Tag: Data

  • Sparking civic engagement as we approach America’s 250th

    Sparking civic engagement as we approach America’s 250th

    Key points:

    Imagine students who understand how government works and who see themselves as vital contributors to their communities. That’s what happens when students are given opportunities to play a role in their school, district, and community. In my work as a teacher librarian, I have learned that even the youngest voices can be powerful, and that students embrace civic responsibility and education when history is taught in a way that’s relevant and meaningful. 

    Now is the moment to build momentum and move our curriculum forward. It’s time to break past classroom walls and unite schools and communities. As our nation’s 250th anniversary approaches, education leaders have a powerful opportunity to teach through action and experience like never before. 

    Kids want to matter. When we help them see themselves as part of the world instead of watching it pass by, they learn how to act with purpose. By practicing civic engagement, students gain the skills to contribute solutions–and often offer unique viewpoints that drive real change. In 2023, I took my students [CR1] to the National Mall. They were in awe of how history was represented in stone, how symbolism was not always obvious, and they connected with rangers from the National Park Service as well as visitors in D.C. that day. 

    When students returned from the Mall, they came back with a question that stuck: “Where are the women?” In 2024, we set out to answer two questions together: “Whose monuments are missing?” and “What is HER name?” 

    Ranger Jen at the National Mall, with whom I worked with before, introduced me to Dr. Linda Booth Sweeney, author of Monument Maker, which inspired my approach. Her book asks, “History shapes us–how will we shape history?” Motivated by this challenge, students researched key women in U.S. history and designed monuments to honor their contributions. 

    We partnered with the Women’s Suffrage National Monument, and some students even displayed their work at the Belmont-Paul Women’s Equality National Monument. Through this project, questions were asked, lessons were learned, and students discovered the power of purpose and voice. By the end of our community-wide celebration, National Mall Night, they were already asking, “What’s next?” 

    The experience created moments charged with importance and emotion–moments students wanted to revisit and replicate as they continue shaping history themselves. 

    Reflecting on this journey, I realized I often looked through a narrow lens, focusing only on what was immediately within my school. But the broader community, both local and online, is full of resources that can strengthen relationships, provide materials, and offer strategies, mentors, and experiences that extend far beyond any initial lesson plan. 

    Seeking partnerships is not a new idea, but it can be easily overlooked or underestimated. I’ve learned that a “no” often really means “not yet” or “not now,” and that persistence can open doors. Ford’s Theatre introduced me to Ranger Jen, who in turn introduced me to Dr. Sweeney and the Trust for the National Mall. When I needed additional resources, the Trust for the National Mall responded, connecting me with the new National Mall Gateway: a new digital platform inspired by America’s 250th that gives all students, educators and visitors access to explore and connect with history and civics through the National Mall. 

    When I first shared the Gateway with students, it took their breath away. They could reconnect with the National Mall–a place they were passionate about–with greater detail and depth. I now use the platform to teach about monuments and memorials, to prepare for field trips, and to debrief afterward. The platform brings value for in-person visits to the National Mall, and for virtual field trips in the classroom, where they can almost reach out and touch the marble and stone of the memorials through 360-degree video tours. 

    Another way to spark students’ interest in civics and history is to weave civic learning into every subject. The first step is simple but powerful: Give teachers across disciplines the means to integrate civic concepts into their lessons. This might mean collaborating with arts educators and school librarians to design mini-lessons, curate primary sources, or create research challenges that connect past and present. It can also take shape through larger, project-based initiatives that link classroom learning to real-world issues. Science classes might explore the policies behind environmental conservation, while math lessons could analyze community demographics or civic data. In language arts, students might study speeches, letters, or poetry to see how language drives change. When every subject and resource become hubs for civic exploration, students begin to see citizenship as something they live, not just study. 

