Tag: afford

  • Widening participation cold spots: why we can’t afford to wait until they turn 16

    Widening participation cold spots: why we can’t afford to wait until they turn 16

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Emily Magrath, Director of Programme Development and Impact at IntoUniversity.

    After fielding a flurry of questions from the classroom of 7 and 8 year olds – ‘what is my favourite colour?’, ‘Is this a university?’, ‘Do staff sleep in the building at night?’ – we settle together to explore the question: ‘what is a career?’ Today, this looks like high-vis jackets and hard hats for civil engineers to plan the needed infrastructure for a town; paleontologists codifying discovered fossils; and foley artists creating a soundscape for a forest epic. The students identify the skills they have used and tell me their many ambitions – the room includes possible footballers, doctors, engineers, nurses, lawyers, fashion designers, a taxi driver (like his dad) and a mathematician. This is a starting point, one which gives them years to think about their future possibilities and, more importantly, to build the knowledge and skills to make them future realities. 

    The potential for talent is everywhere

    Geography has become a primary driver of inequality in the UK. Despite initiatives to widen access to university and despite increases in higher education progression rates, areas remain where progression rates and education outcomes remain persistently and stubbornly low. As recently articulated by Alan Francis OBE, Chair of the Social Mobility Commission, this continues to ‘waste talent and limit potential’ across the UK. 

    Mounting evidence is stark in emphasising the particular challenges of these areas, so-called cold spots, which are, in reality, places systematically starved of opportunity with intersecting barriers: geographical isolation; lack of or expensive transport options; lack of teacher quality; and a lack of graduate jobs. Young people from disadvantaged backgrounds who want to pursue higher education in these locations face hard choices, often commuting to university, struggling to pursue their chosen career in their local area or having to leave it behind. It is not a surprise then to see the UPP Foundation’s inquiry on Higher Education attitudes in Doncaster this year determining that for many young people university is seen as a “bad bet.”

    In the face of these challenging intersections, starting widening participation work at 16 or 17, (or even 14 or 15) is too late. Interventions beginning at these points ultimately have failed many students in these regions – approaches must be anchored from primary age. 

    Why start at primary age?

    It is clear that students from disadvantaged backgrounds face additional educational barriers. Their starting point often shows significant gaps to more advantaged peers, and without intervention, these can become entrenched well before secondary school. In 2023, the Education Policy Institute estimated the disadvantage learning gap at age 5 to be 4.6 months. This was wider than it had been prior to the pandemic. Furthermore, in some areas of deprivation, 50% of young people begin school with delayed language development.

    There are no easy solutions, but earlier intervention is essential for building learning progress, fostering positive educational experiences and supporting students to acquire necessary qualifications for progression to higher education. 

    I would like to study accounting. I want to be rich and I love maths. I would like to study at Oxford university because it’s one of the best universities 

    Year 6 student, IntoUniversity

    Alongside academic development, the implicit and explicit messaging young people hear is key. Young people are full of aspirations, but they need to hear not only how to connect these to actual pathways, but also that they can achieve them. Otherwise, their beliefs can become fixed – often in early teenage years – that university is not for ‘people like them’.

    An antidote to this is to start conversations early and normalise university spaces. I have seen powerful examples of how sustained work can make a difference: a widening participation officer telling 10 and 11 year olds that the local university was “their university,’ they were welcome to ask questions and find out what happened there; seeing toddlers at ease climbing over benches in a lecture theatre at a family learning day; and the 18 year old who told me they just assumed they would go to the city’s university because ‘you took me there every year since I was little’. 

    Building place based ecosystems

    Just after the pandemic, I met a father photographing his son in a graduation gown and mortar board at one of our primary graduation trips to a university – the culmination of a programme where students have imagined a university future for themselves. He proudly showed me photos of his older children in previous years (fortuitously aged so that none had missed out during the pandemic). This engagement with the university was a touchstone for each child and for the family.

    The children go through the programme in Year 4, 5 and 6, and so they know it’s coming, and their siblings know it’s coming. They have an aspiration, and they know about what’s next. It’s a clear message for our school. Education is a journey, it continues in Secondary school and beyond and opens up opportunities. Because it is built into our curriculum, university feels like an entitlement for them. It is available for them.

    Primary School Headteacher about IntoUniversity primary school programme

    The recent Ruskin Institute for Social Equality’s report on coastal cold spots this year similarly emphasised geography’s critical role in higher education access. It showed that, accounting for similar backgrounds, young people can experience as much as a fivefold difference in their likelihood of progressing to HE based on where they live. The report argued that a move away from ‘collaborative, place-based, cross-sector approach’ to one emphasising individual universities’ targets has not served these areas well. 

