Tag: choice

  • Choice & Money: Post-16 Education

    Choice & Money: Post-16 Education

    Author:
    Joseph Morrison-Howe

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Joseph Morrison-Howe, former HEPI intern and recent graduate of the University of Nottingham. This blog is the seventh blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the others in the series here, here, here, here, here and here.

    Tuition fees rising with inflation serves as a reminder that going to university is a significant financial commitment for the student. In the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper, the Government commits to making higher education more skills focused because ‘there is a disconnect between what individuals choose to study and the needs of the economy, which limits people’s earning potential’. To achieve this, the Government seems to be leaning towards interventionalist policies. However, since the individuals themselves are involved in a financial decision, then presumably the Government’s desire for growth – that is, boosting average incomes – is largely not at odds with the individual. Therefore improving knowledge and access to information, which makes the individual’s decision more informed, is a viable alternative to interventionalist policy, and the Government’s commitment to providing graduate earning’s data on UCAS could lead the individual to choose courses with higher earnings should they want, which is in line with the Government’s aims whilst improving choice rather than curtailing it.

    The Ministerial Foreword to the white paper states that the Government’s ‘defining mission’ of growth ‘relies on providing real opportunities through education and training that lead to real careers.’ In terms of policy, this aim seems to be taking the Government in an interventionalist direction, in an attempt to align what they see as the skills required in the economy with the skills being learnt in post-16 education. For example, by making the modular use of Lifelong Learning Entitlement conditional on the chosen course being aligned with the Government’s Industrial Strategy the Government hopes to create a workforce that is more productive in the jobs that the labour market demands. A more productive workforce is one associated with higher incomes, and so by pushing people towards the skills set out in their Industrial Strategy, the government hopes to achieve growth.

    Interventionalist policies such as this, although moderate, can have adverse effects, however. Through the above policy, the Government might succeed in fixing the mismatch of skills learnt and skills demanded by the economy. However, the government cannot consider how happy an individual will be from entering a particular profession, and thus, by prioritising financial returns over choice, the welfare of individuals may be neglected.

    It is worth remembering that for each individual, going to university is a financial commitment, but there are several reasons why it is difficult to make an informed decision about the financial aspect of going to university. The financial decision comprises the costs and gains of attending. The costs are difficult to determine because repayment is determined by future earnings, which at 18 is a distant and uncertain prospect. The financial gains are likewise uncertain because of the huge variety between courses as well as individuals, but this uncertainty can be limited. In England, there is a lot of data available on average graduate earnings by course and educational institution. This information is currently available on the Discover Uni website, but is very rarely accessed (see Imperfect Information in Higher Education). Perhaps the disconnect discussed in the recent white paper ‘between what individuals choose to study and the needs of the economy’ could be fixed to some extent by ensuring that when individuals choose what to study, they are in an informed position about earning differentials associated with different courses and institutions. This way, the prospective student has the capacity to make an informed financial decision, but still has complete freedom to study without it being a solely financial decision.

    In the white paper, the Government has committed to integrating graduate earnings data into the UCAS website, ensuring the data will be seen and used by more prospective students, as proposed in Imperfect Information in Higher Education. This approach of helping individuals make an informed choice about what and where to study, rather than taking a more interventionalist approach, as a way of fixing the disconnect between study and the skills demanded by the economy, is valuable because it preserves individual choice. Someone who values high pay in return for their studies could use this graduate earnings data to ensure that the course they choose has the capacity to provide this. Someone who wishes to study for the sake of the subject, or someone who wants to study something that leads to a particular low-earning job because it will make them happy, has complete freedom to make this choice. This policy, by preserving choice and improving access to information, can promote government aims such as growth whilst letting people choose what they want.

    Source link

  • Where the federal school choice program stands

    Where the federal school choice program stands

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

    School choice advocates and public school supporters are eagerly awaiting details of the nation’s first federally funded tax credit scholarship — a program that could accelerate private school choice participation while funneling taxpayer dollars to private schools.

    Approval of the first nationwide private school choice program came in the Republican-led “One Big, Beautiful Bill” signed by President Donald Trump on July 4. 

    The U.S. Department of Treasury is expected to issue proposed rules detailing how the program will operate, including how states can opt in and what guardrails will be put on managing the scholarships. However, it’s unclear where this work stands and whether the prolonged federal government shutdown has delayed this work.

    The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to an inquiry from K-12 Dive on Wednesday about the status of the rule.

    The new law allows any taxpayer to donate up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship-granting 501(c)(3) organization, or SGO. That donor would then be eligible for a 100% federal income tax credit for their contribution. The contributions could then be used toward private school tuition at secular and religious schools, homeschooling materials, and expenses at public or private schools. 

    The money generated from contributions could add up to $101 billion per year if all 59 million taxpayers chose to claim the credit, according to a July analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. However, the institute predicts not all taxpayers would participate.

    Taxpayers can begin making contributions to scholarship-granting organizations beginning Jan. 1, 2027. States need to opt in to participate. 

    Advocating for and against federal scholarships

    Since the omnibus budget was signed into law, supporters and critics of the tax credit scholarship provision have been voicing concerns and questions. For instance, a coalition of more than 200 national and state organizations that support education freedom wrote to the Treasury Department on Oct. 24 to offer their recommendations as the agency begins to write proposed regulations, according to the letter posted by Tax Analysts, a nonprofit tax publisher. 

    The group suggested that there be consistent requirements for scholarship-granting organizations and clarity on the timeline for when states submit lists of qualified SGOs.

    “We believe the three guiding principles for rulemaking are to make it: as easy as possible for as many families as possible to access scholarships for their children; as easy as possible for scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) to participate and provide scholarships; and, as easy as possible for taxpayers to contribute to SGOs,” the letter said.

