chodron argues that over time, as life gets smoother, we build capacity to “move closer” to help people in need. Isn’t this what all of us in the helping professions need?

Note: The above reflects my personal opinion only and may not reflect the views or position of CUNY or BMCC.

Brett Whysel is a lecturer in finance and decision-making at the Borough of Manhattan Community College, CUNY, where he integrates mindfulness, behavioral science, generative AI, and career readiness into his teaching. He has written for Faculty Focus, Forbes, and The Decision Lab. He is also the co-founder of Decision Fish LLC, where he develops tools to support financial wellness and housing counselors. He regularly presents on mindfulness and metacognition in the classroom and is the author of the Effortless Mindfulness Toolkit, an open resource for educators published on CUNY Academic Works. Prior to teaching, he spent nearly 30 years in investment banking. He holds an M.A. in Philosophy from Columbia University and a B.S. in Managerial Economics and French from Carnegie Mellon University.

References

Brach, T. (2024). RAIN: Recognize, allow, investigate, nurture. Retrieved October 2, 2025, from https://www.tarabrach.com/rain/

Chödrön, P., & Kullander, J. (2022, July 17). Turning toward pain: An interview with Buddhist nun Pema Chödrön. Beliefnet. https://www.beliefnet.com/wellness/health/physical-health/pain-management/turning-toward-pain.aspx

Ford, B. Q., & Mauss, I. B. (2014). The paradoxical effects of pursuing positive emotion: When and why wanting to feel happy backfires. In J. Gruber & J. T. Moskowitz (Eds.), Positive emotion: Integrating the light sides and dark sides. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199926725.003.0020

Langer, E. J. (2023). The mindful body: Thinking our way to chronic health. Ballantine Books.

Steiner, E. D., Levine, P. R., Doan, S., & Woo, A. (2025). Teacher well-being, pay, and intentions to leave in 2025: Findings from the State of the American Teacher Survey (RR-A1108-16). RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA1108-16.html

Watts, A. W. (1951). The wisdom of insecurity: A message for an age of anxiety (p. 40). Pantheon Books.
Source link
January 5, 2026
Alterni-TEF, 2026 | Wonkhe
The proposal that the Office for Students put out for consultation was that the teaching excellence framework (TEF) will become a rolling, annual, event.

Every year would see an arbitrary number of providers undergo the rigours (and hefty administration load) of a teaching excellence framework submission – with results released to general joy/despair at some point in the autumn.

The bad news for fans of medal-based higher education provider assessments is that – pending the outcome of the recent ask-the-sector exercise and another one coming in the summer – we won’t get the first crop of awards until 2028. And even then it’ll just be England.

No need to wait

Happily, a little-noticed release of data just before Christmas means that I can run my own UK Alterni-TEF. Despite the absence of TEF for the next two years, OfS still releases the underlying data each year – ostensibly to facilitate the update of the inevitable dashboard (though this year, the revised dashboard is still to come).

To be clear, this exercise is only tangentially related to what will emerge from the Office for Student’s latest consultation. I’ve very much drawn from the full history of TEF, along similar lines to my previous releases.

This version of the TEF is (of course) purely data driven. Here’s how it works.
- I stole the “flags” concept from the original TEF – one standard deviation above the benchmark on each indicator is a single flag[+], two would be a double flag[++] (below the benchmark gives me a single[-] or double[- -] negative flag). I turned these into flag scores for each sub award: [++] is 2, [- -] is minus 2 and so on. This part of the process was made much more enjoyable by the OfS decision to stop publishing standard deviations – I had to calculate them myself from the supplied (at 95%) confidence intervals.
- If there’s no data for a split metric at a provider, even for just one flag, I threw it out of that competition. If you can’t find your subject at your provider, this is why.
- For the Student Outcomes sub-award (covering continuation, completion, and progression) three or more positive flags ( or the flag score equivalent of [+++] or above) gives you a gold, three or more negative flags or equivalent gives you a bronze. Otherwise you’re on silver (there’s no “Needs Improvement” in this game, and a happy absence of regulatory consequences)
- For the Student Experience sub-award, the flag score equivalent of seven or more positive flags lands you a gold, seven or more negative gets you a bronze.
- Overall, if you get at least one gold (for either Outcomes of Experience) you are gold overall, but if you get at least one bronze you are bronze overall. Otherwise (or if you get one bronze and one gold) you get a silver.
- There’s different awards for full-time, part-time, and apprenticeship provision. In the old days you’d get your “dominant mode”, here you get a choice (though as above, if there’s no data on even one indicator, you don’t get an award).
There are multiple overall awards, one for each split metric. To be frank, though I have included overall awards to put in your prospectus (please do not put these awards into your prospectus) the split metrics awards are much more useful given the way in which people in providers actually use TEF to drive internal quality enhancement.

Because that’s kind of the point of doing this. I’ve said this before, but every time I’ve shown plots like this to people in a higher education provider the response is something along the lines of “ah, I know why that is”. There’s always a story of a particular cohort or group that had a bad time, and this is followed by an explanation as to how things are being (or most often, have been) put right.

Doing the splits

In previous years I’ve just done subject TEF, but there’s no reason not to expand what is available to cover the full range of split metrics that turn up in the data. Coverage includes:
- Overall
- Subject area (a variant on CAH level 2)
- ABCs quintile (the association between characteristics OfS dataset)
- Deprivation quintile (using the relevant variant of IMD)
- Sex
- Ethnicity
- Disability indicator
- Age on course commencement (in three buckets)
- Graduate outcomes quintile
- Level of study (first degree, other undergraduate, UG with PG components)
- Partnership type (taught in house, or subcontracted out)
The data as released also purports to contain data on domicile (I couldn’t get this working with my rules above) and “year” which refers to a year of data in each metric. To avoid confusion I haven’t shown these.

In each case there is different data (and thus different awards) for full time, part time, and apprenticeship provision. It’s worth noting that where there is no data, even for a single indicator, I have not shown that institution as having provision referring to that split. So if you are standing in your department of mathematics wondering why I am suggesting it doesn’t exist the answer is more than likely that there is missing data for one of your indicators.

Here, then, is a version that lets you compare groups of students within a single institution.

[Full screen]

And a version that lets you look at a particular student subgroup for all providers.

