Blog

Comparative Data on Race & Ethnicity in Education Abroad by Percentage of Students [2025]

References

American Association of Community Colleges. (2024). AACC Fast Facts 2024. https://www.aacc.nche.edu/researchtrends/fast-facts/

Fund for Education Abroad (FEA). (2024, December). Comparative Data on Race & Ethnicity of FEA Awards 2022–2023 by Percentage of Students. Data obtained from Joelle Leinbach, Program Manager at the Fund for Education Abroad. https://fundforeducationabroad.org/

Institute of International Education. (2024). Profile of U.S. Study Abroad Students, 2024 Open Doors U.S. Student Data. https://opendoorsdata.org/data/us-study-abroad/student-profile/

Institute for International Education. (2024). Student Characteristics: U.S. Students Studying Abroad at Associate’s Colleges Data from the 2024 Open Doors Report. https://opendoorsdata.org/data/us-study-abroad/community-college-student-characteristics/

Institute for International Education. (2022, May) A Legacy of Supporting Excellence and Opportunity in Study Abroad: 20-Year Impact Study, Comprehensive Report. Benjamin A. Gilman International Scholarship. https://www.gilmanscholarship.org/program/program-statistics/

United States Census Bureau. (2020). DP1 | Profile of General Population and Housing Characteristics, 2020: DEC Demographic Profile. https://data.census.gov/table?g=010XX00US&d=DEC+Demographic+Profile

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2023, August). Characteristics of Postsecondary Students. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/csb/postsecondarystudents

Bibliography of Literature, Presentations & Curriculum Integration Projects Incorporating the Comparative Data Table on Race & Ethnicity in Education Abroad

Comp, D. & Bakkum, N. (2025, January). Study Away/Abroad for All Students! – Who Studies Away/Abroad at Columbia College? Invited presentation for faculty at the Winter 2025 Faculty and Staff Development Days at Columbia College Chicago.

Lorge, K. & Comp, D. (2024, April). A Case for Simple and Comparable Data to Assess Race and Ethnicity in Education Abroad. The Global Impact Exchange: Publication of Diversity Abroad. Spring 2024. https://www.diversityabroad.org/GlobalImpactExchange

Comp, D. (2019). Effective Utilization of Data for Strategic Planning and Reporting with Case Study: My Failed Advocacy Strategy. In. A.C. Ogden, L.M. Alexander, & Mackintosh, E. (Eds.). Education Abroad Operational Management: Strategies, Opportunities, and Innovations, A Report on ISA ThinkDen, 72-75. Austin, TX: International Studies Abroad. https://educationaltravel.worldstrides.com/rs/313-GJL-850/images/ISA%20ThinkDen%20Report%202018.pdf

Comp, D. (2018, July). Effective Utilization of Data for Strategic Planning and Reporting in Education Abroad. Invited presentation at the ISA ThinkDen at the 2018 ThinkDen meeting, Boulder CO.

Comp, D. (2010). Comparative Data on Race and Ethnicity in Education Abroad. In Diversity in International Education Hands-On Workshop: Summary Report and Data from the Workshop held on September 21, 2010, National Press Club, Washington, D.C. (pp. 19-21). American Institute For Foreign Study. https://www.aifsabroad.com/publications/

Stallman, E., Woodruff, G., Kasravi, J., & Comp, D. (2010, March). The Diversification of the Student Profile. In W.W. Hoffa & S. DePaul (Eds.). A History of US Study Abroad: 1965 to Present, 115-160. Carlisle, PA: The Forum on Education Abroad/Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad.

Comp, D., & Woodruff, G.A. (2008, May). Data and Research on U.S. Multicultural Students in Study Abroad. Co-Chair and presentation at the 2008 NAFSA Annual Conference, Washington, D.C.

Comp, D. (2008, Spring). U.S. Heritage-Seeking Students Discover Minority Communities in Western Europe. Journal of Studies in International Education, 12 (1), 29-37.

Comp, D. (2007). Tool for Institutions & Organizations to Assess Diversity of Participants in Education Abroad. Used by the University of Minnesota Curriculum Integration Project.

Comp, D. (2006). Underrepresentation in Education Abroad – Comparative Data on Race and Ethnicity. Hosted on the NAFSA: Association of International Educators, “Year of Study Abroad” website.

Comp, D. (2005, November). NAFSA: Association of International Educators Subcommittee on Underrepresentation in Education Abroad Newsletter, 1 (2), 6.