    Students thrive when their learning has purpose and connection. They remember lessons tied to meaningful experiences and shared celebrations. For instance, one of our trips to the National Mall happened when our fourth graders were preparing for a Veterans Day program with patriotic music. Ranger Jen helped us take it a step further, building on previous partnerships and connections–she arranged for the students to sing at the World War II Memorial. As they performed “America,” Honor Flights unexpectedly arrived. The students were thrilled to sing in the nation’s capital, of course. But the true impact came from their connection with the veterans who had lived the history they were honoring. 

    As our nation approaches its 250th anniversary, we have an extraordinary opportunity to help students see themselves as part of the story of America’s past, present, and future.

    Encourage educator leaders to consider how experiential civics can bring this milestone to life. Invite students to engage in authentic ways, whether through service-learning projects, policy discussions, or community partnerships that turn civic learning into action. Create spaces in your classes for collaboration, reflection, and application, so that students are shaping history, not just studying it. Give students more than a celebration. Give them a sense of purpose and belonging in the ongoing story of our nation. 

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Mature students: how the absence of disaggregated data and intersectional approaches undermine intervention strategies

    Mature students: how the absence of disaggregated data and intersectional approaches undermine intervention strategies

    Author:
    Hinna Abid

    Published:

    This blog was kindly authored by Hinna Abid, Doctoral Candidate at the University of Sheffield.

    The Office for Students Strategy 2025-2030 lays out the foundations for English universities new Access and Participation Plans (APPs), outlining the steps that universities should take to improve equality of opportunity, ensuring that disadvantaged groups can access, succeed and progress from higher education. Through these APPs, higher education providers detail the activities and intervention strategies which they will take over the course of a four-year period to address equality of opportunity, while also setting out clear steps to measure and evaluate the impact of their intervention strategies.

    Universities produce their own APPs, however, these need to be in line with OfS guidance. The strategic priorities include closing awarding gaps, removing socio-economic barriers, enhancing access, success, progression, and improving mental health through wellbeing support. These are all welcome and ambitious goals, however, the diversity of under-represented groups, including the varied needs of mature students, raises legitimate questions about whether sufficiently bespoke and effective support can be delivered in practice.

    One-size-fits-none: why blanket policies fail mature students

    Mature students represent a diverse and varying demographic group, not only in terms of different age groups (21-24; 25-29; 30-39; 40-49; 50 & above), but also in contrasting social, cultural, economic and educational backgrounds. Their issues cannot be addressed under the overarching term mature, as there are almost three generations informing these students’ experiences. According to the Higher Education Statistics Agency 2023/24 (HESA), mature students accounted for 63% of the student population in UK higher education. Despite this substantial number, their varied and intersecting characteristics, as well as frequent additional financial and familial responsibilities, complicate their ability to participate in higher education. These intersectional factors are not captured by HESA or within many universities’ APP reports. According to the Office for Students 2020 report, mature students exhibit lower retention rates, lower degree attainments and lower enrolment rates at top-tier UK higher education providers compared to their younger counterparts. A deeper analysis of their issues is necessary. Disaggregated data on mature students could be used as a starting point for designing effective and realistic intervention strategies.  

    Lack of disaggregated data on mature students undermines effective intervention strategies

    Overall reports and policy documents concerning mature students lack detailed, disaggregated data  based on social class, gender, distinct age groups, disability, ethnicity, mental health and caring responsibilities. Two profound examples of these can be seen in the following:

