The new First Assistant Ombudsman in the Office of the National Student Ombudsman, Sarah Bendall, has a plan to hold universities to account.
Six days into this new role, she sat down with Martin Betts to outline the background to the office and role, and how she plans to provide a route for students to ensure they have a safe, fair and secure experience.
Coordinator of Welcoming Universities Cate Gilpin joined the conversation to ask Sarah what her short and long term priorities are and how she expects to action key reform areas outlined in the Universities Accord.
Many readers might have had an experience along the following lines. You’re on a call, in a meeting, at an event – and someone just happens to let slip that they are doing a postgraduate apprenticeship through their work.
Questions bubble up: isn’t this person someone in a position to fund their own studies? Or perhaps: don’t they already have a master’s degree? You might even be thinking: your manager really lets you duck out of work for training so often?
Now this is pure anecdote – and forgive me if it’s not quite as frequent as I’m assuming – but it’s proved to be a pretty powerful one as debates over apprenticeships have percolated in the press and in the back of policymakers’ minds for the last few years. Allied with controversies over supposed “MBA apprenticeships” (or more recently, MBA top-ups and management training for senior executives), it’s led fairly directly to where we are now.
The government has announced that “a significant number” of level 7 apprenticeships will be removed from levy eligibility in England. The accompanying enjoinder for employers to fund them by other means (if they so choose) is likely the death knell for most of the affected courses, given that without the incentive of levy spending they will largely look like ungainly, over-regulated and rather long bits of exec ed.
Now we still don’t know exactly what decision the government is going to take. And Labour’s moves here do have other motivations – the policy intention is to stop employers spending their allowances on (older, already qualified) existing staff, and therefore give them a free hand to take on younger apprentices at lower levels, including with so-called “foundation apprenticeships”, though there is zero detail on how this shift in employer training priorities is expected to come about.
But still – if this was the only priority, money could have come from elsewhere. The fact remains that level 7 apprenticeships have various black marks hanging over them, whether or not justified, which have made them a safe target to go after. Is it really a good use of taxpayers’ money to fund long and expensive courses of what is overwhelmingly in-work training?
Whose fund is it anyway?
A big part of the issue, however, is this sense that the levy is really “taxpayers’ money”. It isn’t – it’s half a per cent of an employer’s annual pay bill, assuming said pay bill is £3m or more. Alison Wolf’s recent report for the Social Market Foundation vividly spells out the issue here – employers have become hyper-aware of what they “owe” and are incentivised to spend it as fast as they can, a perverse incentive of the current system which has made level 7 programmes more attractive than policymakers assumed.
Much of Labour’s current skills policies have their genesis in a period when employers were not successfully deploying their own levy contributions, and there was a question of how better to direct underspends. This is very much not where we are now. And there are many employers who are not well set-up to pivot to entry-level apprenticeships (think solicitors, for example), or who are stressing their own workforce’s need for higher-level upskilling and pursuing productivity gains rather than a larger headcount.
It could be that the non-apprenticeship part of the growth and skills levy will help square this circle – employers will be able to invest in shorter, possibly more useful workforce training this way, rather than running headlong towards level 7 programmes as the only game in town. The problem is that the government has gone very quiet about this, and we have no sense of what kind of courses will be in scope here.
And much like with the employer national insurance rise, it doesn’t seem to have been thought through how publicly-funded bodies are meant to respond here – NHS trusts and local councils being big users of the apprenticeship levy, by dint of their size. If the government doesn’t want them spending their levy funds on this type of provision, is it asking them to spend cash from elsewhere in their budgets?
Caught in the middle
Stuck between employers’ wishes and government’s aims (or the imagined taxpayer investment) are those education and training providers who have poured resources into making higher-level apprenticeships work. And when we’re talking about level 7 qualifications, it’s universities that have done a lot of the running.
If you had said a decade ago that many if not most universities would be founding and scaling up teams dedicated to reaching out to employers, thinking about training needs, even coordinating levy transfers across partners and supply chains (as the Edge Foundation’s recent research found) – well, it would have sounded like something dreamed up by a think tank, a laudable ambition unlikely to ever come true. And yet, here we are.
The Department for Education and Skills England may decide to limit only a couple of standards – as the chart below shows, simply scrapping the Accountancy and Taxation Professional and Senior Leader standards would dramatically change the landscape (though we’d likely be back in the same position in a few years having a similar conversation about the Senior People Professional and Systems Thinking Practitioner ones).
But once the government starts taking a pick-and-mix approach to standards (as opposed to letting a properly independent arms-length body do so), it opens the door to it happening again and again. If there is a substantial defunding of level 7 apprenticeship standards, expect the next few years to see targets on the back of others, even at level 6 – and an accompanying disincentive for universities to keep pressing ahead seeking out partnerships with employers.
The removal from levy eligibility of standards that currently have a high uptake will have an immediate impact on those providers invested in them. Below, DK has charted apprenticeship starts by higher education institution (and a few other public bodies as they are lumped together in the DfE data, though as you may have noticed above some for-profit universities appear in the private sector category instead).
The default view in this chart shows level 7 starts in 2023–24, broken down by standards, so that you can plumb the impact on different providers of different approaches to defunding. And if you’re getting nervous about what else Skills England might fancy doing once it’s finally got the level 7 announcement out of the way, you can look at provision at other levels too.
