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.
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.
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.
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.
An initial response to yesterday’s Curriculum and Assessment Review from HEPI Director, Nick Hillman, is available on the HEPI website here.
Today’s blog was kindly authored by Martin Webster, Director of the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON). It is the fifth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the Post-16 Education and Skills white paper. You can find the other blogs here, here, here, and here.
Since the Labour Party formed the Government in 2024, things have undoubtedly changed for higher education and specifically widening access. At the Labour Party Conference in 2024, there was a feeling of optimism with the Minister for Skills, the Rt Hon Baroness Smith, describing widening access as the Government’s number one priority for higher education. We now have a Government that not only believes in the importance of higher education but is putting a new emphasis on both expanding access and improving the outcomes of disadvantaged students.
This ambition for widening access has now been crystallised in the recently published Post 16 Education and Skills white paper, which lays out the key steps that will be taken, the main ones being:
increasing the maintenance loan in line with forecast inflation each academic year.
introducing the Lifelong Learning Entitlement to include modular funding, for both full and part-time study.
reintroducing targeted, means-tested maintenance grants by the end of this Parliament.
reforming the regulation of access and participation plans to allow an approach where the Office for Students (OfS) can be more risk-based with an expectation that providers will continue to strengthen evaluation.
bringing together a Task and Finish group of sector experts, charities, OfS, and UCAS to consider how the system can best widen access.
demonstrating a commitment to widening access to postgraduate level studies.
All of the above demonstrate the importance that the current Government are placing upon widening access and lays out their expectations for change, a change to a more equitable higher education system. Whilst there may be some who critique some of the steps outlined, and may feel they do not go far enough, if the higher education sector can make these changes, we will end up producing better outcomes for disadvantaged learners.
But…
Westminster, we have a problem
It is no secret that the higher education sector is under pressure with providers trying their hardest to ensure they can maximise efficiency from limited resources. Nowhere has this been felt more keenly than within widening access. Over the past couple of years, the National Education Opportunities Network (NEON) started to hear anecdotes from our members about ‘efficiency measures’ that were being taken. These ranged from recruitment freezes on their teams and reductions in dedicated budgets to staffing reorganisations where certain roles, and in some cases whole widening access teams, were being put at risk of redundancy. In the spring of 2025, we therefore surveyed NEON members in order to try to ascertain a more accurate picture of the extent of the problem.
Thirty six of our members responded, and whilst the results may not be statistically significant, they indicate a concerning trend. For the 2025/26 financial year 58% reported a reduced level of financial resources for widening access, and 58% reported a reduced level of staffing resources.
Even within NEON we have seen some of our members unable to renew their membership with us, not because they do not feel their membership is not giving them and their colleagues benefits, but because they have so little available budget that they cannot afford, or are not allowed to invest in, the relatively modest subscription amount.
These findings should concern both the Government and policymakers. Despite being the number one priority for higher education, widening access budgets are being diverted within institutions, sometimes due not to a lack of commitment, but due to necessity. Staffing is being cut and, in one case that we know of, this has included the removal of dedicated evaluation colleagues, an area that the Government are placing even greater emphasis upon. Higher education providers have made a range of commitments in their Access and Participation Plans, and those commitments are at serious risk of not being met.
As one anonymous NEON lead member stated in their response to our survey:
It is increasingly difficult to prioritise widening access activity over such things as recruitment activity when the University’s most pressing need is to balance the books. The resource for widening access will be reduced and we will simply be unable to maintain the level of current activity. This will of course have a disproportionately negative impact on under-represented and hard to reach groups.
Another NEON lead member commented:
The reduction in [institutional] funding means we’re only able to reach a fraction of the disadvantaged learners who would benefit from our outreach offer – we’re currently working with approximately 40% of the schools in our region due to capacity. Of the remaining 60%, over 50% of those have average or higher than average numbers of PP learners.
The Task and Finish group will undoubtedly come up with an excellent set of recommendations, but the reality is that, on the ground, there are even fewer colleagues to deliver the important work that is taking place across England to ensure it is effectively evaluated. Steps need to be taken now to ensure widening access is protected and that providers can support the Government’s ambitions.