    1. HESA in England, unlike Scottish and Northern Ireland higher education providers, do not collect ‘dependents on entry’ data from students, treating the childcare aspect of student invisibly, when it is actually a significant factor compounding the challenges of many mature students. It is only through alternative routes such as HEPI’s Student Academic Experience Survey 2024, the National Union of Students and Million Plus that an insight into the caring responsibilities of these learners can be found. The lack of data on the care aspect of mature students misleads interventions, as an issue can only be addressed if it is acknowledged, and an issue can only be acknowledged if it is evidenced through statistics.
    • Universities’ Access and Participation Plans provide generic information on the access, continuation, attainment and completion rate of mature students; with the Office for Students 2024-Student Outcomes confirming a sector-wide drop in the continuation rate of mature students. Again, analysis of this decline in mature student continuation rates lacks an intersectional angle as age, social class, ethnicity, disability, mental health, and caring responsibilities interact to drive disparities. Although some universities’ latest APPs, have made moves towards partial intersectional analysis in an attempt to understand the under-recognised forms of disparities, APPs largely remain insufficiently robust,. This restricts universities’ ability to completely understand the mature student population and the disadvantages proliferated by multiple intersecting characteristics. Although it is not be possible for universities to completely understand the student population and their disadvantages, problematic areas, such as the continuous decline in retention of mature students, could be addressed through disaggregated data and an intersectional analysis of this cohort, for effective implementation of intervention strategies.

    Realistic and effective intervention strategies

    Universities record and analyse barriers to access, retention, progress, and success through factors of socio-economic status, free school meals, ethnicity, disability, gender, age and, more recently, mental health conditions. These are characteristics are however, as argued in this blog, frequently not analysed through an intersectional lens. Universities could make progress in this direction by taking the following steps:

    • Ensure the systematic collection and recording of disaggregated data across all protected characteristics and wider socio-demographic factors within each broad cohort. In the case of mature students, this should include, but not be limited to, separate data on gender, detailed age groups, ethnicity, socio-economic status, disability, mental health conditions, and caring responsibilities.
    • Adopt intersectional analysis to address areas of concern within each broad cohort. Understanding effective interventions for enhancing mature students’ retention and progression requires examining the compounded and overlapping effects of multiple characteristics – gender, social class, detailed age groups, disability, ethnicity, mental health conditions, and caring responsibilities – rather than treating these factors in isolation.
    • An intersectional approach should be applied consistently across all student cohorts, not just mature students. By examining how multiple characteristics combine rather than treating them as isolated issues, institutions can reveal hidden layers of compounded disadvantage and design more targeted, effective interventions.

    Source link

  • Podcast: International, UCAS data, student finance

    Podcast: International, UCAS data, student finance

    This week on the podcast the government has finally unveiled its new International Education Strategy – but with no headline target for international student numbers and a clear shift towards education exports, what does it mean for the sector?

    Plus the latest UCAS end of cycle data and what it reveals about entry qualifications at high tariff providers, and a new NUS campaign on student maintenance that’s turning the spotlight on parents.

    With Mike Ratcliffe, Senior Advisor at UWE Bristol, Richard Brabner, Visiting Professor of Civic Engagement at Newcastle University, Jen Summerton, Operations Director at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    On the site

    UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: access and participation

    UCAS End of Cycle, 2025: provider recruitment strategies

    Graduates are paying more and getting less

    A new international education strategy

    Transcript (auto generated)

    It’s the Wonkhe Show. The long-awaited international education strategy finally lands, but where’s the numbers target? There’s UCAS data out, latest on who’s doing the hoovering, and NUS launches a new campaign aimed at mum and dad. It’s all coming up.

    “Yes, we think this is important, but this is definitely framed as the solution to your financial worries is to not bring more international students into this country. But it is still framed as international students are being valuable, what they bring, the globalisation. And then I thought that I’m annoyed that soft power boils down to how many presidents and prime ministers we have.”

    Welcome back to the Wonky Show, your weekly roundup of higher education news, policy and analysis. I’m your host, Jim Dickinson, and I’m here to help us make sense of it all. As usual, three excellent guests.

    In Oxford, Mike Bratcliffe is Senior Advisor at UWE Bristol. Mike, your highlight of the week, please.

    “It’s starting block. So we’ve got students back. They’re doing their programme-level induction, which is lovely. Having students run a campus game is particularly lovely because it means that catering feel confident enough to reopen the salad bar.”

