Tag: access

  • UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: access and participation

    UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: access and participation

    While one end of your university is focused entirely on the number of undergraduate students that get a place (and pay a fee) each year, another equally important driver is who these students are and where they come from.

    A part of the initial quid pro quo offered to the sector when we lost the last vestiges of student number control and managed expansion in 2012 was that some of this new capacity would be made available for students from non-traditional backgrounds – and that this would happen from everywhere: from the poshest ancient university to the most practical and locally-focused further education college.

    Though regulators all over the UK do keep an eye on how providers are doing at making this egalitarian dream a reality, in England at least the focus has been more on what providers are doing to widen access (and how they know it is working) and less on the actual numbers or entry rates.

    Deprivation

    UCAS has always provided data on what proportion of main scheme UK applicants from major demographics end up with an offer. Because of some smart choices by UCAS in its data design, I can also offer you an main scheme acceptance rate: the proportion of applications that end up with an accepted offer.

    (UCAS main scheme? That’s the one where an applicant applies to up to five courses before the 30 June deadline. It doesn’t include stuff like direct entry to clearing, or records of prior acceptance – where someone applies directly to the provider.)

    We don’t get as many metrics as we used to (what’s happened to UCAS’ own Multiple Equality Measure, or MEMs, I wonder) – and I’ve chosen to look at indices of multiple deprivation as a common way of thinking about participation from economically disadvantaged small areas. There are four of them (SIMD, WIMD, NIMD, and IMD – one for each home nation) and it makes no sense to see them all on one graph. By default we are seeing England (more data points!) but you can also choose to see Wales, Scotland, or Northern Ireland using the “nations/regions” filter.

    You choose your quintile of interest at the top (default is one, the most deprived 20 per cent), a year (default is 2025), chosen measure (offer rate or acceptance rate) and Age (default is “all”). This changes the display at the top: an ordered plot of providers, with the size of the dot showing the number of accepted students. Mouse over a dot to show annual proportions by quintile for main scheme applications, offers, and accepted applicants.

    [Full screen]

    By default you can see the proportion of applications that end with an accepted applicant – but a low score does not mean a provider is terrible at widening access. Recall there are a lot of variables here, with as much to do with student choice (or portfolio) and performance as what the provider does. For this reason the offer rate (how many applications end with an offer being made) is a more popular measure.

    Entry qualifications

    I feel like I keep saying this, but you can’t really talk about access without talking about what qualifications an applicant is likely to be bringing with them. A level performance is a spectacular proxy for how rich your parents are and how nice your house is – even the choice to take A levels is less common among disadvantaged groups.

    On the first issue we still don’t get data on actual (A level or tariff) points at provider level as structured data. The data exists – it’s on course pages at an individual course level, but supposedly it is far too commercially powerful to publish openly in a structured way at provider level. It feels like a policy from another age, and it doesn’t make anyone look good.

    The best we get is a provider-level look at the types of qualification held by accepted applicants (and those that get offers). I’ve not plotted this to enable comparison, but it is fascinating to find individual providers slowly moving away from recruiting A level students only and into the “other” qualification that suggest mature learners, and (less clearly) local rather than national recruitment.

    [Full screen]

    Unconditional

    Back at the end of the 2010s there was a great deal of policy concern around the idea of unconditional offers. This was eventually refined into the “conditional unconditional offer”, a situation where a “firm” commitment from an applicant was rewarded with a lack of insistence on a particular set of grades or tariff points.

    Though there were often valid reasons given for direct unconditional offers (for example, when admission to an arts course was by portfolio, or where – rarely – a provider set its own entrance exams or used a detailed interview process to inform selection) nobody ever really managed to convincingly defend the conditional unconditional offer in a way that stopped being banned (with the briefest of blips when it was accidentally unbanned for a month or so in the 2022 cycle). It was odd as the best available evidence showed that such offers didn’t have an impact on student outcomes.

    I’ve been starting to hear stories about a growth in other forms of unconditional offers in this last cycle – the pressure to lock in applicants may be prompting usual academic requirements to be suspended or lowered. The available data suggest a very slight growth in “other unconditional offers” that regulators may want to keep an eye on, but only back to roughly 2023 levels from a slight dip last year.

    [Full screen]

    In England, at least, we’ve rather taken our eye off the ball when it comes to participation metrics – they exist, but there’s very little (other than the required existence of an access and participation plan for those who want to charge higher fees) to connect them to regulation. There have been some suggestions from ministers that this may change, and if you are in planning or strategy you may wish to get yourself reacquainted with the state of the art in 2025.

