Tag: Approach

  • A change in approach means research may never be the same again

    A change in approach means research may never be the same again

    At first glance Liz Kendall may look like an odd choice for Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology. She has never worked in science, she has rarely mentioned science directly in any intervention in her entire parliamentary career, and this is not a role with the kind of profile which will allow easy entry in any future leadership race.

    Although covering a related brief has never been a disqualifying quality for any predecessors, her move from the Department for Work and Pensions following her failed welfare reforms felt more like a hasty exit than a tactical manoeuvre.

    Her direct predecessor, Peter Kyle, often seemed more preoccupied with turning the UK into an “AI superpower” than he did the more tedious business of how the research ecosystem is governed and how it can be manipulated to fulfil the government’s ambitions. In truth, the business of research reform is not about more grand visions, frameworks, or strategies, but the rather grubbier work of deciding where to spend a finite amount of funding on an infinite amount of programmes.

    Practice and promise

    Kendall’s interest in research has so far been on the business of making the country better. As seen in her speeches during her time on the backbenches, research is about practical things like regional economies, skills, and curing diseases. For Kendall, “what matters is what works.” And in her speech at the Innovation for Growth Summit a management theory of research reform about balancing the speculative with the practical emerged.

    The premise of her speech was that the growth of the UK economy is reliant on making the most of the UK’s R&D strengths. To get the most out of the UK’s R&D strengths Kendall believes the government can neither be too directive and must allow curiosity-driven research to prosper. It should also not be too permissive, funding must be directed toward government priorities particularly when it comes to translation and application.

    It is a middle ground approach to research management for a third-way politician. In line with the three bucket model (outlined here by current Strathclyde professor of practice, research and innovation policy, and former DSIT and Research England person Ben Johnson) Kendall has clarified the government’s research funding allocations. There will be £14bn for curiosity driven R&D, £8bn toward the government’s priorities, and £7bn for scale up support. £7bn has also been announced in skills and infrastructure to secure the success of each bucket of activity.

    The label problem

    The labelling of existing funds in new ways is in itself not a strategy for economic growth. Clearly, doing the same thing, with the same people, in the same ways, would lead to exactly the same outcomes with a different name. A bit like when international research became about making the UK a “science superpower” or when every ambitious research programme was a “moonshot” or relabelling every economic benefit produced through research as “levelling up”.

    The boldest ambition of Kendall’s speech is perhaps the most understated. Kendall is committed to “doing fewer things better.” In a speech delivered at the same event by UKRI’s Chief Executive, Ian Chapman, this simple sentiment may have massive consequences.

    Chapman’s view is that the UK lacks any of the natural resources advantages of its major international competitors. Instead, the UK maintains its competitiveness through the smart use of its knowledge assets even if he believes these are “undervalued and underappreciated.”

    Chapman’s UKRI will be more interventionist. He will maintain curiosity driven research but warns that UKRI will not support the activities where it has no “right to win significant market-share in that sector,” and in backing spin-outs UKRI will be “much more selective.” The future being etched out here is one where there is much greater direction by government and UKRI toward funding that aligns with the industrial strategy and its mission for economic growth while maintaining a broad research base through curiosity driven research. Clearly, funding fewer programmes more generously means that some areas of research will receive less government funding.

    The government’s approach to research is coalescing around its approach to governing more broadly. Like the industrial strategy the government is not picking winners as such but creating the conditions through which some desirable policy outcomes like economic growth have a better chance of emerging. It’s a mix of directing funding toward areas where the UK may secure an advantage like the doubling of R&D investment in critical technologies, addressing market failures through measures like the £4.5m for Women in Innovation Awards, and regulating to shape the market with the emphasis of economic growth and sustainability in UKRI’s new framework document.

    Football’s coming home

    In her speech Kendall likened the selective funding approaches to the selective sports funding of the Olympics. Alighting on a different sporting metaphor Chapman recalled the time a non-specific European team he supports (almost definitely Liverpool) came back from 3-0 down to win the European Cup as a reminder that through collective support researchers can achieve great things.

    Perhaps, UK research has been more like the England men’s football team than it has the current Premier League champions. The right pieces in the wrong places with little sense of how the talent of individuals contribute to the success of the whole. In committing to funding fewer programmes better the government wants all its stars on the pitch in top condition. The challenge is that those who go from some funding to none are likely to feel their contributions to the team’s success have been overlooked

    Source link

  • One Approach High-Performing Public and Charter Schools Share – And How to Do It – The 74

    One Approach High-Performing Public and Charter Schools Share – And How to Do It – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    US News & World Report released its latest ranking of public elementary schools. The results exposed the key component to student success, even if the topmost schools approached it in vastly different ways.

    For New York City, Lower Lab, an Upper East Side Gifted & Talented school was ranked number one by US News. Also in the top 10 were four citywide G&T programs. Each school exclusively accepts students who have been designated as “gifted.”

    Rounding out the top 10, however, are Success Academy – Bushwick and Success Academy – Bensonhurst, public charter schools that accept students by lottery, while also prioritizing English Language Learners (ELL).

    On the surface, these schools couldn’t be more different. Number one, Lower Lab, has only 13% of students qualifying for Free or Reduced Price Lunch (FRL), and 1% ELLs. Number 10, Success Academy Charter School – Bensonhurst, conversely,  has 65% of its students qualifying for free or reduced price lunch, and 26% who are English language learners. 

