Tag: change

  • Could Uncertainty in Higher Ed Be a Catalyst for Change?

    Could Uncertainty in Higher Ed Be a Catalyst for Change?

    As colleges navigate major disruption—from a loss of federal funding to AI advancements—they’re also being forced to grapple with persistent questions around their role in skills training, trust in their institutions and how to keep pace with digital learning innovations.

    At Digital Universities, a convening of more than 150 faculty, teaching and learning administrators, and education-technology experts, attendees came away with a sense of urgency to meet this moment of unpredictability and uncertainty.

    “It’s revealing the tensions between different goals, aspirations and larger challenges that may be implicit but are still there,” said Trey Conatser, assistant provost for teaching and learning at the University of Kentucky and director of UK’s Center for the Enhancement of Learning and Teaching.

    “Some of those things are what it means to adapt to enrollment challenges and how we negotiate our identities as institutions of higher education, as stewards of a storied, scholarly mission in light of changing business models, as well as negotiating our relationships with industry partners, the public and public officials.”

    Glenda Morgan, an education-technology market analyst, told Inside Higher Ed that she was reassured that “people are actually talking about this stuff—this moment of uncertainty” throughout the conference’s programming.

    “AI is making clear some of the issues and fractures and making all of these problems that have probably been there for a long time more apparent, visible and urgent,” she said.

    For example, “AI brings questions about cheating to the forefront, but it really highlights that our assessment systems are so outdated … Testing factual information has never been the point; it’s always been application. But AI is making that more urgent now.”

    Trust in Higher Ed

    In a panel discussion on privacy, AI and cybersecurity, speakers highlighted another long-standing issue that AI is pushing to the surface: trust. Morgan said that while today’s students seem generally comfortable sharing their data with outside entities, they may be increasingly skeptical about how their own institutions are using or even “surveilling” their data.

    Panelist Josh Callahan, chief information security officer for the California State University system, later told Inside Higher Ed that cybersecurity concerns in the era of AI are stoking conversations that should have happened decades ago.

    “We were all busy doing the things, building technology into teaching and learning, and we had a lot of assumptions and really didn’t engage in some of these conversations,” he said. “And now it’s becoming unavoidable, because it’s embedded. And we are at a crisis point in a lot of ways, in terms of our trust in institutions—not just higher ed.”

    Teaching in the Age of AI

    At the two-day event in Salt Lake City organized by Inside Higher Ed and its parent company, Times Higher Education, attendees also considered how to respond to the threat to entry-level white-collar jobs posed by the evolution of AI—a risk articulated by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei last month when he predicted AI could wipe out half of those positions within just five years.

    During a discussion on leveraging workforce partnerships for future skills, Sarah DeMark, vice president of academic portfolio at the fully online Western Governors University, said WGU’s instruction and curriculum model is informed by employment data and focused on helping students both develop and effectively market the skills they learn in college. “It’s not just about degree completion, it’s about getting a job,” she said. “One of the big opportunities [institutions] have is transparency around the skills and competencies students are gaining through the courses and programs they’re taking.”

    Hollis Robbins, special adviser for humanities diplomacy at the University of Utah, offered a different perspective on workforce preparation, saying faculty should be able to do more than teach skills and information in the age of AI, when students no longer need a professor to learn easily accessible, established information.

    “My own view is that AI is going to be teaching general education courses,” she said. With that in mind, “it’s important to reconfigure their business models to double down on faculty expertise and say that’s the value of what [students] are paying for.”

    Meanwhile, in a discussion about getting the most out of teaching with AI, Zawan Al Bulushi, an assistant professor of education at the University of Arizona, said that she sees generative AI as a “friend” that offers shortcuts for professors who may feel overwhelmed by their workloads. She uses it to craft lesson plans that strike the right tone with students and create visually appealing lecture slides that keep students engaged.

    “The best educators won’t be replaced by AI,” she said. “But those who use it well will redefine what’s possible.”

    Bulushi is an outlier among most faculty, however, as many institutions still have no formal AI policy supporting students and faculty in engaging with the technology.

    Recent findings from Inside Higher Ed’s survey of chief information officers showed that more than half of CIOs say their institution hasn’t adopted institutionwide formal policies or guidelines for the use of AI tools for general use. And 31 percent said their institution hasn’t adopted any policy or guidelines in the areas of instruction, administrative tasks, student services or research assistance.

    “If you don’t have a policy, then it’s a little bit like the wild, wild West. Entities like OpenAI, Google and Microsoft are all competing, and they’re all telling you that they’re the answer,” Marvin Krislov, president of Pace University, said in the opening plenary. “But there doesn’t seem to be regulation on the federal level and there doesn’t seem to be consensus in higher education. At least on an institutional level, I hope people will start—if they haven’t already—grappling with [AI].”

    Maricel Lawrence, innovation catalyst at Purdue Global, advised institutions to consider why they want to use new AI technologies before jumping headfirst into adoption.

    “We need a larger conversation about what it means to learn and how to advance student success,” she told Inside Higher Ed. “AI could help us in many ways, but it shouldn’t be that we’re starting the conversation with AI.”

    Sara Custer and Colleen Flaherty contributed to this report.

    Source link

  • A change agenda for the commuter student experience

    A change agenda for the commuter student experience

    In February, we launched our commuter student series, seeking to uncover how universities are responding to the increasing numbers of commuter students – students who continue to live at home whilst studying, rather than relocating to attend university, in contrast to “traditional” residential students.

    We sought to increase the visibility of commuters and share best practice, responding to demand for thought leadership and evidence-based interventions, with the aim of influencing pedagogy, practice and policy, within institutions and nationally.

    The series also followed the inclusion of commuter students on the Office for Students’ Equality of Opportunity Risk Register in England as a distinct group who experience inequality of opportunity.

    In our final article we look back at the series, reflecting on key learnings, before looking forward, setting out a change agenda for commuters that will make higher education more accessible, attractive and available to all.

    Commuter students are everywhere yet invisible

    Commuter students are part of every UK university.

    The proportion of commuters varies by institution – research by Susan Kenyon using 2022 HESA data, shows a range from 12 to 85 per cent.

    As such commuters need to be counted and made visible, acknowledged in pedagogy, policy and processes and, where necessary, considered as communities at risk in Access and Participation Plans (APPs) in England.

    And despite being everywhere, commuters can often be invisible and underserved.

    Earlier in the series Val Yates and Carolyn Oulton discussed how to build an institutional agenda for change by making commuters visible. Their agenda was one where commuters are embedded across the institution. Commuters don’t interact only with their lecturers – supporting commuters lies with academics, across professional services and into teams like IT and sustainability.

    We explored the diverse definitions of commuters in APPs, which often makes measuring progress difficult. In supporting commuters, it’s important we know we’re talking about the same group of students. Expanded definitions have considered those who live locally, use transport, have the same term time and home address but also those who relocate but live further away due to cost and housing pressures.

    Commuters need to be visible to their institution first before making them visible to each other through access programmes, networks and student societies.

    Commuter students are valuable

    Our series also reveals the cultural, educational and social value of commuters to our learning community.

    Commuters are passionate, engaged and committed. They bring diverse perspectives, experience and expertise to the classroom. As Martin Lowe, Adrian Wright and Mark Wilding write, they “are not just students, they are employees, caregivers, and active members of their communities,” bringing skills such as time management and the ability to balance multiple responsibilities, alongside discipline and an internal motivation to learn that can inspire and influence other students.

    And as Emma Maslin highlighted, there is a tendency to see commuters from a deficit perspective, as a disadvantaged group, whose experience needs to be “fixed.”

    Our authors don’t deny the academic, financial and social difficulties of being a commuter in a world designed for residential students, particularly when, as Elise Thornton discusses, commuting is often a financial necessity, rather than an active choice.