    Consistent, long-term, sustained work from an early age is the only path forward when countering the entrenched challenges of cold spot areas. These are not challenges that can be solved by one intervention, one school, one charity or one university. Young people in these places need ecosystems of sustained support and opportunities available from an early age. That is how we can shift the dial on persistently low progression rates and ensure equitable access to higher education for all young people, regardless of where they live. 

    Source link

  • We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

    The first words I uttered after successfully defending my dissertation were, “Wow, what a ride. From Head Start to Ph.D.!” Saying them reminded me where it all began: sitting cross-legged with a picture book at the Westside Head Start Center, just a few blocks from my childhood home in Jackson, Mississippi. 

    I don’t remember every detail from those early years, but I remember the feeling: I was happy at Head Start. I remember the books, the music, the joy. That five-minute bus ride from our house to the Westside Center turned out to be the shortest distance between potential and achievement. 

    And my story is not unique. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children — kids whose names we may never know, though our futures depend on them — walk through Head Start’s doors. Like me, they find structure, literacy, curiosity and belonging.  

    For many families, Head Start is the first place outside the home where a child’s potential is nurtured and celebrated. Yet, this program that builds futures and strengthens families is now under threat, and it’s imperative that we protect it. 

    Years later, while training for high school cross-country meets, I’d run past the park next to the center and pause, flooded with memories. Head Start laid the foundation for everything that followed. It gave me structure, sparked my curiosity and built my early literacy skills. It even fed my short-lived obsession with chocolate milk.  

    More than that, Head Start made me feel seen and valued. 

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education. 

    There’s a clear, unbroken line between the early lessons I learned at Head Start and the doctoral dissertation I defended decades later. Head Start didn’t just teach me my ABCs — it taught me that learning could be joyful, that I was capable and that I belonged in a classroom.  

    That belief carried me through elementary school, Yale and George Washington University and to a Ph.D. in public policy and public administration. Now, as part of my research at the Urban Institute, I’m working to expand access to high-quality early learning, because I know firsthand what a difference it makes.  

    Research backs up what my story shows: Investments in Head Start and high-quality early childhood education change lives by improving health and educational achievement in later years, and benefit the economy. Yet today there is growing skepticism about the value of Head Start, reflecting an ongoing reluctance to give early childhood education the respect it deserves.  

    If Head Start funding is cut, thousands of children — especially from communities like mine in Jackson, where families worked hard but opportunities were limited — could lose access to a program that helps level the playing field. These are the children of young parents and single parents, of working families who may not have many other options but still dare to dream big for their kids.  

    And that is why I am worried. Funding for Head Start has been under threat. Although President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would maintain Head Start funding at its current $12.3 billion, Project 2025, the influential conservative policy document, calls for eliminating the program. The administration recently announced that Head Start would no longer enroll undocumented children, which a group of Democratic attorneys general say will force some programs to close.  

    Related: Head Start is in turmoil 

    I feel compelled to speak out because, for our family, Head Start wasn’t just a preschool — it was the beginning of everything. For me, it meant a future I never could have imagined. For my mother, Head Start meant peace of mind — knowing her son was in a nurturing, educational environment during the critical developmental years. My mother, Nicole, brought character, heart and an unwavering belief in my potential — and Head Start helped carry that forward. 

    My mother was just 18 when she enrolled me in Head Start. “A young mother with big dreams and limited resources,” she recounted to me recently, adding that she had “showed up to an open house with a baby in my arms and hope in my heart.” 

    Soon afterward, Mrs. Helen Robinson, who was in charge of the Head Start in Jackson, entered our lives. She visited our home regularly, bringing books, activities and reassurance. A little yellow school bus picked me up each morning. 

    Head Start didn’t just support me, though. It also supported my mother and gave her tips and confidence. She took me to the library regularly and made sure I was always surrounded by books and learning materials that would challenge and inspire me. 

    It helped my mother and countless others like her gain insight into child development, early learning and what it means to advocate for their children’s future.  

    Twenty-five years after those early mornings when I climbed onto the Head Start bus, we both still think about how different our lives might have been without that opportunity. Head Start stood beside us, and that support changed our lives. 

    As we debate national priorities, we must ask ourselves: Can we afford to dismantle a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns? 

    My family provides living proof of Head Start’s power.  

    This isn’t just our story. It is the story of millions of others and could be the story of millions more if we choose to protect and invest in what works. 

    Travis Reginal holds a doctorate in public policy and public administration and is a graduate of the Head Start program, Yale University and George Washington University. He is a former Urban Institute researcher. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected]. 