Past IHEC Blog posts about the Comparative Data Table on Race & Ethnicity in Education Abroad

Tool for Institutions & Organizations to Assess Diversity of Participants in Education Abroad [February 15, 2011]

How Do We Diversify The U.S. Study Abroad Student Population? [September 21, 2010]

How do we Diversify the U.S. Study Abroad Student Profile? [December 8, 2009]

Source link

January 28, 2025
The King’s College aims to reopen

When the King’s College in New York shut down in summer 2023, its leadership said the cancellation of fall classes and termination of faculty and staff did not mean permanent closure. Now its Board of Trustees is seeking to revive the evangelical institution, according to a report from Religion Unplugged.

The news outlet obtained a document that detailed a plan “to gift the college, including its charter and intellectual property … to likeminded evangelical Christians who propose the most compelling vision to resume the operations of the college.” The document—reportedly a request for proposals—listed a deadline of Feb. 7 for potential partners.

TKC officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

The King’s College shut down in July 2023 amid severe financial pressures and a failed $2.6 million fundraising effort earlier that year that officials said was necessary to meet immediate needs. However, the emergency fundraising effort only brought in $178,000 by its initial deadline.

The college, which enrolled a few hundred students a year, had faced declining enrollment in its final years and the loss of generous donors who had long buoyed TKC. Richard DeVos—the co-founder of Amway and father-in-law of former education secretary Betsy DeVos—donated millions of dollars to the college before his death in 2018. Another major donor, Bill Hwang, also contributed several million before he was arrested in 2022 on fraud charges.

Facing financial pressures in 2021, the college put its faith in another wealthy entrepreneur, striking a deal with Canadian investment company Primacorp Ventures, owned by Peter Chung, a for-profit education mogul who had also loaned the college $2 million in early 2023. Acting as an online program manager, Primacorp Ventures promised to enroll 10,000 students over three years, sources previously told Inside Higher Ed. The catch, according to one source, was that Primacorp would collect 95 percent of the revenue generated from online enrollment, a deal that struck experts as predatory. The online program—which cost TKC at least $470,00 to launch, according to tax documents—delivered around 150 students its first year and soon folded.

The college had previously tried and failed to find a partner to keep it open in 2023. If it finds one this time, the board will submit a “go-forward plan” to the New York State Education Department by mid-July, according to the RFP obtained by Religion Unplugged.

The King’s College will face a series of obstacles in its reopening effort, including accreditation. The Middle States Commission on Higher Education stripped TKC’s accreditation in May 2023, noting a failure “to demonstrate that it can sustain itself in the short or long term.”

If the King’s College manages to reopen, it would be history repeating itself. Founded in New Jersey in 1941, TKC closed in 1994, only to be revived in 1997 and re-established in New York City.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Thoughts on 20 years of college teaching (opinion)

I have now been teaching at Duke University for 20 years. I have been through all kinds of teaching fads—active learning, team-based learning, alternative grading, service learning, etc. You might assume that I have become a better teacher over these many years. Yet I am noticing a curious trend in my course evaluations: Some of my students like me and my courses less and less.

As a teaching faculty member, this matters greatly to my own career trajectory, and so I’ve wondered and worried about what to do. Why am I struggling to teach well and why are my students struggling to learn?

Looking back on the past two decades of my teaching and reaching further back into my own college experience, I see six clear differences between now and then.

Difference No. 1: Access to Information

When I took my first college environmental science class, way back in 1992, I was mesmerized. This was before the days of Advanced Placement Environmental Science, so I came into the class knowing almost nothing about the topic, motivated by my naïve idea to be part of “saving the world.” To learn, I had a textbook (that I still have, all highlighted and marked up) and the lectures (for which I still have my notes). Sure, I could go to the library and find books and articles to learn more, but mostly I stuck to my textbook and my notes. I showed up to the lecture-based class to learn, to listen, to ask questions.

Today, my students show up in my course often having taken AP Environmental Science, with access to unlimited information about the course topics, and with AI assistants that will help them organize their notes, write their essays and prepare for exams. I have had to shift from expert to curator, spending hours sifting through online articles, podcasts (SO many podcasts) and videos, instead of relying on a single textbook. I look for content that will engage students, knowing that some may also spend their class period fact-checking my lectures, which brings me to …

Difference No. 2: Attention

When I lecture, I look out to a sea of stickered laptops, with students shifting their attention between me, my slides and their screens. I remind them that I can tell when they are watching TikTok or texting, because the class material probably isn’t causing their amused facial expressions.

Honestly, I am finding myself more distracted, too. While lecturing I am not only thinking about the lecture material and what’s on the next slide—I am also wondering how I can get my students’ attention. I often default to telling a personal anecdote, but even as they briefly look up to laugh, they just as quickly return their eyes to their screens.