    And in Newcastle this week, Richard Brabner is visiting Professor of Civic Engagement at Newcastle and LPD Place Fellow at the University of Birmingham. Richard, your highlight of the week, please.

    “Thanks, Jim. Well, I’ve actually based in South East London in Bromley, but my highlight of the week was actually going up to Newcastle on Monday and Tuesday, the first time in my visiting role, to talk to the senior team and various colleagues up there about our Civic 2.0 campaign, which is looking at the next steps for the civic university movement and how we can have more of an impact on policy and the incentives in the system. So that was all very fun and very exciting.”

    Lovely stuff. And near Loughborough this week, Jen Summerton is Operations Director at Wonky. Jen, your highlight of the week, please.

    “Thanks, Jen. My highlight of the week, workwise, is launching the Secret Life of Students programme yesterday because I’m really excited. We’ve got some great content in there. I’ve just got to cheekily add another one, which is that yesterday was my birthday and my daughter made me some chocolate covered strawberry demi-gorgons which were absolutely delicious.”

    Oh that reminds me, someone gave me some chocolate at Student Governors yesterday. I think that’s melted in my pocket anyway.

    So yes, we’ll start this week with international education. This week the government published a long-awaited refresh of its strategy. Jen, what is in it and perhaps what isn’t in it?

    “Yes, so I think we were told in autumn 2024 that we were due for a refresh of this, so it is long-awaited. Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, though, missing our headline target numbers on international students, which turned out to be a bit of a hot potato last time. I think in 2019 we had a 600,000 international student target.

    “So what we do have this time is a £40 billion target on education exports by 2030. And that’s up from 35 billion in the last strategy, although perhaps worth mentioning that the methodology has changed and obviously inflation’s in quite a bit since then. I think really the focus this time is on exports, and transnational education gets plenty of warm words.

    “There’s also a slight difference in terms of the strategy being co-owned by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Department for Business and Trade along with the DfE. So the reference to education as a soft power tool, lots about influencing. And there’s a focus on student experience and support for international students as well, infrastructure, housing, that kind of thing.”

    Well, this is interesting now. Richard, on LBC this week, actually in written form, despite the fact that it was on LBC’s website, Jackie Smith said, “If they are to survive, universities must maximise the opportunities and expand abroad.” That’s a signal of intent, isn’t it?

    “Absolutely. I think whether it’s the correct signal of intent will be depending on your perspective on these sort of things. I think this document reflects political reality and it’s essentially quite a small-c conservative document in a way. I personally think its pragmatism should be welcomed in the sense that it’s not telling the sector something it might want to hear but isn’t able to deliver on.

    “There’s clearly been some mixed reaction. I think there are some organisations that have clearly been involved in shaping this strategy, have really warmly welcomed it. But you’ve seen various other commentary from people, particularly from the international student recruitment market, that are more negative towards it because I don’t think it’s ambitious enough.

    “The shift in emphasis towards TNE is really interesting. It reminds me of the coalition government, where international students were included in the net migration target, but there wasn’t a cap on numbers. There were mixed messages, but they did shift emphasis towards TNE thinking it could be the answer to all our prayers.

    “But what’s challenging for Jackie Smith, and why the £40 billion target is arguably quite ambitious, is that it doesn’t really reflect the internal challenges universities are under at the moment. Are they really able to capitalise on this moving forward? We know some really positive examples of TNE overseas and they’ve highlighted that in the strategy, particularly in relation to India and so on.

    “But how difficult it is not just to build campuses but deliver effective partnerships when you’re restructuring your institution internally and investing overseas when there’s so much challenging change at home, I think is quite difficult. So perhaps it won’t be institution-led. It’ll be tech and other innovation in the system that might lead this.”

    Now, Mike, when I was planning the study tour this year, I was thrilled to be reminded that Premier Inn operated in Germany. When we got there, without going into detail, I think it’s fair to say they’re struggling to maintain quality. If there’s a massive expansion in TNE, there’s actually not been much regulatory attention on it. Are there a set of quality risks?