So what should the Task and Finish group consider?
ensuring that funding for widening access is ring-fenced and subject to further accountability measures;
establishing an expectation that all providers work with learners across all age groups, from primary school level up to and including mature learners;
considering how the evaluation of access and success initiatives can be strengthened for all providers, including small specialist providers, through a regional approach delivered by collaborative partnerships;
considering how widening access can be established as a strategic driver within schools and colleges; and
developing greater, direct communication between the Department for Education and higher education providers to ensure the Government’s strategic priorities are being met and greater understanding can be developed.
Widening access is at a crossroads. We can stand by and watch progress continue to wane away, or we can put measures in place to continue to build upon the hard of work of colleagues across the higher education sector and improve equitable access and success.
It is the second blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the first blog here.
Despite the post-16 education and skills white paper devoting an entire sub-section to ‘Improving Access and Participation’, the genuine challenges facing students receive minimal attention. The skills agenda within the Government is so strong that the paper frames students, and the student experience, in terms of their potential future contribution to the economy and regional growth. This results in little attempt to understand and address the student experience and the very real challenges that students are currently facing.
A shift to the skills agenda
The Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) takes up several bullet points within this section of the paper. In fact, the decision to categorise the LLE under the heading of access provides an interesting insight into the Government’s broader approach to access and participation. Considering the LLE as a subsection of this initiative reframes the focus of access from entrance to higher education to employment outcomes and progression throughout a person’s life. This shift is an idea repeated throughout the white paper that dovetails with the Government’s skills agenda. It indicates that the Government views higher education as a means to add future value to the economy and a tool through which its Industrial Strategy can be furthered. This approach leaves little room for those subjects and disciplines that fall outside the strategy, let alone for learning for its own sake.
Both modular LLE courses and the newly announced maintenance grants (as announced within the white paper, and previously at the Labour Party Conference) are available only to those studying courses that link to the Government’s wider Industrial Strategy. As may be easily guessed, this results in a list of subjects that largely dovetail with the science and technology sectors – arts and humanities subjects don’t get a look in. Tying maintenance grants to the study of pre-approved science subjects risks disincentivising students from low-income backgrounds from pursuing arts and humanities subjects – potentially entrenching bias and elitism within this sector, as well as furthering the narrative of ‘Mickey Mouse degrees’. As the costs of studying at university continue to rise, some prospective students will struggle to justify studying the subject of their choice if it means losing out on access to maintenance grants. Many of these excluded subjects are already in crisis – as the HEPI / Duolingo report The Language Crisis: Arresting Decline demonstrates, undergraduate enrolments in ‘Language & Area Studies’ have decreased by 20% in five years. Disincentivising students from taking these courses will surely only deepen this crisis further.
These criticisms do not mean the LLE and the reintroduction of maintenance grants are bad policies. The latter is a particularly welcome development that has long been campaigned for by HEPI and the National Union of Students. However, the limited nature of their current form limits the positive impact they could otherwise have. While there is no current clarification on the precise threshold that will be placed on access to maintenance grants, the Government’s lack of movement on the parental income thresholds within the student finance system likely means only a very small number of students will be eligible.
When first announcing this policy at the Labour Party conference, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson claimed that the reintroduction of maintenance grants would ensure students spent their time at university ‘learning or training, not working every hour God sends’. This perhaps suggests that maintenance grants will be available in addition to, not instead of, the maintenance loan for those eligible students, although we keenly await the detail which will be outlined by the Chancellor in the upcoming Budget. However, this doesn’t solve the deepening financial crisis facing a large number of students in higher education – many of whom simply will not be eligible for the new maintenance grants.
HEPI’s research into the Minimum Income Standard for Students highlights how the current maximum maintenance loan covers just half of the costs faced by freshers. Furthermore, the parental income threshold for eligibility for the maximum loan is currently so out of touch that a student from a household with a single parent earning just above the minimum wage will not be eligible for the maximum loan. The Government has sought to highlight that maintenance loans will increase in line with forecast inflation for every academic year, but this is merely a continuation of the current policy and will not address the financial crisis that many students face. Plus, forecast inflation tends to be lower than actual inflation. Similarly, the promise that care leavers will automatically become eligible to receive the maximum rate of loan is also a reiteration of a policy already in place. Care leavers (and estranged students) are classified as independent and therefore are eligible for the maximum loan. To reiterate, this maximum loan covers only half of the costs these students will face while at university.