The obvious advice would be to have more engaging activities than lecturing but …

Difference No. 3: More Lectures, Please

After 2020, one comment showed up over and over on my course evaluations: lecture more. My students seemed not to see the value of small-group activities, gallery walks, interactive data exercises and discussions. They felt that they were not learning as much, and some of them assumed that meant that I didn’t know as much, which leads me to …

Difference No. 4: Sense of Entitlement

While I teach at a private elite university, my colleagues across a range of institutions have backed this up: Some students seem to not have much respect for faculty. The most common way this shows up is at the end of the semester, when students send me emails about why my course policies resulted in a grade they think is unfair, or after an exam, when they argue that I did not grade them fairly, which leads me to …

Difference No. 5: Assessment Confusion

When I was in college, I took midterms and finals. I rewrote my notes, made flash cards, created potential exam questions, asked friends for old exams and studied a lot. I took multiple-choice exams and essay exams, in-class exams and take-home exams. When I first started teaching my lecture-based class, I assigned two midterms and a final. I took the business of writing exams seriously, often using short-answer and essay exams that took a whole lot of time to grade. I wanted the experience of taking the exam to help students feel like they had learned something, and the experience of studying to actually entice them to learn.

Then, two things happened. We faculty got all excited about alternative assessments, trying to make our classes more inclusive for more learning styles. And the students started rebelling about their exam grades, nitpicking our grading for a point here and there, angry that, as one student put it, I was “ruthless” in my grading. Students didn’t show up at my office hours eager to understand the concepts—they wanted more points.

So, I threw out exams in favor of shorter papers, discussions and activities. In fall 2024, I had 74 students and I gave a whopping 67 of them A’s. To do well in my class now, you don’t really have to learn anything. You just need to show up. Except the problem with grading for attendance is …

Difference No. 6: Our Students Are Struggling

We all know that our students are struggling with more mental and emotional health issues, perhaps due to COVID-related learning loss, the state of the world and so many other things. Many of us include mental health resources in our syllabus, but we know that’s not enough. Students are much more open about their struggles with us, but we aren’t trained therapists and often don’t know the right thing to say. Who am I to determine whether or not one student’s excuse for missing a class is valid while another’s is not? How can I keep extending the deadlines for a struggling student while keeping the deadline firm for the rest? Sure, there are suggestions for this (e.g., offer everyone a “late assignment” ticket to use), but I still spend a lot of time sifting through student email requests for extensions and understanding. How can we be fair to all of our students while maintaining the rhythm of course expectations?

Usually, one acknowledges the differences between students now and “back then” at retirement, reflecting on the long arc of a teaching career. But I am not at the end—I have a long way to go (hopefully). I am expected to be good at this in order to get reappointed to my teaching faculty position.

Teaching requires much more agility now as we attempt to adapt to the ever-expanding information sphere, our students’ needs, and the state of the community and world beyond our classrooms. Instead of jumping to solutions (more active learning!), I think it’s reasonable to step back and acknowledge that there is no one change we need to make to be more effective educators in 2025. We also can acknowledge that some of the strategies we are using to make our classes more engaging and inclusive might backfire, and that there still is a time and place for really good, engaging lectures and really hard, useful exams.

There are fads in teaching, and over the past 20 years, I have seen and tried plenty of them. We prize teaching innovation, highlighting new techniques as smashing successes. But sometimes we learn that our best-laid plans don’t work out, that what students really want is to hear from an expert, someone who can help them sort through the overwhelming crush of information to find a narrative that is relevant and meaningful.

The students in our classrooms are not the same students we were, but maybe there is still a way to spark their enthusiasm for our subjects by simply asking them to be present. As debates about the value of higher education swirl around us, maybe caring about our students and their learning means asking them to put away their screens, take out a notebook and be present for our lectures, discussions and occasional gallery walk. For my part, I’m reminding myself that some students aren’t all that different than I was—curious, excited, eager to learn—and that I owe it to them to keep showing up committed to their learning and, maybe, prepared with a few more light-on-text lecture slides.

Rebecca Vidra is a senior lecturer at the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke University.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Skipping remedial courses impacts students’ completion

Developmental education has come under scrutiny for delaying students’ academic attainment and overall degree progression. While the purpose of remedial courses is to prepare learners to succeed in more difficult courses, it can produce the opposite effect, discouraging learners from pursuing more advanced courses or pushing them to drop out.

A December report from the Center for the Analysis of Postsecondary Readiness (CAPR)—a partnership of MDRC and the Community College Research Center at Columbia University’s Teachers College—identified the benefits of placing students into college-level math and English classes and how it can impact their credit attainment and completion.

“This research finds evidence that colleges should consider increasing the total number of students referred directly to college-level courses, whether by lowering their requirements for direct placement into college-level courses or by implementing other policies with the same effect,” according to the report.