    But the selective G&T schools and the unscreened charter schools have one characteristic in common: An expectation that their students can succeed.

    The book, “Science of Learning: 99 Studies That Every Teacher Needs to Know,” describes an experiment where “researchers falsely told teachers some of their students had been identified as potential high achievers. The students were in fact chosen at random.”

    At the end of the year, the “students that were chosen were more likely to make larger gains in their academic performance,” with those “7-8 years old gaining an average of 10 verbal IQ points.”

    This study concluded that “when teachers expected certain children would show greater intellectual development, those children did show greater intellectual development.”

    At the G&T schools, teachers have every reason to believe their students are capable of performing at the highest levels.

    Parents have seen this firsthand.

    “I strongly believe that when teachers are told their students are gifted, they begin to treat them as gifted — and this changes everything,” asserts mom Natalya Tseytlin. “In a gifted classroom, if a student struggles, teachers don’t assume it’s because of laziness or inability; they respond with patience and extra attention. In a regular class, that student might not receive the same support or challenge, because the teacher sees the child as average. 

    Tseytlin said her son started his first grade gifted and talented program with limited English skills. But because his teacher offered consistent support and believed in him, he excelled. 

    “Today he is performing at the same level as his peers,” she said.

    “I don’t think the expectations at (my child’s) G&T school are so high that only gifted kids can meet them,” another parent, who only asked to be identified as M.K. opined. “Regular schools don’t ‘push’ kids enough to reach their potential. Those G&T schools that do push, get results because most kids are capable of this level of learning without being ‘gifted.’ If teachers treat students as capable, students will indeed meet expectations.”

    The belief that all students can perform at a “gifted” level is sacrosanct at Success Academy.

    “Success Academy is Gifted for All,” CEO Eva Moskowitz affirms. “When adult expectations are high, our scholars — mostly low-income, Black and Hispanic — can meet the highest academic standards.”

    The same is true at Harlem Academy, a kindergarten through 8th grade private school for students whose potential might otherwise go unrealized. 

    “It’s tough to decouple the influence of high-quality programming from high expectations,” concedes Head of School Vinny Dotoli, “but authentically challenging students is central to the ethos of our school. When great teachers set ambitious goals and provide the structure and support to reach them, it almost always makes a lasting difference in student achievement.”

    Parents with children in schools where high expectations aren’t the norm would love to see changes. 

    “I have a daughter in a dual language program in East Harlem,” Maria McCune relates. “A neighbor who used to attend our school changed his daughter to a G&T program at another school in East Harlem. He immediately noticed a difference in the quality of instruction and in his daughter’s performance (MUCH improved). I participate in my daughter’s School Leadership Team and I have seen the apathy teachers there exhibit. It is concerning. When I tried to provide feedback about improving the educational experience, teachers/staff often became defensive. It is this that leads me to want to pursue G&T for my daughter.”

    For Tiffany Ma, the solution is obvious. “Our second grader that transferred into G&T writes much neater and does her homework much more happily since she’s in an environment where academics and homework is valued by other classmates and parents. We should expand G&T programs. It’s regular programming that shouldn’t exist.”

    Yet New York City seems headed in the opposite direction. Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani has vowed to get rid of elementary school G&T programs  that begin in kindergarten. He would wait until students enter third grade, even though the research referenced above specifically mentioned children 7 and 8 years of age( i.e. second graders), as being the biggest beneficiaries of high expectations. He is against charter schools, as well. 

    This move would lower the academic standards and expectations of all schools, which deeply concerns parents like McCune. She fears “Children like my daughter may be left as collateral damage of an educational experience that falls short of setting them up for significant academic success.”

    The top schools in NYC have repeatedly demonstrated that high expectations are key to helping all students reach their full potential.

    We need more such schools, be they public G&T, charter, or private. And more teachers who believe in all our kids.


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • Strategic Approach to Mobility, Transfer, Academic Partnership

    Strategic Approach to Mobility, Transfer, Academic Partnership

    Serving approximately 100,000 students each year, Maricopa County Community College District is one of the nation’s largest community college districts. Many bachelor’s-granting institutions seek to recruit Maricopa students, but these institutions often fall short in serving them effectively by not applying previously earned coursework, overlooking their specific needs or failing to accept credit for prior learning in transfer. After years of requesting changes from transfer partners without seeing adequate response, Maricopa Community Colleges determined it was time to take action by establishing clear criteria and an evaluation process.

    A Legacy of Transfer

    Since its establishment, university transfer has remained a central pillar of the mission of the MCCCD. Transfer preparation is a chief reason students enroll across the district’s 10 colleges. In fact, 38 percent of students districtwide indicate upon admission that their goal is to transfer to a university.

    A significant portion of these students transition to Arizona’s three public universities under the framework of the Arizona Transfer System. Beyond that, Maricopa maintains formal articulation agreements with over 35 colleges and universities, both in state and across the nation, including private and public institutions.

    Developing Strategic Transfer Partnerships

    Each university partnership is formalized through a memorandum of understanding that outlines the roles, expectations and mutual responsibilities of Maricopa and the partner institution. Recognizing the need for a more strategic and data-informed approach, MCCCD developed a model years ago to ensure that both potential and existing transfer partnerships align with the district’s evolving strategic priorities. The model provides a structured framework for assessing new and continuing partnerships based on institutional relevance, resource capacity and student need.