    But the opportunity to attend university as a commuter student can allow students to maintain community, employment and relationships that they value, whilst learning.

    Articles by Molly Pemberton and Susan Preston emphasise how valuable commuter students are to the wider student community. Commuters are campaigning for changes in policy, practice and spaces that reshape the university experience and bring benefits to all students.

    A common theme running throughout the series is that changes made to pedagogy, policy and processes, which initially aim to create a more inclusive environment for commuter students, benefit all students. And a lot of the time, they’re changes driven by students themselves.

    In designing services and learning for commuters, we’ve seen Tom Perou discusses the universal benefits of podcasts, which provide bite-sized learning in an alternative format; Kulvinder Singh described the importance of enhancing belonging in the classroom; and Susan Kenyon and Flic Lindo stressed the importance of improving information on the “rules of the game” and demystifying the “hidden curriculum.”

    Commuters are in the city

    In the traditional residential model, students remain largely in their defined area. But commuter students are integrated into the wider fabric of communities.

    Finding out where commuters are is often a good first step. David Kernohan analysed HESA data to help us understand what constitutes a local student and if local students aren’t going to your provider, where are they going?

    It’s common that local authorities don’t know how many students live locally, have relocated or are registered to vote, all of which inhibits the design of services to meet students’ needs. In the context of transport providers, bus fares and transport routes often don’t serve commuters because they don’t first understand that population.

    Joel Dowson’s article takes this further, outlining how universities and their students’ unions can leverage the financial value of students to transport providers, in terms of revenue and potential gains from reduced road congestion. At the Greater Manchester Student Partnership they have been lobbying for an improved commuter student experience, influencing the affordability and availability of transport services, to the benefit of all students.

    A commuter change agenda

    The aim of this series was to empower everyone in HE, whatever their role, to have a better understanding of the needs of commuter students.

    And as our contributions have evidenced, work happens everywhere – in professional services, in the classroom, in regional advocacy and with students.

    When thinking about where the work starts, it might be at your desk. There’s four categories to our change agenda, drawing on contributions from authors across the series: in the classroom, at the institution, with students and in national policy.

    In the classroom

    Supporting commuters in the classroom is about making them feel seen and making them visible to each other. Active pedagogies develop belonging and on-commute learning options such as podcasts, pre-recorded lectures or flipped learning are examples of inclusive learning delivery. Creating a reason to attend and articulating the benefits to students is important to sustain engagement.

    At the institution

    Institutions need to count commuters, then research, listen and review policies to ensure they work for all students. Practical steps include things like student-centric timetabling, consistent and empathetic attendance policies, providing clear information to commuters on application and offering accommodation options so that students can engage beyond the classroom. Institutions have influence with local governments and transport authorities and can be an effective conduit for making the city more commuter student friendly. And institutions can work towards building institutional empathy so colleagues understand that a lack of engagement may not be laziness, it may be a delayed bus or a train fare hike.

    With students

    Many APP interventions included co-creating solutions with students rather than for them which is undoubtedly the best step forward. It was students who led the way to making a commuter student lounge at Leeds University through the sharing of university rooms, giving them ownership, space and agency. In any project, involving commuters beyond consultation leads to successful interventions and outcomes.

    On a national level

    Measuring progress is difficult with different and diverse definitions, the sector needs to start with a shared agreement of who this student group is and how to measure them.

    The engagement barriers universities face are often tied to the cost of living crisis. Transport fares are expensive, so commuters make tactical, tough decisions about when and how to engage. Responding to consultations and calls for evidence on key transport policy with commuters helps shift transport service design in favour of students. And institutions are key agents in making change on a national level – at Sheffield Hallam SU, it was their VC support that got students in the room with their mayor to discuss bus prices.

    Whether it’s student-centric timetables, creating a commuter student lounge or working with the local transport authority, individuals across institutions want to feel empowered to enhance the commuter student experience themselves. So as institutions better understand, count and make visible the commuter student experience, the next step is for the work to start. And small things make a difference, simply talking about commuters in the classroom helps build community. Students experience enough delays on public transport, they don’t want to see the same delays happening with support at their institutions.

    Since publication, John Blake, Director for Fair Access and Participation at the Office for Students told us:

    Commuter students can sometimes get forgotten in the discourse around higher education. Yet they make up a significant proportion of the student body at all institutions, and at some comprise over three quarters of students. That’s why I really welcome Wonkhe’s focus on this issue. This series has helped identify who commuter students are, the enormous amount they add to the institutions where they study, and the work institutions are doing to support commuter students to get the most from their studies. The OfS has included commuter students in our equality of opportunity risk register, and a number of institutions are working with these students to develop creative solutions to some of the challenges they might face to access and succeed in higher education.

    Thank you to all the contributors to the series, if you would like to discuss supporting commuters in more detail, please do reach out to Susan Kenyon.

    Click here to read the rest of our commuter student series.

    Source link

  • Everything Must Change So Everything Can Stay the Same: Internationalisation at a Crossroads

    Everything Must Change So Everything Can Stay the Same: Internationalisation at a Crossroads

    • By Vincenzo Raimo, an independent international higher education consultant and a Visiting Fellow at the University of Reading, where he was previously Pro Vice-Chancellor for Global Engagement.
    • Vincenzo Raimo will be joining David Pilsbury and Janet Ilieva at the International Higher Education Forum (IHEF 2025) on 4 June 2025 to discuss the topic: ‘Outdated policy and unfounded optimism drive British universities to the abyss.’

    “If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.”

    — The Leopard, Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa

    UK universities are awash with the language of transformation. Internationalisation and Global Engagement strategies speak of partnerships, student mobility, intercultural learning and global citizenship. Vice-Chancellors and Pro Vice-Chancellors for Internationalisation describe international education as central to institutional values and academic mission. And yet, for many, the real driver is far simpler: money.

    There is a widening gap between the rhetoric of internationalisation and the reality of its execution. Strategic plans position it as an enabler of diversity, excellence and global reach, but the day-to-day reality is that it functions as a financial lifeline. In a sector facing significant funding pressures, international student income is often the difference between surplus and deficit. That tension matters. It undermines credibility, risks student experience and can lead institutions to prioritise volume over value.

    The quote from The Leopard, Lampedusa’s novel of aristocratic decline during the unification of Italy, captures a central paradox of institutional reform. It speaks to the instinct to embrace the appearance of change in order to preserve the status quo. In recent months, this sentiment has felt uncomfortably familiar in UK higher education. We appear to be entering a period of cosmetic transformation: new job titles, rebranded structures and revised plans, but all too often without the deeper shifts in strategy, culture or resourcing that genuine transformation demands.

    This is particularly evident in international student recruitment.

    Universities in the UK have long faced political headwinds. International students are welcomed in principle but scrutinised in practice. Brief moments of progress, such as allowing students to bring dependents, are quickly reversed in response to migration debates. The result is unpredictability, which undermines confidence in the UK offer.

    Despite this, the UK has historically benefited from a position of passive advantage in international recruitment. We speak the global language of higher education. Our qualifications are widely recognised. Many of our institutions enjoy long-established reputations. And our complex legacy of Commonwealth ties, colonial familiarity and cultural affinity has offered visibility and access in key markets.

    But that advantage is fading.

    Policy instability is only part of the challenge. Global competition is intensifying, and not just from the traditional English-speaking destinations. European countries are increasingly offering high-quality, English-taught programmes at lower cost, often with clearer post-study pathways. In Asia, more students are opting to stay closer to home, choosing emerging regional providers with improving reputations and stronger cultural fit. The UK can no longer assume it is the default choice.