    ACE Scholarships, a Denver-based nonprofit scholarship-granting organization that operates in 13 states, is part of that coalition. Jackie Guglielmo, vice president of services, said ACE has been busy fielding inquiries from SGOs, families and schools about the new program. It has also worked to help Treasury Department staff understand how current SGOs support private school choice programs. 

    The Treasury Department is “really looking to us to understand the operations,” said Guglielmo, who anticipates proposed regulations will be released early next year.

    The organization is also meeting with state leaders to discuss their potential participation, Guglielmo said. “I think a very, very important part of this initiative that’s sometimes overlooked is that both private and public students are eligible to receive the scholarship, and that’s something that’s really exciting.”

    Arne Duncan, who served as U.S. education secretary in the Obama administration, recently co-wrote an opinion piece in The Washington Post urging states to participate. “Opting in doesn’t take a single dollar from state education budgets. It simply opens the door to new, private donations, at no cost to taxpayers, that can support students in public and nonpublic settings alike,” the op-ed said.

    Meanwhile, organizations critical of the fledgling program are urging states not to opt-in. Although the program includes taxpayer contributions to public schools, people should be aware of the “potential ramifications of opening the door to a voucher scheme that is ultimately designed to benefit private and religious schools,” according to a Sept. 15 fact sheet from Public Funds for Public Schools and the Education Law Center.

    Public school supporters are concerned the program will lead to reduced funding for public schools and worry about educational equity and accountability at private schools. 

    Source link

  • New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    New test tubes or shiny buildings? The choice facing policymakers when it comes to funding research

    Let me start with a vignette. Back in 2017, we published a brilliant award-winning report on TRAC written by a young intern. This looked specifically at cross-subsidies in universities from Teaching (international students) to Research.

    Back then, there was no clear cross subsidy towards home students, as they (more than) paid for themselves due to £9,000 fees. But the subsidy from international students towards research was large, as it remains today.

    We held a launch event at the LSE for the paper. This remains seared on my mind for, instead of being impartial, the eminent professor in the Chair attacked our young intern for having the temerity to publicise the split in resources for teaching and research.

    His (widely shared) view was that, at an institution like the LSE, research informs teaching and teaching informs research, so policy makers should not look too closely under the bonnet but instead let universities spend their resources as they see fit.

    The interesting part of this story is that the person who asked us to write the report was the LSE’s own Director of Research. He was frustrated that his colleagues seemed not to understand the financial flows in their own institution.

    A second reason why we should shine a spotlight on how universities work is that teaching and research are now split down the middle when it comes to political oversight:

    • we have one Minister for teaching and another for research;
    • we have one Whitehall Department for teaching and another for research; and
    • we have one regulator / funder for teaching and another for research.

    We might prefer it if it were not so, but it is naïve to think substantial cross-subsidies within institutions fit as naturally with these arrangements as they did with the arrangements in place back at the turn of the millennium, when TRAC was first mooted.

    In our 2017 report, we showed that, according to TRAC, only 73% of research costs were recovered. On revisiting the issue in another report three years later, we found cost recovery had fallen to 69%. Today, as the KCL report shows, the number is just 66%.

    In other words, during a decade when politicians have exalted the power of R&D to transform Britain, the level of cost recovery has been falling at almost 1 percentage point a year.

    However, what has changed over time is that this is now fairly well understood. For example, TRAC data were heavily used to show the sector’s challenges in both the Universities UK Blueprint and the recent Post-16 Education and Skills white paper.

    Let me focus on that white paper for a second. It is a slightly odd document, where you can see the joins between the three Secretaries of State (for Education, Work and Pensions and Science, Innovation and Technology) who share responsibility for it.

    In particular, the white paper recommits to improving cost recovery for research while simultaneously looking for new ways to crack down on the international students who currently provide big cross-subsidise for research.

    The end result, as the white paper itself admits, is likely to be less research:

    We will work with the sector and other funders to address the cost recovery of research. … We recognise that this may result in funding a lower volume of research but at a more sustainable level.

    While some research-intensive institutions may celebrate this concentration, it does not feel like we have talked enough about the consequences in terms of what it could mean:

    • for research capacity in each region;
    • for the pipeline of new researchers; and
    • for the likelihood of missing out on new discoveries that may otherwise happen.

    In other words, what we have in the white paper is the perhaps inevitable result of giving the Minister for Science, Research and Innovation, Lord Vallance, the additional role of champion for the ‘Oxford-Cambridge corridor’.

    So far, I have assumed the TRAC numbers are accurate, yet we all know they are rough – or worse. A 10-year old piece on TRAC in Times Higher Education quotes one university finance director as saying: ‘if you put garbage [data] in, you will get garbage out.’

    In preparation for this session, I spoke to one academic at a research-intensive university, who even argued: ‘TRAC is a piece of fiction to conceal how much teaching subsidises research.’

    He went on to explain that your contract might say 40% of time should be on Teaching and 40% on Research (with 20% for admin): ‘If you spend 60% on Research and 20% on Teaching, you would be in violation of contract so no one will admit to it.’

    A second academic I contacted was similarly scathing:

    ‘I think it is a classic case of looking for a lost wedding ring under the lamppost, even when you lost it a mile away. Universities obviously have an incentive to say that teaching UK students and doing research is more expensive, because they hope to get more money from the government. That is why TRAC does not lead to better business models – the stuff is known to be suspect.’

    Such criticisms may explain why I have only ever been able to find one university that has followed the logic of their own TRAC numbers by refusing to take on any major new research projects (and even they only had the ban in force temporarily).

    The lesson I take from all this is that TRAC is useful, but not enough. Some sort of calculation needs to occur to inform policy makers, funders and managers. But TRAC is not the slam dunk that people sometimes like to think it is because:

    1. the process is neither liked nor trusted by those it measures;
    2. institutions do not respond to what the data say, so look guilty of crying wolf; and
    3. every sector in search of public money does its own calculations, so the fact that TRAC exists and shows a substantial shortfall in the full economic costs of research and, increasingly, teaching home students too does not automatically give higher education institutions a leg up over other areas of when lobbying the Government.