Postgraduate access
The inclusion of postgraduate access in the white paper is a welcome addition – and an unsurprising one when considering how this white paper has framed access in terms of career progression and skills. However, once more, the inclusion of postgraduate students within access goals falls short due to a failure to address the root causes of the widening crises for home postgraduate students in England. Postgraduate taught tuition fees now exceed the maximum postgraduate loan – meaning that a student has used up their entire loan before even considering their cost of living.
Instead of engaging with this, the paper encourages providers to include postgraduate study in their Access and Participation Plans (APP). This is, in itself, a positive development; however, without addressing the financial barriers faced by many prospective postgraduate students, this inclusion will have very limited impact.
The access and participation section of the post-16 education and skills white paper provides an insight into how this Government conceives of these issues. However, the focus on students as future employees paints a worrying picture of a Government that is more concerned with next steps than with higher education itself.
Brazil exited the age of slavery 135 years ago. It remains a multi-racial society today. But for much of the twentieth century, Brazil suffered an enormous bout of amnesia. From being one of the last societies on earth to give up slavery, it immediately began touting itself as a place where colour did not matter, that it was a post-racial society.
But then about 30 years ago, things changed. Race — or more accurately race and inequality — became a much more prominent subject of debate, and various measures were brought in to lessen racial inequality. In higher education, however, Brazil did not however take the path of “affirmative action” as the United States did. Instead: it went the route India did with respect to caste: hard, fixed numerical quotas.
Today we’re going to look at how that this policy has worked out, and joining me to do so is Luiz Augusto Campos: He’s a professor of sociology and Political science at the State University of Rio de Janeiro, and he’s co-editor of a recent book on quotas in Brazilian higher education called O impacto das cotas: Duas decadasde acao affirmativano Ensino superior brasileiro. We had a great discussions about how Brazilian admissions quotas came to be and how they have change higher education. Of particular interest to me is that these quotas were imposed in some of the country’s most elite institutions — and how the arrival of quotas has managed to make policies of free tuition at elite institutions much less regressive.
The World of Higher Education Podcast Episode 4.7 | Access and Aftermath: What Racial Quotas Changed in Brazil’s Universities with Luiz Augusto Campos
Transcript
Alex Usher (AU): Luiz, before we start talking about quotas in higher education, let’s paint a picture of race in Brazil. Like the United States, Brazil was a colonial slave state—one where emancipation didn’t happen until 1888. But for a long time, there was a kind of myth that Brazil had become a post-racial society, one where people didn’t see race. So, what are the politics of race like in Brazil, and what’s changed over, say, the last 50 years?
Luiz Augusto Campos (LAC): That’s true, and I can say that almost everything has changed in recent years. At the beginning, Brazil was portrayed as a racial democracy—the idea that people in Brazil don’t see race and that there’s no racism. It’s complicated to understand how a country that was completely slave-based in the past could create this myth.
The myth was actually quite successful in the sense that most Brazilians used to believe it. It’s connected to how people viewed our history of slavery. In the past, people used to say that Brazilian slavery was a kind of soft slavery compared to other countries. Historians now show that’s not true, but that was how people saw it.
It was also tied to the myth of miscegenation—the idea that every Brazilian was of mixed race. And if everyone was mixed race, there was supposedly no place for racism, because you couldn’t practice racism against someone who was mixed, as everyone was.
But after 50 or 60 years, this national myth started to change—first because of the rise of the Black movement, which began to call out racism in Brazil, and later because of data on racial inequality. We’ve historically had very good data on race in Brazil—it’s a kind of legacy from the 18th century, through censuses and demographic records.
Those numbers began to show that, despite this idea of racial democracy, racial inequality remained deeply entrenched in Brazil, right up until the end of the 1990s. I think those two things—the activism of the Black movement and the hard data—really contributed to changing people’s belief in the myth of racial democracy.
AU: Just to be clear, when you talk about data on race, how is race classified? I don’t think it’s just white and Black, right? How does that work?