Methodology: Around three-quarters of colleges use multiple measures assessment (MMA) systems to place learners in remedial education, relying on standardized tests and high school GPA, among other factors, according to the CAPR report.

This study evaluates data from 12 community colleges across Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin and 29,999 students to see how effective MMA systems are compared to traditional test-only placement methods on dictating students’ long-term success.

Incoming students who took a placement test were randomly assigned to one of two groups: test-only referral or MMA placement. Researchers collected data on how students would have been placed under both systems to analyze different outcomes and gauge long-term outcomes.

The findings: For most students, there was no material difference in their placement; 81 percent of the math sample and 68 percent of the English sample referred students to the same level of coursework, which researchers classified as “always college level” or “always developmental.”

Around 44 percent of students from the New York sample were “bumped up” into a college-level English course, and 16 percent were bumped up into a college-level math class due to being assigned to the MMA group, whereas the test-only system would have sorted them into developmental education. Seven percent of learners were “bumped down” into developmental ed for English.

In Wisconsin, 15 percent of students in the MMA group were bumped up in English, and 14 percent were bumped up in math placement.

Students who were assigned to the MMA group and were placed into a higher-level course were more likely to have completed a college-level math or English course, compared to their peers in the test-only placement group with similar GPAs and scores.

This bump-up group, across samples, was eight percentage points more likely to pass a college-level course and earned 2.0 credits more on average. These learners were also more likely to earn a degree or transfer to a four-year institution within nine semesters by 1.5 percentage points.

Inversely, students who were recommended by MMA placement to take developmental ed, but not according to the test-only system, were less likely to succeed.

So what? The evidence shows that referring more students into college-level courses is a better predictor of success than the placement system.

Implementing an MMA is a small cost to the institution, around $60 per student, but it can result in students saving money because they take fewer developmental courses over all, and maybe earn more credits entirely.

“Overall, this report concludes that MMA, when it allows more students to be directly placed in college-level coursework, is a cost-effective way to increase student educational achievement,” researchers wrote.

If your student success program has a unique feature or twist, we’d like to know about it. Click here to submit.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Three questions for JHU’s Ira Gooding

Ira Gooding is well-known and highly respected within our digital and online learning community. At Johns Hopkins University, Ira serves in the provost’s office as a special adviser for digital initiatives, and he is the assistant director for open education at the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

Q: Tell us about your roles at the provost’s office and the Bloomberg School. What does your work at Hopkins entail and how do your leadership positions interact?

A: My work in the provost’s office is focused on three goals: fostering teaching innovation through digital technology, facilitating collaboration and connection across divisional lines, and managing our engagement with Coursera.

A major project that incorporates all three goals is our Digital Education and Learning Technology Acceleration (DELTA) initiative. Each year, we use a portion of our Coursera royalty revenue to award internal grants of up to $75,000 to develop, implement and evaluate an innovative application of technology intended to enhance teaching and learning. To date, we’ve awarded more than $2.6 million to 41 different project teams focused on a wide array of innovative approaches, including VR/AR, generative AI, learning at scale, faculty development programming and clinical simulation, among others.

We also hold an annual Provost’s DELTA Teaching Forum that brings together faculty and teaching and learning staff from across Johns Hopkins to provoke conversation, spark new thinking and advance the ongoing pursuit of teaching excellence. The next forum will be held on May 1.

In the Bloomberg School of Public Health, I lead a small team within the Center for Teaching and Learning. We focus our attention on developing open learning experiences and open educational resources for independent learners and public health educators beyond the boundaries of our master’s and doctoral programs. We’ve supported the development of more than 80 MOOC courses, specializations and teach-outs, and we’re in the process of developing a new OER repository for JHU.

The repository project is a good example of the interaction between my two roles. The Bloomberg School’s Center for Teaching and Learning is developing the platform, but it will serve as a repository for OER from across the entire university, and publishing authority will be distributed in order to reduce bottlenecks.

Q: Looking forward to 2025, what challenges, trends and opportunities related to online and digital learning are at the top of your mind?

A: I hope it’s OK that my answers go beyond 2025.

I’m curious to see how higher education will be affected in the years ahead by the arrival of students whose early primary school years were disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and the switch to emergency remote teaching. The oldest members of that cohort are hitting high school this year, and it won’t be long before they arrive (or not) on our campuses. What expectations will they have for digital learning? Will they value in-person experiences differently from today’s students? What learning habits will they bring with them? So, I see an opportunity to start designing that cohort’s learning experiences now. How might we prepare ourselves to offer them a higher education experience that meets their needs and helps them thrive?

Also, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about David Wiley’s recent argument about generative AI’s impact on open educational resources. In September, he gave a talk titled “Why Open Education Will Become Generative AI” for the University of Regina. In it, he argues pretty persuasively that generative AI has the potential to become a more effective tool than OER for increasing educational access due to its profound impact on the process of authoring, revising and remixing instructional materials.