The recent notion that level 7 apprenticeships will be ineligible for support from the apprenticeship levy has caused consternation amongst training providers, especially in healthcare.
Training providers and employers are urgently seeking clarity on the government’s position – the current “announcement without action” leaves stakeholders unclear about next steps and further risks the reputation and role of apprenticeships in skills development.
The development of advanced roles in health or shortened routes to registerable qualifications significantly relies on level 7 apprenticeships. The NHS Long Term Workforce Plan is full of examples of how advanced and new roles are needed now and in the future.
Once again, decisions are being made by the Department for Education without consulting or collaborating with the Department of Health and Social Care, which means that questions are left unanswered. It is not the first time that training providers and University Alliance have called for joined up thinking and, unfortunately, it certainly won’t be the last.
Expansion of opportunity
Health apprenticeships at the University of Derby started small with level 5 provision about ten years ago (subsequently expanding to levels 6 and 7) – we could not have foreseen the enormous expansion of opportunity both in health and other industries that would follow.
I am proud to say that “I was there” when the nurse degree apprenticeship standard was approved in 2017 – the culmination of two years’ collaboration between the Nursing and Midwifery Council, government, Skills for Health, employers and training providers.
There were challenges, but we made it, and it opened the door to transformation in how healthcare professionals are educated.
A bumpy road
But the journey remains bumpy, and apprenticeships seem to be experiencing a particular period of turbulence. New research conducted by the University of Derby on behalf of University Alliance demonstrates the need for change in how the levy is utilised, the importance of partnership working, and the support that those involved with apprenticeship delivery need in order to secure successful outcomes.
While the NHS Long Term Workforce Plan of 2023 is itself being refreshed, we can be confident that apprenticeships will continue to have a significant part to play in workforce development. However, our new research has shown how and where employers and training providers need support to make this happen.
Employers told us how expensive they find it to support apprenticeships, with apprentice salaries, backfill and organisational infrastructure contributing to the financial burden. We know that apprentices need significant support through their learning journey, taking time and investment from employers.
To make apprenticeships truly successful, the support required is over and above that normally expected in healthcare programmes, yet apprenticeships are specifically excluded from the NHS Healthcare Education and Training tariff. This feels like a double whammy – no support from the tariff and no flexibility in how the levy could be utilised differently, meaning that the responsibility remains with the employer to resource.
Equally, training providers reported the additional activities and responsibilities associated with the delivery of apprenticeships. The University of Derby has recently successfully completed its inspection by Ofsted. The week of the inspection required input from teams across the University, but the enduring responsibilities of compliance and record keeping make this a continuous activity for a skilled and specialist team.
The Education and Skills Funding Agency then came hot on the tails of Ofsted – while this is not unexpected, it has again required teams from across the University working long hours to be audit ready. These inspections have served as a reminder of the regulatory burden placed on training providers, especially in healthcare.
A matter of commitment
Today marks the start of National Apprenticeship Week. At the University of Derby, we are hosting a week of activities and events, encouraging aspirant apprentices and a range of employers to come and find out more about what apprenticeships can do for them. It is heartening to hear that the number of young people coming to the campus this year has more than doubled since last year’s event.
Finally, the word is beginning to spread about apprenticeships, and we find school leavers are increasingly well informed about their post-16 and post-18 options.
The week’s events will be ably supported by our employer partners and apprentices, truly reflecting the partnerships that have developed over the years. These partnerships take a significant amount of investment on all sides – anyone in the vocational education and training world will know that strong partnerships take time and effort to build and maintain. But even the briefest of conversations with apprentices will tell you that it is all worth it. Their confidence, passion and knowledge (their skills and behaviours too) shine through. In a city like Derby, the awareness of the positive difference you are making not only to the apprentice, but also to their family and friends, is never far from your thoughts.
It is difficult to know how the advent of Skills England will impact the pace and scale of reform, but the present inertia may set the country back – and it certainly will if a blanket approach to level 7 apprenticeship funding is adopted, and lack of join-up between DfE and DHSC remains the status quo.
National Apprenticeship Week 2025 has the potential to be a force for good – and should be the week that all stakeholders commit to making a difference.
Level 7 apprenticeship growth has been one of the higher education success stories of recent years.
Our technical education system is weak by international standards, yet high level technical skills will be vital to the urban planning and infrastructure improvement ambitions of our current government, while at the same time boosting social mobility by allowing those who can’t afford to study on a traditional course at university the opportunity to gain a postgraduate qualification.
It therefore would appear counterintuitive that the government has been hinting that many if not all level 7 apprenticeships could have their eligibility for levy funding removed, couched in language of prioritising spending on growing lower level and new “foundation” apprenticeships.
This proposed redistribution fails to acknowledge that progression benefits apprentices at all levels, as those moving into senior roles create new vacancies or advancement opportunities via the positions they vacate.
Build baby build?
Nowhere is this clearer than in the built environment sector. The UK’s housing crisis is the pivotal issue that this government has promised to tackle. Their promise to build 1.5 million new homes by 2030 is ambitious – it has been labelled unachievable by the CEO of the UK’s largest housebuilding company because of skills shortages, and most councils are reporting that it won’t be possible to achieve.