    This story about the Head Start funding was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

    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.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Why Grad Students Can’t Afford to Ignore AI  (opinion)

    Why Grad Students Can’t Afford to Ignore AI  (opinion)

    I recently found myself staring at my computer screen, overwhelmed by the sheer pace of AI developments flooding my inbox. Contending with the flow of new tools, updated models and breakthrough announcements felt like trying to drink from a fire hose. As someone who coaches graduate students navigating their academic and professional journeys, I realized I was experiencing the same anxiety many of my students express: How do we keep up with something that’s evolving faster than we can learn?

    But here’s what I’ve come to understand through my own experimentation and reflection: The question isn’t whether we can keep up, but whether we can afford not to engage. As graduate students, you’re training to become the critical thinkers, researchers and leaders our world desperately needs. If you step back from advances in AI, you’re not just missing professional opportunities; you’re abdicating your responsibility to help shape how these powerful tools impact society.

    The Stakes Are Higher Than You Think

    The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence isn’t just a tech trend but a fundamental shift that will reshape every field, from humanities research to scientific discovery. As graduate students, you have a unique opportunity and responsibility. You’re positioned at the intersection of deep subject matter expertise and flexible thinking. You can approach AI tools with both the technical sophistication to use them effectively and the critical perspective to identify their limitations and potential harms.

    When I reflect on my own journey with AI tools, I’m reminded of my early days learning to navigate complex organizational systems. Just as I had to develop strategic thinking skills to thrive in bureaucratic environments, we now need to develop AI literacy to thrive in an AI-augmented world. The difference is the timeline: We don’t have years to adapt gradually. We have months, maybe weeks, before these tools become so embedded in professional workflows that not knowing how to use them thoughtfully becomes a significant disadvantage.

    My Personal AI Tool Kit: Tools Worth Exploring

    Rather than feeling paralyzed by the abundance of options, I’ve taken a systematic approach to exploring AI tools. I chose the tools in my current tool kit not because they’re perfect, but because they represent different ways AI can enhance rather than replace human thinking.

    • Large Language Models: Beyond ChatGPT

    Yes, ChatGPT was the breakthrough that captured everyone’s attention, but limiting yourself to one LLM is like using only one search engine. I regularly experiment with Claude for its nuanced reasoning capabilities, Gemini for its integration with Google’s ecosystem and DeepSeek for being an open-source model. Each has distinct strengths, and understanding these differences helps me choose the right tool for specific tasks.

    The key insight I’ve gained is that these aren’t just fancy search engines or writing assistants. They’re thinking partners that can help you explore ideas, challenge assumptions and approach problems from multiple angles, if you know how to prompt them effectively.

    • Executive Function Support: Goblin Tools

    One discovery that surprised me was Goblin Tools, an AI-powered suite of tools designed to support executive function. As someone who juggles multiple projects and deadlines and is navigating an invisible disability, I’ve found the task breakdown and time estimation features invaluable. For graduate students managing research, coursework and teaching responsibilities, tools like this can provide scaffolding for the cognitive load that often overwhelms even the most organized among us.

    • Research Acceleration: Elicit and Consensus

    Perhaps the most transformative tools in my workflow are Elicit and Consensus. These platforms don’t just help you find research papers, but also help you understand research landscapes, identify gaps in literature and synthesize findings across multiple studies.

    What excites me most about these tools is how they augment rather than replace critical thinking. They can surface connections you might miss and highlight contradictions in the literature, but you still need the domain expertise to evaluate the quality of sources and the analytical skills to synthesize findings meaningfully.

    • Real-Time Research: Perplexity

    Another tool that has become indispensable in my research workflow is Perplexity. What sets Perplexity apart is its ability to provide real-time, cited responses by searching the internet and academic sources simultaneously. I’ve found this particularly valuable for staying current with rapidly evolving research areas and for fact-checking information. When I’m exploring a new topic or need to verify recent developments in a field, Perplexity serves as an intelligent research assistant that not only finds relevant information but also helps me understand how different sources relate to each other. The key is using it as a starting point for deeper investigation, not as the final word on any topic.

    • Visual Communication: Beautiful.ai, Gamma and Napkin

    Presentation and visual communication tools represent another frontier where AI is making significant impact. Beautiful.ai and Gamma can transform rough ideas into polished presentations, while Napkin excels at creating diagrams and visual representations of complex concepts.

    I’ve found these tools particularly valuable not just for final presentations, but for thinking through ideas visually during the research process. Sometimes seeing your argument laid out in a diagram reveals logical gaps that weren’t apparent in text form.