[Full screen]

For each, if you mouse over an entry in the list at the top, it shows a breakdown by indicator (continuation, completion, progression for student outcomes; six cuts of National Student Survey question group data for student experience) at the bottom. This allows you both to see how the indicator compares against the benchmark, view flag scores (the colours) by indicator, and see how many data points are used in each indicator (the grey bar, showing the denominator).

More detail

The Office for Students did briefly consider the idea of a “quality risk register” before it was scrapped in the latest round of changes. In essence, it would have pointed out particular groups of students where an indicator was lower than what was considered normal. To be honest, I didn’t think it would work at a sector level as well as at the level of the individual institution – and I liked the idea of including NSS-derived measures alongside the outcomes (B3) indicators.

So here’s an alternative view of the same data that allows you to view the underlying TEF indicators for every group (split) we get data for. There’s a filter for split type if you are interested in the differing experience of students across different deprivation quintiles, ethnicities, subjects, or whatever else – but the default view lets you view all sub-groups: a quality risk register of your very own.

[Full screen]

Here the size of the blobs show the number of students whose data is included in each group, while the colour shows the TEF flag as a quick way for you to grasp the significance and direction of each finding.

Understanding the student experience in 2026

Data like this is the starting point for a series of difficult institutional conversations, made all the harder by two kinds of financial pressure: that faced by students themselves (and affecting the way they are able to engage with higher education) and that faced by providers (a lack of resources, and often staff, to provide supportive interventions).

There’s no easy way of squaring this circle – if there was, everyone would be doing it. The answers (if there are answers) are likely to be very localised and very individual, so the wide range of splits from institutional data available here will help focus efforts where they are most needed. Larger providers will likely be able to supplement this data with near-realtime learner analytics – for smaller and less established providers releases like this may well be the best available tool for the job.

More than ever, the sector needs to be supplementing this evidence with ideas and innovations developed by peers. While a great deal of public funding has historically been put into efforts to support the sharing of practice, in recent years (and with a renewed emphasis on competition under the Office for Students in England) the networks and collaborations that used to facilitate this have begun to atrophy.

Given that this is 2026, there will be a lot of interest in using large language models and similar AI-related technologies to support learning – and it is possible that there are areas of practice where interventions like this might be at use. As with any new technology the hype can often run ahead of the evidence – I’d suggest that Wonkhe’s own Secret Life of Students event (17 March, London) would be a great place to learn from peers and explore what is becoming the state of the art, in ways that do not endanger the benefits of learning and living at a human scale.

Meanwhile it is ironic that an approach developed as an inarguable data-driven way of spotting “poor quality provision” has data outputs that are so useful in driving enhancement but are completely inadequate for their stated purpose. Whatever comes out of this latest round of changes to the regulation of quality in England we have to hope that data like this continues to be made available to support the reflection that all providers need to be doing.
Source link
January 5, 2026
A more focused research system does not by itself solve structural deficits

Financial pressures across the higher education sector have necessitated a closer look at the various incomes and associated costs of the research, teaching and operational streams. For years, larger institutions have relied upon the cross-subsidy of their research, primarily from overseas student fees – a subsidy that is under threat from changes in geopolitics and indeed our own UK policies on immigration and visa controls.

The UK is now between a rock and a hard place: how can it support the volume and focus of research needed to grow the knowledge-based economy of our UK industrial strategy, while also addressing the financial deficits that even the existing levels of research create?

Several research leaders have recently been suggesting that a more efficient research system is one where higher education institutions focus on their strengths and collaborate more. But while acknowledging that efficiency savings are required and the relentless growth of bureaucracy – partly imposed by government but also self-inflicted within the HEIs – can be addressed, the funding gulf is far wider than these savings could possibly deliver.

Efficiency savings alone will not solve the scale of structural deficits in the system. Furthermore, given that grant application success rates are systemically below 20 per cent and frequently below ten or even five per cent, the sector is already only funding its strongest applications. Fundamentally, currently demand far outstrips supply, leading to inefficiency and poor prioritisation decisions.

Since most of the research costs are those supporting the salaries and student stipends of the researchers themselves, significant cost-cutting necessitates a reduction in the size of the research workforce – a reduction that would fly in the face of our future workforce requirement. We could leave this inevitable reduction to market forces, but the resulting disinvestment will likely impact the resource intensive subjects upon which much of our future economic growth depends.

We recognise also that solutions cannot solely rely upon the public purse. So, what could we do now to improve both the efficiency of our state research spend and third-party investment into the system?

What gets spent

First of all, the chronic underfunding of the teaching of UK domestic students cannot continue, as it puts even further pressure on institutional resources. The recent index-linking of fees in England was a brave step to address this, but to maintain a viable UK research and innovation system, the other UK nations will also urgently need to address the underfunding of teaching. And in doing so we must remain mindful of the potential unintended consequences that increased fees might have on socio-economic exclusion.

Second, paying a fair price for the research we do. Much has been made of the seemingly unrestricted “quality-related” funding (QR, or REG in Scotland) driven by the REF process. The reality is that QR simply makes good the missing component of research funding which through TRAC analysis is now estimated to cover less than 70 per cent of the true costs of the research.

It ought to be noted that this missing component exists over all the recently announced research buckets extending across curiosity-driven, government-priority, and scale-up support. The government must recognise that QR is not purely the funding of discovery research, but rather it is the dual funding of research in general – and that the purpose of dual funding is to tension delivery models to ensure HEI efficiency of delivery.

Next, there is pressing a need for UKRI to focus resource on the research most likely to lead to economic or societal benefit. This research spans all disciplines from the hardest of sciences to the most creative of the arts.

Although these claims are widely made within every grant proposal, perhaps the best evidence of their validity lies in the co-investment these applications attract. We note the schemes such as EPSRC’s prosperity partnerships and their quantum technology hubs show that when packaged to encompass a range of technology readiness levels (TRL), industry is willing to support both low and high TRL research.

We would propose that across UKRI more weighting is given to those applications supported by matching funds from industry or, in the case of societal impact, by government departments or charities. The next wave of matched co-funding of local industry-linked innovation should also privilege schemes which elicit genuine new industry investment, as opposed to in-kind funding, as envisaged in Local Innovation Partnership Funds. This avoids increasing research volume which is already not sustainable.

The research workforce

In recent times, the UKRI budgets and funding schemes for research and training (largely support for doctoral students) have been separated from each other. This can mean that the work of doctoral students is separated from the cutting-edge research that they were once the enginehouse of delivering. This decoupling means that the research projects themselves now require allocated, and far more expensive, post-doctoral staff to deliver. We see nothing in the recent re-branding of doctoral support to “landscape” and “focal” awards that is set to change this disconnect.