    Source link

  • Questions About Youth Perceptions of Access to American Dream

    Questions About Youth Perceptions of Access to American Dream

    An impressively brilliant African American 14-year-old sent a thoughtful response to the column I published yesterday on the policing of Black men in America. He began by characterizing what I had written as “fascinating,” which could have meant a multitude of things coming from a teenager. He then explained that his eighth-grade English class included recent discussions about immigrant pursuits of the American dream. Accordingly, one major takeaway from those conversations with his teacher and peers was that many people come to the U.S. because it is perceived as a land of opportunity. My article complicated this presumption for him.

    In addition to the racial profiling, harassment, abuse and police killings of unarmed Black Americans that I wrote about yesterday, this middle schooler’s perspective has me wondering how other youth his age, as well as collegians in the U.S. and abroad are thinking about the possibility of the American dream at this time for themselves and others. I am especially interested in knowing how attainable it feels among Asian, Black, Latino and Indigenous youth here and elsewhere across the globe. Juxtapositions of their perspectives with those of their white counterparts also fascinate me.

    The Trump administration includes few people of color in leadership roles—certainly much, much fewer than in the Obama and Biden administrations. Programs and policies that were designed to ensure equitable opportunities for citizens who make our nation diverse have been ravaged (in some instances outlawed) during Donald Trump’s second presidential term.

    Black, Latino and international student enrollments at Harvard University and other elite institutions have declined since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled race-conscious admissions practices unconstitutional. Immigrants are being threatened, terrorized and deported. It is possible that these challenges and realities have done little to erode immigrants’ and prospective international students’ faith in U.S. structures and systems. This is a researchable topic.

    It would also be good for social scientists and education researchers to study how students in K–12 schools and on college campuses across the U.S. are appraising the equitable availability of the American dream to all citizens. Results collected via surveys and other research methods should be disaggregated by race, socioeconomic status, gender and gender identity, citizenship and documentation status, sexual orientation, religion, state and geographic region, political party, and other demographic variables. Those findings should be compared within and across groups. Furthermore, sophisticated analyses should be done at the intersection of identities (for example, perceptions of Asian American transgender immigrant youth).

    In another column published earlier this week, I wrote about what I teach students in my classrooms. One statement therein seems worthy of amplification here: “To be absolutely sure, I have never instructed [students] to hate or in any way despise America.” I do, however, teach them truths about our nation’s racial past and present. Those lessons are not based on my opinions or so-called divisive ideologies, but instead rigorous statistics and other forms of high-quality, trustworthy data substantiate my teachings. As a responsible educator and citizen, I understand that the problem of inequitable access to the American dream requires a lot, including but not limited to consciousness raising, truth telling, reparations and restorative justice, and the implementation of equity-minded public policies, to name a few. 

    I want youth of color to love our country. I want immigrants who believe in the availability of the American dream to come here. But I also want access to the American dream to be fair and equitable. I want our nation to disable and permanently destroy structures and systems that cyclically reproduce disparate outcomes that disadvantage people who make our country beautifully diverse. I got a very real sense that the Black teenage boy who thoughtfully responded to what I wrote yesterday wants the same thing, too. Again, I think it would be “fascinating” to know how other adolescents and young adults, including those who are white, are thinking about who has full access to the American dream at this time.

    Shaun Harper is University Professor and Provost Professor of Education, Business and Public Policy at the University of Southern California, where he holds the Clifford and Betty Allen Chair in Urban Leadership. His most recent book is titled Let’s Talk About DEI: Productive Disagreements About America’s Most Polarizing Topics.

    Source link

  • What happens when people lose access to birth control?

    What happens when people lose access to birth control?

    Abandonment of U.S. financial support for contraception around the world has disrupted the ecosystem that fostered birth control, family planning and sexual and reproductive health for decades.

    Back in February, the United Nations Population Fund announced that the United States had canceled some $377 million in funding for maternal health programs around the world, which includes contraception programs.

    Contraception reduces mortality and can improve the lives of women and families. The United Nations estimates that the number of women using a modern contraception method doubled from 1990 to 2021, which coincided with a 34% reduction in maternal mortality over the same period.

    Now, tens of millions of people could lose access to modern contraceptives in the next year, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a family planning research and lobby group. This, it reported, could result in more than 17 million unintended pregnancies and 34,000 preventable pregnancy-related deaths.