If such a goal is to be accomplished, it will demand highly skilled professionals to streamline planning processes, deliver housing projects, and support regional infrastructure development.
At my institution, London South Bank University (LSBU), 70 per cent of our level 7 apprentices are on the chartered town planner standard. On a day-to-day basis they address planning bottlenecks and ensure that housing and infrastructure projects meet the various regulatory and environmental standards. Only last month the first level 7 chartered town planner apprentices in England graduated successfully from LSBU having joined their employer with no prior experience in the planning sector aged 18 after completing school.
Over half of the employers we work with at LSBU on level 7 apprenticeships are local authorities. Our apprentices enable councils to deliver projects in the wake of increased demand and reintroduced mandatory housing targets. The suggestion that, as employers, local authorities should step in and pay for the level 7 apprenticeships themselves is fanciful. The legacy of austerity has left one in four councils expecting to apply for an emergency government bailout in the next two years. If the Treasury decides to remove levy funding, employers will not be able to fill the gap.
If the UK hopes to comply with the Future Homes Standard and the National Retrofit Strategy V2, more highly trained architects are required. The profession is in high demand but short supply – it had been on the Shortage Occupation List until the previous government abolished the list last April.
Level 7 architect apprentices, of which LSBU currently train 78, design energy-efficient buildings and support urban regeneration. They contribute to both public housing schemes and private sector developments by driving innovation in sustainable construction and are already supporting the government’s ambition to retrofit five million homes by 2029.
Growth ambitions
In addition to their clear role in developing infrastructure, level 7 apprenticeships are vital for social mobility. They open doors for individuals from underrepresented groups, in part because apprentices earn whilst they learn and aren’t put off by the prospect of incurring student debt. A true leveller of the playing field, they provide excellent career progression opportunities and higher earnings potential. A greater proportion of our level 7 apprentices are from black, Asian, and minority ethnic (BAME) backgrounds (55 per cent) and are female (52 per cent) than those studying apprenticeships at lower levels.
Most of our level 7 apprentices are under the age of 25, so the characterisation that they are simply the reserve of older learners is unfounded. For example, at LSBU, we provide tailored pathways for young learners to embark on higher level apprenticeships in regionally relevant sectors from level 2 to level 7 through our unique group model which includes London South Bank Sixth Form (a new technically focused sixth form academy concept) and London South Bank Technical College (the first technical college for a generation).
Level 7 apprenticeships are central to this government’s ambitions around growth, sustainability, and equality of opportunity. Despite recent increases in uptake, they have actually accounted for a slightly smaller proportion of the total apprenticeship budget over the last couple of years.
Every standard addresses unique challenges and supports sector-specific needs. A blanket removal of funding from level 7 apprenticeships will risk planning reforms and housing developments. At the very least, apprenticeships in the ten sectors prioritised by Skills England as growth-driving need to be protected from Treasury cuts.
Since late 2022, generative AI has disrupted all levels of education, and higher education must adapt quickly to ensure that the integrity of qualifications is not compromised.
New technologies can be disruptive and present challenges and opportunities. They influence how we work, interact with others, source information, and learn.
Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been around for decades, generative AI has emerged as both a risk to traditional learning and an opportunity for students to use new technologies responsibly and ethically. Generative AI is disrupting all levels of education, and higher education must adapt quickly to ensure that the integrity of the qualifications awarded is not compromised.
Recently, researchers examined policies and guidelines documents from 116 US universities on the use of GenAI. They found a lack of concern in these documents for ethics and privacy associated with using GenAI while encouraging its use by both staff and students. That is, intellectual property and student privacy seem to be an afterthought.
The introduction of GenAI has added complexity to the detection of plagiarism, and some argue that using GenAI tools should not be deemed academic dishonesty because they enhance the learning experience and improve productivity.
In June 2024, the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) asked all registered higher education providers for action plans addressing the risk-generative AI in their courses. There was a 100 per cent response rate from providers to this request.
TEQSA then analysed responses to develop resources to support the higher education sector and released Gen AI strategies for Australian higher education: Emerging practicein late November 2024[1]. This document is designed as a toolkit to assist higher education providers. The toolkit is structured into three key dimensions: Process, People and Practice. The toolkit notes that:
There is no single form of assessment that can enable students to demonstrate achievement of all learning outcomes or support development of all appropriate uses of gen AI. Similarly, no single tool or technology can be deployed to guarantee assessment security (p43).
Therefore, the higher education sector needs to be agile and adapt to the ubiquitous adoption of GenAI, so that we can adapt the learning experience so that students meet the learning outcomes of their course. This requires a significant shift for institutions and educators to achieve these objectives in a GenAI world.
Ensuring equitable access to AI
A key challenge for integrating GenAI in education is ensuring equitable access to AI-powered tools and resources for all students, regardless of their socio-economic background or geographical location. GenAI’s promise for student learning can only be achieved if students’ and staff’s access to GenAI tools is equitable, inclusive, and free from bias.
TEQSA cautions that higher education institutions need to carefully consider the needs of diverse student populations and prioritise an inclusive and equitable educational environment when integrating GenAI in teaching, learning and assessment. This includes ensuring everyone recognises their responsibility to implement and engage in culturally safe practices.