    “Well, there are. I think there’s a lot of scope to think about TNE and its opportunities. If you go back to a UUKi report last month, it shows how much growth we’ve had. But it also makes the point that there’s a distinction between TNE actually delivered in country and TNE done by distance and other flexible means.

    “There’s an artefact in the report, that picture of them all in India with the Prime Minister, and you think, well, that’s a big ‘let’s build a campus’ kind of TNE. That’s the big slow burn stuff.

    “We don’t know. OfS continue to threaten English providers with expanding the scope of what they’re going to do and then going quiet on it again. What would be really good is some kind of backup that says, this is the kind of thing we’re going to be doing over the next three to four years, so institutions know they don’t go and set up provision and then fall foul of some new rule applied to people in a completely different country, which no one knew was coming.

    “The report talks about taking out red tape. If we’re going to start to put more red tape onto TNE, that’s not going to work.”

    Well, that’s interesting, isn’t it? Look, Jen, one of the things that strikes me is the Foreign Office’s logo is on this time, but the Home Office’s logo isn’t. We still have this split between immigration policy and what amounts to an export policy. How much joint government is going on here?

    “I mean, it’s an interesting one because in a sense, the new strategy is seeking cross-government commitment. We’ve got the Foreign Office and we’ve got the trade and business side involved. That’s quite a big ask.

    “In one way, Jackie Smith is saying if they are to survive, universities must maximise opportunities. Actually, she’s also saying it has to be done meaningfully and with purpose. Doing all of this in the right way at the same time as universities facing the financial constraints they’re under is a hugely ambitious task and it will be a lot easier for some institutions than others.

    “We need to be careful that the sector can support all institutions to do this in the right way and with purpose. And thinking about home students as well, how do we create opportunities overseas that benefit students in the UK? How can we make this across the board beneficial and valuable for everybody and greater than the sum of its parts?”

    Back on the main international recruitment stuff, Richard. A lot of other countries have national-level initiatives around experience, mental health, emergency financial support, housing, and so on. There’s very little here that moves the dial beyond warm words on urging institutions to offer the best experience.

    “Yeah. I think it does mention infrastructure and housing, which I’m not sure it did previously. Small steps forward, you could argue.

    “There are two things I’d pick up on. Firstly, it says it supports the sector-led agent quality framework, which is welcome, but I personally don’t think it goes far enough in protecting students from bad practice. There’s plenty of that out there, and it presents a reputational risk. It could be strengthened, perhaps through a co-regulatory approach with government and sector together.

    “Secondly, there’s a cursory mention of outcomes, but in a limited way. When we ran the Student Futures Commission a few years ago, there was a sub-commission looking at the international student experience. Graduate outcomes and employability were a major theme. The UK sector needs to get better at facilitating opportunities not just in the UK but also in the countries students come from and may return to.

    “I think there might be a role for government, not necessarily funding lots of things, but facilitating pooling resources and knowledge-sharing, particularly around graduate opportunities overseas.

    “And from a civic lens, another missing piece is utilising international students intentionally to support economic and social growth in towns and cities beyond their spending power. How could we facilitate their expertise and knowledge with small businesses that want to grow export-led approaches overseas, including in their own countries? That could support graduate outcomes and business in this country.”

    But Mike, this is part of the problem, isn’t it? When you’ve got a strategy separated from the trade-offs the Home Office has to make on immigration policy, you end up with an international education strategy that doesn’t really rehearse whether we want international graduates, whether we need immigration, ageing population, sustainable migration. That framing ends up missing and it reads like export promotion.

    “I suppose that framing of ‘we support the sustainable recruitment of high quality international students’ is sat there on the face of the thing, which is fine. There are clearly paragraphs there to show the sector they’re paying attention. That framing of genuine students, that’s a concern because the Home Office is sitting on a lot of casework suggesting it is concerned that some people who come here are not genuine students.

