Tag: Approach

  • 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

  • Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    One of the biggest, but least remarked upon trends in European higher education in recent years is the growth of private for-profit, higher education. Even in countries where tuition is free, there are hundreds of thousands of students who now prefer to take courses at private for-profit institutions.

    To me, the question is, why? What sort of institutions are these anyway? Interestingly, the answer to that second question is one which might confuse my mostly North American audience. Turns out a lot of these private institutions are relatively small, bespoke institutions with very narrow academic specializations. And yet they’re owned by a few very large international conglomerate universities. That’s very different from North America, where institutions tend to be either small and bespoke, or part of a large corporation, but not both.

    Today my guest is Nicolas Badré. He’s the Chief Operating Officer of the Galileo Group, which operates a number of universities across Europe. I met him a few months ago at an OECD event in Jakarta. When I heard about some of Galileo’s initiatives, I knew I’d have to have him on the show. 

    There are three things which I think are most important about this interview. First is the discussion about Galileo’s business model and how it achieves economies of scale across such different types of institutions. Second, there’s how the network goes about collectively learning across all its various institutions. And third, specifically how it’s choosing to experiment with AI across a number of institutions and apply the lessons more globally. 

    Overall, it’s a fascinating chat. I hope you enjoy it too. But now, let’s turn things over to Nicolas.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.27 | Innovation Without Borders: Galileo’s Networked Approach to Better Higher Education System

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Nicolas, Galileo Global Education has grown significantly over the years. I think the group is, if I’m not mistaken, 13 or 14 years old now. Some of the universities it owns might be a bit older, but can you walk us through the origins of the group? How did you grow to be as big as you are? I think you’ve got dozens of institutions in dozens of countries—how did that growth happen so quickly?

    Nicolas Badré (NB): Thank you, Alex, for the question. It’s an interesting story. And yes, to your point, the group was created 13 and a half years ago, with an investment by Providence Equity Partners into Istituto Marangoni, a fashion school in Italy. That dates back to 2011. Since then, we’ve made 30 acquisitions.

    The growth started primarily in Europe, especially in France and Germany. Then, in 2014, we took our first steps outside of Europe with the acquisition of IEU in Mexico. Significant moves followed in 2018 and 2019, particularly into the online learning space with Studi in France and AKAD in Germany.

    There’s been a very rapid acceleration over the past five years. For context, I joined the group at the end of 2019. At that time, Galileo had 67,000 students across nine countries. Today, we have 300,000 students in 20 countries.

    Back then, the group was primarily focused on arts and creative schools, as well as business and management schools. Now, we’ve expanded into tech and health, and even into some professional training areas—like truck driving, for instance.

    What does this reflect? Two things. First, very strong organic growth from our existing schools and brands. Take ESG in France as an example. It’s been around for 40 years and is a well-known entry-level business school. Over the past five years, it’s diversified considerably creating ESG Luxury, ESG Tourism, you name it. It’s also expanded its physical presence from just a few cities to now being in 15 or 16 cities across France.

    So it’s really been a combination of strong organic growth and selective acquisitions that have helped us more than quadruple our student numbers in just five years.

    AU: It’s interesting— I think a lot of our listeners and viewers might be surprised to hear about such a strong for-profit institution coming out of France. When you think of French higher education, you think of the Grandes Écoles, you think of free education. So why would so many people choose to pay for education when they don’t have to? It’s a pretty strong trend in France now. I think over 26% of all students in France are in some form of private higher education. What do you offer that makes people willing to give up “free”?

    NB: It’s a good question, and you’re right—it’s not just about France. In many places across Europe, including Germany, the Nordics, and others, you see similar dynamics.

    That said, yes, in France in particular, there’s been a growing share of private players in higher education over the past few years. That probably reflects the private sector’s greater ability to adapt to new environments.

    I’d highlight three main factors that help explain why we’ve been successful in this space.

    First, we’re obsessed with employability and skills-based education. And that’s true across all levels and backgrounds. When we worked on our group mission statement, everyone agreed that our mission is to “unleash the potential of everyone for better employability.” 

    Because of that focus, we maintain very strong ties with industry. That gives us the ability to adapt, create, and update our programs very quickly in response to emerging demands. We know competencies become obsolete faster now, so staying aligned with job market needs is critical. That’s probably the strongest unifying driver across all of Galileo.