References
Eden, C.A., Chisom, O.N. and Adeniyi, I.S., 2024. Integrating AI in education: Opportunities, challenges, and ethical considerations. Magna Scientia Advanced Research and Reviews, 10(2), pp.006-013.
McDonald, N., Johri, A., Ali, A. and Hingle, A., 2024. Generative artificial intelligence in higher education: Evidence from an analysis of institutional policies and guidelines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01659.
Yusuf, A., Pervin, N. and Román-González, M., 2024. Generative AI and the future of higher education: a threat to academic integrity or reformation? Evidence from multicultural perspectives. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 21(1), p.21.
Hear more from A/Professor Yvette Blount and other education leaders at the Generative AI for Education Leaders Summit 2025 and gain access to cutting-edge insights and strategies that will put your institution ahead of the curve. Learn more.
To access the detailed conference program, download the brochure here.
Before starting at his Harlem high school, Jeurry always assumed he was progressing appropriately in school, despite having significant learning challenges.
However, in his freshman year, he began to notice himself struggling to read longer words and more complex sentences.
As he grew increasingly overwhelmed, it became clear that the small classes exclusively for students with disabilities that he had been in since kindergarten had not adequately prepared him for high school.
Still, Jeurry managed to pass nearly all his classes. His final meeting with his Committee on Special Education — which consisted of Jeurry’s mom and several faculty members — took place in December 2016. By then, the senior had earned 45 credits — 44 were required to graduate — and a C+ average, records show.
But Jeurry was devastated to learn that he would not earn a diploma.
The reason was based on a decision the committee made when Jeurry was in sixth grade and, according to records, never revisited while he was in high school. At that time, the educators concluded that Jeurry could not learn grade-level curriculum. They decided he would be “alternately assessed,” or evaluated based on lower achievement standards. New York State students who take alternate assessments through high school cannot earn a diploma, a prerequisite for military service, many jobs, and most degree- or certificate-granting college and trade school programs.
Heartbroken, he begged the faculty to find a solution during the 2016 meeting. “They didn’t even care,” Jeurry said. “They just wanted me to ‘graduate’ and get out.”
Jeurry, who is now 26 and was diagnosed with a mild intellectual disability after graduating high school, requested that his last name be withheld over concerns about the stigma surrounding intellectual disabilities.
Special education advocates say the systemic failures that led to Jeurry’s situation eight years ago continue to jeopardize the futures of similar students. Last school year, 6,116 New York City students took the New York State Alternate Assessment, according to state data. Federal law requires that states offer such assessments for students with disabilities who are incapable of taking state tests. Importantly, it also states that only “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” can take the alternate assessment, and that schools must fully inform parents of the potential ramifications. (State education departments are responsible for ensuring compliance with these mandates.)
Too often, however, those standards are neither maintained nor enforced, special education advocates, teachers, and families told Chalkbeat. Instead, factors like under-resourcing, nebulous procedures, and a failure to equip parents to make fully informed decisions have led schools to place some students without significant cognitive disabilities on a non-grade-level, non-diploma track. Students who take alternate assessments are typically placed in non-inclusive, low-rigor settings, which can deprive them of academic and socialization opportunities.
At the December 2016 meeting, the members of Jeurry’s special education committee said their hands were tied. According to documentation from the meeting, Jeurry’s mother said “she was not made aware of the long-term effects of alternate assessment when it was first initiated or during any supplemental [meetings].”
“They would always tell my mom, ‘His diploma is going to be real,’” Jeurry said. “She kept believing them.”
Throughout his time as a K-12 student in Harlem, Jeurry received inadequate academic support and struggled to advance past a first- or second-grade reading level.
In response to requests to interview state special education leadership, a New York State Education Department spokesperson said in an email: “NYSED is committed to working with schools and parents to determine the appropriate participation of students with disabilities in [the alternate assessment] and to fully understand the impact it has on these students.”
Since New York’s alternate assessment is used to meet federal special education law requirements, the spokesperson said, “there are very strict criteria for its development, administration, and applicability to students.”
Christina Foti, the city Education Department’s deputy chancellor for inclusive and accessible learning, acknowledged that there is room for more robust safeguards, and she said the Education Department recently recommended that the state consider several alternate assessment-related policy changes. They include clarifying definitions and participation criteria, requiring the use of a decision-making flowchart and checklist, and mandating that special education committees “conduct a complete and up-to-date battery of psychoeducational assessments” before making assessment decisions.
The Education Department is also pursuing local-level reforms, but officials are still in the early stages of developing a “definitive language and shift in practice [and] policy,” Foti said.
Inequitable outcomes for students on non-diploma track
In New York, special education committees determine annually how students will be assessed, usually starting around third grade. Although the state has established participation criteria for the alternate assessment, deciding whether students meet those criteria can be a relatively subjective process.
Data obtained through a public records request show that students placed on the non-diploma track are disproportionately Black or English language learners. Last school year, 29% of New York City students who took the alternate assessment were Black, while Black children represented only 20% of all students and 26% of those with disabilities. More than 29% of students who were alternatively assessed were English learners, while such students accounted for just 19% of the school system’s overall population and 14% of students with disabilities.