It should be acknowledged that centres for doctoral training were correctly introduced nearly 20 years ago to ensure our students were better trained and better supported – but we would argue that the sector has now moved on and graduate schools within our leading HEIs address these needs without need for duplication by doctoral centres.

Our proposal would be that, except for a small number of specific areas and initiatives supported by centres of doctoral training (focal awards) and central to the UK’s skills need, the normal funding of UKRI-supported doctoral students should be associated with projects funded by UKRI or other sources external to higher education institutions. This may require the reassignment of recently pooled training resources back to the individual research councils, rebalanced to meet national needs.

This last point leads to the question of what the right shape of the HEI-based research-focused workforce is. We would suggest that emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of graduate students – many of whom aspire to move on from the higher education sector after their graduation to join the wider workforce – rather than post-doctoral researchers who (regrettably) mistakenly see their appointment as a first step to a permanent role in a sector which is unlikely to grow.

Post-doctoral researchers are of course vital to the delivery of some research projects and comprise the academic researchers of the future. Emerging research leaders should continue to be supported through, for example, future research leader fellowships, empowered to pursue their own research ambitions. This rebalancing of the research workforce will go some way to rebalancing supply and demand.

Organisational change

Higher education institutions are hotbeds of creativity and empowerment. However, typical departments have an imbalanced distribution of research resources where appointment and promotion criteria are linked to individual grant income. While not underestimating the important leadership roles this implies, we feel that research outcomes would be better delivered through internal collaborations of experienced researchers where team science brings complementary skills together in partnership rather than subservience.

This change in emphasis requires institutions to consider their team structures and HR processes. It also requires funders to reflect these changes in their assessment criteria and selection panel working methods. Again, this rebalancing of the research workforce would go some way to addressing supply and demand while improving the delivery of the research we fund.

None of these suggestions represent a quick fix for our financial pressures, which need to be addressed. But taken together we believe them to be a supportive step, helping stabilise the financial position of the sector, while ensuring its continuing contribution to the UK economy and society. If we fail to act, the UK risks a disorderly reduction of its research capability at precisely the moment our global competitors are accelerating.

Source link

January 5, 2026
Moral Decay, Dehumanization, and the Failure of Courage (Dahn Shaulis and Glen McGhee)

At Higher Education Inquirer, our focus on the college meltdown has always pointed beyond collapsing enrollments, rising tuition, and institutional dysfunction. Higher education has served as a warning signal — a visible manifestation of a far deeper crisis: the moral decay and dehumanization of society, compounded by a profound failure of courage among those with the greatest power and resources.

This concern predates the current moment. Through our earlier work at American Injustice, we chronicled how American institutions steadily abandoned ethical responsibility in favor of profit, prestige, and political convenience. What is happening in higher education today is not an anomaly. It is the predictable outcome of decades of moral retreat by elites who benefit from the system while refusing to challenge its injustices.

Permanent War and the Moral Abdication of Leadership

Wars in Gaza, Ukraine, and Venezuela reveal a world in which human suffering has been normalized and strategically managed rather than confronted. Civilian lives are reduced to abstractions, filtered through geopolitical narratives and sanitized media frames. What is most striking is not only the violence itself, but the ethical cowardice of leadership.

University presidents, policymakers in Washington, and financial and technological elites rarely speak with moral clarity about war and its human costs. Institutions that claim to value human life and critical inquiry remain silent, hedging statements to avoid donor backlash or political scrutiny. The result is not neutrality, but complicity — a tacit acceptance that power matters more than people.

Climate Collapse and the Silence of Those Who Know Better

Climate change represents an existential moral challenge, yet it has been met with astonishing timidity by those most capable of leading. Universities produce the research, model the risks, and educate the future — yet many remain financially entangled with fossil fuel interests and unwilling to confront the implications of their own findings.

Student demands for divestment and climate accountability are often treated as public-relations problems rather than ethical imperatives. University presidents issue vague commitments while continuing business as usual. In Washington, legislation stalls. On Wall Street, climate risk is managed as a portfolio concern rather than a human catastrophe. In Silicon Valley, technological “solutions” are offered in place of systemic change.

This is not ignorance. It is cowardice disguised as pragmatism.

The Suppression of Student Protest and the Fear of Moral Clarity

The moral vacuum at the top becomes most visible when students attempt to fill it. Historically, student movements have pushed institutions toward justice — against segregation, apartheid, and unjust wars. Today, however, student protest is increasingly criminalized.

Peaceful encampments are dismantled. Students are arrested or suspended. Faculty are intimidated. Surveillance tools track dissent. University leaders invoke “safety” and “order” while outsourcing enforcement to police and private security. The message is unmistakable: moral engagement is welcome only when it does not challenge power.

This is not leadership. It is risk aversion elevated to institutional doctrine.

Mass Surveillance and the Bureaucratization of Fear

The expansion of mass surveillance further reflects elite moral failure. From campuses to corporations, human beings are monitored, quantified, and managed. Surveillance is justified as efficiency or security, but its deeper function is control — discouraging dissent, creativity, and ethical risk-taking.

Leaders who claim to champion innovation quietly accept systems that undermine autonomy and erode trust. In higher education, surveillance replaces mentorship; compliance replaces curiosity. A culture of fear takes root where moral courage once should have flourished.

Inequality and the Insulation of Elites from Consequence

Extreme inequality enables this cowardice. Those at the top are shielded from the consequences of their decisions. University presidents collect compensation packages while adjuncts struggle to survive. Wall Street profits from instability it helps create. Silicon Valley builds tools that reshape society without accountability. Washington dithers while communities fracture.

When elites are insulated, ethical standards erode. Moral responsibility becomes optional — something to be invoked rhetorically but avoided in practice.

Social Media, AI, and the Automation of Moral Evasion

Social media and Artificial Intelligence accelerate dehumanization while providing cover for inaction. Platforms reward outrage without responsibility. Algorithms make decisions without accountability. Leaders defer to “systems” and “processes” rather than exercising judgment.

In higher education, AI threatens to further distance leaders from the human consequences of their choices — allowing automation to replace care, metrics to replace wisdom, and efficiency to replace ethics.