    • Staying Informed: The Pivot 5 Newsletter

    With so much happening so quickly, staying informed without becoming overwhelmed is crucial. I subscribe to the Pivot 5 newsletter, which provides curated insights into AI developments without the breathless hype that characterizes much AI coverage. Finding reliable, thoughtful sources for AI news is as important as learning to use the tools themselves.

    Beyond the Chat Bots: Developing Critical AI Literacy

    Here’s where I want to challenge you to think more deeply. Most discussions about AI in academia focus on policies about chat bot use in assignments—important, but insufficient. The real opportunity lies in developing what I call critical AI literacy: understanding not just how to use these tools, but when to use them, how to evaluate their outputs and how to maintain your own analytical capabilities.

    This means approaching AI tools with the same rigor you’d apply to any research methodology. What are the assumptions built into these systems? What biases might they perpetuate? How do you verify AI-generated insights? These aren’t just philosophical questions; they’re practical skills that will differentiate thoughtful AI users from passive consumers.

    A Strategic Approach to AI Engagement

    Drawing from the strategic thinking framework I’ve advocated for in the past, here’s how I suggest you approach AI engagement:

    • Start with purpose: Before adopting any AI tool, clearly identify what problem you’re trying to solve. Are you looking to accelerate research, improve writing, manage complex projects or enhance presentations? Different tools serve different purposes.
    • Experiment systematically: Don’t try to learn everything at once. Choose one or two tools that align with your immediate needs and spend time understanding their capabilities and limitations before moving on to others.
    • Maintain critical distance: Use these tools as thinking partners, not thinking replacements. Always maintain the ability to evaluate and verify AI outputs against your own expertise and judgment.
    • Share and learn: Engage with peers about your experiences. What works? What doesn’t? What ethical considerations have you encountered? This collective learning is crucial for developing best practices.

    The Cost of Standing Still

    I want to be clear about what’s at stake. This isn’t about keeping up with the latest tech trends or optimizing productivity, even though those are benefits. It’s about ensuring that the most important conversations about AI’s role in society include the voices of critically trained, ethically minded scholars.

    If graduate students, future professors, researchers, policymakers and industry leaders retreat from AI engagement, we leave these powerful tools to be shaped entirely by technologists and venture capitalists. The nuanced understanding of human behavior, ethical frameworks and social systems that you’re developing in your graduate programs is exactly what’s needed to guide AI development responsibly.

    The pace of change isn’t slowing down. In fact, it’s accelerating. But that’s precisely why your engagement matters more, not less. The world needs people who can think critically about these tools, who understand both their potential and their perils, and who can help ensure they’re developed and deployed in ways that benefit rather than harm society.

    Moving Forward With Intention

    As you consider how to engage with AI tools, remember that this isn’t about becoming a tech expert overnight. It’s about maintaining the curiosity and critical thinking that brought you to graduate school in the first place. Start small, experiment thoughtfully and always keep your analytical mind engaged.

    The future we’re building with AI won’t be determined by the tools themselves, but by the people who choose to engage with them thoughtfully and critically. As graduate students, you have the opportunity—and, I’d argue, the responsibility—to be part of that conversation.

    The question isn’t whether AI will transform your field. It’s whether you’ll help shape that transformation or let it happen to you. The choice, as always, is yours to make.

    Dinuka Gunaratne (he/him) has worked across several postsecondary institutions in Canada and the U.S. and is a member of several organizational boards, including Co-operative Education and Work-Integrated Learning Canada, CERIC—Advancing Career Development in Canada, and the leadership team of the Administrators in Graduate and Professional Student Services knowledge community with NASPA: Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education.

    Source link

  • How Portland Public Schools can afford to offer high-impact tutoring

    How Portland Public Schools can afford to offer high-impact tutoring

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

    SEATTLE — In 2024, nearly half — 48% — of Oregon’s 4th graders scored below basic in reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. 

    Not only is that 7 percentage points worse than the national average, but 48% represented a significant jump from pre-pandemic levels in 2019, when 36% of Oregon’s 4th graders tested below basic for reading. 

    The state’s latest reading scores are “disgraceful” and “unacceptable,” said Darcy Soto, director of learning acceleration at Portland Public Schools.

    But unlike for the state at large, the Portland district has seen an increase — albeit a slight one of 1% — in reading scores since the pandemic, said Karla Hudson, program administrator for the district’s learning acceleration team. Still, Portland’s progress has been slow and incremental, she said, and less than 60% of the district’s students are proficient in reading.

    “We have a lot of work to do,” Hudson said, which is why the 43,500-student district has zeroed in on providing high-impact tutoring.