    In response, institutions are making changes, or at least talking about them. The mood music is shifting: towards diversification, resilience and sustainability. Yet much of this amounts to cosmetic change. Beneath the surface, many universities are still operating on the same assumptions, deploying the same strategies, and relying on the same markets and channels as they have for years.

    I have argued that recruitment targets are vanity, quality and retention are sanity, but margin is king. Growth in international enrolments may look impressive, but it means little if acquisition costs are rising, if retention is falling, or if students leave feeling unsupported. In one recent project, I found that recruitment costs, dominated by agent commissions, amounted to nearly a third of the net tuition income per student. That model is unsustainable in the long term.

    And the consequences are already visible: redundancies, departmental reconfigurations and even the closure of entire disciplines. The pursuit of international income has not protected the sector from financial strain. Rather, it may simply have postponed the difficult decisions needed to build genuinely sustainable institutions.

    One apparent solution is transnational education (TNE). There is renewed enthusiasm for TNE as universities seek to diversify income and reach. I have worked with institutions developing long-term TNE partnerships that deliver real benefits: stronger reputation, broader access and more distributed risk. But TNE is not a short-term fix. It takes time to design and deliver well, requires significant investment and cannot plug immediate financial gaps.

    Nor can TNE substitute for a broader rethink of international strategy. In my International Student Recruitment Success and TNE Success scorecards, I offer practical frameworks for assessing capabilities, identifying risks and planning more strategically. These tools are designed to help institutions move beyond tactical fixes and focus on longer-term sustainability. Key questions include:

    • What is our purpose in internationalisation?
    • How distinctive and competitive is our offer?
    • Are our structures and resources aligned to support quality and retention?
    • And are we being honest about what our strategy is really for, and is that clearly communicated across the institution and to our wider stakeholders?

    Too often, international strategies present one set of values, while day-to-day activities pursue another. This misalignment makes success harder to define, measure and achieve.

    The danger today is that we confuse activity with progress. Structural tweaks and strategic refreshes may signal intent, but unless they are anchored in purpose and matched by investment, they will not deliver the resilience the sector needs.

    Lampedusa’s quote reminds us that change can be used either to preserve the status quo or to enable transformation. The UK higher education sector faces a choice: to make difficult, strategic changes now, or to continue changing just enough to maintain the illusion of stability, while the foundations quietly erode.

    Source link

  • The reconciliation bill cleared the House. Here’s how it would change higher ed.

    The reconciliation bill cleared the House. Here’s how it would change higher ed.

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

    House Republicans on Thursday narrowly passed a massive tax and spending bill that, if signed into law, would add new financial pressures on U.S. colleges and students while extending the tax cuts instituted in 2017. 

    Backed by President Donald Trump and dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the proposal includes provisions for dramatically increasing the endowment tax, a risk-sharing policy that would put colleges on the hook for unpaid student loans, and changes to the federal student aid program that critics say would reduce access to higher education. 

    It also includes work requirements to the Medicaid health insurance program, changes to which could impact university hospitals and leave many college students without health insurance.

    The bill is headed to the Senate after it passed the House by one vote, with every Democrat and two Republicans voting against it. Three other Republicans either abstained or did not participate in the vote. 

    The Senate, held by Republicans with a 53-person majority, is widely expected to add changes to the bill.

    Since lawmakers passed the legislation as part of the reconciliation process — a rule allowing the Senate to approve spending-related policies with a simple majority — Republicans can avoid a filibuster that would take 60 votes to break.  

    In a Wednesday letter to House leaders, American Council on Education President Ted Mitchell wrote that the higher ed policy changes would have “a historic and negative impact on the ability of current and future students to access postsecondary education, as well as on colleges and universities striving to carry out their vital educational and research missions.”

    Here is a look at some of the major higher ed provisions:

    Endowment tax

    Today, the richest private colleges — the few dozen with at least 500 students and at least $500,000 endowment assets per student — pay an endowment excise tax set at 1.4%.

    Wednesday’s bill would implement a graduated rate structure, with levels starting at 1.4%, and rising to 7%, 14% and 21% depending on endowment assets per student. Under that tiered system, the wealthiest college would be taxed the same as the current corporate income rate. 

    When House Republicans advanced the endowment tax proposal earlier this month, they decried “woke, elite universities that operate more like major corporations.”

    The lowest tax bracket targets colleges whose endowments are valued between $500,000 and $749,999 per student.

    Endowment taxes would rise to 21% for the nation’s wealthiest private colleges

    Excise tax tiers for private colleges based on endowment funds per student

    Industry experts and insiders worry the tax could hurt colleges’ long-term missions and diminish the resources they rely on to recruit lower-income students. 

    In a statement Thursday, Kara Freeman, president and CEO of the National Association of College and University Business Officers, pointed to research by her organization and Commonfund finding that nearly half of endowment spending went toward student aid in fiscal 2024. 

    “This scholarship tax takes funds away from students and makes it less possible for colleges to support them,” Freeman said. 

    Colleges spend the largest share of endowment funds on student financial aid

    Endowment spending distribution by function in fiscal 2024

    Financial aid changes

    The bill eliminates federal subsidized loans for undergraduates and Direct Plus loans for graduate students beginning on July 1, 2026.

    It also limits Parent Plus Loans, capping how much parents can borrow and only allowing them to take out loans if their dependent student has already taken out the maximum in unsubsidized loans. 

    The bill sets an overall lifetime student loan limit of $200,000 for any single borrower across all federal loan types.

    Additionally, it raises the course hours for the full-time student designation needed to receive the maximum Pell Grant from 24 to 30 per academic year, and it changes the formula for Pell eligibility.

    ACE’s Mitchell called the proposed changes to Pell Grants “crippling,” saying some 700,000 students could lose eligibility under the bill. 

    Regarding changes to federal student funding writ large, Mitchell described them as “deep cuts and damaging changes to important federal student aid programs” that would limit access to education. 

    The bill also cuts several student loan repayment programs, consolidating a “litany” of repayment plans into two, according to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.

    Source link

  • Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    In some countries, higher education policy just seems to sit still for decades. In others, hyperactivity is a more normal state. Today we’re looking at the 2020s poster child for higher education hyperactivity. It’s not the usual suspects, the UK or Australia, it’s little New Zealand where we’re making our fourth stop on this podcast in just over two and a half years.

    When last we were in Wellington, we talked to Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand about university underfunding the consequences of losing international students, and something called the University Advisory Group, which was supposed to set the national system on a new course along with a research advisory group who weirdly was made up of exactly the same people only following a different mandate.

    Since then, while these groups were noodling on how best to steer the system, the government made two big table flipping moves. One musing about creating a new type of institution, which was neither a university nor a college, and nobody knew what they were talking about, and the other simply deciding it wasn’t going to fund any more research in the social sciences and humanities through its research granting system. Fun times.

    Anyways, with all this excitement, we figured it was worth going back to the Tasman Sea to check in with one of our regular correspondents, Roger Smyth. He’s a former senior New Zealand public servant and now a consultant based in Canterbury. He’s got all the skinny for us. And so, over to Roger.

    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.32 | Incremental Change or System Overhaul? An Update on Higher Ed Reform in NZ with Roger Smyth

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Roger, the last time we did a show about New Zealand, we had Chris Whelan from Universities New Zealand on, and we talked a lot about the University Advisory Group process. How far along is that work, and what are people in the sector saying about it? What’s the view at this stage? Is there still interest and momentum behind the process, or has it stalled out a little?

    Roger Smyth (RS): Okay, so the advisory group submitted an interim report late last year, and it’s scheduled to submit its final report this month. I understand that the report has now been submitted, but nothing has been published yet. Neither the interim report nor the final report, nor any of the dozens of submissions made in response to the UAG’s questions, have been released publicly.