That’s a provocative position, and I don’t know whether things will play out as he predicts. Regardless, I’m curious to see the interplay of generative AI and OER in the years ahead.

Q: What advice would you give an early or midcareer colleague interested in working toward a digital/online learning leadership role?

A: I’d encourage them to look for opportunities to reduce institutional friction and to develop a reputation for clearing paths instead of erecting obstacles. A certain amount of friction is necessary for managing risk and encouraging high-quality work, but a lot of friction in higher ed comes from simple inertia.

People who aspire to lead can make a lot of progress by understanding the constraints that hinder innovation and then actively working to mitigate them on behalf of the innovators within their institutions.

Of course, people run the risk of becoming gatekeepers as they advance into leadership positions, so it’s important to question one’s own assumptions and the value of yesterday’s solutions and to look for new solutions instead of continuing to rely on the old ones.

Source link

January 28, 2025
How postdocs get on | Wonkhe

A new paper in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the postdoc period, the period of flexible, temporary and often insecure work after a PhD but before a permanent role, is “no less critical than the Ph.D. in determining future academic careers.”

The paper by Duan et al shows that in America the PhD studying period is not in and of itself the only determinant of whether a student will secure an academic role. They demonstrate that

Those whose productivity went down during the postdoc, and those without a hit paper during this period are significantly more likely to drop out of academia than others

The paper also argues that the research active and geographically mobile do better in securing a faculty job. The authors argue this is because their “diverse academic experience gives an advantage.”

Waiting around

The paper suggests that waiting for a faculty job is usually the wrong path. This is to say that doing a PhD, working as a postdoc, and then securing a coveted faculty role, sounds more straightforward on paper than it is in reality.

This is interesting in itself but it’s also a question of how a market for talent functions. And this is important because the whole economy relies on universities selecting academics that are the best in the field, not just those more likely to get picked by dint of good fortune or demographics.

The most obvious way to look at how this market works is to look at how universities themselves describe it. Let’s move away from the US examples and look to the UK.

There is lots of advice for PhDs seeking to break into the academic job market. This slideshow from LSE presents the kind of information that is typically shared with aspiring academics. The slides suggest the UK academic job-market is more multivariate than the US with greater flexibility in choosing between teaching and research routes without the possibility of tenure in either. The slides, albeit now a bit dated, show that promotion depends on a mixture of teaching, research, service, and public engagement. So far so REF.

The University of Salford’s advice from 2023 includes a good chunk of information on the administrative responsibilities of academics and its broader emphasis for the aspirant academic is a practical one. Their guidance looks at the kinds of skills an academic needs including: passion, communication skills, team-working, and networking skills. And advice on getting that first academic job foremost of which is publishing research.

The University of Oxford has an extensive and nuanced set of guidance which brings the dynamics of the labour market into sharper relief. This particular section captures the sentiment that undercuts much of the academic career guidance “Only a tiny percentage of PhD graduates become professors; the vast majority take their research and teaching training to make significant contributions in other fields.”

These are only three examples amongst dozens of guides on getting an academic career split across hundreds and hundreds of pages. The underlying themes are that getting a first academic role is hard, it is largely based on research record (and luck) and the extent to which a PhD student has been published, and building a broad skills base with flexibility over job role and location is helpful.

Jobs

Of course as well as being educators, institutions are also employers. An analysis of academic job postings in Europe demonstrates that research is the primary job criteria for early career academics with emphasis on teaching and other skills becoming more important as academics progress up the career ladder. Albeit, as pointed out on Wonkhe, within the UK there is a significant growth in teaching only academic contracts. Even more specifically within the UK there is a literature over many decades which emphasises the importance of teaching, writing, and networking, the porosity between programmes and other institutions in careers, and the global precarity of junior academics

The challenge that emerges for the PhD and early post-doc breaking into and through the job market are therefore twofold. The first is that the skills and experience required to secure a first permanent academic role are effectively the same as someone already carrying out a full-time academic role. This is a big hurdle to clear. The second is that the conditions of postdoc students, particularly the lack of stability, makes acquiring those skills difficult.

In line with the study emerging from the US, if a UK post-doc wants to get on academic literature suggests they are best-placed to do so by being fortunate enough to have high-quality instruction and they may benefit from structured support through programmes like Prosper.

There is potentially an endless list of the ways in which PhD and postdoc study shape future academic careers. The analysis here does not even touch on the various ways in which social and economic inequalities shut down or otherwise open up career paths.