    A Point of Evolution

    In 2022, the district overhauled its partnership model to better meet the needs of today’s learners, who increasingly seek flexible pathways to a degree. Many students now arrive with a mix of traditional coursework, transfer credit and prior learning assessment, including military service, industry certifications and on-the-job training, creating greater demand for clear, consistent and student-centered transfer pathways. The updated model ensures partner institutions complement, rather than counter, MCCCD’s efforts, particularly in recognizing learning that occurs outside the traditional classroom.

    The new model sets out the following criteria as minimum requirements:

    • Accepts and applies credits earned through prior learning assessment: The integration of PLA and alternative credit was a central focus of the redesign, recognizing the unique advantages these offer transfer students. Many students move between institutions, accumulate credits in segments and work toward credential completion. While some follow the traditional route from a two-year college to a four-year university, others take different paths, transferring from one two-year institution to another, or returning from a four-year institution to a two-year college through reverse-transfer agreements. These varied journeys highlight the need to embed PLA fully into the transfer agenda so that all learning, regardless of where or how it was acquired, is recognized and applied toward students’ goals. By making PLA a built-in component of the revamped model, MCCCD and its university partners can better meet learners where they are in their educational journey.
    • Provides annual enrollment and achievement data: To support this renewed focus, MCCCD asked all university partners to update their MOUs through a new university partnership application. This process gathered key institutional data and ensured alignment with updated partnership criteria and made it mandatory.
    • Accredited with no adverse actions or existing sanctions against the institution: Partner institutions must hold accreditation in good standing, accept both nationally and regionally accredited coursework, and recognize Maricopa-awarded PLA credit.
    • Aims to accept and apply a minimum of 60 credits: They are expected to apply at least 60 applicable Maricopa credits, academic and occupational, and accept Maricopa’s general education core.
    • Has a minimum of 50 students who have transferred at least 12 Maricopa earned credits in the last three years: This requirement is intended to demonstrate need and gauge student interest.
    • Surveys Maricopa transfer students annually: Partners must commit to administering annual transfer surveys and tracking student outcomes using jointly defined metrics.

    Institutions that do not meet this standard are not advanced in the partnership process but are welcome to reapply once they meet the baseline criteria. As a result, more partners are actively engaging and strengthening their policies and processes to gain or maintain eligibility.

    Key Findings

    Several themes emerged from the first year of implementation:

    Since the revamp, MCCCD is seeing promising results. Current and prospective partners have demonstrated strong commitment to the revised partnership model by elevating transfer and PLA practices, expanding pathways that accept 75 to 90 credits and participating in on-campus student support initiatives through goal-oriented action plans. They are using the model to facilitate conversations within their institutions to further advance internal policies and practices.

    Post-COVID, demand for online learning and support services remains strong, particularly among working students and those needing flexible schedules, as reflected in survey results. While participation in past transfer experience surveys was low, the district has made this requirement mandatory and introduced multiple survey options to better capture the student voice and experience. These insights enable MCCCD to collaborate with partners on targeted improvement plans.

    New criteria MCCCD is considering, several of which some partners have already implemented, include reserving course seats for Maricopa transfer students, creating Maricopa-specific scholarships, offering internships and other work opportunities and waiving application fees.

    MCCCD is currently assessing the impact of its revamped partnership model to measure the success of these efforts. Preliminary findings from the three-year review indicate that most, if not all, partner institutions are meeting or exceeding established metrics. These early results reflect a strong commitment to the agreements and reaffirm the value of the updated criteria in fostering more meaningful and impactful partnerships.

    A Model for Intentional Partnerships

    The Maricopa Community College District’s revamped university transfer partnership model is a strategic effort to keep partnerships active, student-centered and aligned with key institutional priorities. Through intentional collaboration, transparent policies and practices and shared responsibility, Maricopa and its university partners are building more effective, forward-thinking transfer pathways.

    Source link

  • Resilience in Healthcare: A New Approach to Combatting Burnout

    Resilience in Healthcare: A New Approach to Combatting Burnout

    Burnout among nurses is reaching significant levels, making self-care, boundaries, and mental health support essential for sustaining a healthy workforce.

    Valerie J. Fuller, Ph.D., D.N.P.

    President, American Association of Nurse Practitioners

    If I had a dollar for every time someone answered “stressed” when I asked how they’re doing, I’d have a full jar. And as nurses, we’d probably add our own dollars to it. While we are working tirelessly for our patients, it’s important to recognize we are not immune to the stressors around us and must share strategies to help each other and our patients.

    Nurse practitioners and nurses enter health care with a passion to make patients’ lives better. Between work deadlines, family responsibilities, health concerns and the constant buzz of phones , the stress of our everyday lives can be compounding. It’s incumbent upon all of us to recognize that managing stress is an important component to our overall health and well-being. Drawing on our experience and clinical education, we know the value of recognition and understand how to best manage stress to prevent burnout.

    Know the signs

    Stress can also sneak up: tension, poor sleep, irritability, fatigue, appetite changes, headaches, or loss of joy.

    What you can do

    Even in the middle of a packed day, there are things you can do to promote wellbeing and prevent burnout:

    1. Take time for yourself — Whether it’s 10 minutes of quiet, a walk, or your favorite show, it counts.
    2. Set boundaries — Set realistic expectations and boundaries with work, with family and even with yourself.
    3. Schedule time for joy —Add it to your calendar like any other appointment.
    4. Ask for help —Getting support doesn’t mean you’re failing. It’s a path to better health.
    5. Rest — Real, uninterrupted rest is vital to your health.