    In these sorts of cases, the report usually isn’t published until the government has had a chance to make its initial decisions on some of the high-level questions—and that could still be a little way off.

    Of course, as you implied, Alex, there are rumors. And in some of the face-to-face consultations, the UAG has given a bit of a steer as to where it was heading. For instance, it’s pretty clear that in their interim report, they were proposing a machinery of government change—a reorganization of some of the government agencies in higher education, such as the Tertiary Education Commission, the Ministry of Education, and the policy unit responsible for research and innovation. But we won’t know that for sure until the report comes out.

    One of the big challenges the advisory group would have faced is that the government is committed to returning to a financial surplus in the 2027–28 fiscal year. That’s a significant challenge, with major demands on the budget. So the advisory group would have been instructed to make their proposals fiscally neutral, and that’s a big constraint on what they could recommend.

    My main view on this whole process is that it was never really clear what problem the University Advisory Group was set up to solve—apart from a general instruction to look for improvement and to make the system work better. One of the most distinctive features of the New Zealand system is its homogeneity. That has a lot of positives—it means that wherever you go, you’re guaranteed a reasonable level of quality. But it also has the downside that there isn’t really any outstanding, world-leading university.

    AU: Let me stop you there, because alongside the University Advisory Group, there’s also been a commission on research—on research and science—a review going on at the same time. Why did that happen in parallel rather than together?

    RS: Yeah, I think that’s an important point. The first thing is that the two advisory groups were actually chaired by the same person—Peter Gluckman, a distinguished medical scientist and academic—and they began operating at roughly the same time.

    You can see there was a desire to think about knowledge transfer opportunities within universities and how they contribute to the broader economy and the wider science system.

    The Science Advisory Group has now completed its report. It’s been submitted, and the government has published its initial decisions. This is an area where the review proposed a very substantial overhaul of the machinery of government. They proposed creating a super ministry for higher education, science, technology, and innovation.

    The government, however, did not accept that proposal. Most governments are a bit wary of major machinery-of-government reshuffles unless there’s a very strong rationale. These kinds of changes often involve a settling-in period where the system can lose its way, as people jockey for position and the focus shifts away from the core goals the system is meant to achieve.

    Instead, the review also proposed merging the seven non-university research institutes into a single public research organization. The government opted for a partial reorganization, establishing three public research organizations—focused on the bioeconomy, earth sciences, and health and forensic science. They’re also creating a new organization to cover advanced technology fields like AI, synthetic biology, aerospace, and quantum tech. So that’s probably a reasonable foundation for advancing the science system.

    AU: But of course, before they even got to that point—before the advisory group had reported—the government unilaterally made a change to what’s called the Marsden Fund. That’s sort of like our combination of the social sciences, humanities, and natural science councils. And it effectively nuked the humanities and social sciences, as I understand it. They basically said, “We’re not going to fund those anymore.” Why did the government do that? Why undercut your own report before it even comes out?

    RS: Yeah, this was definitely a decision that caused a lot of pushback and consternation—real ill feeling in universities and across the broader community.

    Most of the government’s research funding is directed toward major national strategic priorities, so it tends to go to areas like health, the hard sciences, engineering, agriculture—things like that. The Marsden Fund was one of the few avenues where humanities researchers could secure external funding, outside of what universities provide internally.

    I think part of this decision reflects the government’s desire to place greater focus on the hard sciences. If you look at the Marsden Fund trends, the social sciences and humanities panel had been gaining a slightly larger share of the funding in recent years, which naturally came at the expense of the hard sciences. So in some sense, this was a declaration that the government wants to reorient support toward areas seen as having greater economic impact.

    That said, the main driver was probably to send a message. But in doing so, it sent a very negative signal to the humanities community. Even researchers in the now-favored areas were concerned about the loss of this funding stream—particularly given that social science research can produce huge social value.

    AU: This tension between favored STEM subjects and less-favored fields like the social sciences, humanities, and business is also playing out in discussions around the government’s funding model. My understanding is that in New Zealand, the funding model essentially funds places. So, the government allocates a certain number of places to each institution. Now we’re projecting that there will be more enrollments than there are funded places, and the government would like to provide a bit of additional funding for STEM subjects, but not for others. We’re very familiar with this in Canada—it’s exactly what’s happening in Ontario right now. I’m curious how you think that will play out in New Zealand?

    RS: Okay, well, just to give a bit of context on the financial situation of the universities: like most Anglophone countries with a heavy reliance on the international student market, COVID hit New Zealand universities hard. In 2021, the impact was cushioned by a surge in domestic enrollments. The labor market was weak due to the pandemic, so more people turned to study, and universities did okay financially.

    But in 2022, following government stimulus measures, the labor market recovered and became more robust. Domestic enrollments fell sharply, and the international student market still hadn’t bounced back. That made 2022 the worst financial year ever for the universities. Six of the eight were in deficit, and one was just breaking even.

    In 2023, when finances were still tight, there was a lot of concern about university viability. The government stepped in with a short-term funding rate boost—not an increase in the number of places, but an increase in the dollars per place.

    Then there was a small increase in funding again last year. But the broader funding review never happened. The government changed, and that process was superseded by the UAG process we discussed earlier.

    And that process, as we said, is likely to avoid anything that would seriously impact the government’s bottom line. So, the universities have been in a tough situation.

    But now, the international market is starting to recover. It’s been slower than in the other countries we compete with, but in EFTS terms—equivalent full-time students—2024 saw an 11% increase in international enrollments. It’s still below pre-pandemic levels, but the trend is positive. And that matters because each international student generates about 60% more revenue than a domestic student.

    Right now, we’re in the middle of the financial reporting season. Five of the universities have reported for 2024. One reported a small deficit on its core business, but it was much lower than expected and offset by a surplus on its wider trading operations.

    So, it’s still tough—marginal—but not as gloomy as it was a couple of years ago.

    Even though there’s still pressure, and enrollments may be shifting toward more expensive fields, financially speaking, the worst appears to be over. The system is beginning to grow again.

    And on the point about STEM versus other fields—it’s worth remembering this is a system driven by student choice. The government doesn’t have much influence over where students choose to go. So, no matter how the government might want to steer things, it can’t really control those choices under the current policy environment. So, I’d say that the universities are managing through this.

    AU: Roger, I want to get into something I read recently—there was a fascinating article where the government, or at least the minister, was musing about the idea of creating a new type of tertiary institution. Something that’s not quite a university and not quite a polytechnic.But before I ask you about that, I think we need to give our listeners a bit of background on polytechnics in New Zealand.

    Your system merged all the polytechnics into one big national institution just before COVID, right? That was Te Pūkenga. Why do that? What was the point of one national institution? It’s a big country—two islands, 15 campuses. That’s a lot to bring together. What was the thinking behind that?

    RS: These reforms had two separate sources.

    First, we talked earlier about the financial challenges in the university sector, but the polytechnics were facing a real financial crisis. They’d been growing for years and carried high fixed costs, with relatively small student numbers spread across multiple campuses.

    Between 2012 and 2019, domestic enrollments dropped by about 25%. By 2019, nearly all the polytechnics were running deficits, and the sector’s collective deficit was quite substantial. So something clearly had to be done.

    Second, the government looked at what had been done in Australia. In New South Wales, for example, they merged all the TAFE institutions into a single statewide TAFE. It worked reasonably well there, and in Queensland as well.

    So they decided to follow a similar path and merge all 16 institutions—along with all work-based training—into a single national organization. That was the rationale behind the creation of Te Pūkenga.

    AU: What about the un-merger? So, a few years later you get a new government—the National government—and they’re going to undo the whole thing. Was that because it was, as you said, a machinery-of-government issue? Or was it more about a shift in how the government views vocational education?

    RS: I think it was both.