Nevertheless, the UK’s industrial strategy relies on a pipeline of academics progressing in both established fields and emergent ones. The lack of institutionalised knowledge on not just who gets on but the conditions through which students get on presents not only an institutional risk in losing talent in the academic pipeline but an economic one in allowing future academics to slip out of the system.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Degree apprenticeship delivery needs strengthening to realise their potential

Degree apprenticeships have, ten years from their introduction, stimulated innovative models of delivery and nurtured productive relationships between employers and education and training providers.

Their rapid growth has, however, invited questions as to whether they are the right instrument for introducing young people to the workforce, or whether Apprenticeship Levy funding would be better spent elsewhere. To consider and evaluate degree apprenticeships, the Edge Foundation in collaboration with colleagues from the Universities of Bath, Huddersfield and Oxford, conducted nearly 100 interviews with large employers, SMEs, education and training providers, degree apprentices and policymakers.

Our research confirmed degree apprenticeships represent a unique confluence of theoretical higher education and practical skills and promote both academic achievement and workplace competency. Our primary finding was, however, that there is considerable heterogeneity in delivery of these programmes. This flexibility is degree apprenticeships’ greatest asset; it simultaneously, however, increases their complexity.

Aligning employer needs

Our research found numerous examples of pragmatic, trusting partnerships between education and training providers and employers. As one education and training provider told us:

I was able to bring my employer partners with me to the university […] So it’s been great to sit down and […] say “what is it that is missing?” […] And them saying “can you do this? Can you do that?” […] so I can truly say, from the heart, this is for the first time, we are truly, truly, employer-driven.

However, it remains challenging to engage the full spectrum of employers. Employers engage in these initiatives primarily out of a concern for workforce development, striving to support employees’ professional growth while addressing existing or upcoming skills shortages. However, despite their significance in the UK economy, engagement with SMEs remains challenging.

Trailblazers, for example, that design apprenticeship standards, have struggled to engage and represent the needs of SMEs. Resource-poor businesses like SMEs often struggle to realise an immediate return on investment for their input. The process is resource intensive, and even with employer and input from regulatory bodies and sector-specific organisations, there is tension in whether professional body requirements can keep pace with modern workplace practices.

Diversity in delivery structures

The delivery of degree apprenticeships varies widely even within the same sector, with different patterns of block study, virtual or face-to-face sessions, workplace experiences, placement rotations, and assessments. We heard from apprentices whose learning environment was entirely virtual, featuring asynchronous methods such as recorded lectures and digital resources, to fully in-person models with collaborative project work.

Concerns about coordinating theoretical elements with workplace roles remain a high priority, with regular communication between employers and tutoring staff viewed as essential. Nonetheless, there is some evidence of excellent integration of learning with workplace practice and, as one education and training provider told us:

we have huge amounts of anecdotal discussions from employers about the very real, not just skills and talent impact, but the business benefits that students are bringing.

Positively, degree apprentices experienced learning outcomes and developed skills that surpassed typical undergraduate levels, and many apprentices and employers recognised they had significant advantages in employment for their present and future careers.

Support systems for apprentices

Employer mentors’ relationships with apprentices are varied, with providers offering different types of mentorship, from personal tutors to skills coaches. The coordination of tripartite reviews – involving apprentices, employers, and education and training providers – acts as a critical connection among all stakeholders. Apprentices also frequently reported they had formed important and supportive relationships with other apprentices, particularly those who were attached to large employers, where structured support networks were often in place – another area of divergence between the apprentices’ experiences of large and smaller employers. Nevertheless, despite apprentices with SMEs being less likely to have access to similar collegial groups of apprentices at similar career levels, they often praised their employers and team members for offering a supportive and nurturing environment for their development.

Repeatedly throughout our evidence, stakeholders of all types stressed the importance of effective communication as key for helping learners to see the connections between their work and their academic study. But this could be highly resource intensive, and we found ETPs were not confident in the sustainability of their provision. Education and training providers report that much of their activity around degree apprenticeships is compliance-driven, often overwhelmed by complex auditing and reporting processes that intersect with internal monitoring mechanisms, requiring considerable additional resources, administrative structures and staff. These multiple bodies can sometimes measure quality in incompatible ways. These burdens were significant enough that some education and training providers questioned the feasibility of continuing to offer degree apprenticeships.

The long-standing challenge of work-related learning, that features throughout vocational programmes, is ensuring the on- and off-the-job training work seamlessly together. Degree apprenticeships certainly exhibit instances of good practice here. But our research also highlighted the great deal of variability in delivery of degree apprenticeships. The linchpin of the quality of learning on a degree apprenticeship programme is directly related to the quality of collaboration between employers, education and training providers, and apprentices.