    When to reach out

    As healthcare providers and industry leaders, we need to apply our knowledge to ensure the provider workforce is better supported to prevent burnout. While stress is a part of life, it shouldn’t take over your life. Let’s stop glorifying burnout and start normalizing rest, boundaries and asking for what we need.

    The future of healthcare depends on a healthy, supported workforce. By addressing burnout with compassion and strategy, we are ensuring that NPs remain exactly where patients need us: present, focused and ready to provide the very best care.

    Source link

  • Counting what counts: a multi-dimensional approach to educational gain 

    Counting what counts: a multi-dimensional approach to educational gain 

    This HEPI blog was kindly authored by Professor Billy Wong, Director of Research and Evaluation (Access & Participation) at the University of Reading. Billy has recently written the paper Rethinking educational gain in higher education: Beyond metrics to a multi-dimensional model, and blogs his thoughts on this below.  

    With the next iteration of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF) under redevelopment, and confirmation that it will look vastly different to TEF 2023, we have an opportunity to rethink the notion of educational gain – if it is to continue as a core assessment. 

    From learning gain to educational gain, the concept is appealing for its emphasis on understanding how students grow and develop over time, and the extent to which higher education institutions can make robust claims about their roles and contributions. 

    However, the Office for Students (OfS) left the definition and measurement of educational gain to individual providers to decide for themselves, which left the sector with a multitude of definitions. In the absence of a clear, shared definition of and approach to educational gain, the sector has tended to default to what is most easily measured.  

    Yet, an over reliance on student outcome metrics (such as the National Student Survey, continuation/completion or Graduate Outcome data) reduces the indicators of student development into just numbers. More concerningly, this approach meant student groups with small numbers may be lumped together or even excluded in various statistical analyses. When we focus on lived experience as headline statistics, the nuances are swept away. 

    Sector conversation 

    Recent sector work has explored the complexities of educational gain, from Fung’s (2024) analysis of Gold-rated TEF institutions to Quality Assurance Agency’s Collaborative Enhancement Project, which found diverse, developing but disparate approaches. 

    For individual institutions, a context-specific relevant approach makes sense, reflecting their own goals, priorities and practical considerations. But as a sector, including for the OfS, such freedom makes national comparison difficult if not impossible, and we revert to readily accessible and available outcome data. 

    Yet, educational gain must not only capture cognitive progress, but also the broader and holistic developments such as confidence and belonging. 

    The sector would benefit from a shared but flexible frame of reference for educational gain, which advocates for a diverse approach to evidence student growth over time. 

    A multi-dimensional approach to educational gain 

    Informed by the foundations of learning gain, this new paper proposes a multi-dimensional model of educational gain through three interrelated domains: cognitive and metacognitive, personal and affective, and social and cultural. Drawing on educational, psychological and sociological perspectives, these domains recognise the different aspects of student development, which also foregrounds the importance of longitudinal data from both qualitative and quantitative methods. 

    A multi-dimensional approach appreciates the student experience across the agency-structure spectrum. It provides an overarching frame of reference that enables institutions to tailor the specific approach as appropriate for their contexts. There will be differences across the sector in how institutions apply these in practice, but if the three domains (cognitive and metacognitive, personal and affective, and social and cultural) are broadly shared and operated as a thematic proxy across the sector, then we are at least in a position to explore how different institutions have collectively explored those dimensions. 

    For example, for cognitive and metacognitive development, it is conceivable that TASO’s Access and Success Questionnaire (ASQ) is adopted nationally to provide sector-wide comparable data with use value within and across institutions. In parallel, it is also conceivable to run a longitudinal qualitative study that unpacks how students articulate, reflect on and discuss their cognitive and metacognitive development. 

    Similarly, quantitative and qualitative methods can explore the extent to which students grow in confidence, resilience and self-efficacy, or whether they expand their social capital, sense of belonging or broader development as global citizens. 

    A multi-dimensional approach offers a unified lens for understanding educational gain that recognises sector benchmarks as well as local narratives. Without such a multi-dimensional view, the sector risks defaulting to established metrics that do not capture the full breadth of gains students achieve during their higher education. 

    What institutions can do 

    Short, funded pilot projects – supported by modest capacity-building grants – would give staff the space to test these methods before it is rolled out more widely. Contextually relevant reflective tasks could be strengthened and encouraged across programmes to encourage students to engage more critically with their own development. Crucially, it is important to ensure that any evidence gathered is conceptually robust and grounded in relevant theories of student progress and gains, for example: cognitive and metacognitive development, personal and affective growth, and social and cultural development. National-level benchmarks can be used effectively alongside the richness of context-specific data and evidence collected over time at the institutional level – reconciling national comparability with institutional distinctiveness. 

    What next? 

    If educational gain – and variations of it – is part of any next assessments, then the OfS should really be more explicit about what it expects from institutions. The ‘test’ from TEF 2023 to give providers the freedom to set their own criteria may be well-intended, but it served limited value for the sector, and presumably for the regulators themselves. A broad, flexible guiding principle or framework might provide the necessary coherence, preferably one that invites theoretical and methodological foundations in addition to the practical and pragmatic. 

    Source link

  • It is high time higher education adopted a harm reduction approach to drug use among students

    It is high time higher education adopted a harm reduction approach to drug use among students

    While Gen Z is showing less interest in the normalised alcohol and drug excess that dogged their preceding generations, England and Wales’ most recent stats confirmed that 16.5 per cent of people aged between 16 to 24-years-old took an illegal drug in the last year.