    “There’s something weird in how the Home Office, on the one hand, is activist in this area, but on the other hand it hasn’t used the CAS system where it allocates the number of students a place can recruit. It’s not done anything to deal with what sometimes looks like boom and bust in recruitment.

    “So that’s the tension. Yes, we think this is important, but this is definitely framed as the solution to your financial worries is to not bring more international students into this country. But it is still framed as international students are very valuable, what they bring, the globalisation.

    “And then I thought I’m annoyed that soft power boils down to how many presidents and prime ministers we have. Wouldn’t it be marvellous to have procurement managers spread across the world with British degrees? Because that would be far better for an industry than the occasional president, who is subject to international whim.

    “What could we do to say that’s where we get value by having a lot of people who have an experience of British education? But also, increasingly, we come back to the TNE thing, a British education that they haven’t had to fly halfway around the world in order to get.”

    I mean, on the target thing, Jen, we should note there isn’t an explicit numbers target, but there also isn’t a cap or a cut of the sort being played with now in Canada and Australia.

    “Yeah, and to be honest, it doesn’t take people in the sector who know how to do these calculations to work that up into a numbers target if they want to. Individual institutions will be required to do that. They have to plan what proportion will be overseas, what will be TNE, what might be English language, whatever, and diversify it.

    “And obviously the majority will still be international students coming to the UK. They have to decide where they want to prioritise efforts and finances. We’re hearing this from government all the time. They’re putting the onus back on institutions to be creative about how they can make more money and diversify their offer.

    “If we don’t do it, other countries will do it. So we have to be in it to win it.”

    I was at student governance yesterday and ended up talking with four of them from a particular part of the country who said they don’t think their own university could sustain a campus abroad, but the four of them could probably collaborate on a multidisciplinary degree abroad. Are there opportunities for collaboration in the TNE space that aren’t being taken?

    “Yeah, I’m sure there must be. If institutions are going to be creative and innovative in this space, you’d think so. And that’s where there could be a role for government in developing this strategy, whether nationally or regionally, easing out tensions and creating partnerships that could be effective abroad.”

    And finally, Mike, one of the things that strikes me is there often doesn’t seem to be much interaction between students studying similar subjects on a TNE campus and back home. Academics fly backwards and forwards. Is there more opportunity for internationalisation at home, maybe a semester at the TNE campus, or mixing without requiring someone to spend years abroad?

    “Yeah, we’ve definitely seen that with places with fixed scale campuses abroad. The opportunity to continue your course but do it in China or Malaysia is part of the offer.

    “There are American universities that bring their students here for a semester and get an experience but stay on course, and have the opportunity to mix with different people.

    “What will be interesting is whether you can do that with technology. If you’ve got your VLE set up and you’re teaching the module, what opportunities are there to make that module available to people in two or three other countries at the same time as people are doing it in the UK? Opportunities for group work, sharing resources, getting global perspective without anyone moving an inch. There’s lots more we could develop. There are good examples already of how people are making their TNE enrich the experience of UK students.”

    Well, fascinating. Now, let’s see who’s been blogging for us this week.

    “Hi, I’m Common Miles and this week on Wonky I’ll be writing about why universities struggle to act on early warning data from their analytics systems. Many of us have seen this, universities investing heavily in learning analytics. The OfS sets clear continuation thresholds, yet when dashboards flag at risk students, institutions often can’t respond effectively.

    “My article explores why this is an organisational challenge rather than a technology problem. The issue is that universities are structured for retrospective quality assurance, not proactive support. When analytics identifies a struggling student in week three, most institutions lack clear protocols for who should act and how.

    “Successful institutions solve this by building explicit governance frameworks and creating tiered response systems that bridge the gap between regulatory requirements and teacher judgment. You can read the full piece on Wonky.”

    Now, next up, UCAS has released provider-level end-of-cycle data for 2025, and it’s thrown up some interesting patterns, Mike.