    Sexual and reproductive health and rights programs improve women’s choices and protection including violence and rape prevention and treatment.

    Who will fill the gap?

    European donor governments have pledged to increase contributions to UNFPA and other global health funds to partially fill the gap. The Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark, for example, have pledged emergency funds to UNFPA Supplies, the world’s largest provider of contraceptives to low-income countries.

    The EU has also redirected part of its humanitarian budget to cover contraceptive procurement in sub-Saharan Africa. Canada announced an additional CAD $100 million over three years for sexual and reproductive health programs, explicitly citing the U.S. withdrawal.

    Despite its own aid budget pressures, the UK has committed to maintaining its £200 million annual contribution to family planning programs, with a focus on East Africa.

    The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation expanded its Family Planning 2030 commitments, pledging tens of millions in stopgap funding to keep supply chains moving. The World Bank Global Financing Facility offers bridge loans and grants to governments facing sudden gaps in reproductive health budgets and calls for governments to co-finance. However these initiatives will not immediately replace the scale of previous U.S. government investments.

    The loss of U.S. support has left many women with no access to family planning, especially in rural and conflict-affected areas. Clinics are reporting a surge in unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions.

    Health clinics closing

    In Zambia, Cooper Rose Zambia, a local NGO reported laying off 60% of its staff after receiving a stop-work order from USAID. Clinics have been rationing contraceptives with some methods already out of stock.

    In Kenya, clinics in Nairobi and rural counties are turning women away, with some supplies stuck in warehouses and at risk of expiring. In Tanzania, medical stores confirmed they were completely out of stock of certain contraceptive implants by July 2025.

    Mali will be denied 1.2 million oral contraceptives and 95,800 implants, nearly a quarter of its annual need. In Burkina Faso, another country under terrorist insurgency internally, many displaced women have no access to modern contraceptives.

    The consequences of the stock depletions will be particularly catastrophic in fragile and conflict settings such as refugee camps.

    Struggling to adapt to the reality has led organizations to cut programs and redirect their remaining resources. Many are trying desperately to raise new funds. But there are some voices that cheer the cuts, describing them as a wake up call.

    A wake up call for Africa?

    Rama Yade, director of the Africa Center of the Atlantic Council, a non-partisan organization that studies and facilitates U.S. international relations, argues that the aid cuts could be a wake-up call for African nations to reduce dependency and pursue economic sovereignty.

    For pan-African voices who have long criticized foreign aid as a tool of neocolonialism, the U.S. government cuts are a chance to build local capacity, strengthen intra-African trade and reduce reliance on Western donors. Trump’s dismantling of USAID offers a new beginning for Africa.

    In an essay in the publication New Humanitarian, Themrit Khan, an independent researcher in the aid sectors wrote that recipient nations have been made to believe they are unable to function without external support.

    Khan proposes several actions to mitigate the foreign funding cuts: relying more on local donors; developing trade and bilateral relations instead of depending on international cooperation programs through the United Nations and other international organizations; re-evaluating military spending and reducing debt.

    Colette Hilaire Ouedraogo, a senior midwife and sexual and reproductive health practitioner, told me that up to 60% of activities were from external funding partners. She recalled the alerts sent by the health department to increase funding from national sources as early as 2022.

    She predicts that the cuts affecting the availability and access to contraceptives and the overall quality of services will slow down progress towards universal health coverage targets and the UN Sustainable Development Goals. There is a risk of reduced attendance at reproductive health and family planning centers. Consequently, unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions could increase leading an higher maternal mortality.

    Questions to consider:

    1. How can contraceptives result in lower deaths for women?

    2. Why do some people argue that the cut off of funds from the United States might ultimately benefit nations in Africa?

    3. Why are contraceptives controversial?

     

     

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    WEEKEND READING: Student working lives: paid work and access and participation

    This blog was kindly authored by Martin Lowe, Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding and Mary Lawler from the University of Lancashire, authors of Student Working Lives (HEPI report 195).

    The clearest finding of our recent HEPI report, Student Working Lives, was the growing prevalence of paid work among students and its profound impact on their experiences and outcomes.

    This trend is not confined to disadvantaged groups; it is now a reality for the majority of students, with the Advance HE and HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey revealing how 68% of students now work during term time. Yet, despite its significance, paid work remains largely absent from regulatory frameworks designed to promote equality of opportunity in higher education.