    Additionally, a 2024 report by Universities UK found that 18 per cent of students have used a drug in the past with 12 per cent imbibing across the previous 12 months. With a UK student population of 2.9m, this suggests the drug-savvy portion is around 348,000 to 522,000 people.

    It’s prudent, therefore, for anyone involved within student safety provision to know that the UK is currently mired in a drug death crisis – a record 5,448 fatalities were recorded in England and Wales in the most recent statistics, while Scotland had 1,172, the highest rate of drug deaths in Europe.

    In an attempt to ameliorate some of this risk, seven UK universities recently took delivery of nitazene strips to distribute among students, facilitated by the charity Students Organising for Sustainability (SOS-UK). These instant testing kits – not dissimilar to a Covid-19 lateral flow test in appearance – examine pills or powders for nitazenes: a class of often deadly synthetic opioids linked with 458 UK deaths between July 2023 and December 2024.

    While these fatalities will have most likely been amongst older, habitual users of heroin or fake prescription medicines, these strips form part of a suite of innovative solutions aimed at helping students stay safe(r) if they do choose to use drugs.

    The 2024 Universities UK report suggested drug checking and education as an option in reducing drug-related harm, and recommended a harm reduction approach, adding: “A harm reduction approach does not involve condoning or seeking to normalise the use of drugs. Instead, it aims to minimise the harms which may occur if students take drugs.”

    With that in mind, let’s consider a world where harm reduction – instead of zero tolerance – is the de facto policy and how drug checking or drug testing plays a part in that.

    Drug checking and drug testing

    Drug checking and drug testing are terms that often get used interchangeably but have different meanings. Someone using a drug checking service can get expert lab-level substance analysis, for contents and potency, then a confidential consultation on these results during which they receive harm reduction advice. In the UK, this service is offered by The Loop, a non-profit NGO that piloted drug checking at festivals in 2016 and now have a monthly city centre service in Bristol.

    Drug testing can take different forms. First, there is the analysis of a biological sample to detect whether a person has taken drugs, typically done in a workplace or medical setting. There are also UK-based laboratories offering substance analysis, that then gets relaid to the public in different ways.

    WEDINOS is an anonymous service, run by Public Health Wales since 2013, where users send a small sample of their substance alongside a downloadable form. After testing, WEDINOS posts the results on their website (in regards to content but not potency) normally within a few weeks.

    MANDRAKE is a laboratory operating out of Manchester Metropolitan University. It works in conjunction with key local stakeholders to test found or seized substances in the area. It is often first with news regarding adulterated batches of drugs or dangerously high-strength substances on the market.

    Domestic testing is also possible with reagents tests. These are legally acquired chemical compounds that change colour when exposed to specific drugs and can be used at home. They can provide valuable information as to the composition of a pill or powder but do not provide information on potency. The seven UK universities that took delivery of nitazene strips were already offering reagents kits to students as part of their harm reduction rationale.

    Although the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 specifies that certain activities must not be allowed to take place within a university setting, the Universities UK report argued that universities have some discretion on how to manage this requirement. Specifically, it stated: “The law does not require universities to adopt a zero tolerance approach to student drug use.”

    How to dispense testing apparatus

    The mechanisms differ slightly between SUs but have broad similarities. We spoke with Newcastle and Leeds (NUSU and LUU) who both offer Reagent Tests UK reagent testing kits, fentanyl strips and now nitazene strips. Reagent’s UK kits do not test for either of these two synthetic opioids. They vary in strength compared to heroin – and there are multiple analogues of nitazene that vary in potency – but an established ballpark figure is at least 50 times as strong.

    All kits and tests are free. Newcastle’s are available from the Welfare and Support centre, in an area where students would have to take part in an informal chat with a member of staff to procure a kit. “We won’t ask for personal details. However, we do monitor this and will check in with a welfare chat if we think this would be helpful,” says Kay Hattam, Wellbeing and Safeguarding Specialist at NUSU. At Leeds, they’re available from the Advice Office and no meeting is required to collect a kit.

    Harm reduction material is offered alongside the kits. “We have developed messaging to accompany kits which is clear on the limitations of drug testing, and that testing does not make drugs safe to use,” says Leeds University Union.

    Before the donation, kits were both paid for by the respective unions and neither formally collected data on the results. Both SUs both make clear that offering these kits is not an encouragement of drug use. Kay Hattam draws an analogy: “If someone was eating fast food every day and I mentioned ways to reduce the risks associated with this, would they feel encouraged to eat more? I would think not. But it might make them think more about the risks.”

    You’ll only encourage them

    In 2022, in a report for HEPI, Arda Ozcubukcu and Graham Towl argued, “Drug use matters may be much more helpfully integrated into mental health and wellbeing strategies, rather than being viewed as a predominantly criminal justice issue.”

    The evidence backs up the view that a harm reduction approach does not encourage drug use. A 2021 report authored by The Loop’s co-founder Fiona Measham, Professor in Criminology at the University of Liverpool, found that over half of The Loop’s users disposed of a substance that tested differently to their intended purchase, reducing the risk of poisoning. Additionally, three months after checking their drugs at a festival, around 30 per cent of users reported being more careful about polydrug use (mixing substances). One in five users were taking smaller doses of drugs overall. Not only does this demonstrate that better knowledge reduces risk of poisoning in the short-term, but it also has enduring positive impacts on drug-using behaviours.