LAC: It’s changed over time, but we generally work with five racial categories. Even today, the Brazilian census is quite good. When a census worker comes to your house, they’ll ask you to identify your race using one of five options: Black, Brown, White, Yellow—which refers to Brazilians of Asian descent—and Indigenous.
That last category isn’t meant for people with distant Indigenous ancestry, but rather for those who actually live within Indigenous communities.
AU: Within higher education, how did race historically affect access? How big were the participation gaps between racial groups prior to the introduction of quotas?
LAC: The differences were huge. At the beginning of the 1990s, about 70 percent of students in public higher education were white. And it’s important to note that Brazil has both a public and a private higher education system.
AU: Right—and even though the private system is larger, the public system is the more selective and prestigious one. That’s where people want to go, correct?
LAC: Exactly. The private system is much bigger, but the public system is more selective, higher quality, and more prestigious.
At the start of the 1990s, around 70 percent of enrollments in the public system were white students. That was a real injustice, because the public system is completely tuition-free. So essentially, the government was collecting taxes from the majority of the population—who are largely Brown, Black, and poor—and using that money to fund the education of white students, who mostly came from middle- and upper-class backgrounds.
AU: Let me just ask—if about 70 percent of students in public higher education were white, how did that compare to the population as a whole?
LAC: In Brazil, the population has usually been about half white and half non-white. At the beginning of the 1990s, around 57 percent of people self-identified as white, but they made up about 70 percent of students in public universities.
It’s interesting, though, because racial classification in Brazil has also shifted over time—the proportions of people identifying as white, Black, or Brown have changed. But to answer your question directly, today less than 50 percent of students in public higher education are white. Black and Brown students now make up the majority in the public system.
AU: Let’s think about how we got there. In the 1980s and 1990s, as you said, racial politics started to change across Brazil. People realized this wasn’t really a racial democracy. How did quotas become the tool for achieving racial justice, rather than affirmative action as practiced in the United States at the time?
LAC: It’s a really complex process—and not one that was carefully planned.
First, we had the earliest proposals coming from the Black movement, mostly from an important Black leader in Brazil who was a congressman at the time. He introduced several bills for affirmative action, most of them based on quotas, though they included other ideas as well—such as direct financial support for Black Brazilians and other measures. But the core idea of quotas was already there in the early 1980s.
After that, we saw the rise of a movement creating preparatory courses for university entrance exams. In Brazil, admission to public universities is based on a standardized test, and these prep courses were designed by Black activists to help Black, Brown, and low-income students prepare for it.
The first actual quota policy began at my own university—the State University of Rio de Janeiro—at the beginning of the 2000s. Interestingly, the counselor who approved the quota system was from a right-wing party. He wasn’t necessarily a racial justice advocate; he was just a politician looking for proposals to champion, and this was one he decided to push through.
From that point onward, other universities began to adopt and replicate the model. Today, Brazil likely has the largest racial quota system in the world.
AU: So, how did we go from a situation in the 1980s and 1990s, where a few institutions were experimenting with quotas, to a point where the federal government actually mandated them for all federal universities in 2012? What led up to that decision, and how does the current quota system work?
LAC: It’s a complex story. In the beginning, there was fierce opposition to quotas in Brazil. Even intellectuals and public figures who had long supported anti-racist efforts criticized the quota system when it was first proposed.
At the same time, there were also important groups supporting these policies, but the federal government initially stayed on the sidelines. During Lula’s first two terms, he was personally supportive of such initiatives, but because the topic was so controversial, his government took a cautious approach. They said, “We need to wait—this is a divisive issue,” and chose not to sponsor a national quota bill for higher education at that stage.
However, during Lula’s broader reform of the higher education system, the government did introduce incentives for universities to adopt diversity policies. And for many institutions, quotas were simply the most practical approach—bureaucratically, they’re straightforward to implement. You just reserve a certain percentage of seats, and that’s it.
The Black movement also played a critical role. Activists developed strategies and frameworks to encourage universities to adopt quotas, and because Brazilian universities enjoy a high degree of autonomy, many were able to introduce these policies on their own.
AU: My understanding is that the quota system is actually a kind of two-level structure. The main rule is that 50 percent of students must come from public secondary schools, and then within that, there are race-based quotas that vary depending on the region—since, I assume, the racial makeup of Brazil isn’t homogenous across the country.