There have been some signs of progress toward ensuring that only students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are placed on the non-diploma track. Participation is declining in New York City and statewide, and racial disproportionalities among alternatively assessed students decreased between the 2022-23 and 2023-24 school years, according to the data.
The New York City Education Department has worked to minimize subjectivity in assessment decisions “over the past five or six years,” said Arwina Vallejo, the department’s executive director of school-based evaluations and family engagement.
To more holistically determine students’ aptitude for grade-level learning and test participation, schools now administer “specialized assessments in reading, in writing, in math, in executive functions, in neurological abilities,” Vallejo said.
The Education Department also trains school psychologists in “culturally responsive, non-discriminatory assessment practices” to mitigate the impact of bias, she said.
But special education advocates and families say more must be done. School officials sometimes change the graduation track of children with mild intellectual disabilities or disruptive behaviors when they don’t have the will or means to try other options, said Juliet Eisenstein, a special education attorney and former assistant director of the Postsecondary Readiness Project at Advocates for Children of New York.
“It’s just a box that’s checked and not really talked about, because it’s an easier solution than figuring out a program that fits this more complex student profile,” she said.
Resources that could help such students — like one-on-one tutors or specialized placements — are often limited or nonexistent. This is especially true in New York City, where around 300,000 students qualify for special education services, and government audits have found that the Education Department regularly fails to meet its obligations to them. An estimated 2,300 special-education staff vacancies exist citywide.
Trevlon, 18, has been both alternatively and regularly assessed. He has a history of behavioral problems, an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder diagnosis, and an intellectual disability classification from the Education Department. Trevlon struggled to keep up academically in elementary school and attended a middle school in District 75, a citywide district that caters to students with significant disabilities. There, he received intensive academic and behavioral support and made major strides, but he was not on a diploma track.
Trevlon, who requested that his last name be withheld because a complaint he filed against the Education Department has yet to be resolved, said he was unhappy in the highly restrictive environment. He committed himself to proving that he could be successful at a community high school. By the time Trevlon graduated middle school as valedictorian of his eighth grade class, his special education committee had agreed that he could transition back to the diploma track and into a community school.
However, Trevlon was placed in a school that did not offer the learning environment the Education Department had determined most appropriate for him: a self-contained special education classroom for 15 students. Instead, he attended large classes that integrated students with disabilities and their general education peers. He said he struggled to focus and keep up. As he fell behind academically, he became increasingly frustrated and started acting out.
After his tumultuous freshman year, Trevlon was moved back onto a non-diploma track in a District 75 school, where he felt out of place and insufficiently challenged. He begged for a different placement that might offer a path back to community school — or a diploma, at least — but nothing changed, he said.
Knowing he would never have a “real” high school experience, Trevlon grew disillusioned, started attending school infrequently, and finally dropped out last year.
“It’s not just, ‘Oh, I stopped going to school because I don’t like school,’” Trevlon said. “I feel like the system gave up on me to a certain extent, as a Black male. … All I ever really wanted to do was to work and sit down and be like everybody else.”
Parents often unaware of children’s placement on non-diploma track
Schools are legally mandated to inform a student’s parents abou
When Jeurry was in middle school, the faculty members of his Committee on Special Education pointed to his lack of academic progress and recommended that he be “alternately assessed.” Although his mother agreed to the change, she did not realize that the decision would take away her son’s opportunity to earn a high school diploma. (Sarah Komar for Chalkbeat)
t the long-term ramifications of the alternate track. However, special education advocates said they regularly work with parents who had no idea their children were on a non-diploma path — often until it was too late.
“Many parents do not even know to ask questions about alternate assessment, because they’re never informed,” said Young Seh Bae, executive director of the Queens-based Community Inclusion and Development Alliance and a parent of a student with disabilities. It’s only when graduation approaches that many parents say, “‘Oh, I didn’t realize my child wouldn’t receive a high school diploma … The school didn’t explain my child never will be able to go to college or get a license for certain things.’”
In New York, diploma-track students must pass a certain number of Regents exams, making it one of eight states that require high school seniors to pass standardized tests to earn a diploma. (New York State is planning to phase out Regents as a graduation requirement in fall 2027.)
Because Jeurry was on a non-diploma track and never took his Regents, he could only earn a Skills and Achievement Commencement Credential, which cannot be used to apply for college, trade school, the military, or many jobs.
Jeurry was reading and doing math on a first-grade level by the start of middle school and on second- to third-grade levels by the end of high school, records show. Over the years, the Education Department classified him with several different kinds of disabilities, including a learning disability at one point and an intellectual disability at another. While he was a student, he was not evaluated by an outside provider, which some families pay for if they think their children have been improperly classified by district professionals. Faculty members repeatedly told Jeurry’s mother he was incapable of progressing academically, his academic records show, and they eventually used his lack of progress to justify placing him on the non-diploma track.
From kindergarten through eighth grade, he remained in self-contained classes, receiving only speech language therapy as a supplementary service. In high school, Jeurry moved from a self-contained setting into integrated classrooms, which benefited him socially but only further highlighted how far his academics lagged behind his peers.