    SOS-UK has developed the Drug and Alcohol Impact scheme with 16 universities and students’ unions participating. This programme supports institutions in implementing the Universities UK guidance by using a variety of approaches to educate and support students in a non-stigmatising manner.

    Alongside them is SafeCourse, a charity founded by Hilton Mervis after his son Daniel, an Oxford University student, died from an overdose in 2019. The charity – which counts the High Court judge Sir Robin Knowles and John de Pury, who led the development of the 2024 sector harm reduction framework, among its trustees – is working to encourage universities to move away from zero tolerance.This is through various means, including commissioning legal advice to provide greater clarity on universities’ liability if they are not adopting best practice, and checking in one year on from the Universities UK report, to ascertain how they’re adapting to the new era of harm reduction.

    SafeCourse takes the view that universities must not allow themselves to be caught up prosecuting a failed war on drugs when their focus should be student safety, wellbeing and success. A harm reduction approach is the best way of achieving those ends.

    Source link

  • Taking a systematic approach to inclusivity through uncovering the hidden curriculum

    Taking a systematic approach to inclusivity through uncovering the hidden curriculum

    Every culture and society have distinct nuances and unspoken, unwritten values, norms and beliefs that influence behaviour, expectations, and life experiences. These evolving dynamics can also influence learning experiences.

    Often referred to as the hidden curriculum, these aspects not only affect the way students experience their learning journey but the lasting impact their university experience has on their lives. It is vital, therefore, that anyone working in the sector is aware of these factors as they may impact both the curriculum, and the unintended values and perspectives communicated through the way the staff interact with students.

    Educators should not only be aware of the dominant institutional culture but should actively encourage an inclusive learning community that values and embraces the diverse backgrounds and experiences of students and faculty. Drawing students’ attention to these often-overlooked factors can empower them to navigate academic and professional spaces more effectively, helping them reach their full potential.

    The hidden curriculum has been shown to play a significant role in fostering moral values, professionalism and humanism in fields like medicine, management and the arts. But we also know that when it’s not implemented carefully, the hidden curriculum can reflect the interests of dominant groups; reinforcing privilege while disadvantaging others, such as those from working-class and marginalised communities. Therefore, we also need to openly analyse and critique the hidden curriculum, by identifying any political implications of specific pedagogic approaches.

    When people are not aware of these unspoken values and expectations, they may feel excluded or marginalised, negatively impacting their sense of belonging and therefore their willingness to engage or ability to succeed. We therefore have an obligation to not only teach the hidden, cultural norms themselves, but also foster a critical awareness of them. Encouraging students to adapt while remaining true to their own identities, resulting in an authentic experience for all students, including those with different learning needs – such as neurodivergent individuals – as well as people from different backgrounds or cultures.

    We know that a truly internationalised campus requires both institutional initiatives and individual efforts to foster intercultural understanding and collaboration, empowering students and staff to drive change together. But putting this into practice can be tough. As a result, efforts to widen participation have often led to social and academic exclusion, as systems struggle to adapt.

    Systematically overcoming the hidden curriculum

    Equitable assessments play a key role in overcoming the hidden curriculum. Clear guidance and opportunities to develop assessment literacy helps students to perform to their full potential. For example, if students are to submit a narrated presentation for their assessment, have they had opportunities to learn the required skills and to submit a formative presentation for feedback? Scaffolding the skills they are required to demonstrate, including writing skills, is imperative to student confidence and therefore submission and overall success.

    Work placements should also accommodate students’ diverse backgrounds, ensuring inclusivity in workplace culture and expectations. This may include, for example, transport needs or special equipment; where this is the case, both the university and the employer have a responsibility to meet these needs so the student is able to attend their placement and complete their duties in an equitable way, allowing them to feel part of the team.

    There should also be clear guidance on what success means. Staff should be aware of the implicit ways they are communicating the institutions and their own expectations. By emphasising grade attainment, they are potentially sending a message that high grades are valued and that those not achieving these grades are less important and/or valuable than those who are. Students who want to impress their lecturers may feel pressure to perform and feel marginalised when they do not achieve the grades they think are expected. To avoid this, staff should be explicit about how overall educational gain is measured and how students can develop their own map for navigating university life and measuring their own development.

    On top of this, bringing hidden knowledge, such as vernacular, or higher education jargon, to the surface through tools like shared, and preferably co-created glossaries will help all students, particularly those new to a field, or who speak English as an additional language, feel more included and engaged.

    Curriculum and learning design should also follow an intentional approach to foster belonging and encourage discussions about social inequalities – including why they exist and how to overcome them – making students more aware of the world that exists and their role and influence within it.

    Fighting against pressures

    Despite many institutions working towards overcoming the constraints of the hidden curriculum, there’s still an incessant problem at play. Universities are increasingly expected to embed numerous agendas into their teaching and learning frameworks: equality, sustainability, employability, decolonisation, accessibility and mental well-being – to name a few.

    These competing demands can be overwhelming, particularly when trying to implement all these elements into individual modules. This can – and has – led to inefficiencies, confusion and a disconnect between academic content and broader institutional goals. Essentially, we end up stuck in the same position, or even more behind, as staff grapple with balancing traditional academic teaching with the growing list of institutional and societal changes.