The Crisis Beneath the Crisis

The college meltdown is not simply a failure of policy or finance. It is a failure of moral leadership. Those with the most power — university presidents, elected officials, financiers, and technologists — have repeatedly chosen caution over conscience, reputation over responsibility, and silence over truth.

War without moral reckoning. Climate collapse without leadership. Protest without protection. Surveillance without consent. Inequality without accountability.

These are not accidents. They are the results of decisions made — and avoided — by people who know better.

Toward Moral Courage and Rehumanization

Rehumanization begins with courage. It requires leaders willing to risk prestige, funding, and influence in defense of human dignity. Higher education should be a site of ethical leadership, not an echo of elite fear.

This means defending student protest, confronting climate responsibility honestly, rejecting dehumanizing technologies, and placing human well-being above institutional self-preservation. It means leaders speaking plainly about injustice — even when it is inconvenient.

Our concern at Higher Education Inquirer — and long before that, at American Injustice — has always been this: What happens to a society when those with the greatest power lack the courage to use it ethically?

Until that question is confronted, the college meltdown will remain only one visible fracture in a far deeper moral collapse.

Source link

January 4, 2026
Higher Education Inquirer : $8 Billion in Liberty University Debt: Engaging a Faith-Driven Constituency

More than 290,000 Liberty University borrowers owe over $8 billion in federal student loans, yet most remain politically disengaged. Many are veterans or enrolled in accelerated master’s programs often criticized as “robocolleges.” What sets this population apart is not just the size of their debt, but their faith and social conservatism—a demographic frequently overlooked by traditional student debt advocacy.

For unions and nonprofit organizations committed to civic engagement and economic justice, this represents a unique opportunity: mobilize borrowers in ways that align with their values, rather than against them. Messaging that highlights fairness, personal responsibility, and stewardship—core Christian principles—can resonate deeply while framing student debt as a challenge to both economic and moral accountability.

These borrowers are approaching peak voting age, meaning that engagement now could influence local and national politics in the coming election cycles. Institutions like the University of Phoenix show the scale of the opportunity: over one million borrowers owe more than $21 billion nationwide, suggesting that faith-aligned organizing strategies could have broad impact.

The strategy is clear: educate borrowers about their rights, expose predatory practices, and organize them into civic action, all while respecting their values and beliefs. Done thoughtfully, this approach can build trust and spur meaningful participation in democracy, turning a population long overlooked into an informed, motivated constituency.

The coming years will test whether unions and nonprofits seize this moment. Hundreds of thousands of conservative, Christian borrowers could become a powerful force for accountability and change—but only if engagement is value-driven, strategic, and timely.

Sources:

Source link

January 4, 2026
As Job Market Tightens, More Californians Are Heading Back to College – The 74

“When the economy is doing well, our enrollments are down, and when the economy is in a tough stretch or in a recession, we see our enrollments go up,” said Chris Ferguson, an executive vice chancellor with the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, which oversees all of the state’s 116 community colleges.

Ferguson said the state has yet to release authoritative data on fall enrollment, but early data shows upward trends. In interviews with CalMatters, some college presidents said they’re seeing over 10% more students compared to last fall. But they say the state hasn’t provided enough funding to keep up with their growth.

California is not in a recession, but some economic indicators are grim. Unemployment is rising, and it’s getting harder to find a job. The cost of consumer goods, such as toilet paper and cosmetics, is going up, and economists say tariffs and President Donald Trump’s increased deportations could lead to further economic declines in the state.

“Typically when the economy gets a little crazy, like it is right now, people need to upskill or find new work,” and workers look to colleges for help, said Nicole Albo-Lopez, deputy chancellor for the Los Angeles Community College District. In the Los Angeles district, students between the ages of 35 and 54 are coming back to school in droves — up 28% compared to last year, she said.

Other factors may also be bringing students back to school. The COVID-19 pandemic created a sudden and historic drop in college enrollment, and some schools say the influx of students this year is just a return to pre-pandemic levels. A large portion of recent enrollment growth comes from high school students taking college courses, which has exploded in popularity in the past few years.

But most college officials agree that uncertainty about the economy is at least one of the driving forces for new students this semester.

Related

When Is a California College Degree Worth the Cost? A New Study Has Answers

At the Los Rios Community College District, which represents four campuses in the Sacramento metro area, enrollment is up by more than 5% compared to last fall. Part of that is due to “the gap between Wall Street and Main Street,” said Mario Rodriguez, an executive vice chancellor for the system: The stock market has performed well in the past few years, even as job seekers see fewer opportunities and families struggle with inflation. Enrollments in career technical classes are up 10% this semester at the district, the equivalent of almost 4,000 new students.

These job-ready programs, such as medical assisting, welding, and automotive, have always been popular, and some cap enrollment. School officials say waitlists are growing.

Quitting a job, starting school

Carla Gruhn, 29, has worked as a medical assistant in San Jose for 10 years. At one point she was making roughly $50,000 a year, but it wasn’t enough.

“In the last year, eggs started becoming super expensive,” she said. “That’s when I started paying more attention to gas and groceries.” Together with her husband, she started planning ways to scale back — fewer coffee runs, less travel with their truck, cheaper gifts this Christmas. But they needed a long-term solution, too.

In July, she quit her job and enrolled in a two-year radiologic technology program at Foothill College, in the south Bay Area, which will teach her how to read X-rays, CT scans, and MRIs. Her salary will double, maybe even triple, once she graduates with the new credential.

The pay raise could be “life-changing,” she said. At the moment, Gruhn said her family is small, just her husband and her dog, so their costs are lower, but they know it’s going to get more expensive, since they want to buy a house and have kids. “We’re trying to plan for the future too.”

At Foothill College, enrollment is up, especially in science and technology classes, said Simon Pennington, the school’s associate vice president of community relations. Many of these students are looking to fulfill prerequisites to enter careers in the health care sector, he added. Health care is one of the largest and fastest-growing job sectors in the state, according to a recent report from the Public Policy Institute of California.

In Merced, hours away from major urban centers like the Bay Area, Sacramento, or Los Angeles, students are clamoring for classes in electronics, where the fall waitlist numbers have nearly doubled compared to three years ago. Demand is also up for classes in criminal justice and mechanized agriculture, according to James Leonard, a spokesperson for the school.