    Let’s look at both sides. First, the merger didn’t go well. There were some good aspects to the reforms. For instance, they set up six Workforce Development Councils to set standards for training and take a forward-looking view of labor market needs in specific fields. That was a positive.

    The idea of reintegrating polytechnic and work-based training into one coherent trades training system was also a good one. But the merger was very poorly executed.

    Costs blew out, and after three years they still hadn’t settled on a functioning operating model. There was almost no progress on the actual integration of work-based and polytechnic-based training. The initial chief executive didn’t work out and had to go.

    So that was one rationale for reconsidering—or unpicking—the merger.

    But the second reason was political. The incoming minister in 2023 had previously been a very successful chief executive of one of the polytechnics that was merged into the national institution.

    She was deeply committed to undoing the merger and restoring control to regions and local communities. So, the government came in with a clear policy to do this, and she got the ministry, and things got moving quickly.

    But, of course, life’s not that simple. No one wanted to go back to a system everyone agreed had serious problems. So how do you reconcile those two positions?

    After two years of back and forth, we’re now getting close to the new model. Those six Workforce Development Councils—the best part of the previous reform—are being disbanded and replaced with smaller organizations focused mainly on setting standards.

    The polytechnics, which remained as divisions within the larger organization, have all gone through what are called ruthless efficiency reviews to determine what could be dropped or changed to make them financially viable.

    We haven’t seen the full results of those yet, but some institutions will likely be deemed viable and split off as standalone, autonomous polytechnics. These will focus partly on trade training, but also on foundation education and some degree-level programs. Those will become autonomous institutions.

    But for those polytechnics that aren’t viable in the long term, they’ll be required to join a federation anchored by the Open Polytechnic, which delivers programs online. The idea is that those institutions can draw on the federation’s expertise and infrastructure to complement their face-to-face delivery with online components.

    AU: So I don’t want to ask you what’s going to happen, but I do want to ask when it’s going to happen—because there are a whole bunch of moving parts here, and you’ve got an election coming up. Is there enough time for the government to unwind all of this before the next election? Because I know, for example, with the Universities Accord process in Australia, the report came out well before the election, and even then, they couldn’t get everything done before voting day. So, what’s the pace of decision-making here?

    RS: The first thing is that if we look at the University Advisory Group, we should see the results of that fairly soon. I’d expect it within a couple of months—possibly even sooner. It might come out all at once, or it could follow the science review model, where there were high-level interim decisions released first.

    My sense of the brief given to the UAG is that we’re not going to see truly transformational change—nothing on the scale of the three big reviews we’ve had in the past: 1961, 1989–90, and 2002–03.

    So I’d expect incremental change rather than sweeping reform. And because of that, I think the university review will largely settle before the election.

    In contrast, the un-merging of Te Pūkenga and the broader vocational education reforms will take longer.

    Under the new arrangements, there will be greater integration between workplace and institutional training. Polytechnics and private providers will be allowed to act as arrangers and supervisors of work-based training.

    But implementing that integration will take time. There’s a two-year transition period, starting in 2026—which is the election year. So the un-merging process will only be partly complete when voters go to the polls.

    That said, I think this process will continue to play out slowly over time. Hopefully, it results in something positive.

    Despite everything—despite what will have been six years of turbulence and ongoing uncertainty—I do believe the sector will move forward with reasonable operating models.

    AU: May you live in interesting times. Roger, thanks so much for joining us today.

    RS: Thank you very much, Alex.

    AU: And that just leaves me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek—and you, our listeners, viewers, and readers—for joining us. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, or suggestions for future ones, don’t hesitate to get in touch with us at [email protected]. Run—don’t walk—to our YouTube page and subscribe. That way, you’ll never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    Join us next week when our guest will be David Lloyd. He’s the remarkable individual who serves as both the Vice Chancellor of the University of South Australia and the co–Vice Chancellor of the University of Adelaide. How does he manage it? Those two institutions are on the brink of what’s likely the biggest institutional shakeup in Australian higher education since the Dawkins reforms of 1988. He’ll be here to talk about the merger, how it came about, and what the future looks like. Until then—bye for now.

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

    This episode is sponsored by KnowMeQ. ArchieCPL is the first AI-enabled tool that massively streamlines credit for prior learning evaluation. Toronto based KnowMeQ makes ethical AI tools that boost and bottom line, achieving new efficiencies in higher ed and workforce upskilling. 

    Source link

  • Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns

    Department of Education Relaxes Accreditation Change Rules, Raising Quality Concerns


    The U.S. Department of Education announced Thursday it will eliminate the rigorous review process previously required for colleges and universities seeking to change accreditors, a move critics warn could undermine educational quality standards.

    The announcement, which implements parts of President Trump’s Executive Order on “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education,” simultaneously lifts a moratorium on reviewing applications for new accrediting bodies.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon framed the policy change as promoting competition.

    “We must foster a competitive marketplace both amongst accreditors and colleges and universities in order to lower college costs and refocus postsecondary education on improving academic and workforce outcomes for students and families.” she said.

    However, higher education policy experts expressed concerns that the streamlined process could enable institutions to evade accountability by shopping for less stringent accreditors.

    The Department’s new Dear Colleague Letter revokes guidance issued by the Biden administration in 2022 that had established a pre-clearance process for institutional accreditor changes. The new guidance explicitly allows institutions to change accreditors for reasons including finding one that “better aligns with a religious mission,” accommodating shifts in academic programs, complying with state law requirements, or avoiding accreditors that impose “discriminatory Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) practices and principles.”

    Education advocates worry the policy shift prioritizes institutional freedom over student protections.

    “When we make it easier for colleges to switch accreditors without thorough vetting, we risk creating a race to the bottom where standards are compromised,” said one higher education researcher. “The students who will suffer most are often those from historically underrepresented groups who depend on accreditation as an assurance of quality.”

    The Department characterized its previous approach as overreaching, stating in the new guidance.

    “It is not the Department’s prerogative to infer any other meanings from the basic requirements or contrive a multi-step investigation. This guidance re-establishes a simple process that will remove unnecessary requirements and barriers to institutional innovation.”

    The policy change also rescinds the October 2024 pause on reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies. At least one prospective accreditor that had its application temporarily paused has now been notified that its review will proceed.

    Critics contend that enabling more accreditors with potentially varying standards could fragment the higher education quality assurance landscape in ways that confuse students and employers.

    “The fundamental question is whether reducing oversight will actually improve educational outcomes or simply make it easier for underperforming institutions to avoid consequences,” said a public university president, who asked to remain anonymous, for fear of retaliation. “History suggests the latter is more likely.”

    The Department has not announced specific metrics to evaluate whether the policy changes lead to improved outcomes for students or institutions.

    Source link

  • To combat obesity, let’s change how we measure ourselves

    To combat obesity, let’s change how we measure ourselves

    When Mary Garrett was a child, kids walked to school and played outside after school. But today is a different world. Now Garrett worries about the lifestyles of the children she sees at the Tatnall School, in the U.S. state of Delaware, where she is a nurse. 

    “I don’t think kids have that kind of opportunity anymore,” she said. “I think the lifestyle changes, even having fewer sidewalks, like the neighborhood we live in now doesn’t have sidewalks.” 

    Kids, she said, don’t have that flexibility and freedom anymore. And that could be a big reason that so many young people are overweight.

    According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), 1 in 6 children ages 2-19 in the United States are classified as overweight, while 1 in 5 children are diagnosed with obesity. Severe obesity has also increased from 7.7% of the population to 9.7% in two years. On the global scale, obesity has similarly skyrocketed. 

    The World Health Organization (WHO) reports that obesity has more than doubled in adults since 1990 and more than quadrupled in adolescents. 