LAC: Exactly. First, it’s important to understand that Brazil’s quota system is primarily socioeconomic. The first criterion is that 50 percent of students admitted to public universities must come from public schools. On average, public schools in Brazil are of lower quality than private schools. You don’t pay to attend them, but the quality is generally weaker.
Within that 50 percent, there’s another socioeconomic division: 25 percent of seats are reserved for students from lower-income backgrounds, and 25 percent for students from higher-income backgrounds who still attended public schools.
Then, inside those categories, there are racial quotas. And as you said, the racial proportions vary by state, depending on the local population.
AU: It’s now been a couple of decades since quotas were first introduced, and 13 years since the federal law came into effect. You mentioned earlier that there’s been a significant narrowing of racial access gaps. How substantial has that change been?
LAC: In terms of access, it’s very significant. Today, we can say that Brazilian universities are truly Black and Brown universities. If you visit a campus in Brazil now, you’ll see far more Black and Brown students than in the past.
That said, there are still limits and challenges. While the public higher education system has changed dramatically in both racial and socioeconomic terms, it remains quite small compared to the private sector. In the 1990s, the public system made up almost half of Brazil’s entire higher education system. Today, it accounts for only about 20 percent.
AU: What about graduation rates? It’s one thing to get into university, but as you mentioned, students from public secondary schools might not have had the same preparation. Has the system been able to adjust to ensure that racial minorities are graduating at the same rate as white students?
LAC: In terms of graduation, the rates are quite similar. Black and Brown students now graduate at roughly the same rate as white students. But there are still differences because, even with quotas, access isn’t evenly distributed across all majors.
AU: So, there’s still stratification within the system.
LAC: Yes, exactly. Because racial quotas exist within the broader socioeconomic quota, the share of seats reserved for Black and Brown students ends up being about half of their proportion in the overall Brazilian population.
As a result, in some programs—especially in the less selective ones—you might see 50 or 60 percent of students identifying as Black or Brown. But in the most selective fields, like law or engineering, that number drops to around 20 percent.
It’s also important to note that not all quota seats are filled. Universities sometimes introduce additional requirements or special exams that can limit how these racial quotas are implemented in practice.
AU: Based on your overview of quotas and their results, is there anything you think could be improved in the system?
LAC: Yes, there’s quite a lot that could be improved. We have a new law from 2023 that made some small but important updates to the 2012 legislation. It’s a good law—I think it corrected several issues—but there are still many areas that need attention.
First, data access. In Brazil, getting access to racial data is actually harder today than it used to be. This is partly due to new data protection laws that were meant to regulate big tech companies, but in practice they’ve ended up restricting academic research instead. So, access to race-related data for research is now much worse than before.
Second, the admissions system itself is extremely complicated. Students take a national standardized exam—the ENEM—to apply for higher education. Through this unified system, they can choose from roughly 6,000 different programs across the country.
Within that, there are multiple overlapping quota categories. Besides the main racial and socioeconomic quotas, there are additional ones—like for students with disabilities—which exist inside the broader categories. Altogether, there are around 16 groups, and combining all of them within a single national admissions platform makes it very difficult to fill every quota properly.
So, while the policy framework is strong, the system still has a lot of complexity and operational challenges that need to be addressed.
AU: And what do you think the future holds for quotas in Brazilian higher education? Is there a limit to how far quotas can help narrow the access gap? And can you imagine a future in which quotas wouldn’t be needed anymore?
LAC: I can imagine that future—and I hope for it. I think we’re all working toward a world where quotas are no longer necessary. But for now, they’re still very much needed.
At the moment, the quota system itself isn’t under serious attack. What is under pressure, though, is public higher education—and really the higher education system as a whole. There’s a growing discourse, mostly from the far right, claiming that higher education isn’t necessary, that people should simply “work hard” instead.
Public universities, in particular, have become targets. Critics accuse them of being useless or of being dominated by the far left, which simply isn’t true.
To answer your question directly, I’d say the quota system in Brazil is quite stable right now. But the institutions that sustain it—especially public universities—are facing challenges. Looking ahead, I think the next step is to expand affirmative action beyond higher education, into other areas like the labor market and public institutions, where access for Black and Brown Brazilians remains limited.