“When the economy goes bad, enrollment skyrockets,” said Dee Sigismond, Merced College’s vice president of instruction, though she wasn’t certain that a recession would have the same impact it did 15 years ago. Staring during the pandemic, Merced College, like most community colleges, now offers many of its classes online, which can make it easier for students to juggle school with a full- or part-time job. She added that Merced is also experimenting with new, more flexible kinds of instruction, such as competency-based education, which allows students to pass a class by showing they already have the requisite skills.

Colleges call for more funding

California’s community colleges receive most of their funding based on the number of students they serve. When enrollment declined during the pandemic, colleges were set to lose funding, but the governor and the Legislature granted the community college system a special exemption, delaying many funding cuts.

Now that enrollment is ticking up, many colleges say they have the opposite problem — they aren’t getting enough money to serve the influx of new students. That’s largely because the state’s funding formula is based on the college’s average enrollment over the past three years, so sudden changes this year are slow to have an effect. Rodriguez said his Sacramento area district is serving about 5,000 more students than the system is funded to support, representing about $20 million in lost revenue.

This summer, the state agreed to send more money to California’s community colleges to account for recent enrollment growth, but Ferguson said it isn’t enough to fully fund all the new students.

Last month, presidents and chancellors from 10 different community colleges or community college districts, including representatives from Los Angeles and Sacramento, sent a letter to the governor, asking him to change state policy and allow colleges to get more funding in next year’s budget. Though he did not sign the letter, Ferguson said the state chancellor’s office is asking the governor for similar changes.

In 2008, colleges had to cut back on services or classes, even as new students poured in because the state didn’t provide proportionate funding for each new enrollment.

Next year, California is expected to face an $18 billion budget deficit, according to a November analysis by the Legislative Analyst’s Office. For comparison, the state had a deficit of about $24 billion in 2008, worth about $36 billion in today’s dollars.

In Chula Vista, Southwestern College President Mark Sanchez said his district is already saying no to potential college classes in high schools and prisons because of a lack of state funding.

His district had over 32,000 students in the last academic year — the highest enrollment rate since the Great Recession.

Did you use this article in your work?

We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

Source link

January 4, 2026
How Demographics Could Elevate the Political Stakes of Student Loan Debt in 2028 and Beyond

Student loan debt has been a defining economic and political issue in the United States for over a decade. As of 2025, Americans owe nearly $1.8 trillion in student loans, with roughly 42–45 million borrowers carrying federal debt and average balances exceeding $39,000 per borrower. Delinquency rates have surged since repayment reporting resumed, with more than one in five borrowers behind on payments, and millions at risk of default. These financial pressures are now rippling through credit markets and household budgets, especially for younger, middle-aged, and lower-income borrowers. While student debt already garners public attention, shifting demographic trends and mounting economic pressures promise to reshape its political weight in the coming years unless comprehensive changes are enacted.

The largest cohort of student borrowers today consists of Millennials and older members of Generation Z, many aged between 25 and 45. These are prime years for political engagement, as individuals are more likely to vote, form households, buy homes, and shape community priorities. In 2028, this group will be even more politically active, navigating careers, families, and fiscal pressures that student debt directly influences. As borrowers age into life stages where financial stability becomes paramount, their appetite for political solutions — including forgiveness, refinancing, and more manageable repayment structures — is likely to intensify.

Student loan debt also affects communities differently. Black and Latinx borrowers are disproportionately burdened, with Black borrowers often owing more and struggling with repayment longer due to structural inequities in income and wealth. These disparities will continue to grow unless systemic reforms address not just debt levels but the economic systems that compound them over time. Communities of color are projected to constitute a larger share of the eligible electorate by 2030, and when a disproportionate share of voters in a given demographic faces an issue like unsustainable debt, it naturally becomes central to their political priorities and shapes the platforms of candidates seeking their support.

Older Americans are impacted by student loan dynamics not necessarily as borrowers themselves, but as co-signers, parents, or caregivers helping children or grandchildren manage debt. With the U.S. population aging, the 65+ age group is expected to grow as a portion of the electorate, and those over 80 will increasingly drive Medicaid and healthcare costs, adding strain to federal and state budgets. Older voters tend to vote at higher rates than younger voters, and as more families find multigenerational debt obligations weighing on retirement savings, caregiving responsibilities, and healthcare needs, the political urgency around student loan reform may expand beyond traditional “student” demographics and into older voters’ policy concerns.

Geographic and economic shifts also shape the political significance of student debt. States with high education costs, and correspondingly high average debt loads, may see student loan issues become central to local and statewide elections. Migration patterns bringing younger, more diverse populations to new regions — including parts of the South and Midwest — will likely influence electoral alignments and policy debates in competitive districts. Meanwhile, national concerns such as the growing federal debt, ongoing military engagements abroad, and rising costs associated with healthcare for an aging population amplify the stakes, creating competing pressures on policymakers who must balance debt relief against broader fiscal challenges.

Economic inequality further complicates the picture. The concentration of wealth among the richest Americans continues to grow, giving this group greater political influence and shaping policy priorities in ways that often conflict with the needs of student borrowers and middle-class families. As wealth and power accumulate at the top, voters carrying student debt may increasingly perceive systemic unfairness, heightening the political salience of debt relief and broader structural reforms. The interaction of these factors — persistent debt, rising national obligations, ongoing conflict, and economic inequality — suggests that student loans will remain intertwined with larger national debates over fiscal responsibility, social safety nets, and the distribution of economic power.

Student loan debt has already become a wedge issue in national politics, especially within Democratic primaries. The demographic shifts of the late 2020s, rising diversity, coupled economic pressures, and growing awareness of wealth inequality could make it a central concern for a broader slice of the electorate. Policymakers who ignore student debt risk alienating key voter blocs: younger voters whose turnout matters in swing states, communities of color with growing electoral influence, and middle-class families navigating financial strain alongside broader economic and geopolitical uncertainties.

The economic impact of outstanding student loan debt, from delayed homeownership to depressed small business formation, carries demographic implications that feed back into the political sphere. If current trends continue, the cost of inaction will not just be political but economic, affecting national growth rates, tax revenue, social programs, and inequality metrics that in turn shape voter sentiment and policy priorities.

Student Debt and the Shifting Political Landscape

By 2028 and into the 2030s, demographic change is poised to elevate student loan debt from a pressing public concern to a core political battleground unless policymakers act proactively. With more borrowers entering key voting blocs, disproportionate impacts across racial and economic lines, and economic consequences rippling through communities of all ages, student loan debt is more than a financial issue: it is a demographic reality shaping the future of American politics.