Employers and education and training providers in particular should work together to share and implement best practice and ensure that the content of the taught elements and the apprentice’s learning on the job connect and relate to each other as regularly and deeply as possible. Likewise, allowing increased flexibility in the apprenticeship standards, as we have seen in places such as the Netherlands, would allow degree apprenticeships to keep better pace with the rapidly changing economy and workplace practices.

Finally, we have learned that despite degree apprenticeships offering brilliant opportunities for people to both begin and develop their careers, their success rests on enough opportunities being available in the first place. This requires reducing barriers that hinder the engagement of education and training providers, employers and apprentices. Notably we have found the administrative burdens in relation to accountability on the part of education and training providers, and the management of DAs, as well as the ability to transfer levy funds, on the part of employers, are all persistent barriers to wider engagement.

With degree apprenticeships coming under scrutiny following the government’s announcement to broaden the Apprenticeship Levy into a Growth and Skills Levy, articulating their strengths and identifying where challenges lie is key to securing their sustainability and ongoing success.

You can read the full research findings from Degree apprenticeships in England here or sign up to attend the online launch event 10.00-11.30am UK time on Tuesday 28 January.

Source link

January 28, 2025
The Office for Students needs to walk and chew gum – by Jo Johnson

This blog is by Jo Johnson, Executive Chairman of FutureLearn, a Member of the Council of the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology and a Visiting Professor of King’s College London. He served as Universities and Science Minister under David Cameron, Theresa May and Boris Johnson.

There’s plenty to like about the Office for Students’ proposed new five year strategy, now out for consultation and being debated in Parliament on the 30 January.

Best of all, to my mind, is that the Teaching Excellence Framework is at the heart of the regulator’s new integrated approach to quality. Given the interests ranged against it, few would have put money on the TEF making it to the tenth anniversary of the Green Paper that made the case for it.

We’re a long way from 2017 when ‘abolish TEF’ was Labour policy – the new Government and the OfS deserve credit for recognising that if it didn’t exist, they would surely be designing something very much like it.

There is, however, one major problem with the regulator and that’s the OfS’s failure to support the innovation vital to our success as a knowledge economy.

Competition and choice were enshrined in the General Duties of the new regulator, in the very first lines of the Higher Education and Research Act (2017), with an importance second only to the need to have regard to institutional autonomy.

Which is why the recent decision to ‘pause’ applications to the Register and for Degree Awarding Powers (DAPs) from new entrants, so the OfS can focus on the financial sustainability of some woebegone incumbents, is a shockingly poor one.

It pains me to see the OfS give up on supporting start-ups and with such an embarrassingly weak justification for doing so.

A few trailblazers – including the Dyson Institute of Engineering and Technology, the New Model Institute for Technology and Engineering, the London Interdisciplinary School and The Engineering & Design Institute: London – have in recent years managed to acquire their own DAPs, highlighting in their different ways the value that new providers can bring.

But they are the exception and, as Mary Curnock Cook and Professor Sir Malcolm Grant noted in a brilliant Hepi piece a few years ago, all new entrants tell of the burden of regulatory oversight and of a stifling of their desire to innovate.

Such are the procedural barriers to entry the OfS has erected that new entrants invariably have to take on expensive consultants who advise them to shape themselves as much as possible in the cookie-cutter mould of existing institutions.

I said that this pause was a shocking decision. In fact, it is sadly all too predictable.

As Independent Higher Education has been saying to anyone who will listen, OfS service standards for those seeking registration or DAPs have long been lamentable, promises of better performance have not been kept (despite a hike in OfS fees) and this pause and warning of a ‘staggered’ (ie even worse service) approach to re-opening in the future represents a new low.

There seems always a ready excuse for the OfS not focusing on innovation and deprioritising this part of its statutory duties – first it was the task of getting existing providers on the Register, then the COVID maelstrom and now the need to deal with the financial troubles of some providers paying the price for weak financial management and poor governance.

This is a worrying pattern – and, given that new providers recruit more than most from disadvantaged and underrepresented groups, it will also, if it persists, make it harder for the new Government to achieve its ambitions for widening participation and access to higher education.

I cannot imagine the pause would withstand legal challenge if tested.

That might well become necessary.

For there is reason to fear the pause will become semi-permanent.

That’s because there is no sign that financial pressures on institutions will have abated by August, when the OfS says it will start to gradually re-open the window for applications for registration and DAPs. Indeed, there is every chance, unless the government commits to annual inflationary increases in tuition fees, that a number of providers will be much further up the creek by then than they are now.

As I say, the OfS is under a statutory obligation, set out in the Higher Education and Research Act, to support choice and innovation in provision.