At no point did Jeurry’s special education committee suggest additional services or more intensive support, records show. Federal law mandates more intensive intervention if a special education student is not making progress toward his goals.
Kim Swanson, the principal of Jeurry’s high school who overlapped with him during his last year there, declined to comment on Jeurry’s situation. She said her school “always follows state guidance.”
The school’s special education committees have always informed parents of the ramifications of alternate assessment, but the school has implemented additional safeguards during Swanson’s 11-year tenure as principal, she said. These include sending home a form letter that was developed by the state with input from the city Education Department (a requirement of all New York schools since 2019), and ensuring that faculty members discuss students’ progress toward their goals before special education committee meetings.
Vallejo, who oversees school-based evaluations, said the Education Department worked with the state to develop the form letter because “there was a point where little information was available to students and families regarding alternate assessment and the impact of that designation.” Education Department faculty are committed to fully involving students’ parents in assessment decisions and revisiting them annually, Vallejo said.
Special education advocates have lobbied the state for specific alternate assessment reforms for years, with little success — including a 2022 push for policy changes that could have helped demystify the assessment decision-making process.
In August 2024, for the first time in at least five years, the state proposed policy tweaks of its own, including seeking feedback from special education advocates and families on how to clarify the existing eligibility criteria for alternate assessment and update existing decision-making tools and training materials.
In the future, Jeurry hopes to earn a four-year degree and go into marketing before someday opening his own restaurant.
After legal battle, NYC pays for more than 1,300 hours of services
Knowing that he wouldn’t receive a diploma, Jeurry skipped his June 2017 graduation.
He then languished in a city-funded GED program for more than a year. In fall 2018, on the recommendation of a teacher, Jeurry contacted Advocates for Children. Within months, a pro-bono legal team arranged by the organization filed an action against the city school system, accusing it of denying Jeurry a free, appropriate public education as required by law.
While the legal process unfolded, Jeurry’s advocates helped him apply for his diploma through a “superintendent determination,” a safety net for students with disabilities who are unable to earn the Regents scores needed for graduation but meet all other requirements. In June 2019, he received his high school diploma.
As part of the 10-month legal process, a neuropsychologist evaluated Jeurry and diagnosed him with a mild intellectual disability, concluding that he could have benefited from more rigorous support, such as one-on-one literacy tutoring.
The city ultimately agreed to compensate Jeurry for what he missed during his 14 years of school by paying for 1,308 hours of academic tutoring, life skills training, and transition services. For more than a year, he attended all-day tutoring sessions that started with phonics and built upward.
“At first, I was like, ‘It’s not helping,’” Jeurry said. But then, little by little, I started noticing my reading level going up … and I was like, ‘Oh, it is working!’”
Although it has required him to work through significant education-related trauma, Jeurry now attends community college online while working full time. He’s considering transferring to a four-year institution after he earns his associate degree in business administration.
“I didn’t want to go back, but I had to do it, you know?” Jeurry said. “I needed to get a better education.”
Sarah Komar is a New York City-based journalist. She reported this story while at the Toni Stabile Center for Investigative Journalism at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
An analytical thesis statement is designed to present interpretation and analysis, not a subjective argument. This makes it different from an argumentative thesis statement.
To demonstrate how to write an analytical thesis statement, consider these two statements and how they differ:
Analytical: The rise of social media addiction is influenced by dopamine-driven feedback loops, algorithmic personalization, and social validation, which collectively shape user behavior and mental health outcomes.
Argumentative: Social media platforms should be required to regulate algorithmic engagement features, as they exploit psychological vulnerabilities, contribute to declining mental health, and disproportionately affect young users.
Notice how the argumentative thesis statement presents a forceful point of view, while the analytical statement presents an interpretation only, stopping short of suggestions or argumentative language.
In this article, I will present a range of analytical thesis statements in a template format so you can select one and insert your topic’s information. So, all you need to do is select one that looks good for you!
Analytical Thesis Statement Examples
Template 1: The concept of ____ is impacted by ____, ____, and ____ in ____.
Example: The concept of social mobility is impacted by education, economic policies, and cultural capital in modern societies.
Template 2: By examining ____, ____, and ____, it becomes clear that ____ plays a crucial role in ____.
Example: By examining urban planning, public transportation, and economic development, it becomes clear that infrastructure plays a crucial role in social equity.
Template 3: An analysis of ____ reveals how ____, ____, and ____ contribute to ____.
Example: An analysis of misinformation reveals how cognitive biases, media algorithms, and political polarization contribute to the spread of false narratives.
Template 4: The evolution of ____ in ____ is shaped by ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The evolution of feminist movements in Western society is shaped by legal changes, cultural shifts, and media representation.
Template 5: Through an examination of ____, it becomes evident that ____, ____, and ____ shape ____.
Example: Through an examination of prison reform, it becomes evident that rehabilitation programs, sentencing policies, and racial disparities shape recidivism rates.
Template 6: The portrayal of ____ in ____ demonstrates the impact of ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The portrayal of mental illness in film demonstrates the impact of stigma, public perception, and healthcare accessibility.
Template 7: By deconstructing ____, one can see how ____, ____, and ____ influence ____.
Example: By deconstructing global trade agreements, one can see how economic dependency, labor exploitation, and diplomatic relations influence international markets.