Sadly, the Higher Education Inquirer will not be around to cover these developments as they unfold. HEI has made predictions about student debt and its political consequences in the past, and while nothing is set in stone, the combination of rising demographics, persistent economic inequality, the mounting national debt, ongoing war-related obligations, and pressures from an aging population does not paint a promising picture. Without major policy reforms — such as targeted debt relief, changes to repayment systems, or broader higher education financing reforms — the political salience of student debt is likely to intensify, influencing campaigns, elections, and national discourse for years to come.

Sources

Education Data Initiative, “Student Loan Debt Statistics 2025,” educationdata.org
TransUnion, “May 2025 Student Loan Update,” newsroom.transunion.com
Forbes, “Student Loans for 64 Million Borrowers Are Heading Toward a Dangerous Cliff,” forbes.com
College Board, “Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid 2025,” research.collegeboard.org
LendingTree, “Student Loan Debt Statistics by State,” lendingtree.com
NerdWallet, “Student Loan Debt Statistics 2025,” nerdwallet.com

Source link

January 4, 2026
Higher Education Inquirer Resources, Spring 2026

[Editor’s note: Please let us know of any corrections, additions, or broken links. We always welcome your feedback.]

This list traces how U.S. higher education has been reshaped by neoliberal policies, privatization, and data-driven management, producing deepening inequalities across race and class. The works examine the rise of academic capitalism, growing student debt, corporatization, and the influence of private interests—from for-profit colleges to rankings and surveillance systems. Together, they depict a sector drifting away from its public mission and democratic ideals, while highlighting the structural forces that created today’s crises and the reforms needed to reverse them.

Ahn, Ilsup (2023). The Ethics of Educational Healthcare: Student Debt, Neoliberalism, and Justice. Palgrave Macmillan.
Alexander, Bryan (2020). Academia Next: The Futures of Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.
Alexander, Bryan (2023). Universities on Fire. Johns Hopkins Press.

Alexander, Bryan (2026). Peak Higher Ed. Johns Hopkins Press.

Angulo, A. (2016). Diploma Mills: How For-profit Colleges Stiffed Students, Taxpayers, and the American Dream. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Apthekar, Bettina (1966). Big Business and the American University. New Outlook Publishers.

Apthekar, Bettina (1969). Higher Education and the Student Rebellion in the United States, 1960–1969: A Bibliography.

Archibald, R. & Feldman, D. (2017). The Road Ahead for America’s Colleges & Universities. Oxford University Press.

Armstrong, E. & Hamilton, L. (2015). Paying for the Party: How College Maintains Inequality. Harvard University Press.

Arum, R. & Roksa, J. (2011). Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses. University of Chicago Press.

Baldwin, Davarian (2021). In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower: How Universities Are Plundering Our Cities. Bold Type Books.

Barr, Andrew & Turner, Sarah (2023). The Labor Market Returns to Higher Education. Oxford University Press.

Bennett, W. & Wilezol, D. (2013). Is College Worth It? Thomas Nelson.

Berg, I. (1970). The Great Training Robbery: Education and Jobs. Praeger.

Berman, Elizabeth P. (2012). Creating the Market University. Princeton University Press.

Berman, Elizabeth Popp & Stevens, Mitchell (eds.) (2019). The University Under Pressure. Emerald Publishing.

Berry, J. (2005). Reclaiming the Ivory Tower: Organizing Adjuncts to Change Higher Education. Monthly Review Press.

Berry, J. and Worthen, H. (2021). Power Despite Precarity: Strategies for the Contingent Faculty Movement in Higher Education. Pluto Books.

Best, J. & Best, E. (2014). The Student Loan Mess. Atkinson Family Foundation.

Bledstein, Burton J. (1976). The Culture of Professionalism. Norton.

Bogue, E. Grady & Aper, Jeffrey (2000). Exploring the Heritage of American Higher Education.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton University Press.

Bousquet, M. (2008). How the University Works. NYU Press.

Brennan, J. & Magness, P. (2019). Cracks in the Ivory Tower. Oxford University Press.

Brint, S. & Karabel, J. (1989). The Diverted Dream. Oxford University Press.

Burawoy, Michael & Mitchell, Katharyne (eds.) (2020). The University, Neoliberalism, and the Politics of Inequality. Routledge.

Burd, Stephen (2024). Lifting the Veil on Enrollment Management: How a Powerful Industry is Limiting Social Mobility in American Higher Education. Harvard Education Press

Cabrera, Nolan L. (2018). White Guys on Campus. Rutgers University Press.

Cabrera, Nolan L. (2024). Whiteness in the Ivory Tower. Teachers College Press.

Cantwell, Brendan & Robertson, Susan (eds.) (2021). Research Handbook on the Politics of Higher Education. Edward Elgar.

Caplan, B. (2018). The Case Against Education. Princeton University Press.

Cappelli, P. (2015). Will College Pay Off? Public Affairs.

Carney, Cary Michael (1999). Native American Higher Education in the United States. Transaction.

Cassuto, Leonard (2015). The Graduate School Mess. Harvard University Press.

Caterine, Christopher (2020). Leaving Academia. Princeton Press.

Childress, H. (2019). The Adjunct Underclass. University of Chicago Press.

Chomsky, Noam (2014). Masters of Mankind. Haymarket Books.

Choudaha, Rahul & de Wit, Hans (eds.) (2019). International Student Recruitment and Mobility. Routledge.

Cohen, Arthur M. (1998). The Shaping of American Higher Education. Jossey-Bass.

Collins, Randall (1979/2019). The Credential Society. Columbia University Press.

Cottom, Tressie McMillan (2016). Lower Ed.

Cottom, Tressie McMillan & Darity, William A. Jr. (eds.) (2018). For-Profit Universities. Routledge.

Domhoff, G. William (2021). Who Rules America? Routledge.

Donoghue, F. (2008). The Last Professors.

Dorn, Charles (2017). For the Common Good. Cornell University Press.

Eaton, Charlie (2022). Bankers in the Ivory Tower. University of Chicago Press.

Eisenmann, Linda (2006). Higher Education for Women in Postwar America. Johns Hopkins Press.

Espenshade, T. & Walton Radford, A. (2009). No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal. Princeton University Press.

Faragher, John Mack & Howe, Florence (eds.) (1988). Women and Higher Education in American History. Norton.