    As the Office for Students (OfS) reviews its approach to access and participation, we argue that paid work should be recognised as a distinct risk on the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register (EORR). Doing so would enable providers to respond more effectively to the challenges students face and ensure that widening participation efforts reflect the realities of modern student life.

    A risk-based future for access and participation

    Since taking office, the Labour Government has placed widening participation as a central pillar of its higher education agenda. From the introduction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to the creation of a new Access and Participation Task and Finish Group, ministers have signalled their determination to open doors to learners from non-traditional backgrounds.

    This ambition was reiterated in the recent Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper, which proposed a significant shift in the regulatory approach in England:

    We will reform regulation of access and participation plans, moving away from a uniform approach to one where the Office for Students can be more risk-based.

    While this statement attracted less attention than the more headline-grabbing measures on tuition fees and maintenance grants, it represents a potentially transformative change. A risk-based model could allow the OfS to focus on the most pressing barriers to equality of opportunity, provided those risks are accurately identified.

    The existing EORR complements this approach. Having been introduced under the leadership of outgoing Director of Fair Access and Participation at the OfS, John Blake, the register has already been widely welcomed by the sector. By identifying factors that threaten access and success for disadvantaged student groups, it enables providers to design interventions tailored to their own context. Rather than simply seeking to address outcome gaps, the EORR encourages institutions to tackle the underlying causes.

    However, the register is not static. If it is to remain relevant, it must evolve to reflect emerging challenges. One such challenge is the growing necessity of paid work alongside study, a risk that intersects the financial pressures felt by students but extends far beyond them.

    Paid work is more than a financial issue

    The current EORR already identifies ‘Cost Pressures’ as a risk, acknowledging that rising living costs can undermine students’ ability to complete their course or achieve good grades. Yet this framing is too narrow on its own. Paid work is not merely a symptom of financial strain; it’s a complex factor that shapes engagement, attainment, and progression into graduate employment.

    Our research shows that paid work is a necessity for most students, regardless of background, with average hours worked remaining static across each Indices of Deprivation (IMD) quintile. However, its impact is uneven. Students having to work more than 20 hours per week, those employed in particularly demanding sectors and those balancing caring responsibilities may all face challenges due to increased workload. However each should be supported in different ways.

    Figure 1: Likelihood of obtaining a ‘good’ honours degree by work hours

    These patterns matter because they influence both academic performance and participation in enrichment activities that support retention and employability. Paid work is a structural feature of student life that can amplify existing inequalities, but present specific nuances depending on the local context.

    Our analysis highlights how the risks associated with paid work differ across institutions and how regional labour markets shape patterns of student employment. For instance, our survey indicates a higher proportion of students working in health and social care in Lancashire, where the sector represents 15% of total employment. In contrast, Liverpool’s relatively large share of hospitality student workers reflects the sector’s prominence, accounting for around 10% of jobs in the city region. These different contexts can help steer local interventions to reduce risk associated with particular sectors.

    Figure 2: Employment by top four sectors (multiple responses accepted)

    Recognising paid work as a formal risk would help empower institutions to develop context-sensitive strategies. These might include the crediting of paid work within the curriculum, embedding guidance on employment rights within pastoral support, or designing schedules that accommodate students’ working patterns.

    Access and participation – two sides of the same coin

    As the OfS explores separating out the “Access” and “Participation” strands of its regulatory framework – as outlined in their recent quality consultation – paid work should feature prominently in supporting both ambitions. Widening access is not simply about opening the door; it is about ensuring wider groups of students see themselves as being part of that experience. For some mature learners, carers, and those with financial dependencies (who may feel excluded by the traditional delivery model of higher education) the support to balance paid work and study is critical.

    Ignoring this reality risks undermining the very goals of widening participation. Higher education must adapt to the evolving profile of its students, who increasingly diverge from the outdated stereotype of the full-time undergraduate.

    Our recommendation is for the OfS to prioritise paid work as a key aspect of the future of Access and Participation regulation, inserting it as a distinct risk within the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register. Doing so would:

    • signal its importance as a structural factor affecting equality of opportunity;
    • enable targeted interventions that reflect institutional and regional contexts;
    • support innovation in curriculum design, pastoral care, and timetabling;
    • and promote collaboration between universities, employers, and policymakers to improve job quality and flexibility.

    This is not about discouraging students from working. For many, employment provides valuable experience and skills. Instead, it is about recognising that when work becomes a necessity rather than a choice, it can compromise educational outcomes, especially for those already at the margins.