    Beyond that, we also offer very unique programs. Take Noroff, for example—a tech school in Norway, which is even more tuition-free than France. It’s one of the very few fee-paying institutions in the country. But the program is so strong that students are willing to pay around 15,000 euros a year because they know they’ll get a top-tier, hands-on experience—something that might be slower to evolve in the public system.

    So that’s the first point: employability and unique, high-impact programs.

    Second, we put a strong emphasis on the student experience. How do we transform their education beyond just delivering content? That’s an area we continue to invest in—never enough, but always pushing. We’re focused on hybridizing disciplines, geographies, and pedagogical approaches.

    And we’ve systematized student feedback—not just asking for opinions, but making sure we translate that feedback into tangible improvements in the student experience.

    And third, I’d say there’s a values-based dimension to all of this. We focus heavily on innovation, entrepreneurship, and high standards. Those are the core values that we’re driven by. You could say they’re our obsessions—and I think that kind of vision and energy resonates with our students. Those are the three main things I’d point to.

    AU: I have a question about how you make things work across such a diverse set of institutions. I mean, you’ve got design schools, drama schools, law schools, medical schools. When people think about private education, there’s often an assumption that there’s some kind of economies of scale in terms of curriculum. The idea that you can reuse curriculum across different places. But my impression is that you can’t do that very much. It seems like you’re managing all these different institutions, each of them like their own boutique operation, with their own specific costs. How do you make it work across a system as large and diverse as yours? Where are the economies of scale?

    NB: Well, that’s also a very good point—and you’re absolutely right. We have a very diverse network of schools. We have a culinary arts school in Bordeaux, France, with maybe 400 students, and we have universities with more than 10,000 students, whether in medical or business education.

    So yes, you might wonder: why put these institutions together?

    The answer is that we really built the group’s development around the entrepreneurial DNA of our school directors. They’re responsible for their own development—for their growth, diversification, and how they respond to the job market.

    We’re not obsessed with economies of scale. What we really value is the network itself. What we focus on is shared methodology—in areas like sales and marketing, finance, HR, and student experience.

    There are also some opportunities for synergies in systems. In some cases, for instance, yes—we use a similar CRM across several countries. But I think the real value of the network lies in its ability to share experiences and experiment with innovation throughout, and then scale up those innovations appropriately across the other schools.

    So I’d say it’s more about shared practices than about forcing economies of scale across borders—because that doesn’t always make sense.

    AU: Am I correct in thinking that you don’t necessarily present yourself as a chain of institutions to students? That each institution actually has a pretty strong identity in and of itself—is that right? Is there a fair bit of autonomy and ability to adapt things locally at each of your schools?

    NB: Yes, I think that’s true. In terms of branding, we believe that each of our schools generally has a stronger brand than Galileo itself. And that’s how it should be, because each school has its own experience, its own DNA, its own momentum and development.

    So, we see ourselves more as a platform that supports the development of all these schools, rather than a chain imposing the same standards and practices across the board.

    Of course, we do have certain methodologies—for example, how to run a commercial campaign. We provide guidance, but it’s ultimately up to each school to manage that process and use the methodology in a way that works best for their own development.

    That doesn’t mean there’s no value in having the Galileo name—there is. But the value is in being a platform that supports the schools, rather than overshadowing them.

    AU: Nicolas, I know Galileo is testing a lot of AI-driven approaches across its various institutions. What I found interesting in a discussion we had offline a few weeks ago is that you’re experimenting with AI in different parts of the institution—some of it around curriculum, some around administration, and some around student services. Can you give us an overview? What exactly are you testing, and what are the goals of these experiments?

    NB: I think we first need to frame how we’re using AI, and it’s important to look at our strategy globally. We believe there are three major trends shaping higher education.

    First, student expectations are evolving quickly—they’re demanding more flexibility and personalization. Second, there’s a rapid emergence of new competencies, which challenges our ability to adapt and update programs quickly. And third, we need to go beyond boundaries and be agile in how we approach topics, address new skills, and serve diverse learners. These are the three starting points we see as opportunities for Galileo to differentiate itself. Now, we’re not trying to become a leading AI company. Our goal remains to be a recognized leader in education—improving employability and lives. That’s our benchmark.

    With that in mind, our AI vision is focused on four areas:

    1. How do we deliver a unique experience to our students?
    2. How do we connect educators globally who are trained in and comfortable with AI?
    3. How do we develop content that can be adapted, localized, translated, and personalized?
    4. And how do we improve operational productivity?