    According to the WHO, in 2022, 2.5 billion adults were overweight. 37 million children under the age of 5 are classified as overweight. 

    Changing the way we measure weight

    Many factors contribute to obesity, such as genetics, types and amount of food and drink consumed, physical activity, sleep habits and access to necessities like areas to exercise and food. Nurse Garrett concludes that two key factors are physical activity and the rising convenience and prevalence of processed snacks. As the rise of a more sedentary lifestyle, for instance, not walking to school, becomes more popular, the need to spend time outdoors engaging in activity becomes even more critical. 

    In a report published in The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology journal, a group of 58 experts are recommending that obesity should no longer be defined by a BMI, or body mass index that is calculated according to height and weight, but by a combination of measurements, including waist circumference and evidence of health issues.

    The new classification for BMI makes it easier to determine obesity, which begins to tackle the issue of where obesity stems from and how to prevent it in children as young as age two.

    The NIH defines being obese as “a person whose weight is higher than what is considered to be a normal weight for a given height is described as being overweight or having obesity.” 

    However, Garrett said that that definition is not that simple. “BMI was actually based on a white man’s profile. So it doesn’t take into account females versus males, Latino versus white,” Garrett said.

    Yet, obesity is not restricted to one demographic. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, the prevalence of severe obesity is 9.4% higher in women than in men in the United States, while it is significantly lower in adults with at least a bachelor’s degree.

    Keeping kids healthy

    Access to nutritional food, outdoor spaces in which to exercise, and unhealthy sleep habits are a global concern, particularly in developing countries. Wilmington, Delaware, is no exception. Doctors calculate a person’s weight status from a young age, beginning with a child’s pediatrician.

    The weight of a child is calculated based on comparison with other same-age and same-sex children using charts from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. The subject of obesity and living a healthy lifestyle is a critical conversation for parents to have as they raise the next generation.

    There are an endless number of factors that can lead to a person being overweight or being diagnosed with obesity. 

    The NIH says that genetics and medical conditions, two variables outside of anyone’s control, can make it difficult to maintain a healthy weight. Obesity can also increase the risk of health problems like type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease. Yet, there are modern societal factors besides just potato chips and soda that have emerged that play a large role in the rising rate of obesity in the United States. 

    Garrett sees kids eating processed foods a lot. “I think there’s also changes in our food and eating habits that could have an impact,” she said. “I think a lot of our food choices have been impacted by marketing.” 

    Pushing junk food

    A rise in advertising for processed foods on television, which the overwhelming majority of children have access to in the United States, contributes to this. 

    Researchers at the University of Ottawa in 2021 found that on average, children see approximately 1,000 food-related advertisements on television each year. Yet, can you remember the last time you saw an ad for a salad, or maybe grilled salmon with vegetables? Probably not. But it’s likely you saw a Burger King ad in the past day, maybe even twice or more a day. 

    Most advertised products boast organic ingredients or appeal to certain dietary plans. Garrett, on the other hand, questions whether a vegan and gluten-free protein bar is healthier than simply making a peanut butter sandwich on homemade or whole bread. 

    This poses the question: What role are parents playing in a child’s view of what is healthy and what isn’t?

    Kids can’t be expected to be well-versed in healthy choices from the moment they are born. It is up to the parents or guardians to educate and provide an example for children as they learn to make their own choices. 

    Tackling family obesity

    Globally, there is a clear relationship between parent and child obesity. In a study published in 2021, researchers from Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine in South Korea found that children with overweight or obese parents are 1.97 times more likely to be overweight or obese than peers with healthy-weight parents.

    Garrett is a parent and believes that a lack of education could be one of the reasons why so many parents struggle to properly educate their children on healthy choices. 

    “I don’t think we learn enough about nutrition and guidance for families to best raise their children as healthy eaters and healthy people,” Garrett said. She pointed to the ‘MyPlate’ symbol created by the U.S. Department of Agriculture to showcase the five food groups and how much of each should be consumed at each meal. “I’m not really sure that the [U.S. Department of Agriculture] is always giving us the most comprehensive healthy information,” she said.

    What we need, she said, is to teach more about nutrition. When giving students guidance on what healthy eating looks like, as well as educating parents on nutritional components, a healthy diet is sure to be an easy skill to master. 

    Another flaw with how we define obesity is its lack of incorporation of athletes. Researchers in Australia in 2018 found that athletes, or those who train daily for a specific sport, have a significantly lower BMI than the average person. 

    Weight differs from person to person

    Garrett said that the absence of a clearly specified description of BMI for athletes can pose many types of problems.

    “You could put an athlete who weighs, I’m just making this up, but say 5’10” weighs 160 next to another person who’s 5’10” and weighs 140 and their BMI could be the same, but the athlete is more muscle and the other person is perhaps more fat,” Garrett said. 

    This explains what many athletes struggle with: knowing what is healthy when performing and exercising at a high level.  Two teens may have a similar height and weight, but one may be a top-notch athlete who practices their sport for up to three hours a day. This difference completely changes what the USDA or other medical resources may say about appropriate nutrition. 

    This factor, which includes many school-age children who participate in school or club sports, adds another layer to the question of whether the body mass index is a good way to measure obesity and being overweight or not. 

    As a distance runner since the sixth grade, proper fueling has long been a topic of both interest and necessity for me. However, with the rise of ads for different processed foods and fitness influencers online, I began to question my own relationship with food. Was what I was eating healthy enough? Would eating less make me faster?

    Food and health

    Food not only provides for your body physically, but also mentally. A positive relationship with nutrition has long been something I have worked on achieving, particularly as I became more competitive in my sport. I learned that not only does food give me strength, but it also gives me the power to perform to my best ability. 

    Underfueling can be the source of injury and a negative and self-deprecating mindset, and is not talked about enough when discussing an athlete’s mental and physical health.

    I can’t compare my body to another that doesn’t run 40-mile weeks or who doesn’t race competitively. Learning about the right choices to keep my body healthy and ready to perform at a high level has been one of the most critical aspects of my athletic career. 

    As obesity rates continue to rise, it is critical to continue educating the next generations on the right steps to take in making healthier choices. It can be as simple as promoting fruits and vegetables over a bag of chips at school or planning a family bike ride instead of playing video games. 

    With new definitions for BMI adding a new complex layer to the quest to reduce obesity, nothing is as important as staying on top of suggestions and guidelines from medical experts. Becoming well-educated on healthy habits can affect not only an individual but also the people around them. 

    As Garrett concludes: “I think we could change a lot by teaching our kids and families.”


    Questions to consider:

    • How is obesity measured?

    • What are some factors that contribute to weight problems?

    • Can you think of ways schools can help children and teens live a healthier lifestyle?

     

     

    Source link

  • Can we de-stress from climate change distress?

    Can we de-stress from climate change distress?

    Consider that BP, one of the world’s biggest oil companies, popularised the term “carbon footprint”, which places the blame on individuals and their daily choices. 

    Anger also comes up a lot, Robinson said, particularly for young people. 

    “They’re angry this is happening,” she said. “They’re angry they have to deal with it. They’re angry that this is their world that they’re inheriting and that all totally makes sense. It’s not fair to burden young people with this. It’s really important that they have support and action by adults in all kinds of ways throughout society.”

    Working through our feelings

    Then there’s sadness and grief. 

    “We have of course loss of life in many climate disasters,” Robinson said. “That’s really significant. And loss of habitat, loss of biodiversity, loss even of traditions and ways of life for a lot of people, often in Indigenous cultures and others as well.”

    One of the most simple and effective ways we can deal with climate distress is by talking about it, and by giving young people the opportunity and space to do so. 