    Finally, TRAC is meant to help politicians understand the world but I think we also need to recall the motivations of political leaders. When I was in Whitehall, we struggled to persuade the Treasury to move towards full economic costing. They caricatured it as buying new test tubes when the alternative was shiny new buildings. In the end, politicians in hard hats cannot go to topping-out ceremonies for new test tubes.

    Source link

  • A Defining Choice for Higher Ed (opinion)

    A Defining Choice for Higher Ed (opinion)

    Ask people at Columbia, Harvard or UCLA how things are going for higher education, and they might rightly say that things are quite dismal. Those places have been early targets in the Trump administration’s ongoing effort to bring colleges and universities to heel.

    Funding cutoffs, intrusive demands for data and investigations have made life pretty difficult for those universities and some others. In addition, they have had to confront the excruciating choice of whether to defy the administration’s demands or try to reach a settlement.

    At Columbia, Harvard and UCLA, budgets have been squeezed. Uncomfortable adjustments have been made. Reputations and careers have been damaged or ruined.

    While some college presidents have publicly condemned what the administration has been doing, many other college and university leaders have tried to keep their heads down, to say nothing or do nothing to join with and support places that have been prominent on the administration’s hit list. But the days of duck and cover in American higher education may be coming to a close.

    On Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the administration was considering a new strategy in its dealings with colleges and universities. The plan is to change the way the federal government awards research grants, “giving a competitive advantage to schools that pledge to adhere to the values and policies of the Trump administration on admissions, hiring and other matters.”

    Then, on Wednesday, the administration sent letters to nine universities asking them to sign a 10-page “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.” In exchange for getting preferential treatment for federal funds, among other benefits, colleges would agree “to freeze tuition for five years, cap the enrollment of international students and commit to strict definitions of gender.” They also must, per The New York Times, “change their governance structures to prohibit anything that would ‘punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.’”

    The “Compact for Academic Excellence” seeks to get colleges and universities to sign onto President Trump’s priorities all at once. That means that the kinds of excruciating choices faced by a few colleges and universities will soon be coming to a campus near you.

    Higher education is now facing an unprecedented moment of truth, with institutions needing to decide whether to stick to their commitments to independence and academic freedom at the cost of their financial well-being and capacity to carry out research, or to show their loyalty to the administration at a cost to their integrity and mission.

    As I see it, there really is no choice. Colleges and universities must say no. They should do so now, when resistance might dissuade the administration from going any further with its plan.

    If colleges relent, they will forfeit whatever moral capital they have left and send the message that the pursuit of truth matters less than loyalty to a political agenda and that colleges and universities can be made to give up their independence if the price of freedom is high enough.

    I am enough of a realist not to take odds on what choices colleges and universities will make. And I know that resistance of the kind I am advocating may be very costly for students, faculty and staff, as well as the communities served by campuses that push back.

    But as journalist Nathan M. Greenfield explained in 2021, “Academic freedom is the sine qua non of universities in common law countries as well as those in Western Europe and, indeed, is central to the functioning of universities in all but those countries with repressive governments.” Yale Law School professor Robert Post explains that “academic freedom rests on a bargain between society and institutions of higher education. Universities are granted independence so they can produce two necessities of modern life: knowledge and education.”

    The very idea that the Trump administration is seeking to compel universities to adhere to the values and policies that it prefers suggests how little regard it has for either knowledge or education. Post gets it right when he says, “Democracy would become a farce, and the value of self-government meaningless, if the state could manipulate the knowledge available to its citizens.”

    In 1957, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter approvingly cited a statement that identified four conditions for higher education to thrive: universities must be free to determine who may teach, what can be taught, how it is taught and who will be admitted. “For society’s good,” Justice Frankfurter wrote, “inquiries into [academic and social] problems, speculations about them, stimulation in others of reflection upon them, must be left as unfettered as possible. Political power must abstain from intrusion into this activity of freedom, pursued in the interest of wise government and the people’s wellbeing.”

    The Trump administration is not displaying such restraint in dealing with all of American higher education. The Washington Post quotes Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, who said that the new policy is a frontal “assault … on institutional autonomy, on ideological diversity, on freedom of expression and academic freedom.”

    “Suddenly, to get a grant,” Mitchell continued, “you need to not demonstrate merit, but ideological fealty to a particular set of political viewpoints … I can’t imagine a university in America that would be supportive of this.”

    We may soon see whether he is right. But he may have framed the issue incorrectly.

    The question is not whether America’s colleges and universities will support a clearly unconstitutional overreach by the Trump administration. The question is whether they will go along with it by signing on to the “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education.”

    The administration is asking colleges and universities, “’What are the things that you believe? What are your values?” Justice Frankfurter must be rolling over in his grave.

    We can only hope that the first nine universities asked to agree to the administration’s latest intrusion into higher education will follow his wisdom and refuse to do so. And other colleges and universities should make clear now that if they are asked to follow suit, they too will say no.

    Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science at Amherst College.

    Source link

  • The push to expand school choice should not diminish civic education

    The push to expand school choice should not diminish civic education

    From Texas to Florida to Arizona, school voucher policies are reshaping the landscape of American education. The Trump administration champions federal support for voucher expansion, and many state-level leaders are advancing school choice programs. Billions of public dollars are now flowing to private schools, church networks and microeducation platforms.  

    The push to expand school choice is not just reallocating public funds to private institutions. It is reorganizing the very purpose of schooling. And in that shift, something essential is being lost — the public mission of education as a foundation of democracy. 

    Civic education is becoming fragmented, underfunded and institutionally weak.  

    In this moment of sweeping change, as public dollars shift from common institutions to private and alternative schools, the shared civic entities that once supported democratic learning are being diminished or lost entirely — traditional structures like public schools, libraries and community colleges are no longer guaranteed common spaces. 