    AI is clearly a powerful tool in all four areas. Let me walk through some of the things we’re doing. 

    The first area we call AI for Content. We’re using AI to more quickly identify the competencies required by the job market. We use tools that give us a more immediate connection to the market to understand what skills are in demand. Based on that, we design programs that better align with those needs.

    Then the next step is about course and content creation. Once we’ve defined the competencies, how do we design the courses, the pedagogical materials? How do we make it easier to localize and adapt that content?

    Take Studi, an online university in France with 67,000 students and around 150 different programs. A year ago, it would take them about four months to design a bachelor’s or master’s program. Now, it takes one to two months, depending on the specifics. The cost has been cut in half, and development speed has increased by a factor of two, three, even four in some cases. This also opens up opportunities to make programs more personalized because we can update them much faster. 

    The second area is AI for Experience. How do we use AI to enhance the student experience?

    We’ve embedded AI features in our LMS to personalize quizzes, generate mind maps, and create interactive sessions during classes. We’ve also adapted assessments. For example, in Germany, for the past two years, our online university AKAD has let students choose their own exam dates. That’s based on an AI approach that generates personalized assessments while staying within the requirements of German accreditation bodies. This wouldn’t be possible without AI. The result is higher engagement, faster feedback, and a more personalized learning experience.

    Lastly, beyond content and experience, we’re seeing real gains in AI for Operations. In sales and marketing, for example, we now use bots in Italy and Latin America to re-engage “dead” leads—contacting them again, setting up meetings, and redirecting them through the admissions funnel. It’s proven quite efficient, and we’re looking to expand that approach to other schools.

    We’re also seeing strong results in tutoring. Take Corndel, a large UK-based school focused on apprenticeships. They’re using AI tools extensively to improve student tracking, tutoring, and weekly progress monitoring.

    So, we’re seeing a lot of momentum across all these dimensions—and it’s really picked up speed over the last 18 months.

    AU: So, you’ve got a network of institutions, which gives you a lot of little laboratories to experiment with—to try different things. How do you identify best practices? And then how do you scale them across your network?

    NB: Well, first of all, we have lots of different pilots. As you’ve understood, we’re quite decentralized, so we don’t have a central innovation team of 50 people imposing innovations across all our schools.

    It’s more about scouting and sharing experiences from one school to another. It’s a combination of networks where people share what they’re learning.

    Just to name a few, we have a Digital Learning Community—that’s made up of all the people involved in LMS design across our schools. They exchange a lot of insights and experiences.

    We also hold regular touchpoints to present what’s happening in AI for content, AI for experience, and AI for operations. We’ve created some shared training paths for schools as well. So there are a lot of initiatives aimed at maximizing sharing, rather than imposing anything top-down. Again, as you pointed out, the schools are extremely diverse—in terms of regulations, size, content, and disciplines. So there’s no universal recipe.

    That said, in some cases it’s more about developing a methodology. For example, how do you design and implement a pedagogical chatbot? The experiments we’re running now are very promising for future scale-up, because we’re learning a lot from these developments.

    AU: I know that, in a sense, you’ve institutionalized the notion of innovation within the system. I think you’ve recently launched a new master’s program specifically focused on this question—on how to innovate in education systems. Can you tell us a little bit about that?

    NB: Yeah, I’m super excited to talk about this, because it’s where I’m focusing most of my energy these days.

    We’ve been working on this project for a year with four Galileo institutions. It’s called Copernia, and the name, like Galileo, is intentional—these are people who changed perspectives. That’s exactly what we want to do: change the perspective on education and truly put the student at the center.

    Copernia started the initiative, Galileo confirmed it, and it’s no coincidence we’re focusing on this.

    The first program we’re launching under Copernia is a Master of Innovation and Technology for Education. The idea is to bring together and leverage expertise from several fields: neurocognitive science, tech, AI and data, educational sciences, innovation, design, and management. The goal is to offer students a unique experience where they not only learn about innovation—but also learn to develop and apply it.

    One of the major assets we want to leverage is the Galileo network. With over 120 campuses, we can offer students real, hands-on opportunities to experiment and innovate. So the value proposition is: if you want to design and test educational innovation, we’ll give you the tools, the foundational knowledge, and, most importantly, the chance to apply that in practice—within our network, with our partners, and with other institutions.