It’s not a perfect analogy, but imagine Ofgem, which has similar duties to enable competition and innovation, refusing to allow in new suppliers of renewable energy. Or Ofcom turning away broadband start-ups. Surely, that would be unthinkable. For that matter, how is this pause consistent with Sir Keir Starmer, Rachel Reeves and the business secretary urging watchdogs to tear down the regulatory barriers that hold back economic growth, the ‘absolute top priority for the Government’?

It’s surely the opposite.

And, of course, the real irony is that freezing the OfS Register and DAPs in aspic will probably worsen financial sustainability rather than promote it.

Telling the world that the regulator is so snowed under with handling institutional failure that it can’t do the rest of its job sends a dismal message to international students, to the institutions bringing diversity to the sector and to investors interested in supporting English higher education.

The OfS should hit the unpause button.

If it won’t do that, then it must at the very least during this period of pause make clear that it will be open for business for m&a (ie entities needing to transfer DAPs and UT from ailing institutions) that prevents financial risks from crystalising.

The risk otherwise is that institutions at risk of failure cannot seek timely OfS approval for the transfer of their DAPs / UT to white knights that want to come to their rescue.

How would that be in the student interest?

The OfS should be able to walk and chew gum, especially as it sets its own resource envelope, in agreement with DfE, through the level of fees that it charges those it regulates.

If it can’t work out how to multi-task and really has to redeploy staff to financial sustainability, it should first deprioritise some of the newer headline-grabbing conditions of registration it has imposed in response to ministerial whims du jour, before it walks away from the actual statutory duties given to it by Parliament.

Finally, failure to discharge the responsibilities Parliament has given it should be a source of considerable embarrassment to the OfS given the turf war that it has waged over the quality function.

The long pause raises real questions about the sustainability of the OfS’s refusal to appoint a new quality body to take on the role played by the Quality Assurance Agency after it was de-designated in March 2023.

If the OfS can’t promptly resume one of the most important duties given to it in HERA, it should run a quick process to find a new Designated Quality Body, so that some other organisation can get on with it.

Source link

January 28, 2025
Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Higher Education Inquirer : Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Nvidia, Microsoft Stock Fall in Wake of New AI Model From DeepSeek (Bloomberg Podcasts)

Source link

January 27, 2025
Factors for Choosing the Best

Every educational institution relies on students, and data management is essential to their success. The appropriate Student Database Management System can alter the game for colleges and institutions as they adapt to new technology. With more and more institutions using digital solutions for student data management, as decision makers, it’s necessary to know what aspects matter the most! We recommend you consider these five factors while choosing the optimal system for your higher ed campus!

Five Important Factors to Keep in Mind When Selecting a Student Database Management System

You simply can’t miss taking your institution’s demands into account while selecting a Student Database Management System. Integrating with your current infrastructure saves time, lowers mistakes, and enhances student outcomes. Let’s talk about the five most important factors that will assist you in making a smart decision for the success of your organization.

Cloud Automation

A survey from Educause states that 80% of institutions of higher education have transitioned at least a portion of their services to the cloud. Institutions can be assured that their student data is safe and secured and in an accessbile format with cloud-based student database management systems. This transition to cloud automation guarantees real-time updates and more efficient operations, improving the entire experience for both students and staff. (Source: Educause Horizon Report, 2020)

Locking Down Data Security

A 2023 IBM study found that 60% of higher education institutions faced significant data breaches. The next big thing to consider when choosing the right student database management system is hence data security! University management systems with high data security help prevent incidents with their role-based access controls. By limiting data access to authorized personnel—whether students, staff, or parents—institutions can safeguard sensitive information, mitigate risks, and maintain compliance with data protection regulations like GDPR.

Better Insights, Decisions

Inside Higher Ed found that data analytics improves student retention by 25%. The right student database management system can help administrators spot at-risk students and intervene quickly with real-time performance dashboards. Trust us, predictive analytics improve policymaking and student results by predicting future trends!

Notifications in a Flash

The majority of students (70%) say they are more involved when they are notified about upcoming activities and deadlines promptly highlights Gallup’s study. In order to improve communication and organizational efficiency, automated messages and notifications are put in place to make sure that administrators, students, and teachers never miss any essential information, such as when exams are scheduled or when assignments are due. So this is a never-miss-out when it comes to the right student database management system.

Mobile – All You Need in Your Pocket

A PwC study indicated that over 50% of students prefer mobile apps for academic content. Mobile access keeps students and faculty linked for attendance, grade updates, and fee payments. Trust us, a smooth mobile experience boosts student engagement and satisfaction.

Transform Student Management with Creatrix Campus

A revolutionary student management system, Creatrix Campus simplifies every element of student life for institutions and students. Our technology connects across the web and mobile, making attendance, grading, and communication easy. Technology and student success combine at Creatrix Campus—the future of education management. Contact us now.

Source link

January 27, 2025