    The result is a disjointed system in which students may gain academic content or career preparation but receive little support in learning how to lead with integrity, think across differences or sustain democratic institutions. The very idea of public life is at risk, especially in places where shared experience has been replaced by polarization. We need civic education more than ever. 

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

    If we want students who can lead a multiracial democracy, we need schools of every type to take civic formation seriously. That includes religious schools, charter schools and homeschooling networks. The responsibility cannot fall on public schools alone. Civic formation is not an ideological project. It is a democratic one, involving the long-term work of building the skills, habits and values that prepare people to work across differences and take responsibility for shared democratic life. 

    What we need now is a civic education strategy that matches the scale of the changes reshaping American schooling. This will mean fostering coordinated investment, institutional partnerships and recognition that the stakes are not just academic, they are also democratic. 

    Americans overwhelmingly support civic instruction. According to a 2020 survey in Texas by the Center of Women in Politics and Public Policy and iCivics, just 49 percent of teachers statewide believed that enough time was being devoted to teaching civics knowledge, and just 23 percent said the same about participatory-democracy skills. This gap is not unique to Texas, but there is little agreement on how civics should be taught, and even less structural support for the schools trying to do it. 

    Without serious investment, civic formation will remain an afterthought — a patchwork effort disconnected from the design of most educational systems. 

    This is not an argument against vouchers in principle. Families should have options. But in the move to decentralize education, we risk hollowing out its civic core. A democratic society cannot survive on academic content alone. It requires citizens — not just in the legal sense, but in the civic one. 

    A democratic society needs people who can deliberate, organize, collaborate and build a shared future with others who do not think or live like they do. 

    And that’s why we are building a framework in Texas that others can adopt and adapt to their own civic mission. 

    The pioneering Democracy Schools model, to which I contribute, supports civic formation across a range of public and private schools, colleges, community organizations and professional networks.  

    Civic infrastructure is the term we use to describe our approach: the design of relationships, institutions and systems that hold democracy together. Just as engineers build physical infrastructure, educators and civic leaders must build civic infrastructure by working with communities, not for or on them. 

    We start from a democratic tradition rooted in the Black freedom struggle. Freedom, in this view, is not just protection from domination. It is the capacity to act, build and see oneself reflected in the world. This view of citizenship demands more than voice. It calls for the ability to shape institutions, policies and public narratives from the ground up. 

    Related: STUDENT VOICE: My generation knows less about civics than my parents’ generation did, yet we need it more than ever 

    The model speaks to a national crisis: the erosion of shared civic space in education. It must be practiced and must be supported by institutions that understand their role in building public life. Historically Black colleges and universities like Huston-Tillotson University offer a powerful example. They are not elite pipelines disconnected from everyday life. They are rooted in community, oriented toward public leadership and shaped by a history of democratic struggle. They show what it looks like to educate for civic capacity — not just for upward mobility. They remind us that education is not only about what students know, but about who they become and what kind of world they are prepared to help shape. 

    Our national future depends on how well we prepare young people to take responsibility for shared institutions and pluralistic public life. This cannot be accomplished through content standards alone. It requires civic ecosystems designed to cultivate public authorship. 

    We have an enormous stake in preparing the next generation for the demands of democratic life. What kind of society are we preparing young people to lead? The answer will not come from any single institution. It will come from partnerships across sectors, aligned in purpose even if diverse in approach. 

    We are eager to collaborate with any organization — public, private or faith-based — committed to building the civic infrastructure that sustains our democracy. Wherever education takes place, civic formation must remain a central concern. 

    Robert Ceresa is the founding director of the Politics Lab of the James L. Farmer House, Huston-Tillotson University. 

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].  

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

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • UK still top choice for pathway students despite policy changes

    UK still top choice for pathway students despite policy changes

    International students are placing getting a quality education over policy developments – with the UK keeping its spot as the preferred desitnation for 80% of nearly 1,000 pathway students surveyed by NCUK.

    A new report covering the survey’s findings analyses data from 921 students across 88 countries studying an international foundation year or Master’s preparatino programs, looking at their motivations for studying in top destinations, as well as other preferences.

    It found that Australia was the second most popular choice, with 4% of students surveyed marking it as their preference, followed by Canada, the US, New Zealand and Ireland at 3%. Meanwhile, the most coveted programs are business and computer science, as the preferred subjects for just under a third (31%) of respondents.

    Students’ continued preference for the UK comes in spite of a slew of policy changes affecting international students. In May, the government unveiled its long-awaited immigration white paper, setting out the way Keir Starmer’s Labour party intends to tackle migration over the coming years.

    It included plans to reduce the Graduate Route by six months to a total of 18 months, as well as new compliance metrics that higher education institutions must in order to continue recrutiing international students. Tougher Basic Compliance Assessment (BCA) requirements are set to take effect this month, meaning that universities will face penalties if more than 5% of their students’ visas are rejected, down from 10%.

    And last September, the UK increased international student maintenance requirements for the first time since 2020. Under the new rules, students coming to London must show evidence of having £1,483 per month, while studying outside of London need proof that they have at least £1,136 per month.  

    But NCUK’s chief marketing officer Andy Howells pointed out that students are looking beyond arbitrary political decision when choosing their preferred study destination, thinking instead about their long-term prospects.

    “This research demonstrates that international students are sophisticated decision-makers who look beyond political headlines to focus on educational quality and career outcomes,” he said. “While policy changes generate significant discussion in our sector, students are primarily motivated by the academic excellence and opportunities that institutions can provide.”

    The survey found that, of a sample size of 646 students, just 12% who said they were considering studying in the UK said that financial requiremwnr increases would stop them from applying to UK instiutuons.

    However, the popularity of other major study destinations were ore impacted by political headwinds, the survey found.