    The goal is to help the whole ecosystem benefit—not just from Galileo’s environment, but also from the contributions of tech partners, academic collaborators, and business partners around the world. I’m convinced this will be a major tool to develop, share, and scale practical, applied innovation.

    And importantly, this isn’t meant to be just an internal initiative for Galileo. It’s designed to be open. We want to train people who can help transform education—not only in higher education, but also in K–12 and lifelong learning. Because we believe this kind of cross-disciplinary expertise and hands-on innovation experience is valuable across the entire education sector.

    AU: I’m really impressed with the scale and speed at which you’re able to experiment. But it did make me wonder—why can’t public higher education systems do the same? I mean, if I think about French universities, there are 70 or 80 in the public system—though it’s hard to keep track because they keep merging. But theoretically, they could do this too, couldn’t they? It’s a moderately centralized system, and there’s no reason institutions couldn’t collaborate in ways that let them identify useful innovations—rolling them out at different speeds in different areas, depending on what works. Why can’t the public sector innovate like that?

    NB: First of all, I wouldn’t make a sweeping judgment on this. I think there is innovation happening everywhere—including within public institutions. So I wouldn’t describe it in black-and-white terms.

    That said, it’s true that as a private organization, we face a certain kind of pressure. We need to prove that we operate a sustainable model—and we need to prove that every month. In other words, we rely on ourselves to develop, to test, and to optimize how we grow. 

    The second is that we have an asset in being able to test and learn in very different environments. Take the example I mentioned earlier, about Germany and the anytime online assessments. We were able to implement that model there because it was online and because the regulatory environment allowed it.

    Now, when we approach accreditation bodies in other countries, we can say: “Look, it works. It’s already accepted elsewhere. Why not consider it here?” That ability to move between different contexts—academic and professional, vocational and executive—is really valuable. It allows us to promote solutions that cross traditional boundaries.

    That’s not something all public universities can do—and frankly, not something all universities can do, period. But it’s an advantage we’ve built over the past several years by creating this large field for experimentation.

    AU: Nicolas, thank you so much for being with us today.

    NB: Alex, thank you very much. It’s been a pleasure.

    AU: It just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and to thank you—our viewers, listeners, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions about today’s podcast, please don’t hesitate to get in touch at [email protected]. And don’t forget—never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education Podcast. Head over to YouTube and subscribe to our channel. Join us next week when our guest will be Noel Baldwin, CEO of the Future Skills Centre here in Canada. He’ll be joining us to talk about the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies. See you then.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

    This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

    Source link

  • Rethinking our approach to maths anxiety

    Rethinking our approach to maths anxiety

    As higher education professionals, we encounter a wide spectrum of emotional responses to mathematics and statistics.

    This could vary from mild apprehension to teary outbursts, and often, it can also lead to complete avoidance of the subjects, despite their value in achieving success both in university and after.

    Behaviours such as procrastination can hinder student learning, and as such, it is imperative that students are taught to challenge these feelings.

    An analogy that we have used is fear of spiders – we may be likely to avoid places that house spiders, and in the same way, students may procrastinate or completely avoid maths-related tasks due to their “discomfort”.

    Additionally, cultural attitudes, gender, and past educational experiences can all influence how someone responds to mathematics.

    The term “maths anxiety” is commonly used to describe any negative emotion related to mathematics. However, when viewing it from a psychological viewpoint, we argue that there needs to be a distinction made between clinical anxiety and general apprehension.

    Most of us would feel worried if we were taking an exam that included mathematics or statistics – it is normal to feel some level of worry about being tested, and we can learn to manage this.

    Clinical anxiety, on the other hand, is more extreme, and significantly impairs the ability to manage daily tasks – it requires psychological support. By conflating these experiences, we run the risk of over-medicalising a typical reaction to potentially challenging material, and we might miss opportunities to provide appropriate support, or to help students to self-regulate their emotions.

    Various approaches have proven successful in our practices for dealing with worries.

    What works

    We’ve found that opening up the conversation about anxiety early on – creating a safe space where students can explore what it is, when it shows up, and how it affects them. With each new group, we try to start this discussion as soon as possible, framing it in broad terms to keep it inclusive and non-threatening. Students often respond well when asked to think about situations that make them feel nervous – things like sitting an exam, taking a driving test, or speaking in public.