Farber, Jerry (1972). The University of Tomorrowland. Pocket Books.

Freeman, Richard B. (1976). The Overeducated American. Academic Press.

Gaston, P. (2014). Higher Education Accreditation. Stylus.

Gildersleeve, Ryan Evely & Tierney, William (2017). The Contemporary Landscape of Higher Education. Routledge.

Ginsberg, B. (2013). The Fall of the Faculty. Oxford University Press.

Giroux, Henry (1983). Theory and Resistance in Education. Bergin and Garvey Press.

Giroux, Henry (2014). Neoliberalism’s War on Higher Education. Haymarket Books.

Giroux, Henry (2022). Pedagogy of Resistance. Bloomsbury Academic.

Gleason, Philip (1995). Contending with Modernity. Oxford University Press.

Golden, D. (2006). The Price of Admission.

Goldrick-Rab, S. (2016). Paying the Price.

Graeber, David (2018). Bullshit Jobs. Simon and Schuster.

Groeger, Cristina Viviana (2021). The Education Trap. Harvard Press.

Hamilton, Laura T. & Kelly Nielson (2021). Broke.

Hampel, Robert L. (2017). Fast and Curious. Rowman & Littlefield.

Hirschman, Daniel & Berman, Elizabeth Popp (eds.) (2021). The Sociology of Higher Education.

Johnson, B. et al. (2003). Steal This University.

Kamenetz, Anya (2006). Generation Debt. Riverhead.

Keats, John (1965). The Sheepskin Psychosis. Lippincott.

Kelchen, Robert (2018). Higher Education Accountability. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kezar, A., DePaola, T., & Scott, D. (2019). The Gig Academy. Johns Hopkins Press.

Kinser, K. (2006). From Main Street to Wall Street.

Kozol, Jonathan (1992). Savage Inequalities. Harper Perennial.

Kozol, Jonathan (2006). The Shame of the Nation. Crown.

Kraus, Neil (2023). The Fantasy Economy: Neoliberalism, Inequality, and the Education Reform Movement. Temple University Press, 2023.

Labaree, David (1997). How to Succeed in School Without Really Learning. Yale University Press.

Labaree, David F. (2017). A Perfect Mess. University of Chicago Press.

Lafer, Gordon (2004). The Job Training Charade. Cornell University Press.

Loehen, James (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me. The New Press.

Lohse, Andrew (2014). Confessions of an Ivy League Frat Boy. Thomas Dunne Books.

Lucas, C.J. (1994). American Higher Education: A History.

Lukianoff, Greg & Haidt, Jonathan (2018). The Coddling of the American Mind. Penguin Press.

Maire, Quentin (2021). Credential Market. Springer.

Mandery, Evan (2022). Poison Ivy. New Press.

Marginson, Simon (2016). The Dream Is Over. University of California Press.

Marti, Eduardo (2016). America’s Broken Promise. Excelsior College Press.

Mettler, Suzanne (2014). Degrees of Inequality. Basic Books.

Morris, Dan & Targ, Harry (2023). From Upton Sinclair’s ‘Goose Step’ to the Neoliberal University.

Newfeld, C. (2011). Unmaking the Public University.

Newfeld, C. (2016). The Great Mistake.

Newfield, Christopher (2023). Metrics-Driven. Johns Hopkins Press.

O’Neil, Cathy (2016). Weapons of Math Destruction. Crown.

Palfrey, John (2020). Safe Spaces, Brave Spaces. MIT Press.

Paulsen, M. & Smart, J.C. (2001). The Finance of Higher Education. Agathon Press.

Piketty, Thomas (2020). Capital and Ideology. Harvard University Press.

Reynolds, G. (2012). The Higher Education Bubble. Encounter Books.

Rojstaczer, Stuart (1999). Gone for Good. Oxford University Press.

Rosen, A.S. (2011). Change.edu. Kaplan Publishing.

Roth, G. (2019). The Educated Underclass. Pluto Press.

Ruben, Julie (1996). The Making of the Modern University. University of Chicago Press.

Rudolph, F. (1991). The American College and University.

Rushdoony, R. (1972). The Messianic Character of American Education. The Craig Press.

Schrecker, Ellen (2010). The Lost Soul of Higher Education: New Press.

Selingo, J. (2013). College Unbound.

Shelton, Jon (2023). The Education Myth. Cornell University Press.

Simpson, Christopher (1999). Universities and Empire. New Press.

Sinclair, U. (1923). The Goose-Step.

Slaughter, Sheila & Rhoades, Gary (2004). Academic Capitalism and the New Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Smyth, John (2017). The Toxic University. Palgrave Macmillan.

Sperber, Murray (2000). Beer and Circus. Holt.

Stein, Sharon (2022). Unsettling the University. Johns Hopkins Press.

Stevens, Mitchell L. (2009). Creating a Class. Harvard University Press.

Stodghill, R. (2015). Where Everybody Looks Like Me.

Tamanaha, B. (2012). Failing Law Schools. University of Chicago Press.

Tatum, Beverly (1997). Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? Basic Books.

Taylor, Barret J. & Cantwell, Brendan (2019). Unequal Higher Education. Rutgers University Press.

Thelin, John R. (2019). A History of American Higher Education. Johns Hopkins Press.

Tolley, K. (2018). Professors in the Gig Economy. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Trow, Martin (1973). Problems in the Transition from Elite to Mass Higher Education. Carnegie Commission on Higher Education.

Twitchell, James B. (2005). Branded Nation. Simon and Schuster.

Vedder, R. (2004). Going Broke By Degree.

Veysey, Lawrence R. (1965). The Emergence of the American University.

Washburn, J. (2006). University Inc.

Washington, Harriet A. (2008). Medical Apartheid. Anchor.

Whitman, David (2021). The Profits of Failure. Cypress House.

Wilder, C.D. (2013). Ebony and Ivy.

Winks, Robin (1996). Cloak and Gown. Yale University Press.

Woodson, Carter D. (1933). The Mis-Education of the Negro.

Zaloom, Caitlin (2019). Indebted. Princeton University Press.

Zemsky, Robert, Shaman, Susan & Baldridge, Susan Campbell (2020). The College Stress Test. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Zuboff, Shoshana (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. PublicAffairs.