AU: Luiz, thank you so much for being with us today.
LAC: Thank you. It’s my pleasure.
AU: And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Sam Pufek and Tiffany MacLennan, and you, our readers and listeners, for joining us. If you have any questions about today’s episode or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to contact us at [email protected]. Next week is a break week—but after that, we’ll be back with another fascinating conversation. Bye for now.
*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.
The sector level dashboards that cover student characteristics have a provider-level parallel – the access and participation dashboards do not have a regulatory role but are provided as evidence to support institutions develop access and participation plans.
Though much A&P activity is pre-determined – the current system pretty much insists that universities work with schools locally and address stuff highlighted in the national Equality of Outcomes Risk Register (EORR). It’s a cheeky John Blake way of embedding a national agenda into what are meant to be provider level plans (that, technically, unlock the ability to charge fees up to the higher level) but it could also be argued that provider specific work (particularly on participation measures rather than access) has been underexamined.
The A&P dashboards are a way to focus attention on what may end up being institutionally bound problems – the kinds of things that providers can fix, and quickly, rather than the socio-economic learning revolution end of things that requires a radicalised cadre of hardened activists to lead and inspire the proletariat, or something.
We certainly don’t get any detailed mappings between numeric targets declared in individual plans and the data – although my colleague Jim did have a go at that a while ago. Instead this is just the raw information for you to examine, hopefully in an easier to use and speedier fashion than the official version (which requires a user guide, no less)
Fun with indicators
There are four dashboards here, covering most of what OfS presents in the mega-board. Most of what I’ve done examines four year aggregations rather than individual years (though there is a timeseries at provider level), I’ve just opted for the 95 per cent confidence interval to show the significance of indicator values, and there’s a few other minor pieces that I’ve not bothered with or set a sensible default on.
I know that nobody reads this for data dashboard design tips, but for me a series of simpler dashboards are far more useful to the average reader than a single behemoth that can do anything – and the way HESA presents (in the main) very simple tables or plain charts to illustrate variations across the sector represents to me a gold standard for provider level data. OfS is a provider of official statistics, and as such is well aware that section V3.1 of the code of practice requires that:
Statistics, data and explanatory material should be relevant and presented in a clear, unambiguous way that supports and promotes use by all types of users
And I don’t think we are quite there yet with what we have, while the simple release of a series of flat tables might get us closer
If you like it you should have put a confidence interval on it
To start with, here is a tool for constructing ranked displays of providers against a single metric – here defined as a life cycle stage (access, continuation, completion, attainment, progression) expressed as a percentage of successful achievements for a given subgroup.
Choose your split indicator type on the top right, and the actual indicator on the top right – select the life cycle stage on the box in the middle, and set mode and level (note certain splits and stages may only be available for certain modes and levels). You can highlight a provider of interest using the box on the bottom right, and also find an overall sector average by searching on “*”. The colours show provider group, and the arrows are upper and lower confidence bounds at the standard 95 per cent level.
You’ll note that some of the indicators show intersections – with versions of multiple indicators shown together. This allows you to look at, say, white students from a more deprived background. The denominator in the tool tip is the number students in that population, not the number of students where data is available.
I’ve also done a version allowing you to look at all single indicators at a provider level – which might help you to spot particular outliers that may need further analysis. Here, each mark is a split indicator (just the useful ones, I’ve omitted stuff like “POLAR quintiles 1,2,4, and 5” which is really only worth bothering with for gap analysis), you can select provider, mode, and level at the top and highlight a split group (eg “Age (broad)”) or split (eg “Mature aged 21 and over”).
Note here that access refers to the proportion of all entrants from a given sub-group, so even though I’ve shown it on the same axis for the sake of space it shows a slightly different thing – the other lifecycle stages relate to a success (be that in continuation, progression or whatever) based on how OfS defines “success”.
As you’ve probably spotted from the first section, to really get things out of this data you need to compare splits with other relevant splits. We are talking, then, about gaps – on any of the lifecycle stages – between two groups of students. The classic example is the attainment gap between white and Black students, but you can have all kinds of gaps.