    The OfS has an opportunity to lead the sector in addressing one of the most pressing challenges facing students today. By treating paid work as a formal risk, it can help ensure that access and participation strategies are grounded in the lived realities of learners.

    As we look to the future, one principle should guide the sector: widening participation does not end at the point of entry. It extends throughout the student journey, encompassing the conditions that enable success. Paid work is now not only part of that journey, but a critical factor.

    Source link

  • Multilingual Digital Education: Expanding Access Beyond English

    Multilingual Digital Education: Expanding Access Beyond English

    For decades, English has dominated the global education ecosystem. While it opened doors for many, it also quietly closed them for millions of learners worldwide who do not speak English fluently. In today’s digital era, however, a powerful shift is underway. Multilingual digital education is emerging as one of the most effective ways to make learning inclusive, accessible, and equitable for students everywhere.

    As digital platforms expand, education is no longer limited by geography—but language remains a critical barrier. Addressing this challenge is key to ensuring that digital education truly serves everyone, not just a privileged few.

    The Global Language Barrier in Education

    Despite the growth of online learning, a large portion of educational content is still delivered primarily in English. This creates obstacles for:

    • Non-English speakers
    • First-generation learners
    • Students from rural or underserved regions
    • Migrant and refugee communities
    • Adult learners returning to education

    When learners struggle to understand the language of instruction, comprehension drops, confidence weakens, and dropout rates increase. Research consistently shows that students learn more effectively when taught in a language they understand well, especially during foundational learning years.

    This is where multilingual digital education becomes transformative.

    What Is Multilingual Digital Education?

    Multilingual digital education refers to online learning platforms, tools, and content that are available in multiple languages, enabling learners to access the same high-quality education regardless of their primary language.

    This includes:

    • Video lessons with multilingual narration or subtitles
    • Localized course materials and assessments
    • AI-powered real-time translation
    • Voice-based learning in native languages
    • Digital textbooks adapted for cultural relevance

    By removing language as a barrier, digital education becomes more inclusive and learner-centric.

    Why Multilingual Learning Matters in the Digital Age

    1. Improves Learning Outcomes

    Students understand concepts faster and retain knowledge better when learning in their strongest language. Multilingual content reduces cognitive overload caused by language translation in the learner’s mind.

    2. Builds Learner Confidence

    When students can participate without fear of language mistakes, engagement increases. This leads to better classroom interaction, stronger self-expression, and improved academic performance.

    3. Supports Educational Equity

    Language-inclusive platforms help bridge the gap between privileged learners and underserved communities, ensuring that access to quality education does not depend on language fluency.

    4. Encourages Lifelong Learning

    Adults who may have avoided education due to language barriers are more likely to upskill and reskill when learning is available in familiar languages.

    The Role of Technology and AI in Multilingual Digital Education

    Modern technologies are accelerating the growth of multilingual education globally.

    AI and Machine Translation

    AI-driven tools now enable accurate content translation, voice-to-text learning, and real-time subtitles—making multilingual delivery scalable and cost-effective.

    Adaptive Learning Platforms

    These platforms detect learner preferences and automatically deliver content in the most suitable language, improving personalization.

    Mobile Learning Apps

    Mobile-first platforms offering multilingual support are reaching learners in remote and low-connectivity regions, ensuring education is portable and flexible.

    Global Impact of Multilingual Digital Learning

    Across continents, multilingual digital education is driving meaningful change:

    • Higher enrollment and completion rates
    • Increased learner confidence and participation
    • Better understanding of technical and vocational skills
    • Preservation of linguistic and cultural diversity

    Education delivered in multiple languages does not reduce global unity—it strengthens it.

    Challenges in Implementing Multilingual Education

    Despite its benefits, several challenges remain:

    • Maintaining accuracy and quality across languages
    • Addressing cultural nuances in learning content
    • Training educators for multilingual digital delivery
    • Balancing scalability with local relevance

    However, advancements in AI, open educational resources, and global collaboration are rapidly solving these challenges.

    The Future of Global Digital Education

    The future of education is not English-only—it is inclusive, multilingual, and learner-driven. As digital learning becomes mainstream, platforms that prioritize language accessibility will lead the next generation of education.

    Global education organizations, EdTech companies, and institutions are increasingly recognizing that language inclusion is not optional—it is essential.

    When students learn in a language they understand, education becomes more than information delivery; it becomes empowerment.

    Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

    Why is multilingual digital education important?

    It removes language barriers, improves comprehension, and ensures equitable access to education for non-English speakers worldwide.