    Over a third (36%) interested in applying the Australian institutions said that proposed international enrolment caps would affect their decision, while 26% of those looking to study in Canada said they would no longer apply to Canadian institutions over policy changes – particularly changes to the country’s postgraduate work permit scheme.

    And almost four in 10 (38%) considering the US said Donald Trump’s second presidency would negatively impact their choice to study in America.

    For the majority of students surveyed (69.9%), education quality is the primary driver leading them to seek study abroad opportunities, closely followed by enhanced career development opportunities (56.4%) and gaining new knowledge (55.2%).

    The survey also shone a light on students’ post-graduation plans. Half of respondents said they wanted to stay in their study destination, with 31% planning to work and 19% looking at further studies.

    This research demonstrates that international students are sophisticated decision-makers who look beyond political headlines to focus on educational quality and career outcomes
    Andy Howells, NCUK

    But a growing number of students plan to return to their hoe country immediately after graduating, with 23% saying they want to do this – up from 18% in last year’s survey.

    Immigration has continued to be a hot topic in the UK as the anti-immigration Reform party grows in popularity.

    Just earlier this week, Home Secretary Yvette Cooper drew ire from the international education sector after announcing that the government will be tougher on overseas students who make asylum claims that “lack merit” as a means to stay in the country after their visa expires.

    Some 10,000 students have already been texted and emailed warning them that they will not be allowed to stay in the UK if they have no legal right to remain and explicitly warning them against making bogus asylum claims.

    Source link

  • Exploring a new standard for preparing students for the future of work

    Exploring a new standard for preparing students for the future of work

    Key points:

    According to the World Economic Forum’s Future of Jobs Report 2025, nearly 40 percent of workers’ core skills will change in just the next five years. As AI, automation, and global connectivity continue to reshape every industry, today’s students are stepping into a world where lifelong careers in a single field are increasingly rare.

    Rather than following a straight path, the most successful professionals tomorrow will be able to pivot, reinvent, and adapt again and again. That’s why the goal of education must also shift. Instead of preparing students for a fixed destination, we must prepare them to navigate change itself.

    At Rockingham County Schools (RCS), this belief is at the heart of our mission to ensure every student is “choice-ready.” Rather than just asking, “What job will this student have?” we’re asking, “Will they be ready to succeed in whatever path they choose now and 10 years from now?”

    Choice-ready is a mindset, not just a pathway

    Let’s start with a quick analogy: Not long ago, the NBA underwent a major transformation. For decades, basketball was largely a two-point game with teams focused on scoring inside the arc. But over time, the strategy shifted to where it is today: a three-point league, where teams that invest in long-range shooters open up the floor, score more efficiently, and consistently outperform those stuck in old models. The teams that adapted reshaped the game. The ones that didn’t have fallen behind.

    Education is facing a similar moment. If we prepare students for a narrow, outdated version of success that prepares them for one track, one career, or one outcome, we risk leaving them unprepared for a world that rewards agility, range, and innovation.

    At RCS, we take a global approach to education to avoid this. Being “choice-ready” means equipping students with the mindset and flexibility to pursue many possible futures, and a global approach expands that readiness by exposing them to a broader range of competencies and real-world situations. This exposure prepares them to navigate the variety of contexts they will encounter as professionals. Rather than locking them into a specific plan, it helps them develop the ability to shift when industries, interests, and opportunities change.

    The core competencies to embrace this mindset and flexibility include:

    • Creative and analytical thinking, which help solve new problems in new contexts
    • Empathy and collaboration, which are essential for dynamic teams and cross-sector work
    • Confidence and communication, which are built through student-led projects and real-world learning

    RCS also brings students into the conversation. They’re invited to shape their learning environment by giving their input on district policies around AI, cell phone use, and dress codes. This encourages engagement and ownership that helps them build the soft skills and self-direction that today’s workforce demands.

    The 4 E’s: A vision for holistic student readiness and flexibility

    To turn this philosophy into action, we developed a four-part framework to support every student’s readiness:

    1. Enlisted: Prepared for military service
    2. Enrolled: Ready for college or higher education
    3. Educated: Grounded in academic and life skills
    4. Entrepreneur: Equipped to create, innovate, and take initiative

    That fourth “E”–entrepreneur–is unique to RCS and especially powerful. It signals that students can create their opportunities rather than waiting for them. In one standout example, a student who began producing and selling digital sound files online explored both creative and commercial skill sets.

    These categories aren’t silos. A student might enlist, then enroll in college, then start a business. That’s the whole point: Choice-ready students can move fluidly from one path to another as their interests–and the world–evolve.

    The role of global education

    Global education is a framework that prepares students to understand the world, appreciate different perspectives, and engage with real-world issues across local and global contexts. It emphasizes transferable skills—such as adaptability, empathy, and critical thinking—that students need to thrive in an unpredictable future.

    At RCS, global education strengthens student readiness through:

    • Dual language immersion, which gives students a competitive edge in a multilingual, interconnected workforce
    • Cultural exposure, which builds resilience, empathy, and cross-cultural competence
    • Real-world learning, which connects academic content to relevant, global challenges

    These experiences prepare students to shift between roles, industries, and even countries with confidence.

    Redesigning career exploration: Early exposure and real skills

    Because we don’t know what future careers will be, we embed career exploration across K-12 to ensure students develop self-awareness and transferable skills early on.

    One of our best examples is the Paxton Patterson Labs in middle schools, where students explore real-world roles, such as practicing dental procedures on models rather than just watching videos.

    Through our career and technical education and innovation program at the high school level, students can:

    • Earn industry-recognized credentials.
    • Collaborate with local small business owners.
    • Graduate workforce-ready with the option to pursue higher education later.

    For students who need immediate income after graduation, RCS offers meaningful preparation that doesn’t close off future opportunities, keeping those doors open.