    From there, we invite them to notice the physical and emotional effects anxiety has on them. Common responses include sweating, shortness of breath, feeling jittery or nauseous, difficulty concentrating, or an urge to get away. These are usually sensations they’ve experienced before, even if they haven’t named them. When we approach it this way – shared, grounded in real life, and without judgement—it tends to normalise the conversation. We’re always conscious of the potential for some students to feel overwhelmed by the topic, so we stay attuned and pause when needed, signposting to further support if things get too heavy.

    Asking students what they already do when they feel anxious helps too. Giving everyone a chance to reflect and share helps surface the small strategies – breathing deeply, taking a walk, positive self-talk – that they may not realise they’re using. It affirms that they do have tools, and that managing nerves is something within their control.

    Simply asking students how they feel about using maths or statistics in their studies can also help. More often than not, a few will admit to feeling nervous – or even anxious – which opens the door to normalising those feelings. From there, we can connect the strategies they already use in other situations to the challenges they face with maths, helping them build a toolkit they can draw on when the pressure mounts.

    Some strategies that students find helpful include mindful breathing, visualising a calming place, or even splashing cold water on the face to reset. Others involve filtering out negative messages that chip away at confidence, re-framing self-talk to be specific and encouraging – like swapping “I can’t do maths” for “I’ve learned before, I can learn again” – and, crucially, building skills and confidence through steady learning and practice.

    There may, however, be cases where a student’s anxiety is not assuaged by employing these techniques, and a level of clinical anxiety may be suspected, requiring further support from counsellors or other professionals. In these cases, ensuring the students are guided, even taken, to access the relevant support services is key. This may lead to requests for reasonable adjustments as well as prescribed treatments, thus enabling the student to face the challenge and hopefully emerge successfully on the other side.

    Prizes for all

    Of course, these are all interventions that are useful for students who are struggling with worries about maths – but there are also things we can do to support all of our students. Some students will be struggling quietly; some will have other learning differences that might impact on their ability to learn maths, such as ADHD.

    One approach we might consider is Universal Design for Learning, where we make learning accessible for all our diverse students, regardless of the specific issues that they might experience, or whether they tell us about those issues. Giving students choice in how they complete their assessments, allowing them access to resources or notes (open book) during test situations, and not imposing tight timescales on assessments can be one way to support students to achieve their best. Taking this approach also removes some of the administrative work involved in working out reasonable adjustments!

    Sometimes there are professional requirements that mean that such adjustments are not possible (for example, calculating doses in nursing where achieving 100% is a requirement), but often it can be helpful to consider what we are assessing. Do we need to assess a student’s ability to solve a maths problem from memory and under time pressure, or do we want to know that they can solve a problem they may encounter in a typical graduate role when they might be able to search how to approach it?

    Authentic assessment can be a useful tool for making maths learning and assessment less scary and more accessible.

    Differentiating between a regular level of apprehension and clinical anxiety will help us to be better placed to implement strategies to support students and staff in succeeding on their mathematical or statistical journey. This can begin at the curriculum design and development stage, extending beyond our work with individual students.

    Supportive relationships between learning development tutors, students and teaching staff enable us to implement tailored strategies for minimising maths anxiety. By working together, we can reframe maths learning to be seen as an opportunity for growth, and not something to fear.

    Source link

  • An end to sticking plaster politics? Why the government needs to use its upcoming white paper to take a different approach to immigration

    An end to sticking plaster politics? Why the government needs to use its upcoming white paper to take a different approach to immigration

    The Labour Party was elected to government last year on a promise to reduce net migration. Their victory in the 2024 General Election followed a period in which net migration to the UK peaked at 906,000 and public concerns over migration began to rise again for the first time since the Brexit referendum.

    Unsurprisingly, Number 10 views progress on this issue as central to their re-election prospects. Precisely how the government will look to do this is still unclear, yet recent weeks have seen growing speculation over an immigration white paper which is expected to land pretty soon.

    White paper

    A new approach to immigration is needed. Too often, immigration policy has been dictated by the release of the latest migration figures and so the development of a white paper on immigration in and of itself is no bad thing. Moreover, it provides the government with an opportunity to take a more strategic approach to migration policy.

    Prior to the election, the Labour Party committed to a different style of governing which would end ‘sticking plaster’ politics. But how to apply this longer-term view to immigration policy? To be judged as successful, any new approach to immigration would need to see net migration reduced given their manifesto commitment. As such, tough choices need to be made about where further reforms could be made to reduce the overall number of people coming to the UK.