This first one is across a single provider, and for the four lifecycle stages (this time, we don’t get access) you can select your indicator type and two indicators to get the gap between them (mode, and level, are at the bottom of the screen). When you set your two split, the largest or most common group tends to be on indicator 1 – that’s just the way the data is designed.
As a quick context you can look for “*” again on the provider name filter to get sector averages, but I’ve also built a sector ranking to help you put your performance in context with similar providers.
This is like a cross between the single ranking and the provider-level gaps analysis – you just need to set the two splits in the same way.
The four year aggregates are handy for most applications, but as you being to drill in you are going to start wondering about individual years – are things getting gradually worse or gradually better? Here I’ve plotted all the individual year data we get – which is, of course, different for each lifecycle stage (because of when data becomes available). This is at a provider level (filter on the top right) and I’ve included confidence intervals at 95 per cent in a lighter colour.
In an age defined by digital transformation, access to reliable, high-speed internet is not a luxury; it is the bedrock of opportunity. It impacts the school classroom, the doctor’s office, the town square and the job market.
As we stand on the cusp of a workforce revolution driven by the “arrival technology” of artificial intelligence, high-speed internet access has become the critical determinant of our nation’s economic future. Yet, for millions of Americans, this essential connection remains out of reach.
This digital divide is a persistent crisis that deepens societal inequities, and we must rally around one of the most effective tools we have to combat it: the Universal Service Fund. The USF is a long-standing national commitment built on a foundation of bipartisan support and born from the principle that every American, regardless of their location or income, deserves access to communications services.
Without this essential program, over 54 million students, 16,000 healthcare providers and 7.5 million high-need subscribers would lose internet service that connects classrooms, rural communities (including their hospitals) and libraries to the internet.
The discussion about the future of USF has reached a critical juncture: Which communities will have access to USF, how it will be funded and whether equitable access to connectivity will continue to be a priority will soon be decided.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court found the USF’s infrastructure to be constitutional — and a backbone for access and opportunity in this country. Congress recently took a significant next step by relaunching a bicameral, bipartisan working group devoted to overhauling the fund. Now they are actively seeking input from stakeholders on how to best modernize this vital program for the future, and they need our input.
I’m urging everyone who cares about digital equity to make their voices heard. The window for our input in support of this vital connectivity infrastructure is open through September 15.
While Universal Service may appear as only a small fee on our monthly phone bills, its impact is monumental. The fund powers critical programs that form a lifeline for our nation’s most vital institutions and vulnerable populations. The USF helps thousands of schools and libraries obtain affordable internet — including the school I founded in downtown Brooklyn. For students in rural towns, the E-Rate program, funded by the USF, allows access to the same online educational resources as those available to students in major cities. In schools all over the country, the USF helps foster digital literacy, supports coding clubs and enables students to complete homework online.
By wiring our classrooms and libraries, we are investing in the next generation of innovators.
The coming waves of technological change — including the widespread adoption of AI — threaten to make the digital divide an unbridgeable economic chasm. Those on the wrong side of this divide experienced profound disadvantages during the pandemic. To get connected, students at my school ended up doing homework in fast-food parking lots. Entire communities lost vital connections to knowledge and opportunity when libraries closed.
But that was just a preview of the digital struggle. This time, we have to fight to protect the future of this investment in our nation’s vital infrastructure to ensure that the rising wave of AI jobs, opportunities and tools is accessible to all.
AI is rapidly becoming a fundamental tool for the American workforce and in the classroom. AI tools require robust bandwidth to process data, connect to cloud platforms and function effectively.
The student of tomorrow will rely on AI as a personalized tutor that enhances teacher-led classroom instruction, explains complex concepts and supports their homework. AI will also power the future of work for farmers, mechanics and engineers.
Without access to AI, entire communities and segments of the workforce will be locked out. We will create a new class of “AI have-nots,” unable to leverage the technology designed to propel our economy forward.
The ability to participate in this new economy, to upskill and reskill for the jobs of tomorrow, is entirely dependent on the one thing the USF is designed to provide: reliable connectivity.
The USF is also critical for rural health care by supporting providers’ internet access and making telehealth available in many communities. It makes internet service affordable for low-income households through its Lifeline program and the Connect America Fund, which promotes the construction of broadband infrastructure in rural areas.