    And across the system, RCS tracks success by student engagement and ownership, both indicators that a learner is building confidence, agency, and readiness to adapt. This focus on student engagement and preparing students for the world postgraduation is already paying dividends. During the 2024-25 school year, RCS was able to increase the percentage of students scoring proficient on the ACT by more than 20 points to 44 percent. Additionally, RCS increased both the number of students who took AP exams and the number who received a passing score by 12 points to 48 percent.

    Preparing students for a moving target

    RCS knows that workforce readiness is a moving target. That’s why the district continues to evolve with it. Our ongoing focus areas include:

    • Helping graduates become lifelong learners who can retrain and reskill as needed
    • Raising awareness of AI’s influence on learning, creativity, and work
    • Expanding career exploration opportunities that prioritize transferable, human-centered skills

    We don’t know exactly what the future holds. We do know that students who can adapt, pivot, and move confidently from one career path to another will be the most prepared–because the most important outcome isn’t fitting students into today’s job market but preparing them to create value in tomorrow’s.

    At Rockingham County Schools, that’s what being “choice-ready” really means. It’s not about predicting the future. It’s about preparing students to thrive within it wherever it leads.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • The UK as a Global Partner of Choice for R&D – will it catch on?

    The UK as a Global Partner of Choice for R&D – will it catch on?

    This blog was kindly authored by Alice Routledge, Policy Labs Adviser at Wellcome Trust.

    The UK’s unsustainably funded university sector is not just a domestic challenge to research innovation and growth. It also risks undermining the UK’s global standing. A new Wellcome report highlights the critical role of research and development (R&D) in shaping international partnerships and influencing how the UK is perceived around the world.

    Five years ago, Wellcome published The UK’s role in global research, calling for the UK Government to embrace its strengths in research and development and live up to its place in the world. That report spoke to the optimism for R&D and boosterism of Boris Johnson’s government, leaning into the UK being a science superpower and the idea of a global Britain, following the UK’s exit from the European Union.

    The change in geopolitics over the last five years has been stark, and the world has changed dramatically. A global pandemic, war on mainland Europe, the proliferation of conflict across the Middle East, and a new UK Government are reshaping the context in which UK research operates. With the scaling back of science funding in the US, worries about the future and effectiveness of multilateralism, and internationally diverging trends in the trust of science itself, it was time to think up a new narrative for UK international science collaboration.

    In response, Wellcome has released a report urging the Government to resist the trend towards isolationism, and build on its strengths in R&D and diplomacy to become: The Global Partner of Choice for R&D.

    Why R&D as a tool for diplomacy?

    The UK excels in research. It ranks first globally for the quality of academic publications and leads the G7 in international collaboration. Its universities are world-renowned, with three or four regularly ranked among the global top 10. Its tech sector boasts more tech unicorns than any other European country.  UK research is naturally international, with over 60 per cent of the UK’s academic publications in 2022 being co-authored by international researchers – the highest proportion in the G7.

    It creates growth. Public investment in R&D delivers strong returns: £1 invested in public R&D leverages double that in private investment and generates £7 in net benefits to the UK economy in the long run. In internationally neglected disease research alone, sustained investment could generate more than £4.8 billion of private sector investment in R&D and create nearly 4,000 UK jobs.

    R&D also strengthens the UK’s diplomatic reach, with international research partnerships and alumni networks serving as powerful tools of soft power and global influence.

    There is no national security without health security. Investment in global health research helps to prevent future pandemics by funding the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness, and finding solutions for infectious diseases such as malaria, TB and meningitis. The report recommends that the Ministry of Defence ensure that it uses its increasing R&D budget to invest in research that supports health security while welcoming the government funding for the collaboration between the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory and the Pandemic Institute for vital research into emerging infectious diseases.

    UK leadership in emerging technologies, from AI to genomics, offers a chance to shape global norms and standards in line with democratic values. The report urges the Government to use the UK’s unique ability in both science and diplomacy to convene an international coalition with a common focus on the regulation of emerging technology.

    A new narrative for a new era

    Wellcome recommends the Government move beyond the language of science superpower or innovation powerhouse. These terms can sound self-congratulatory, and as quoted in the report, “just falls completely flat globally.” Instead, the UK should position itself as the global partner of choice for R&D, a country that others want to work with because of the excellence of its universities as research institutions, its openness, and its commitment to mutual benefit.

    This shift in narrative is not just semantic. It requires a change in how the UK approaches international collaboration.

    • Modernising partnerships: The UK must move from a model of paternalism to one of partnership. This means co-created partnerships based on mutual benefit, nurtured for the long term and where possible led by researchers
    • Choosing partners strategically:  partnering with countries for top-down research relationships should focus on research impact. The UK should deepen ties with the European Union and forge new partnerships with low- and middle-income countries. This will require a rethink of the UK’s approach to Official Development Assistance (ODA), ensuring it supports long-term, equitable research collaborations.
    • The global exchange of people and ideas:  The Government should prioritise reducing the barriers to the global exchange of people and ideas. The Government could encourage an exchange of research talent at all stages with strategic partners around the world by including provisions in Free Trade Agreements and science and innovation agreements, or through joint PhD or exchange schemes and by reducing the costs of moving to the UK.

    Implications for higher education

    To become the global partner of choice for R&D, the UK must ensure that its higher education sector is financially sustainable. Universities play a central role in the UK’s research ecosystem – convening global talent, producing world-class research, and cultivating international alumni networks that serve as diplomatic assets. Yet they will struggle to play this role if they remain under-resourced. Up to 72% of providers are facing an income deficit in 2025-26, and many universities are currently consulting on redundancies.

    While the recent Spending Review did not deliver the funding uplift many hoped for, exploring more stable funding streams must not come at the expense of fundamental research. Funders, institutions, and the Government must work together to ensure the UK remains an attractive place to collaborate on research.

    You can read the full report here.