    “One of the hardest things is that people often feel really isolated,” Robinson said. “And so talking about it with someone, whether that’s a therapist or whether that’s in groups … just anywhere you can find to talk about climate emotions with people who get it. Just talk about climate change and your feelings about it.”

    Having a space to discuss climate change and their feelings associated with it can help a young person feel understood. Talking about feelings in general, known as “affect labelling”, can help reduce the activity of the amygdala — the part of the brain most associated with fear and emotions — in stressful times.

    Unplug yourself.

    Unlimited access to the internet does allow young people to connect with like-minded people and engage in pro-environmental efforts, but the amount of information being consumed can also be harmful. 

    Climate change is often framed in the media as an impending environmental catastrophe, which studies say may contribute to this sense of despair and helplessness, which can lead to young people feeling apathetic and being inactive. 

    Robinson said that while you don’t need to completely cut out reading the news and using social media, it is important to assess the role of media consumption in your life. She suggested setting a short period of time every day where you connect to the media, then try your best to refrain from scrolling and looking at your phone for the rest of the day. 

    “Instead, look outside at nature, at the world we’re actually a part of instead of what we’re getting filtered through the media,” she said.

    For some people, looking at social media around climate is a way of connecting with a community that cares about climate, so it can still be a useful tool for many people. 

    “Our nervous systems can get really hijacked by anxiety,” Robinson said. “We know that when mindfulness is a trait for people, when it really becomes integrated into who they are, that it does help. It’s associated with less climate anxiety in general.”

    Take in the nature around you.

    Studies show that mindfulness can improve symptoms of anxiety and depression. Robinson says this is partly due to it allowing us to be present with whatever feelings come up, that it helps us to stay centred throughout the distress. 

    It can be as simple as taking a mindful walk in a nearby forest or green space. While of course forests are helpful in absorbing carbon and reducing emissions, they can also help us reduce stress. Some studies have shown that spending more than 20 minutes in a forest — noticing the smells, sights and sounds — can reduce the stress hormone cortisol. 

    Robinson said that one of the more powerful things you can do is to band together with others. 

    “Joining together with other people who care and who can have these conversations with you and then want to do something along with you is really powerful,” she said. “We’re social animals as humans, and we need other people and we really need each other now during all of this. And it’s so important to be building those relationships if we don’t have them.”

    It is possible that climate anxiety can increase when young people learn about climate change and the information is just thrown out there, Robinson said, and the opportunity to talk about emotions should be incorporated into learning. 

    “It is different than learning math, or learning a language,” she said. “It’s loaded with all kinds of threat. Kids need to know what to do with that because there is going to be an emotional response.”

    Take climate action.

    It has also been shown that action can be an “antidote” for climate anxiety and that education centred around action empowers youth, when providing ways of engaging with the crisis collectively. 

    Teachers can then help students connect their feelings with actions, whether that be in encouraging their participation in green school projects or on a broader level in their communities. 

    “That action, it helps, it really gives people a sense of agency and they know that they are making a difference,” Robinson said.

    We need to come together, she said, not just to help us feel better, but to find solutions. “I really think that our connection, our systemic issues that we have, are so profound and they really push us away from each other in so many ways.”

    Our societies often favour consumption over connection, she said. “As human beings we developed in the context of nature, evolutionarily,” she said. “We were immersed. We were part of nature, and we are still, but we have increasingly grown apart from that relationship.”

    That changed over time. Now people spend little time in nature even though it’s often all around them.

    “From an eco-psychological sort of point of view, we’re embedded in that system, and we’re harming that system because of that separation that’s developed,” she said. 

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. What is “climate anxiety”?

    2. What is the connection between climate anxiety and education?

    3. How do you handle the stresses that you are under?

     

    Source link

  • Bridging the Skills Divide: Higher Education’s Role in Delivering the UK’s Plan for Change

    Bridging the Skills Divide: Higher Education’s Role in Delivering the UK’s Plan for Change

    • Dr Ismini Vasileiou is Associate Professor at De Montfort University, Director of the East Midlands Cyber Security Cluster and Director and Co-Chair of UKC3.

    Higher education has always played a critical role in skills development, from professional fields like Medicine, Dentistry, and Engineering to more recent models such as degree apprenticeships. However, as the UK’s digital economy evolves at an unprecedented pace, there is a growing need to rebalance provision, ensuring that universities continue to equip graduates with both theoretical expertise and industry-ready capabilities in areas such as AI, cybersecurity, and automation.

    The government’s strategic focus on workforce development underscores the importance of these changes, with higher education well-placed to lead the transformation. As industries adapt, the need for a highly skilled workforce has never been greater. The UK Government’s Plan for Jobs outlines a strategic vision for workforce development, placing skills at the heart of economic growth, national security, and regional resilience.

    With the new higher education reform expected in Summer 2025, the sector faces a pivotal moment. The Department for Education has announced that the upcoming changes will focus on improving student outcomes, employment pathways, and financial sustainability in HE. While universities are autonomous institutions, government policy and funding mechanisms are key drivers influencing institutional priorities. The increasing emphasis on workforce development – particularly in cybersecurity, AI, and other high-demand sectors- suggests that universities will likely need to adapt, particularly as new regulatory and funding structures emerge under the forthcoming HE reform.

    The National Skills Agenda: Why Higher Education Matters

    The skills gap is no longer an abstract policy concern; it is a pressing challenge with economic and security implications. The introduction of Degree Apprenticeships in 2015 was a landmark shift towards integrating academic learning with industry needs. Subsequent initiatives, including MSc conversion courses in AI and Data Science, Level 6 apprenticeships, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) serve as policy levers designed to encourage and facilitate a more skills-oriented higher education landscape, rather than evidence of an inherent need for change. Through mechanisms such as Degree Apprenticeships, AI conversion courses, and the Lifelong Learning Entitlement, the government is actively shaping pathways that incentivise greater emphasis on employability and applied learning within universities.

    The Plan for Change accelerates this momentum, funding over 30 regional projects designed to enhance cyber resilience and workforce readiness. One example is the CyberLocal programme, a government-backed initiative (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) focused on upskilling local authorities, SMEs, and community organisations in cybersecurity. CyberLocal connects universities, businesses, and local governments to deliver tailored cyber resilience training, addressing the increasing threats to national digital security. More information can be found through CyberLocal’s page.

    Financial Pressures and the Case for Skills-Based Education

    At the same time, the financial landscape of HE is shifting. Declining student enrolments in traditional subjects, increasing operational costs, and a competitive global market have left many institutions reassessing their sustainability strategies. The upcoming higher education reform will shape policy from 2025 onwards, and universities must determine how best to adapt to new funding models and student expectations.

    While skills-based education is often positioned as a solution, it is not an immediate financial fix. Many Degree Apprenticeships are run at a loss due to administrative complexities, employer engagement challenges, and high operational costs. Several articles, including those previously published at HEPI, highlight that while demand is growing, institutions face significant challenges in delivering these programmes at scale.

    Government-backed funding in AI training and cybersecurity resilience offers targeted opportunities, but these remain limited in scope. Some universities have found success in co-designed upskilling and reskilling initiatives, particularly where regional economic growth strategies align with HE capabilities. The Institute of Coding, a national collaboration between universities and employers funded by the Office for Students, has developed industry-focused digital skills training, particularly in software development and cybersecurity. Additionally, the Office for Students Short Course trial has enabled universities to develop flexible, modular programmes that respond directly to employer demand in areas such as AI, digital transformation, and cybersecurity. Other examples include the National Centre for AI in Tertiary Education, which supports universities in embedding AI skills into their curricula to meet the growing demand for AI literacy across multiple sectors. However, a broader financial model that enables sustainable, scalable skills education is still required.