    Is multilingual education effective online?

    Yes. Studies show learners perform better academically and remain more engaged when learning is available in a familiar language.

    How does AI support multilingual learning?

    AI enables real-time translation, speech recognition, adaptive content delivery, and personalized multilingual learning experiences.

    Does multilingual education replace English learning?

    No. It supports foundational learning while allowing learners to gradually develop additional language skills, including English.

    Conclusion

    Multilingual digital education is transforming global learning by breaking language barriers and opening doors for millions of learners worldwide. It ensures that education is not limited by language, geography, or background. As digital platforms expand, embracing language diversity will be essential to building a fair, effective, and truly global education system.

    Education should be understood by all, because access to knowledge should never depend on the language someone speaks.

    Find more edutech articles and news on this website

    Source link

  • Opening doors: how the University of Nottingham transformed access for care leavers

    Opening doors: how the University of Nottingham transformed access for care leavers

    This blog was kindly authored by Vikki Welch, Associate Director Student Living, University of Nottingham.

    It is the second blog in HEPI’s series with The Unite Foundation on how to best support care experienced and estranged students. You can find the first blog here.

    When the University of Nottingham (UoN) launched its Care Leaver and Estranged Student support package in 2022, the ambition was clear: to remove financial barriers and create a genuine sense of belonging for students who often arrive without the safety net of family support. Today, it provides a comprehensive wraparound system, anchored by a one-year accommodation bursary that has changed lives.

    Why accommodation matters

    For care-experienced and estranged students, the cost of living on campus can be a major obstacle. UoN’s analysis revealed that these students were disproportionately opting for cheaper, off-campus housing – often in poorer conditions and far from academic spaces. This not only isolated them from student life but also correlated with lower degree outcomes compared to peers who lived on campus.

    The solution was bold: cover 365 days of accommodation costs for the first year of study, whether in catered halls or self-catered options. By partnering with third-party providers and embedding strong support mechanisms, we were able to develop a comprehensive package of support for care experienced and estranged students. Critical to this was ensuring that the bursary was non-competitive and universally available to eligible students – we wanted to create the opportunity to welcome all care experienced and estranged students who met our eligibility criteria and wanted to study at the University of Nottingham. The goal was not just financial relief but a holistic transition into university life – setting our students up for success.

    Beyond the bursary

    The scheme goes far beyond paying rent. From pre-entry needs assessments and liaising with local authorities to welcome events and starter packs, we designed a programme that recognises the emotional and practical challenges care experienced and estranged students face. Initiatives like “NottingHome for the Holidays” during winter vacation and solidarity events during Estranged Student Week foster community and belonging.

    Support continues throughout the year: exam preparation, wellbeing interventions, and help with second-year housing – including covering costs for guarantor services. The summer BBQ for care experienced and estranged students is a joyful and emotionally rewarding event to see a cohort come together to celebrate their first year.

    This is underpinned by staff who really care and want the best for these students. None of this would be possible without such incredible people. The UoN models puts our people in theposition to make a difference.

    Impact on recruitment and retention

    The results speak volumes. Applications from care-experienced students have risen since the bursary’s introduction, and enrolment rates have improved significantly. Living on campus has been shown, through regression analysis by UoN’s Digital Research Service, to increase the likelihood of degree completion among bursary recipients. With a 92% increase in care experienced and estranged students choosing on campus accommodation we are confident in the success outcomes of these students once they graduate.  This mirrors findings from the Unite Foundation scholarship programme, reinforcing the transformative power of secure, inclusive accommodation.

    Financial stress remains a critical issue for care experienced and estranged students nationally – this was something we heard consistently in focus groups with this group of students. The recent analysis of HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey shows that this group of students work at least 2+hours more in paid work than their peers. At Nottingham, 98% of respondents said the bursary was essential to continuing their studies.

    One first-year student summed it up:

    I don’t have to worry about getting a job on top of my studies this year because of my accommodation bursary.

    Wellbeing and belonging

    The impact goes beyond numbers. Students report feeling part of campus life, joining societies, using sports facilities and building friendships. Reduced working hours mean more time for study and social engagement, which in turn supports mental health and academic success. UoN’s commitment was recognised with the NNECL Quality Mark, awarded “Exceptional” for both pre-enrolment support and student wellbeing.

    Lessons for the sector

    What can other universities learn from Nottingham’s approach? First, that accommodation is not a luxury – it’s a foundation for success. Second, that financial support must be paired with pastoral care and community-building. Finally, that schemes should be flexible, extending help to students who become estranged after enrolment.