    Source link

  • 3 things to know about school choice in the ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill’

    3 things to know about school choice in the ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill’

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

    The “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” a major tax and spending package narrowly passed by Congress and signed by President Donald Trump on July 4, includes a Republican-led national school choice provision that public school advocates and some researchers say will disrupt the traditional public school K-12 model by driving more competition with public schools. 

    This controversial issue has been debated at the local, state and national levels for decades, but this is the first federally funded, nationwide private school choice program. While unknowns remain about how many students, schools and states will participate, reaction has been swift, with opponents calling the law harmful to public schools and supporters labeling it as a historic move for educational freedom. 

    “Parents should decide where their kids go to school. This bill helps them do that,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., author of the Educational Choice for Children Act included in the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” and chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, in a Thursday statement.

    Here’s what you need to know about the newly enacted measure:

    What the new school choice provision says

    The law provides a federal tax incentive to generate funds for families’ educational expenses, including private school tuition at secular and religious schools, as well as costs incurred for children at public and private schools such as fees, tutoring, educational therapies, transportation, technology and other expenses. It would also apply to homeschooling costs.

    To be eligible, families’ household incomes must not exceed 300% of the median gross income for their locality. The means, for example, students in Memphis living in households with incomes of up to $364,400 could be eligible, based on a median family income of $91,100. 

    States, however, can opt out of participating, meaning none of the students in that state would be eligible for the program. It was not immediately clear which state agency or leader decides this.

    Under the new school choice law, any taxpayer who donates up to $1,700 annually to a scholarship granting organization — a 501(c)(3) charity organization — would be eligible for a 100% federal income tax credit for their contribution, or the equal amount in a reduction of taxes owed. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, there is no other charitable giving structure that allows this type of dollar-for-dollar tax incentive. 

    ITEP’s analysis of Internal Revenue Service data shows that more than 138 million people could use this tax credit in 2027 if they choose to. But some might not participate because of the paperwork involved or because they disagree with private school vouchers, ITEP said.

    If 43% of taxpayers — which would be about 59 million people — participate, the cost to the federal government would be $101 billion per year, according to ITEP.

    The law does not cap the program’s cost, despite earlier versions of the bill limiting it to $4 billion or $5 billion per year. In addition, the program is permanent with no expiration date. 

    The scholarship-granting organizations that will distribute tuition vouchers for education expenses must be independent entities and cannot be affiliated with a school, according to ACE Scholarships, a nonprofit scholarship-granting organization that has analyzed the law. The organization, in an FAQ, also said parents cannot direct their tax credit directly to their child’s education expenses. 

    Rather, the scholarship-granting organizations will be charged with independently determining students’ eligibility.

    Several people are seated at desks outside of the U.S. Department of Education. Some people are standing and there are signs on the ground and being held. One sign says "Protect Students. Protect Public Schools."

    Protestors participate in a “study-in” in front of the U.S. Department of Education on March 21, 2025, in Washington, D.C.

    Kayla Bartkowski via Getty Images

     

    What people are saying

    Reaction to the law was swift, with critics voicing concern about the impacts on public school budgets and supporters applauding what they call a significant step toward parental empowerment in K-12 education.

    Robert Kim, executive director of the Education Law Center, blasted the new program. Studies have shown private school vouchers “sweep aside civil rights protections, support segregation, decimate public school budgets, and do not improve student outcomes,” Kim said in a statement.

    He added, “Vouchers undermine public education, the cornerstone of our democracy, and have no place in federal policy.” 

    EdTrust, a nonprofit organization that works to improve outcomes for students of color, lambasted the law as an “extremely costly federal voucher program that will spend billions in public money to subsidize wealthy families accessing private schools.” and will operate with “little oversight.”

    EdTrust has nicknamed the law the “Great American Heist” for its private school choice provision and changes to Medicaid, food stamps and college loan repayment programs. The law “would dismantle the very programs that make education and economic advancement possible for students of color, first-generation college students, and low- and middle-income families,” EdTrust’s statement said.

    Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, said in a statement that the school choice program “will divert billions of taxpayer dollars to private religious schools that indoctrinate and can discriminate against students and their families based on the schools’ beliefs.”

    Supporters of private school choice, however, struck a different note. They said parents have become frustrated at disappointing student academic performances in public schools and want more options for their children.

    “This is a huge victory for American families that have been praying and hoping for a financial lifeline to provide their children with the education they need to thrive,” said Anthony J. de Nicola, chairman of the board of Invest in Education Coalition, an organization that has promoted a federal school choice program, in a statement.

    Tommy Schultz, CEO of the American Federation for Children, a school choice advocacy organization, said the law’s passage will “supercharge” school choice across the country. 

    “For a generation, our movement has fought to give all families, especially lower-income families, the freedom to choose the best K-12 education for their sons and daughters, and now President Trump has signed into law the single biggest advancement of that goal,” Schultz said in a statement.

    Even with the praise, however, some supporters urged caution. 

    In an interview with Catholic News Agency published July 3, John DeJak, executive director of the Secretariat of Catholic Education for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, applauded the law’s passage but also pointed to “unknowns” like how the program would address religious liberty protections.

     

    What happens next

    The tax incentive starts with the taxable years ending after Dec. 31, 2026, — and there’s a lot to work out before then. 

    For starters, the new law says that the U.S. secretary of education must draft regulations for how the program will operate, including recordkeeping and reporting, as well as enforcement of a state’s certification of scholarship-granting organizations. 

    The U.S. Department of Education did not provide a time frame for this by press time on Monday.

    Details such as state participation and how the national private school choice program would operate in conjunction with state-level choice programs also need to be worked out. According to EdChoice, an organization that advocates for school choice, 35 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have private school choice programs that together serve nearly 1.3 million students.

    It’s also unclear how this new school choice program will meld into Republican-led plans to close the Education Department.