    Regional Collaboration and Workforce Development

    Since 2018, the Department for Education (DfE) has supported the creation of Institutes of Technology (IoTs), with 19 now operational across England and Wales. These institutions prioritise digital and cyber education, aligning with local skills needs and economic strategies. Strengthening collaboration between HE and IoTs could enable universities to support regionally tailored workforce development.

    Examples such as the East Midlands Freeport, the Leicester and Leicestershire Local Skills Observatory, and CyberLocal illustrate the power of localised approaches. The Collective Skills Observatory, a joint initiative between De Montfort University and the East Midlands Chamber, is leveraging real-time workforce data to ensure that training provision matches employer demand. These initiatives could provide a blueprint for future HE collaboration with regional skills networks, particularly as the UK government reviews post-2025 skills policy.

    Cyber Resilience, AI, and the Challenge of Adaptive Curricula

    The government’s focus on cyber resilience and AI-driven industries underscores the urgent need for skills development in these areas. With AI poised to reshape global industries, universities must ensure graduates are prepared for rapidly evolving job roles. However, one of the biggest challenges is the slow pace of curriculum development in higher education.

    Traditional course approval processes mean new degrees can take two to three years to develop. In fields like AI, where breakthroughs happen on a monthly rather than yearly basis, this presents a serious risk of curricula becoming outdated before they are even launched. Universities must explore faster, more flexible course design models, such as shorter accreditation cycles, modular learning pathways, and micro-credentials.

    Government-backed initiatives, such as the Institute of Coding, have demonstrated alternative models for responsive skills training. As the HE reform unfolds, universities will need to consider how existing governance structures can adapt to the demands of an AI-driven economy.

    A New Skills Ecosystem: HE’s Role in the Post-2025 Landscape

    The forthcoming higher education reform is expected to introduce significant policy changes, including revised funding structures, greater emphasis on employability and skills-based education, and stronger incentives for industry partnerships, particularly in STEM and digital sectors.  

    Higher education must position itself as a leader in skills development. The recent Universities UK (UUK) blueprint, calls for deeper collaboration between the further and higher education sectors, recognising their complementary strengths. Further education offers agility and vocational expertise, while higher education provides advanced research and higher-level skills training – together, they can create a seamless learner journey.

    At the same time, national initiatives such as Skills England, the Digital Skills Partnerships, and Degree Apprenticeships present opportunities for universities to engage in long-term skills planning. The integration of Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) loans will further support continuous upskilling and career transitions, reinforcing the role of HE in lifelong workforce development.

    Conclusion: Shaping the Future of HE Through Skills and Collaboration

    With the HE reform announcement expected in Summer 2025, universities must act now to align with the government’s long-term skills agenda. The future of HE is being written now, and skills must be at the heart of it.

    Source link

  • Storytelling and arts education can drive social change

    Storytelling and arts education can drive social change

    Netflix drama Adolescence has ignited two vital national conversations.

    The rise of online misogyny among radicalised young men has seen Keir Starmer weighing in on the issue.

    There’s also been a debate surrounding disenfranchisement among boys and young men in primary, secondary and tertiary education.

    The latter has long been on the radar of policymakers, academics, and researchers. HEPI recently linked boys’ educational underattainment to a “veering towards the political extremes,” while discussions around figures like Andrew Tate have kept the former on Parliament’s agenda.

    Yet both issues remained on the margins until Adolescence – written, produced, and starring Rose Bruford College alum Stephen Graham – catalysed real-world conversations and moved us toward legislative action.

    Despite press, and policy, and parliament, the issue broke through because of storytelling.

    Power of creative arts

    Much like the Post Office scandal – exposed by Private Eye but only widely acknowledged after Mr Bates vs The Post Office (co-produced by another Rose Bruford alumus, Sara Huxley) – Adolescence shows how creative arts can achieve what policy papers often cannot: capturing public attention and driving cultural change.

    It highlights a key truth in fostering social change – the arts play a vital role.

    As a membership body representing nearly 40 per cent of creative arts students, we’re concerned by the continued perception of creative degrees as niche or non-essential – leading to disproportionate funding cuts compared to STEM.

    In reality, our graduates shape public discourse on identity, gender, and social responsibility, shifting public discourse, and ultimately contributing to public policy.

    At the same time as a devaluation of creative degrees, there’s another issue hiding in plain sight – working-class boys are falling behind in education.

    HEPI has produced compelling reports on this subject, outlining the growing gender attainment gap, particularly for boys from disadvantaged backgrounds and neurodivergent boys (although we note that some of this may be down to underdiagnosis in girls).

    Concerns in the report also raised that boys are less likely to be steered toward specific disciplines (while girls have been encouraged into STEM) and that traditional educational structures serve girls better.

    Although the authors should avoid biologically deterministic assumptions around how people learn and bear in mind that gendered socialisation probably plays a large part here – regardless of how behaviour and engagement is socially or otherwise fostered, the data shows its material impact – boys academically underperform compared to girls at every age, in almost every subject.

    Class acts

    But it is essential to be clear – the issue is not boys in general, but working class boys who are most at risk of falling behind. Discussions that flatten this into a gender-only concern risk obscuring the real and compounding impact of class-based disadvantage on educational engagement and attainment.

    This issue receives little attention in practice. A rudimentary and quick scan of Access and Participation Plans (APPs) revealed a striking omission: boys are rarely, if ever, mentioned as a specific target group.

    Even when John Blake outlined the significant scale to equality of opportunity faced by “boys from working-class communities” back in 2022, it was primarily in comparison to smaller groups who experience more intense forms of disadvantage, rather than recognising the issue of working-class boys attainment as a standalone concern.

    GuildHE Institutions like Rambert School, Northern School of Contemporary Dance and AUB are already doing vital outreach work to bring boys into the subject spaces they are underrepresented in. But again, this work often happens in isolation, without the policy recognition or funding it truly deserves.

    That’s a mistake. For many boys, especially those disengaged from traditional academic pathways, creative disciplines provide an essential space to connect, reflect, and grow. Dance, drama, music, and film help young men process difficult emotions and identities constructively.

    As our recent written submission to parliament outlined, the dance training boys took part in at Rambert School helped them in areas of life such as creative thinking, managing anger and ADHD symptoms. Arts University Bournemouth runs Being a Boy which provides a supportive space for young men to creatively and safely engage with the role of masculinity in their lives.

    Add in Prof Becky Francis’s review of the school curriculum – which argues it’s failing students outside the A-levels-to-university pipeline, disproportionately boys – and her call to value arts subjects, and we see an emerging case for education that better accounts for how many boys have been socialised to learn and engage.

    This is where creative education comes in. The arts are not just about performance or aesthetic appreciation – they are powerful tools for expression, empathy, and exploration, and a possible way to engage boys who are disenfranchised at an estimated cohort size of half a million from higher education

    While the HEPI report calls for a push to get more men into teaching, care roles, and nursing, we believe in the individual and societal benefits of encouraging boys – particularly working-class boys – into, and their contribution to, the arts.

    Some of this work is already being done by our alumnus – Stephen Graham discovered Owen Cooper, who plays Jamie Miller in Adolescence, who Cooper describes as “a normal working-class family from a normal council estate”. But there needs to be a concerted policy effort.

    That means:

    • Valuing arts and creative degrees as critical to both gendered social progress and supporting widening participation in HE for boys
    • Including boys as a key demographic in widening participation strategies in HE.
    • Supporting cross-sector collaboration between educators, policymakers, creatives, and communities to tackle today’s issues and truly value the impact creative degrees make on individuals and society.

    The success of Adolescence in sparking national debate is a wake-up call. If we want to tackle misogyny, and we must remember that Adolescence was fundamentally about violence against women and girls, as well as male disengagement in education, we need to invest in the places where empathy and identity are formed – and value how these are explored and communicated to wider society.

    Source link