Template 8: Examining ____ through the lens of ____, ____, and ____ reveals its significance in ____.
Example: Examining voting behavior through the lens of social identity, economic status, and media influence reveals its significance in shaping election outcomes.
Template 9: The contrast between ____ and ____ in ____ reveals the deeper meaning behind ____.
Example: The contrast between individualistic and collectivist cultures in decision-making reveals the deeper meaning behind social responsibility and personal autonomy.
Template 10: The recurring pattern of ____ in ____ emphasizes the importance of ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The recurring pattern of financial crises in capitalist economies emphasizes the importance of government regulation, market stability, and corporate accountability.
Template 11: The development of ____ in ____ illustrates how ____, ____, and ____ shape ____.
Example: The development of mass surveillance in modern governments illustrates how technology, security concerns, and privacy debates shape civil liberties.
Template 12: Through the use of ____, ____, and ____, ____ conveys the theme of ____.
Example: Through the use of propaganda, historical narratives, and educational systems, nationalist movements convey the theme of cultural superiority.
Template 13: An analysis of ____ reveals how ____, ____, and ____ contribute to ____.
Example: An analysis of poverty reveals how systemic inequality, labor market trends, and government policy contribute to socioeconomic stratification.
Template 14: The structure of ____ in ____ reinforces the themes of ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The structure of healthcare systems in different countries reinforces the themes of accessibility, cost, and quality of care.
Template 15: The historical context of ____ shapes its representation in ____ through ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The historical context of colonialism shapes its representation in modern political relations through economic dependency, territorial disputes, and cultural influences.
Template 16: The relationship between ____ and ____ is defined by ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The relationship between crime rates and economic instability is defined by unemployment, social services, and law enforcement policies.
Template 17: The depiction of ____ in ____ serves as a reflection of ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The depiction of gender roles in advertising serves as a reflection of societal norms, consumer behavior, and corporate interests.
Template 18: Through an exploration of ____, ____, and ____, ____ exposes the complexity of ____.
Example: Through an exploration of migration patterns, government policies, and economic opportunities, global labor markets expose the complexity of immigration trends.
Template 19: A close examination of ____ reveals how ____, ____, and ____ contribute to ____.
Example: A close examination of environmental degradation reveals how industrialization, policy failures, and consumer behavior contribute to climate change.
Template 20: By analyzing ____, one can better understand the role of ____, ____, and ____ in ____.
Example: By analyzing online activism, one can better understand the role of digital platforms, political engagement, and social movements in shaping public discourse.
Template 21: The conflict between ____ and ____ in ____ demonstrates the tension created by ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The conflict between privacy and national security in modern democracies demonstrates the tension created by surveillance laws, terrorism threats, and civil rights concerns.
Template 22: The portrayal of ____ in ____ illustrates the complexities of ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The portrayal of wealth distribution in capitalist societies illustrates the complexities of income inequality, taxation policies, and social mobility.
Template 23: The transformation of ____ in ____ illustrates the impact of ____, ____, and ____ on ____.
Example: The transformation of education systems in response to digital learning illustrates the impact of technology, accessibility, and curriculum design on student outcomes.
Template 24: The recurring pattern of ____ in ____ emphasizes the importance of ____, ____, and ____.
Example: The recurring pattern of political polarization in democratic elections emphasizes the importance of media bias, ideological division, and voter engagement.
Template 25: The contrast between ____ and ____ in ____ reveals the deeper meaning behind ____.
Example: The contrast between economic protectionism and free trade policies in global markets reveals the deeper meaning behind national interests and economic interdependence.
Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]
Hi, everyone. This week I’m bringing you a dispatch from the Higher Education Climate Leadership Summit, hosted by the group Second Nature, where the Trump administration’s efforts to undo environmental action were very much top of mind. Thanks for reading. — Caroline Preston
WASHINGTON — Federal dollars for clean energy are disappearing. Environmental offices across the federal government are being dismantled. Universities are facing decisions about whether to scrub the words “climate change” from their projects in order to keep them funded.
Only a few weeks into Donald Trump’s second term, his attacks on climate action are already hindering universities’ efforts to curb their carbon emissions and minimize their harm to the planet, according to speakers at a conference I attended earlier this week hosted by the nonprofit group Second Nature.
Going forward, every higher ed institution needs “a Trump response plan,” said Gregory Washington, president of George Mason University, in Fairfax, Virginia.
Hundreds of college sustainability officers, university presidents, clean energy engineers, environmental researchers and others gathered for the event at a hotel blocks from the White House, where Trump has signed orders to “unleash” fossil fuels, sought to freeze clean energy funding, and overseen the removal of language on climate change from government websites.
Some takeaways from the conference:
Related: Want to read more about how climate change is shaping education? Subscribe to our free newsletter.
Universities need a plan to navigate the Trump administration. Colleges and universities should form rapid response teams to confront political threats, speakers said, and also find safety in numbers and advocate through coalitions. Institutions may also have to pick their battles and let some work go, said Washington. “They have a playbook,” said Shalanda Baker, the University of Michigan’s vice provost for sustainability and climate action, referring to the political actors trying to undo diversity, equity and inclusion, environmental justice and related work. “Let’s create a playbook — and let’s continue the work.”