The USF is more than a funding mechanism; it is a statement of our values and a strategic economic necessity. It reflects our collective agreement that a child’s future shouldn’t be limited by their school’s internet connection, that a patient’s health outcome shouldn’t depend on their zip code and that every American worker deserves the ability to harness new technology for their career.
With Congress actively debating the future of the fund, now is the time to rally. We must engage in this process, call on our policymakers to champion a modernized and sustainably funded USF and recognize it not as a cost, but as an essential investment in a prosperous, competitive and flourishing America.
Erin Mote is the CEO and founder of InnovateEDU, a nonprofit that aims to catalyze education transformation by bridging gaps in data, policy, practice and research.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
Patients benefit from a diverse healthcare workforce. Doctors, particularly those from disadvantaged and minoritised backgrounds, play a crucial role in advocating for what is best for their patients.
The NHS recognises this, linking workforce diversity with increased patient satisfaction, better care outcomes, reduced staff turnover, and greater productivity.
A promising start
Efforts to widen participation in higher education began at the turn of the century following the Dearing report. Over time, access to medical schools gained attention due to concerns about its status as one of the most socially exclusive professions. Medical schools responded in 2014 with the launch of the Selecting for Excellence report and the establishment of the Medical Schools Council (MSC) Selection Alliance, representing admissions teams from every UK medical school and responsible for fair admissions to medical courses.
With medical school expansion under government review, institutions face increasing pressure to demonstrate meaningful progress in widening participation to secure additional places. Although medicine programmes still lag in representing some demographic groups, they now align more closely with wider higher education efforts.
However, widening participation policy often follows a deficit model, viewing disadvantaged young people as needing to be “fixed” or “topped up” before joining the profession. Phrases like “raising aspirations” suggest these students lack ambition or motivation. This model shifts responsibility onto individuals, asking them to adapt to a system shaped mainly by the experiences of white, male, middle-class groups.
Beyond access
To create real change, organisations must move beyond this model and show that students from diverse backgrounds are not only welcomed but valued for their unique perspectives and strengths. This requires a systems-based approach that rethinks every part of medical education, starting with admissions. In its recent report, Fostering Potential, the MSC reviewed a decade of widening participation in medicine. Medical schools across the UK have increased outreach, introduced gateway year courses, and implemented contextual criteria into admissions.
Contextual markers recognise structural inequalities affecting educational attainment. Students from low socioeconomic backgrounds often attend under-resourced schools and face personal challenges hindering academic performance. Yet evidence shows that, when given the chance, these students often outperform more advantaged peers at university. Contextual admissions reframe achievements in light of these challenges, offering a fairer assessment of potential.
Despite progress, access remains unequal. Although acceptance rates for students from the most deprived areas have increased, their chances remain 37 per cent lower than those from the least deprived areas. Research indicates that a two-grade A-level reduction is needed to level the playing field—an approach several schools now adopt. Other policies include fast-tracking interviews, test score uplifts, and alternative scoring for widening participation candidates.
Not just special cases
These processes, however, are often opaque and hard to navigate. Many applicants struggle to determine eligibility. With no single definition of disadvantage, medical schools use varied proxy indicators, often poorly explained online. This confusion disproportionately affects the students these policies aim to support; those without university-educated parents, lacking insider knowledge, and attending under-resourced schools.
A commitment to transparency is vital but must go beyond rhetoric. Transparency means all medical schools clearly outline contextual admissions criteria in one accessible place, provide step-by-step guides to applicants and advisors, and offer examples of how contextual data influences decisions. Medical schools could collaborate to agree on standardised metrics for identifying widening participation candidates. This would simplify eligibility understanding, reduce confusion, and promote fairness.
Tools like MSC’s entry requirements platform are a good start but must be expanded, standardised, and actively promoted to the communities that need them most. Genuine transparency empowers applicants to make informed choices, selecting schools best suited to their circumstances and maximising success chances. This also eases the burden on schools, advisors, and outreach staff who struggle to interpret inconsistent criteria.
Ultimately, moving away from the deficit model toward an open, systems-based approach is about more than fairness. It is essential for building a medical workforce that reflects society’s diversity, improving patient care, strengthening the profession, and upholding the NHS’s commitment to equity and excellence.