    Joined by Stanford University’s Nancy Waymack, Soto and Hudson shared what Portland has learned from its efforts during a July 12 session at UNITED, the National Conference on School Leadership.

    High-impact tutoring is a data-driven service that is embedded into the school day and uses consistent, well-supported tutors, said Waymack, director of research, partnerships and policy for Stanford University’s National Student Support Accelerator. The tutors use high-quality instructional materials and hold sessions at least three times a week in small groups of no more than four students, she said. 

    While teachers can be successful tutors, Waymack said, so too can community members like college students and retirees. Regardless, it’s important that students be able to build a relationship with their tutors, she said. 

    Data also plays a valuable role in tracking student progress throughout the tutoring, Waymack said. When tutoring occurs during school hours or shortly before or after class time, she said, research shows students are far more likely to attend sessions. 

    Years in the making

    Portland began its early literacy tutoring program through a small after-school pilot initiative in 2021-22 at a few elementary schools for students in grades 3-5, said Soto. The pilot started to show “some really great outcomes,” she said, allowing the district to expand the program from 6 to 20 schools by the 2022-23 school year.

    During those first two years, teachers were trained on the curriculum and paid for extended hours to tutor after school and. While that approach did improve students’ reading skills, Soto said, “it was very expensive” given teacher pay and the small student group size. This made the pilot difficult to scale to other schools.

    As the tutoring program continued into the 2023-24 school year, the district began shifting to a more cost-effective model — especially as federal pandemic relief funds were sunsetting, Soto said. 

    By the 2024-25 school year, Soto said, the district used some of its last remaining Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds to partner with the Oregon Department of Education and Oregon State University to develop a free K-3 tutoring curriculum aligned with structured literacy instruction. 

    After successfully piloting the new curriculum in summer 2024, the district launched a $1.2 million program across 50 of its 58 elementary schools to serve over 1,200 students in 2024-25, Soto said. The program hired 152 tutors — mostly paraprofessionals — and was embedded during school hours during 30-minute blocks that didn’t interfere with core instruction. 

    Source link

  • Why Teachers Can’t Afford to Wait on the Sidelines

    Why Teachers Can’t Afford to Wait on the Sidelines

    Tired of talking about AI? That’s too bad. The technology remains the most impactful force in education. The challenge becomes avoiding all the Claptrap. Thankfully, that’s where Denise Pope, Co-Founder of Challenge Success at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, comes in.

    I had the chance to explore the current AI state-of-play from her perspective. One striking disparity I haven’t heard talked about: While AI usage among students has skyrocketed—from 25% to 60% at the middle school level and 45% to 75% at the high school level over just two school years—only 32% of teachers report using AI for academic purposes.

    This gap has created what Denise describes as an educational “La La Land,” where students are experimenting with AI tools while many schools lack clear policies or guidance. The absence of structured approaches is breeding anxiety among both educators and students, who are left wondering when and how AI should appropriately be used in academic settings.

    Click through to hear how Denise believes this issue can be addressed:

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • The Precedent Higher Ed Can’t Afford to Set (opinion)

    The Precedent Higher Ed Can’t Afford to Set (opinion)

    American higher education stands at a critical juncture following the emergence of reports that the Department of Justice is seeking a consent decree with Columbia University. While Columbia’s acting president responded by stating, “We would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution,” the very possibility of such a decree signals a new chapter in the relationship between colleges and universities and the federal government. Even the proposition of a consent decree sets a dangerous precedent for American higher education, one that erodes institutional autonomy and the independence of governing boards.

    At a time when our colleges and universities are navigating political crosswinds, social unrest and increasing scrutiny, the integrity of board governance has never mattered more. Independent governing boards are not symbolic structures—they are foundational to higher education’s ability to serve the public good, safeguard academic freedom and maintain mission-centered leadership through both crisis and calm.

    The concern is not whether institutions should comply with the law. Of course they should. The question is whether legal settlements or government actions should be allowed to intrude on the role of boards, setting terms that weaken governance authority or sideline trustees from their fiduciary duties.

    What should trustees at other colleges and universities do if faced with similar pressure to agree—without legal adjudication—to external controls that appear to compromise governance independence?

    First, they must reaffirm their fiduciary duties—not just as a formality, but as a framework for bold, mission-driven leadership. Boards must remain grounded in their legal and ethical obligations: duty of care, duty of loyalty and duty of obedience to the institution’s mission. In the face of political pressure, these aren’t abstract ideals—they are anchors.

    Second, boards must seek independent legal and governance counsel early in any negotiation process. The interests of compliance and governance are not always aligned. Trustees must understand the distinction between politics, policies and law and be prepared to assert their responsibilities.