    It’s no secret that universities need to rethink how to integrate and prioritise all these different elements when teaching. We know inclusion matters to students, yet universities are having to draw back from a lot of their outreach work due to financial pressures, while at the same time fighting against a world that’s seemingly becoming more hostile toward equality, diversity and inclusion efforts. Universities need to relearn how to be inclusive with these constraints – effectively “doing more with less.”

    Some have thought to distribute the elements across modules or offer co-curricular opportunities. Some have tried to enforce better levels of transparency in workload expectations for both staff and students, including better time management. And yet the struggle remains.

    The steps to crack inclusivity

    Trying to finally crack the code to inclusivity requires both top-down institutional strategies and bottom-up approaches that focus on academic and cultural drivers.

    There are a few steps which have been found to help, such as investing in ongoing training and awareness programmes, as they provide sustained, comprehensive training on accessibility and inclusion for all staff. Increased awareness may lead to more critical assessments of institutional practices, but it will not diminish personal commitment. It is in these interpersonal interactions in learning, teaching and academic support that the tacit exclusions of the hidden curriculum can be interrogated and challenged.

    But institutional staff need back up in the form of a holistic and inclusive institutional culture that values and prioritises inclusivity at all levels. This can be done by promoting accessibility as a core value, which can help the institution remain resilient during times of change or external challenges, and by emphasising inclusivity as a shared responsibility across all departments and roles.

    Universities should also strengthen institutional support structures by ensuring staff know who to contact for accessibility issues and can trust institutional processes to provide timely and effective support. It’s important to clarify roles, responsibilities and procedures and develop clear documentation and accessible guidance related to accessibility to reduce confusion and improve responsiveness. It’s also important to avoid narrowly targeted interventions that might neglect or disadvantage certain academics. Sufficient budget and resources should also be allocated to sustain inclusivity initiatives.

    As Knight and de Wit argue: “Economic and political rationales are increasingly the key drivers for national policies related to the internationalisation of higher education, while academic and social/cultural motivations are not increasing in importance at the same rate.”

    Assessing and adapting inclusive practices in light of the changing external environment is key. Tools like cross-sectional surveys can track staff perceptions of accessibility and inclusion over time. This will help universities to monitor changes in staff confidence, attitudes and knowledge, and address areas of concern through targeted interventions. Universities should always engage with diverse voices, to inform and improve practices, while recognising and addressing external factors, such as legislative changes or global events, which may impact staff confidence and inclusivity efforts.

    Source link

  • A Values-Based Approach to Using Gen AI – Faculty Focus

    A Values-Based Approach to Using Gen AI – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Degrees and Skills: A More Promising Approach

    Degrees and Skills: A More Promising Approach

    Earlier this week, we announced a new partnership between the University of Michigan and Google to provide free access to Google Career Certificates and Google’s AI training courses for more than 66,000 students across U-M’s Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint campuses. These high-demand, job-ready programs are now available through the university’s platform for online and hybrid learning, Michigan Online. The courses and certificates help students to develop in-demand skills in areas like cybersecurity, data analytics, digital marketing, UX design, project management and foundational AI.

    We’re both proud graduates of the University of Michigan. Our undergraduate experiences in Ann Arbor were transformational, shaping how we think, who we are and the lives we’ve led. There are countless ways to take advantage of an extraordinary place like U-M. But with the benefit of hindsight, one lesson stands out: Learning how to learn may be the most valuable thing you can take with you.

    That has always been true. But it’s becoming more essential in a world where technological change is accelerating and the life span of a “job-ready” skill is shrinking.

    A False Choice We Can’t Afford to Make

    Today’s learners are navigating a noisy debate: Is a degree still worth it? Should they invest in college—or seek out a set of marketable skills through short-term training?

    Too often, this is framed as an either-or choice. But our new partnership underscores the power of both-and.

    A college degree is a powerful foundation. And when paired with flexible, high-impact programs like Google Career Certificates, AI Essentials and Prompting Essentials, students are positioned to thrive in a dynamic global workforce. This is not about diluting the value of higher education. It’s about enhancing it—by equipping students with the durable intellectual tools of a university education and the technical fluency to succeed in real-world roles.

    The stakes are high. Nearly 70 percent of recent college graduates report needing more training on emerging technologies, while a majority of employers expect job candidates to have foundational knowledge of generative AI. As noted in a New York Times opinion piece by Aneesh Raman, chief economic opportunity officer at LinkedIn, the rise of AI and automation is reshaping the skills required for many jobs, making it imperative for educational institutions to adapt their curricula accordingly. This underscores the importance of integrating practical, technology-focused training into traditional degree programs to ensure graduates are prepared for the modern workforce. The world of work is changing rapidly. Higher education can and must evolve with it.

    Rethinking What It Means to Prepare Students for the Future

    This partnership is part of a larger effort at the University of Michigan to reimagine what it means to support lifelong learning and life-changing education. Through Michigan Online, U-M students already have access to more than 280 open online courses and series created by faculty in partnership with the Center for Academic Innovation, as well as thousands of additional offerings from universities around the world. These new certificates and AI courses deepen that commitment, creating new on-ramps to opportunity for every student, regardless of background or campus.

    Through Google’s flexible online programs, we’ve seen how high-quality, employer-validated training can make a meaningful difference. More than one million learners globally have completed Google Career Certificates, and over 70 percent report a positive career outcome—such as a new job, raise or promotion—within six months of completion. Google’s employer consortium, including more than 150 companies like AT&T, Deloitte, Ford, Lowe’s, Rocket Companies, Siemens, Southwest, T-Mobile, Verizon, Wells Fargo and Google itself, actively recruits from this pool of talent. Google partners with over 800 educational institutions in all 50 states, including universities, community colleges and high schools, to help people begin promising careers in the Google Career Certificate fields.This new partnership extends these opportunities to U-M students to further support career readiness.