    This creates some obvious risks for UK universities given the importance of international students to the financial sustainability of our sector. Universities UK (UUK) has been clear that, over the long-term, international recruitment should not be the answer to the financial sustainability of higher education institutions. Instead, we need to work with government on a long-term plan, secure increased investment, and explore new approaches to efficiency and transformation in the sector.

    In the absence of a long-term plan to address the underfunding of the higher education sector, any new approach to immigration would, at the very least, need to enable universities to continue to attract international students to study in the UK to prevent current financial challenges from deteriorating further.

    Three tests

    This is no easy task, but it is possible. So, what could a different course of action on migration policy actually look like? I think there are three clear things we need:

    1. A joined up, coordinated approach.

    2. Look forward not back, (as the Labour Party once encouraged us to do).

    3. Draw a line between temporary and permanent migration.

     

    The left-hand ought to know what the right-hand is doing

    The starting point of any new immigration policy ought to be based on having a joined-up and co-ordinated approach. This may seem obvious but would be a welcome change.

    The key opportunity for the new government is to use their immigration white paper to finally align migration policy with wider government objectives. Based on what the Home Secretary has outlined, at least part of this would be to create much greater join-up between the UK’s visas and skills systems so that immigration is not used as an alternative to training or tackling workforce problems, thereby reducing overall net migration. This is a good start, but the white paper offers an opportunity to go further.

    Under previous administrations, there was a distinct lack of coordination and coherence in policy and strategy. This can be seen most clearly in the development of an International Education Strategy – which set an explicit aim of government policy to grow the number of international students coming to the UK, but which then came up against a Home Office who had been instructed to curb the growth in international students.

    Don’t use the rear-view mirror

    With a clear joined-up strategy, the government should then look to shift the focus of immigration policy away from retrospective net migration trends, towards focussing on future forecasts, thereby creating a more realistic timeframe to achieve their strategy.

    It is quite clear that reducing net migration is going to continue to be the focus of government policy. Yet as we have seen, annual net migration focuses too much on short-term migration trends – be it the increase of people coming from Ukraine, or Hong Kong – and doesn’t focus enough on the anticipated impact of recent policy – such as changes to dependant’s which has led a dramatic reduction in the UK’s attractiveness as a study destination in certain countries.

    By shifting towards long-term projections (measured over a rolling 5-year average), the government could then create the political space to actually achieve their wider objectives. For example, providing a longer-term timeframe to work with employers to implement skills and training initiatives to support those roles where recruitment is primarily met through immigration.

    Any future forecast would, inevitably, be subject to changes and revisions but it would represent a far better metric than basing government policy on retrospective and highly volatile net migration trends from the previous year.

    Separate the temporary from the permanent

    A final welcome change would be for the government to distinguish more between ‘temporary’ and ‘permanent’ migration. After all, while many migrants do settle in the UK, many others do not and have little intention of doing so.

    This applies to many international students. They may stay for a few years after their studies, but very few end up remaining in the UK for the long-term and get settlement. Rather than taking students out of net migration – which would only serve to highlight the contribution which international students do make to net migration while ignoring the impact which students do have on housing and local services – the government should look to place greater focus on different types of visas being granted to those coming to the UK.

    There are lots of ways this could be done, but focussing more on those visa routes which lead to settlement (or ‘indefinite leave to remain’) would help improve public understanding of migration and better reflect the fact that many migrants included in the net migration stats do not contribute significantly to the long-term population of the UK.

    Concerns about immigration are unlikely to go away anytime soon, but the opportunity for a better approach is there for the taking.

    Many parts of the world – particularly across the Anglosphere – are currently seeing higher levels of net migration, and how countries respond is an issue facing many governments.

    With aging societies, slowing rates of economic growth, not to mention an increasing number of people displaced due to climate change, conflict, and natural disasters, immigration will continue to be high on the political agenda.

    Through their immigration white paper, the new UK government has a clear opportunity to address this challenge head on and take a different approach to previous administrations and, in doing so, demonstrate that well-managed immigration can be – and indeed is – a force for good.

    In developing a more joined-up approach, while focussing on future projections – rather than retrospective trends – and which makes a clearer distinction between temporary and permanent migration, the UK government could go a long way to developing a more sensible approach to immigration policy.

    The opportunity is there, the question is whether the government will take it.

    Source link