    In the meantime, school choice advocates and supporters of public schools vow to continue advocating for and against the controversial law.



    Source link

  • Mobility Isn’t a Choice: How Higher Education Can Better Serve Military Learners

    Mobility Isn’t a Choice: How Higher Education Can Better Serve Military Learners

    This post is excerpted from a forthcoming book on learner mobility to be published in July 2025 by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

    Every few years, they pack up their lives, move across states—or oceans—and start over. New schools, new systems, new expectations.

    For military learners, this isn’t a study abroad adventure or a career move; it’s a way of life. Yet while their reality is defined by mobility, too many of our systems in higher education still assume stability.

    Military learners make up about five percent of the undergraduate population—roughly 820,000 students nationwide. But they aren’t a monolith. They’re active-duty service members juggling college coursework with operational demands like exercises, surprise inspections, and even deployments. They’re veterans navigating civilian life, often in isolation, and often while supporting a family. They’re National Guard and reserve members wearing multiple hats that opposing forces demand they change on command. And they’re spouses and dependents navigating new colleges, mid-degree or mid-semester, again and again, with each relocation.

    Their stories are different, but the friction points are the same: staying on track academically while managing a life defined by mobility.

    Unlike traditional students, military learners don’t choose when or where they go—on orders, deployments, or other permanent or temporary service-related relocations. And each move can derail progress. Credits don’t transfer, residency rules reset, tuition costs spike, and financial aid doesn’t always follow the same logic. These students bring resilience, discipline, and lived experience into our classrooms, but higher education hasn’t fully adjusted to meet them where they are.

    The transfer tangle and financial aid maze

    One of the biggest hurdles is transfer credit. While articulation agreements—formal arrangements for transferring credits between institutions—do exist, they often don’t reflect the realities of military learners, especially when it comes to military training or nontraditional learning experiences. Some accumulate credits from multiple institutions, only to be told their new school won’t accept them.

    The result? Lost time, lost money, and unnecessary frustration.

    Add to that the patchwork of residency rules. Even when learners are stationed in a state under military orders, they may not qualify for in-state tuition. While states like Virginia and Florida have implemented inclusive policies, others continue to lag, turning mobility into a penalty as well as a reality.

    Financial aid adds another layer of complexity. Programs like tuition assistance and the GI Bill are essential, but they often fall short. Tuition assistance differs by branch and may not cover full tuition at private or out-of-state schools. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a powerful benefit, but its eligibility rules and transfer limitations don’t always align with the unpredictable, stop-and-go nature of military life.

    What states and institutions are doing right

    There are promising models to build on. In Ohio, Military Transfer Assurance Guides standardize how public institutions accept military training as credit. Texas and New York offer additional tuition support for veterans, while Florida helps cover housing and textbook costs when GI Bill payments lapse between terms.

    At the institutional level, schools like Grand Valley State University, Syracuse University, and the City University of New York (CUNY) are raising the bar. Their “Veteran Promise” programs guarantee admission, recognize military training, and offer wraparound support tailored to military-connected students.

    That’s not charity—that’s what equity looks like. When institutions commit, military learners succeed.

    The power and promise of credit for prior learning

    Credit for prior learning (CPL) may be one of the most powerful—and underused—tools to support military learners, who bring extensive work and life experience to their postsecondary studies that can be translated into credit.

    CPL recognizes that learning happens outside the classroom: through military training, job experience, CLEP exams, or portfolio assessments. When applied effectively, it can shorten the path to graduation, reduce student debt, and boost confidence for learners who’ve already mastered real-world skills.

    Tools like ACE’s Military Guide help institutions apply CPL consistently and responsibly. But here’s the problem: CPL isn’t consistently communicated, awarded, or valued. In some cases, it’s limited to elective credits rather than core degree requirements, undermining its purpose.

    CPL isn’t just about transfer and awarding credit; it’s also about unlocking opportunity. Validated learning can, and should, play a role in admissions, satisfying prerequisites, waiving introductory or duplicative coursework, and advising military learners on the path that is best for them. When institutions fully embrace the broader utility of CPL, they open more doors for military learners to engage meaningfully with higher education from the very start of their journeys.

    To change that, institutions need more than buy-in—they need system-wide strategies. CPL should be central to transfer reform conversations, especially when supporting learners who are older, more experienced, and balancing school with work or caregiving.

    The role of advising and ecosystem support

    Too often, military learners don’t get the tailored advice they need. On-base education centers can be vital entry points, but they need stronger bridges to campus advising teams who understand military culture, CPL, and transfer systems. Institutions sometimes resist broader CPL use over concerns about revenue loss or academic rigor, while students are left unaware of opportunities due to poor communication or advising gaps. Aligning on-base education centers with well-trained campus advisors is one step forward; improving internal communication across departments is another.

    Student Veterans of America’s Success Hub, which includes the SVA Advising Center, supports all service members, veterans, and their families in making informed decisions about higher education opportunities and meaningful careers through the use of AI, success coaches, and expertise where the military, veterans, and higher education intersect.

    Organizations like NACADA are doing the work to improve professional development in this area, but we need deeper, sustained collaboration. Cross-sector partnerships between colleges, employers, and the U.S. Department of Defense are where real impact happens.

    Programs like Syracuse’s Onward to Opportunity and ACE’s Reimagining Transfer for Student Success illustrate what’s possible when higher education and workforce systems align.

    The BLUF, or Bottom Line Up Front

    Military learners aren’t asking for special treatment. They ask for systems to make sense for the lives they actually lead. With the right policy changes, institutional commitments, and collaborative frameworks, we can turn mobility from a barrier into a bridge.

    But we also need better data, better pathways, and a better understanding of what success looks like for these students—not just access, but degree completion and career readiness. Military learners aren’t an exception. They are the future of an inclusive, prepared, and resilient workforce.

    It’s time higher education met these students where they are because they’re already leading the way.

    If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

    Source link