    Third, if presented with a consent decree or settlement that overreaches, trustees should insist on clear, limited and transparent terms—not vague provisions that allow for creeping oversight or ambiguous veto powers. A board that relinquishes its authority may be trying to protect its institution in the moment, but in doing so it places the long-term health of not only its own institution but the entire educational sector at risk.

    Finally, boards must speak—together. We need a collective stance among governing boards, higher education associations and institutional leaders that reasserts the value of independent governance in a democratic society. The erosion of board autonomy doesn’t just threaten governance structures—it jeopardizes the trust, freedom, credibility and sustainability of our institutions.

    This is a defining moment. If we allow undue influences—whether government agencies, political appointees, donors, alumni or others—to dictate the terms of campus governance, we risk undoing the foundation of American higher education. Trustees must act independently—with clarity, courage and an unwavering commitment to their institutions’ missions and values.

    The future of higher education depends on it.

    Ross Mugler is the board chair and acting president and CEO of the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges.

    Source link

  • Young people from deprived areas can’t afford to consider university

    Young people from deprived areas can’t afford to consider university

    Should the economic fortunes area you grew up in have an impact on your chances of attending university?

    There has always been a stubborn connection between 18 year old participation rates and your (UK) region of residence.

    Currently UCAS data tells us that 18 year olds living in London are more likely than not to go on to attend university, whereas in the North East just 29.9 per cent will get there.

    Can’t get there from here

    And in many parts of the UK the proportion of 18 year olds getting to university has stagnated (or even dropped over recent years), as the population of 18 year olds has expanded.

    [Full screen]

    If you are concerned about left-behind parts of the UK, this is something that should concern you. It’s widely acknowledged that graduates are key to levelling up a region, and a surprisingly large number of graduates return to their home area (at least in the short term) after graduation.

    Costs not culture?

    The counter argument to that is very often cultural – the idea that going to university changes a person, and dilutes the essence of what makes (frankly) a deprived area a deprived area. Polling from Public First for the UPP Foundation (which is kicking off an inquiry into the state of widening participation in higher education) happily suggests that this is not an attitude prevalent among UK parents.

    [Full screen]

    What does worry parents is the sheer cost of study – both in terms of tuition fees (36 per cent cite this as a top three reason to be concerned about their children attending university) and living costs (31 per cent). The overall level of debt on graduation is the other big one (35 per cent).

    But that’s not to say that there are not other reasons – number four in the list is the idea that “they won’t get a better job just because they have been to university” (particularly prevalent in London), number six is “poor value for money” (an East Midlands, North East, and Northern Ireland prevalence). The size of the sample makes the regional splits difficult to draw accurate conclusions from, but the trends are interesting.

    What teachers said

    Teachers are a primary source of information about higher education – happily UPPF also commissioned Public First to look at what teachers felt were the barriers to participation, and there are (some) regional splits.

    [Full screen]

    The question here focuses on why teachers don’t expect some pupils to go to university – we are looking across all types of schools at the top of secondary education. Here we see that the big barriers are academic – teachers tend to feel that students are unlikely to get the required grades (24 per cent) or to rise to the academic challenge (18 per cent). And this is true across all English regions.

    Notably prevalent in the North East and Yorkshire (combining two standard, ILTS1, regions) is the idea that the family will be unable to support a student. In that region this was cited by 13 per cent of teachers – enough to feel concerning, but similar to the proportion that simply don’t want to go to university (again note that the margin of error will be high with small subsamples).

    Your chances are variable

    Twenty per cent of teachers in London feel like all of the last class they taught will go on to university – just four per cent of teachers in the North West, North East, and Yorkshire had similar confidence. Indeed 14 per cent of teachers in the North East and Yorkshire felt that only 10 per cent of their class would go on to university. As you might expect, the modal answer for most regions was “about half” of pupils – the North East and Yorkshire is the only exception.

    [Full screen]

    This, then, is what access and participation in the north is up against. Attainment and capacity is an issue everywhere, and one that the access and participation regime in England attempts to address via collaboration between universities and schools – something that also contributes to aspiration.

    But aspiration and attainment count for little when parents and teachers are agreeing that for many in the UK’s most deprived areas university study simply is not affordable. And though participation among disadvantaged groups is improving – disadvantaged areas continue to struggle.

    Source link

  • With higher education under siege, college presidents cannot afford to stay silent 

    With higher education under siege, college presidents cannot afford to stay silent 

    Higher education is under siege from the Trump administration. Those opposing this siege and the administration’s attacks on democracy would do well to heed the wise advice of Benjamin Franklin given just prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776: “We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately.” 