    As higher education grapples with cost-of-living pressures, Nottingham’s model offers a template and example for meaningful change. By investing in accommodation and wraparound support, universities can turn access into success for some of the most vulnerable students in our system.

    You can find out more about accommodation scholarships and wider support for care experienced and estranged students through the Unite Foundation’s Blueprint framework – supporting your institution to in building a safe and stable home for care experienced and estranged students, improving retention and attainment outcomes.  

    Source link

  • Increasing Awareness and Access to Emergency Aid

    Increasing Awareness and Access to Emergency Aid

    Many college students struggle to pay for college and living expenses, which can threaten their ability to remain enrolled and graduate.

    A 2025 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found that 42 percent of students identified financial constraints as the biggest challenge to their academic success, followed by the need to work while attending school. This was particularly true for students over 25 and those attending a two-year or public institution.

    An unexpected cost can be detrimental to a student’s retention; one-third of Student Voice respondents indicated that an unplanned expense of $1,000 or less would threaten their ability to stay in college. A Trellis Strategies survey found that 56 percent of students would have trouble obtaining $500 in cash or credit to meet an unexpected expense.

    However, nearly two in three Student Voice respondents indicated they’re unsure whether their college offers emergency aid, and only 5 percent said they had access to emergency aid.

    During a session at Student Success US 2025, hosted last week by Inside Higher Ed and Times Higher Education in Atlanta, Georgia, Bryan Ashton, Trellis’s chief strategy and growth officer, outlined some of the challenges colleges and universities face in building awareness and capacity regarding emergency aid resources for students.

    What it is: Emergency aid can be administered in four different ways: a one-time disbursement, completion aid, emergency support resources and cash transfers, Ashton said.

    The first is the most traditional understanding of emergency aid, in which a student needs financial assistance to meet an unexpected cost such as a flat tire, medical bill or broken laptop.

    Completion aid is delivered most often to students a few credits shy of graduating to ensure they’re able to finish their credential, with the understanding that it provides incremental revenue to the institution.

    In some cases, institutions don’t provide funding directly to the student but help address financial insecurity through just-in-time resources, including housing vouchers or partnerships with social services.

    And, increasingly, emergency aid comes in the form of regular cash transfers. One example is for student caregivers or parenting students who may be paying for childcare. “We transfer an amount of money to them every month that isn’t necessarily for childcare, but it’s earmarked to help offset expenses related to increased cost of attendance that a student’s having [to pay],” Ashton explained.

    During the COVID-19 pandemic, many campuses distributed emergency aid to students using dollars from the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), which proved largely successful in promoting student persistence.

    Analysis of HEERF distribution showed the dollars helped over 18 million students remain enrolled, with 90 percent of institutions crediting the funding for aiding at-risk students in making progress toward their degree. A review of HEERF distributions at Southern New Hampshire University found that students were statistically more likely to stay enrolled if they received HEERF dollars, compared to their peers who didn’t.

    Pandemic aid for colleges and universities has since ended, but many campuses continue to provide small grants to address students’ immediate financial needs, often relying on philanthropic donations.

    Best practices: Ashton offered some practical insights and takeaways for colleges and universities looking to improve their emergency aid practices on campus.

    • Create a clearly defined approval process. One of the challenges with HEERF was that colleges had various implementation models for how the money was dispersed, where it was housed and when students would become eligible for funds, Ashton said. As a result, some colleges dispersed aid within days of getting the funds, whereas others waited until the last second. Colleges should establish clear and consistent policies for fund distribution and eligibility to ensure maximum reach and impact, he said.
    • Build a support network. Staff should connect emergency aid to other available resources, which can create a more holistic look at student financial well-being. “It shouldn’t just be that the student gets $500 but it also should be, are we looking at that student for public benefit eligibility?” Ashton said. “Are we looking at that student for housing and security risks? Are we looking at other things that we can try to match and mirror as part of that process?” Creating a centralized physical hub on campus can be one way to do this.
    • Quickly disperse funds. If the student is in a true emergency, providing funding before they leave higher education should be a top priority. “We don’t want that student talking to two or three committees, regurgitating a story, reliving trauma … that they’re not waiting a week for someone to make the payment,” Ashton said. One way to do this is for the institution to directly pay the claim, such as for a healthcare cost.
    • Leverage student stories. HEERF established a clear precedent for the role emergency aid plays in student retention, and colleges and universities should amplify that fact to advance fundraising, Ashton said. “There’s a really strong narrative around the desire to keep that student in school.”
    • Empower faculty and staff. Student Voice data shows that a majority of college students are unaware of emergency aid resources available on campus. Increasing awareness among student-facing campus members, including faculty and staff, can help close this gap.