Climate action is shifting. With a federal government hostile to climate action, higher ed can focus on making change alongside state and local governments instead. Universities can also partner with different types of organizations — health care systems, cultural institutions, businesses and others — to make progress. They might also consider forming alliances with institutions overseas.
Debates are raging about whether to avoid “trigger words” like “climate change.” Some speakers, including George Mason’s Washington, talked about how, with certain audiences, universities should avoid language that the administration objects to, including “climate change” and “zero carbon.” “It has to be about saying the right things to the right people so you can salvage and maintain the programs you have and continue to move forward on your mission,” he said. Others disagreed, arguing that changing the language in a proposal wouldn’t stop government staff from investigating the work programs actually do. “We have a clock over our heads. We need to stand in the work, and call it what it is, which is that we are trying to avert catastrophic climate change,” said Baker of the University of Michigan.
The threats are very real, not hypothetical. Dana R. Fisher, director of the Center for Environment, Community and Equity at American University, talked about how she was told in the last few days by people reviewing a government-funded project that unless she changed its focus from climate action to disaster recovery, it might not have a future. She noted that the American Climate Corps, a Biden-era program to deploy people into jobs related to fighting climate change, blinked out of existence after Trump took office. “We need to be realistic about what persistence and resistance looks like in channels like these if external forces will be shutting our work down,” said Fisher. She added, “The question I have for all of you is what are our universities going to do to protect us? Do I change the entirety of my website? What do I do about all the people funded for these grants who are now at risk of losing their jobs and their health care?”
Universities are complicit in climate change. Several speakers noted that universities have done far too little for too long on climate change, and their financial ties to fossil fuel companies are one reason. Jennie Stephens, professor of climate justice at the National University of Ireland Maynooth, said that universities’ complicity in climate change was one reason why she left U.S. academia for an institution overseas. “The fossil fuel industry and profit-seeking interests have captured academia,” she said, adding that as a result there aren’t research centers designed to help society move away from fossil fuels. She added, “We need to reclaim and restructure these institutions for bigger change.”
Students are tired of university inaction. “A lot of students are frustrated right now,” said Sydney Collins, a 2023 graduate of the University of Connecticut who is now a sustainability coordinator there. “A lot of students say it’s been bad and we’ve been terrified and you haven’t been listening. … And how dare you look at us now and say there’s nothing we can do. You haven’t been doing that work previously.” Fisher, of American University, said that anxiety, not anger, can motivate people to action, and that many people were outraged right now. To make change, she said, people need to think about “insider” and “outsider” strategies, and how students can sometimes be effective “outsider” voices pushing universities to change.
Still, campus climate action has accelerated, even in red states. The event celebrated higher education institutions that have had success in reducing their emissions and fighting climate change. Among those recognized was Central Community College in Hastings, Nebraska. One of its seven centers and campuses runs entirely on wind energy, another entirely on solar. In 2019, the college started a wind, solar and battery storage program to prepare students for jobs in those industries. The program has a 100 percent job placement rate, with students graduating into jobs that typically pay between $28 to $32 an hour, according to Taylor Schneider, the college’s energy technology instructor. Ben Newton, the college’s environmental sustainability director, said the college has had success in maintaining support for the program even in a state where opposition to wind energy is widespread because people see the financial and employment benefits. Newton said he’s accustomed to tailoring his messages for different audiences — for example, describing the specifics of climate science in a sustainability class he teaches and focusing more on resilience in the face of extreme weather events with administrators and others.
Higher ed needs new ways of measuring climate action. Second Nature, which encourages universities to make commitments to carbon neutrality, has been working to update those commitments to take into account different areas of work (like governance and education) and establish that neutrality is a milestone not an end point. That’s a step in the right direction, say some observers. “I don’t think it takes a lot of thought in the climate space to realize we can’t solve the climate crisis by paying everyone else to reduce their emissions,” said Alexander Barron, an associate professor of environmental science and policy at Smith College, who has argued that under the existing climate commitment model universities rely too heavily on purchasing offsets to meet their climate goals.
Going beyond neutrality requires all-in approaches. University officials talked about their strategies for moving beyond net neutrality and further reducing carbon emissions. Tavey Capps, executive director of climate and sustainability at Duke University, described the university’s efforts to ensure that all 10 of its schools — the divinity school, the law school, the business school and others — are engaged in and committed to climate action. Aaron Durnbaugh, director of sustainability with Loyola University of Chicago, talked about how climate action aligned with the Jesuit institution’s social justice mission. “We’re thinking about how we can ensure that more money goes back into communities,” he said, noting that the university had had some success by partnering on a solar project that provided unionized jobs for residents of nearby counties. “What does a Catholic heat pump look like? What does an equitable electric vehicle purchase look like?”
While many in attendance were reeling at the pace of the Trump administration’s anti-clean energy blitz, they also noted that there would be more to come. “They are just getting started,” said Fisher of American University.
“We have to stand in this moment,” said the University of Michigan’s Baker. “We have to be the tip of the spear and be courageous. I have a good job, but I’m willing to put myself out there.”
She added: “There are no safe harbors.”
Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965 or [email protected]
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.