    This is particularly true right now for college and university presidents.

    College presidents come from a tradition based on the importance of ideas, of fairness, of speaking the truth as they understand it, whatever the consequences. If they don’t speak out, what will later generations say when they look back at this dark, dark time?

    The idea that Trump’s attacks on higher education are necessary to combat antisemitism is the thinnest of covers, and yet only a very few college presidents have been brave enough to call this what it is. 

    The president and those around him don’t care about antisemitism. Trump said people who chanted “Jews will not replace us” were “very fine people”; he dined with avowed antisemites like Nick Fuentes and Ye (Kanye West). 

    Marjorie Taylor Greene blamed the California wildfires of 2018 on space lasers paid for by Jewish bankers. Robert Kennedy claimed that Covid “targeted” white and Black people but spared Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese people. The Proud Boys pardoned by Trump for their part in the January 6 insurrection have routinely proclaimed their antisemitism; they include at least one member who has openly declared admiration for Adolf Hitler.

    Fighting antisemitism? That was never the motive for the Trump administration’s attacks on colleges and universities. The motive was — and continues to be — to discipline and tame institutions of higher learning, to bring them to heel, to turn them into mouthpieces of a single ideology, to put an end to the free flow of ideas under the alleged need to combat “wokeism.”

    Related: Interested in innovations in the field of higher education? Subscribe to our free biweeklyHigher Education newsletter.

    Columbia University has been a prime target of the Trump administration’s financial threats. I’ve been a university provost. I’m not naïve about the tremendous damage the withholding of federal support can have on a school. But the fate of Columbia should be a cautionary tale for those who think keeping their heads down will help them survive. (The Hechinger Report is an independent, nonprofit, nonpartisan organization based at Teachers College, Columbia University.) 

    Columbia was more than conciliatory in responding to concerns of antisemitism. The administration suspended two student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, for holding rallies that allegedly included “threatening rhetoric and intimidation.” 

    They suspended four students in connection with an event featuring speakers who “support terrorism and promote violence.” 

    They called in police to dismantle the encampment created to protest the War in Gaza. Over 100 protesters were arrested. 

    They created a Task Force on Antisemitism, and accepted its recommendations. They dismissed three deans for exchanging text messages that seemed to minimize Jewish students’ concerns and referenced antisemitic tropes. 

    President Minouche Shafik resigned after little more than a year in office. (Last week, the university’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, also resigned.) In September 2024, the ADL reports, the university went so far as to introduce “new policies prohibiting the use of terms like ‘Zionist’ when employed to target Jews or Israelis.” 

    None of this prevented the Trump administration from cancelling $400 million worth of grants and contracts to Columbia — because responding to antisemitism was never the real impetus for the attack. 

    Related: Tracking Trump: His actions to dismantle the Education Department, and more

    Was Marjorie Taylor Greene asked to renounce antisemitism as a condition for her leadership in Congress? 

    Was Robert Kennedy asked to renounce antisemitism in order to be nominated for a Cabinet position?

    Were the Proud Boys asked to renounce antisemitism as a condition for their pardoning? 

    This is an attack on higher education as a whole, and it requires a collective defense. Columbia yesterday. Harvard today, your school tomorrow. College presidents cannot be silent as individual schools are attacked. They need to speak out as a group against each and every incursion. 

    They need to pledge to share resources, including financial resources, to resist these attacks; they should mount a joint legal resistance and a joint public response to an attack on any single institution. 

    These days, as many have observed, are much like the dark days of McCarthyism in the 1950s. In retrospect, we wonder why it took so long for so many to speak up. 

    Today we celebrate those who had the moral strength to stand up right then and say, “No. This isn’t right, and I won’t be part of it.” 

    The politicians of the Republican Party have made it clear they won’t do that, though most of them understand that Trumpism is attacking the very values — freedom, democracy, fairness — that they celebrate as “American.” 

    They have earned the low opinion most people have of politicians. But college and university presidents should — and must — take a stand. 

    Rob Rosenthal is John E. Andrus Professor of Sociology, Emeritus, at Wesleyan University. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about higher education and the Trump administration was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’sweekly newsletter.

    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.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Despite being global leader, UK cannot afford to rest on its laurels in digital, AI and green skills

    Despite being global leader, UK cannot afford to rest on its laurels in digital, AI and green skills

    By Matteo Quacquarelli, Vice President of Strategy and Analytics at QS Quacquarelli Symonds.

    Across the globe, economies are grappling with skills and talent challenges. From talent saturation to workforce reskilling, each country is facing its own unique issues as it prepares for the evolution of the digital age.