    Source link

  • DOJ targets college access for undocumented students in 6th lawsuit

    DOJ targets college access for undocumented students in 6th lawsuit

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Justice has sued six states over laws that allow in-state tuition rates and scholarships for students regardless of their immigration status. The latest legal challenge was filed Thursday against California for its “California Dream Act.”
    • The lawsuit seeks to enjoin California laws that allow state residents to receive in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. The lawsuits — also filed against Minnesota, Texas, Kentucky, Illinois and Oklahoma — could impact tuition for dual enrollment, adult education, and career and technical education training programs. 
    • “Federal law prohibits aliens illegally present in the United States from receiving in-state tuition benefits that are denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens,” the Justice Department said in its lawsuit, which is challenging the states under the supremacy clause. “There are no exceptions.” 

    Dive Insight:

    The lawsuits come in light of a February executive order prohibiting federal resources for undocumented immigrants and as the U.S. Department of Education has implemented the order to restrict education-related programs. 

    As part of those restrictions, which were part of a coordinated effort across agencies, students could be required to undergo a citizenship and immigration status check to qualify for tuition for dual enrollment and similar early college programs for high-schoolers. 

    According to the Trump administration, that’s “because those programs provide individualized payments or assistance beyond that of a basic public education.” 

    The administration’s implementation of the executive order also restricted Head Start, the federal early childhood education program meant to level the playing field for low-income families, to “American citizens.” That policy change was successfully challenged in court in multiple lawsuits and is currently on pause in states that sued the government.

    However, other program areas impacted by the Education Department’s enforcement of the order are still in effect in some places, including high school students’ eligibility for college-level and career courses.

    “California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens,” said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a Thursday statement, adding that her department “will continue bringing litigation against California until the state ceases its flagrant disregard for federal law.”

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office, however, called the DOJ’s efforts “meritless, politically motivated lawsuits.” 

    “Good luck, Trump,” said Marissa Saldivar, Newsom’s spokesperson, in an email to K-12 Dive. “We’ll see you in court.”

    The office maintains that its tuition exemption applies to all residents who meet the criteria, regardless of where they were born, and it is not discriminating against U.S. citizens. 

    Out of the states sued so far, Texas and Oklahoma have complied, with Texas suddenly ending a 24-year-old law within hours of the Justice Department filing a lawsuit in June. 

    Prior to the Justice Department’s lawsuits, 25 states and the District of Columbia allowed in-state tuition for undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, which tracks the issue. That number has fallen to 22 in addition to Washington, D.C.

    There are an estimated 620,000 undocumented K-12 students in the United States, with most states home to thousands of such students, according to 2021 data from Fwd.us. 

    According to federal data, nearly 2.5 million high school students were enrolled in at least one dual enrollment course from a college or university in 2022-23.

    Source link

  • Shields Media Commons opens to expand multimedia access at University Park

    Shields Media Commons opens to expand multimedia access at University Park

    To meet the growing demand for multimedia services at the Pattee Library Media Commons, a new location has officially opened in Shields Building on Penn State’s University Park campus.

    The Penn State community is invited to an open house from 1 to 4 p.m. on Monday, Nov. 10, at the Shields Media Commons, 22 Shields Building.  Attendees may stop by anytime during the event to explore the new space and get hands-on with the technology. Interested participants can add the open house to their calendars from the TLT event page.

    Source link

  • Podcast: Access, governance, festival vibes

    Podcast: Access, governance, festival vibes

    This week on the podcast, live from our Festival in London, we discuss access and social mobility as the Office for Students reshuffles its leadership, and the Sutton Trust publishes a new report that paints a sobering picture.

    Plus we discuss university governance and our new paper for the Post-18 Project, and we capture the vibes from our event, from the best quotes to the big debates shaping the sector’s future.

    With Alistair Jarvis, Chief Executive at Advance HE, Janet Lord, Deputy Pro Vice Chancellor for Education at Manchester Metropolitan University, and Michael Salmon, News Editor at Wonkhe – and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Sutton Trust: Degrees of Difference

    OfS: Director for Fair Access and Participation steps down from regulator

    Earning the license: How to reform university governance in the UK

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link