Activists, Coalitions, Innovators, and Alternative Voices

College Choice and Career Planning Tools

Innovation and Reform

Higher Education Policy

Data Sources

Trade publications

Source link

January 4, 2026
WEEKEND READING: The 2025 Immigration White Paper and its impact on international teacher recruitment and retention in MFL and Physics
This blog was kindly authored by Juliette Claro, Lecturer in Education at St Mary’s University Twickenham and Co-chair of the UCET Special Interest Group in Supporting International Trainee Teachers in Education.

The Immigration White Paper, published in Summer 2025, introduced sweeping reforms that will reshape England’s teacher workforce. One of the most consequential changes is the reduction of the Graduate Visa route from 24 to 18 months, which directly undermines the ability of international trainees to complete their Early Career Teacher (ECT) induction. Ahead of the debate at the House of Lords on the sustainability of Languages teachers and the impact of the immigration policies on the supply of qualified languages educators in schools and universities, this article examines the implications of this policy shift, supported by recent labour market data and the House of Lords paper by Claro and Nkune (2025), and offers recommendations for mitigating its unintended consequences.

The White Paper and the impact on shortage subjects

The National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) Annual Report (2025) confirms that Physics and Modern Foreign Languages (MFL) remain among the most under-recruited secondary subjects. Physics met just 17% of its Initial Teacher Training (ITT) target in 2024/25, while MFL reached 42%. These figures reflect a decade-long struggle to attract and retain qualified teachers International trainees have historically played a vital role in plugging these gaps, particularly in MFL, where EU-trained teachers once formed a significant proportion of the workforce.

Following the significant rise in international applicants for teacher training in shortage subjects such as Physics and MFL, The University Council for the Education of Teacher (UCET) launched in June 2025 a platform for Initial Teacher Education (ITE) providers to discuss the support of international trainee teachers through a Special Interest Group (SIG) composed of 83 members representing ITE providers across England. Members of the SIG shared their concerns towards the immigration reforms and the impact the White Paper may have on the recruitment and retention of teachers in shortage subjects such as Physics or MFL where a strong majority of applicants come from overseas.

Graduate visa reform: a critical barrier

The most contentious element of the 2025 Immigration White Paper is the reduction of the Graduate Visa route from 24 to 18 months, which started on 1 January 2026. The new 18-month limit creates a structural misalignment where international trainees will be forced to leave the UK before completing their two-year Early Career Framework (ECF) induction, unless their school sponsors them early through a Skilled Worker Visa. At this stage, many schools are unwilling or unable to undertake this process due to cost, administrative burden, and the complexity of the process.

UCET SIG members conducted a small-scale research in their settings to understand the barriers with school leaders to sponsor international Early Career Teachers (ECT). Across the sector, the reasons are complex and multilayered, reflecting the lack of financial and administrative support schools have to navigate sponsorship. This is especially true for smaller schools that are not part of a Multiple Academy Trust (MAT).

The changes in the White Paper not only disrupt career progression but also risk wasting public investment. International trainees in shortage subjects are eligible to receive bursaries of up to £29,000 in Physics and £26, 000 in MFL (2025-2026). If they are forced to leave before completing induction, the return on this investment is nullified. Coherence in policies between the Department for Education recruitment targets and the Home Office immigration policies is needed in a fragile education system.

The fragile pipeline of domestic workforce

Providers from the SIG who liaised with their local Members of Parliament and other officials were reminded that the White Paper encourages employers not to rely on immigration to solve shortages of skills. Moreover, the revised shortage occupation list narrows eligibility, excluding MFL and Physics teaching specialisms and requiring schools to demonstrate domestic recruitment efforts before sponsoring.

This adds friction to recruitment as the pipeline of domestic workforce for secondary school teachers in MFL, and Physics is relatively non-existent. The Institute of Physics highlighted in their 2025 report that 700,000 GCSE students do not have a Physics specialist in front of them in class. In MFL, the successive governments and decades of failed government policies to increase Languages students at GCSE and A Level are now showing the signs of a monolingual nation, reluctant to take on languages studies at Higher Education. This has contributed to a shortage of linguists willing to join the teaching profession.

Why do international teachers matter in modern Britain?

While the current political climate refutes the importance of immigration to sustain growth and skills in the economy, the White Paper undermines not only the Department for Education recruitment targets in a sector struggling to recruit and retain teachers in shortage subjects, but it also undermines the Fundamental British Values on which our curriculum and Teachers’ Standards are based on. Through a rhetoric that a domestic workforce is better than a foreign workforce, we both deny our young people the opportunity to be taught by subject specialists, and we refute the possibilities for our schools to promote inclusion in the teaching workforce.

International teachers bring a breadth of experience and expertise. This is being denied to students based on the assumptions that making visas more difficult to obtain and reducing the opportunities for sponsorship will make the economy stronger.

International trainee teachers joining the teacher training courses from Europe and the Global South often come to England with decades of experience teaching in their country. UCET SIG members’ small-scale research suggests that the majority of them want to stay and work in English schools after they qualify. The latest 2025 Government report on international teacher recruitment also highlights the fact that the majority of internationals aspire for careers progression in highly a performing education system in England. These studies suggest that the rhetoric behind the White Paper is not necessarily applicable in Education and needs reviewing.

International teachers show strength and resilience adapting to new curricula and new educational systems. They are role models and aspirations for learners not only sharing their expertise in the classroom but also their resilience and determination to thrive.

Recommendations

The following recommendations would help to address the current issues:
- Restore the Graduate Visa to 24 months for teachers to align with the ECT induction period.
- Introduce automatic Skilled Worker sponsorship for international trainees in shortage subjects who complete Year 1 of induction successfully.
- Provide centralised visa support for schools, including legal guidance and administrative assistance.
- Ring-fence bursary funding to ensure it supports retention, not short-term recruitment.
- Monitor and publish retention data for international teachers to inform future policy.
- To support the sector, Education and Skills England should collaborate with the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council and the Migration Advisory Committee to bring coherence to policies linked with sponsorship and visa waivers for shortage subjects for example in Languages and Physics.
Conclusion

The 2025 White Paper offers ambitious reforms to address England’s teacher shortages, but its immigration provisions risk undermining progress. The reduction of the Graduate Visa route creates a structural barrier to retention, particularly in MFL and Physics, where international trainees are most needed and the domestic workforce is not supplying the pipeline of specialist teachers. Without urgent policy realignment, England risks losing valuable talent and wasting public investment at a time when stability and inclusion should be the priority.
Source link
January 4, 2026