    The QS World Future Skills Index, just launched, offers a detailed breakdown of the globe’s higher education systems, their links with industries and how countries are preparing for the next industrial evolution. Using exclusive QS data, it identifies where economies and countries need to align their higher education outcomes with the needs of industry in three key areas – green, AI and digital.

    The analysis delves into 81 economies and finds that UK higher education is currently one of the world’s best for cultivating students with the future skills business and industry are calling out for.

    It measures four indicators linked to skills like AI proficiency, digital literacy and environmental sustainability that will form the bedrock of the industries of tomorrow.

    Skills Fit measures how well countries are equipping graduates with the skills employers desire. In this, no country is currently better than the UK. Using data from both our own largest-of-its-kind QS Global Employer Survey and the World Bank Group, we identified that UK employers have the highest satisfaction rates with the skills graduates bring with them, anywhere in the world – but perhaps only for the time being.

    Additionally, the UK received top marks in the Academic Readiness dimension, measuring the preparedness of a country in regard to the future of work. The UK’s success in the QS World University Rankings by Subject allowed it to flourish here.

    However, the UK must not rest on its laurels. Higher education in other markets globally is innovating at a far more rapid rate than in the UK. The reputational strength of the UK – built on its history and tradition of delivering excellent teaching and learning – is unlikely to be the key driver of satisfaction going forward.

    The UK was slightly less successful than its closest rivals in the areas of Future of Work and Economic Transformation.

    Future of Work measures how well the job market is prepared to meet the growing demand for digital, AI and green skills, using 1Mentor data of over 280m job postings worldwide.

    Economic Transformation analyzes whether a country has the infrastructure, investment power, and talent available to transition to industries driven by AI, digital transformation, green technologies and high-skilled work. This indicator used data from the World Bank Group, UNESCO Institute for Statistics and the Education Policy Institute.

    This lower score is reflective of the slow-to-no economic growth seen in the UK over the past decade and the tightening of the public purse strings strangling investment in R&D and new business innovation (evidenced by decline not only in public but also private sector funding in the UK).

    The latest economic forecasts signal a further period of stagnation for the UK economy might be on the horizon.

    Just as the importance of investment in future skills cannot be understated, nor can the importance of higher education in AI breakthroughs and innovation.

    Funnelling research innovation down the value chain into industry has been the bedrock of economic innovation worldwide. Without Stanford University, there would be no Silicon Valley. In Germany, the universities of Stuttgart and Tübingen are key in the country’s Cyber Valley initiative. If Melbourne didn’t have its outstanding higher education institutions, the city would not hold the crown of tech capital of Australia.

    The QS Future World Skills Index highlights the example of South Korea, where there is a correlation between increasing numbers of young adults attaining tertiary education and GDP growth.

    The UK government’s new AI Opportunities Action Plan, announced earlier this week sets out a clear ambition strategy to maintain Britain’s position as one of the world’s AI superpowers and has been widely welcomed by industry.

    The prime minister says his government will make it easier for experts to come to the UK via its talent visas and for future leaders to learn here. Tens of thousands of additional AI professionals will be needed by 2030, he has said.

    The Government also wants to ‘increase its share of the world’s top 1,000 AI researchers’ and will launch an AI scholarship scheme to support 100 students to study in the UK.

    While the UK was also top in Europe for talent creation, with 46,000 students graduating from an AI-relevant higher education program ahead of Germany in terms of absolute numbers with 32,000, the UK is still behind Finland on a per capita basis. Without specific policy and commitment, the UK risks losing its leading position.

    The UK is missing ‘frontier conceptual, cutting-edge companies‘. DeepMind, the AI research laboratory, was one such company that was founded in the UK before being acquired by Google in 2014. But where was it established? The three co-founders meet while studying at University College London.

    The new AI Growth Zones the government has announced, with the first starting in Culham, will need to engage universities up and down the country. Higher education must also be closely involved in the Digital and Technology Sector Plan, which is set to be published in the coming months.

    The government has also previously pledged to become a green energy superpower. The QS Future World Skills Index suggests that both the UK’s job market and its higher education system is well set up to capitalise on that opportunity.

    To succeed, government policy, the needs of industry and higher education curricula must all align to create an environment where the country can succeed and be future-ready.

    Economies and higher education systems that invest in high-quality academic programmes in AI, digital and sustainability are setting themselves up for long-term success.

    For the full QS World Future Skills Index: https://www.qs.com/reports-whitepapers/world-future-skills-index

    The UK Spotlight is available here: https://www.qs.com/reports-whitepapers/uk-spotlight-qs-world-future-skills-index

    Source link