    By offering accessible, skill-based programs like the Google Career Certificates, we aim to provide additional scaffolding for student success and career readiness, alleviating some of the pressures associated with traditional academic routes and recognizing diverse forms of achievement.

    An Invitation to Higher Ed and Higher Ed Ecosystem Leaders

    We believe this partnership is a model for how industry and education can come together to create scalable, inclusive and future-forward solutions.

    But it’s just one step.

    As we reflect on this moment, we invite fellow leaders in higher education, industry and government to ask,

    • How can your institution better integrate career-relevant skills into the student journey without sacrificing the broader mission of a liberal arts education?
    • What partnerships or platforms might allow your students to benefit from both a degree and credentials with market value?
    • In an era defined by AI, how will your institution ensure students are not just informed users of new tools, but thoughtful, responsible and empowered innovators?
    • How can your institution or organization expand equitable access to high-value learning opportunities that lead to social and economic mobility?
    • What role should public-private partnerships play in shaping the future of education, work and innovation, and how can we design them for long-term impact?

    The path forward isn’t a binary choice. It’s a commitment to both excellence and access, both degrees and skills, both tradition and transformation.

    We’re honored to take this step together. And we look forward to learning alongside our students and our peers as we navigate what’s next. In a rapidly shifting higher education environment, we see reason for optimism: opportunities to reimagine student success, forge lasting strategic partnerships and strengthen the bridge between higher education and the future of work.

    James DeVaney is special adviser to the president, associate vice provost for academic innovation and the founding executive director of the Center for Academic Innovation at the University of Michigan.

    Lisa Gevelber is the founder of Grow with Google.

    Source link

  • 56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

    56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

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

    Dive Brief:

    • More than half of Americans, 56%, disapprove of how President Donald Trump is handling issues related to colleges, according to a new poll from the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago.
    • However, opinions varied dramatically depending on political affiliation. A strong majority of Democrats, 90%, disapprove of Trump’s response to college issues, while 67% of Independents said the same.
    • But among Republicans, 83% approve of the president’s approach, highlighting the stark political divide in how Americans believe higher education policy should be managed.

    Dive Insight:

    Trump has repeatedly criticized the higher education sector and has used much of his nascent second term to attempt to exert control over it.

    For instance, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation have moved to cap reimbursement rates for indirect research costs at 15%, though all three agencies have faced legal challenges. 

    Federal departments have also cut hundreds of millions in grant funding from colleges. In a little over a month, NIH cut $1.8 billion in grants, hitting minority health research the hardest, according to findings published in JAMA.

    Amid this fast-changing policy landscape, AP-NORC researchers interviewed 1,175 adults from May 1 to 5. Their responses offer insight into how the public views higher education and Trump’s actions in the sector.

    Overall, 62% of adults support maintaining the level of federal funding colleges receive for medical and scientific research, the poll found. And support was largely bipartisan, with 75% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans in favor.

    The Trump administration has also attempted to exert influence over Harvard and Columbia universities by demanding they complete unprecedented to-do lists — such as eliminating diversity initiatives and auditing faculty and student views — to continue to receive federal funding.

    Harvard rebuked the Trump administration’s demands and sued over what the lawsuit described as its efforts to gain “control of academic decisionmaking.” In turn, the administration has frozen $2.2 billion in Harvard’s funding and said it will cut off the university from future federal research dollars.

    Columbia initially took a different tack. After the Trump administration froze $400 million of its funding, the university complied with a similar round of demands, to the praise of federal officials. 

    But the Trump administration has yet to publicly reinstate its funding, and Columbia now appears to be following Harvard’s lead. Acting President Claire Shipman said in April that the university would reject “heavy-handed orchestration from the government” that would undercut its mission.

    Trump appears to be tightening the screws on Columbia and is pursuing a consent decree against it. A consent decree would task a federal judge with ensuring the university complies with the Trump administration’s demands. 

    About half of Republicans, 51%, said they favored the federal government withholding higher ed funding unless colleges comply with requirements related to Trump’s political goals. One-third, 32%, said they had no opinion on the matter.

    In comparison, 73% of Democrats opposed the use of federal funding as a means for Trump to achieve his goals.

    The public’s view of how the president is handling higher education falls in line with his overall approval rating of 41%, the poll said.

    Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status — a decision that is meant to fall under the independent authority of the IRS. About half of Republicans, 49%, approved of the effort, the poll found. The idea had just a 30% approval rating overall.

    Views about Trump’s specific policy goals, such as banning campus diversity efforts, also fell along party lines.

    Among Democrats, 70% supported campus services such as clubs and mentorship programs for students from underrepresented groups, and 24% had no opinion. A third of Republicans, 31%, approved of such programs, and 41% had no opinion.

    But support among conservatives fell further when pollsters asked about “diversity, equity and inclusion programs, sometimes called DEI.” A majority of Republicans, 60%, opposed programs labeled as DEI, while 23% said they neither favored nor opposed them.

    Approval among Democrats stayed largely the same, with 68% in favor.

    Republicans were also more likely to oppose classes that teach about racism than Democrats, 44% compared to 8%.

    Source link