     

    Source link

  • Why K-12 educators need data literacy, not just data

    Why K-12 educators need data literacy, not just data

    Key points:

    Walk into any data meeting at a K-12 school today, and you’ll likely see a familiar scene: educators huddled around printed reports, highlighters in hand, trying to make sense of student data spread across multiple dashboards. If you’ve ever left one of these meetings feeling mentally exhausted without clear next steps, you’re not alone. The problem isn’t that we lack data in education, but rather that most dashboards show us the past–not the path ahead. It’s like trying to drive while only looking in the rearview mirror.

    The education sector sits on massive amounts of student data, yet most schools lack data maturity. They’ve committed to using data and may even have systems that centralize records. But they haven’t embraced what’s possible when we move from having data to using it well; from describing what happened to predicting what’s likely to happen if nothing changes.

    We have dashboards–now what?

    Every district has dashboards. We can see attendance rates, assessment scores, and demographic breakdowns. These tools tell us what happened, which is useful–but increasingly insufficient for the challenges facing K-12 schools. By the time we’re reacting to chronic absenteeism or declining grades, we’re already behind. And, when does an educator have time to sit down, pull up multiple dashboards, and interpret what they say about each student?

    The power of any data dashboard isn’t in the dashboard itself. It’s in the conversations that happen around it. This is where data literacy becomes essential, and it goes far beyond simply reading a chart or calculating an average.

    Data literacy means asking better questions and approaching data with curiosity. It requires recognizing that the answers we get are entirely driven by the questions we ask. A teacher who asks, “Which students failed the last assessment?” will get very different insights than one who asks, “Which students showed growth but still haven’t reached proficiency, and what patterns exist among them?”

    We must also acknowledge the emotional dimension of data in schools. Some educators have been burned when data was used punitively instead of for improvement. That resistance is understandable, but not sustainable. The solution isn’t to check professional expertise at the door. It’s to approach data with both curiosity and courage, questioning it in healthy ways while embracing it as a tool for problem-solving.

    From descriptive to predictive: What’s possible

    Let’s distinguish between types of analytics. Descriptive analytics tell us what happened: Jorge was absent 15 days last semester. Diagnostic analytics tell us why: Jorge lives in a household without reliable transportation, and his absences cluster on Mondays and Fridays.

    Now we get to the game-changers: predictive and prescriptive analytics. Predictive analytics use historical patterns to forecast what’s likely to happen: Based on current trends, Jorge is at 80 percent risk of chronic absenteeism by year’s end. Prescriptive analytics go further by helping the educator understand what they should do to intervene. If we connect Jorge’s family with transportation support and assign a mentor for weekly check-ins, we can likely reduce his absence risk by 60 percent.

    The technology to do this already exists. Machine learning can identify patterns across thousands of student records that would take humans months to discern. AI can surface early warning signs before problems become crises. These tools amplify teacher judgment, serving up insights and allowing educators to focus their expertise where it matters most.

    The cultural shift required

    Before any school rushes to adopt the next analytics tool, it’s worth pausing to ask: What actually happens when someone uses data in their daily work?

    Data use is deeply human. It’s about noticing patterns, interpreting meaning, and deciding what to do next. That process looks different for every educator, and it’s shaped by the environment in which they work: how much time they have to meet with colleagues, how easily they can access the right data, and whether the culture encourages curiosity or compliance.

    Technology can surface patterns, but culture determines whether those patterns lead to action. The same dashboard can spark collaboration in one school and defensiveness in another. That’s why new tools require attention to governance, trust, and professional learning–not just software configuration.

    At the end of the day, the goal isn’t simply to use data more often, but to use it more effectively.

    Moving toward this future requires a fundamental shift in how we think about data: from a compliance exercise to a strategic asset. The most resilient schools in the coming years will have cultures where data is pervasive, shared transparently, and accessible in near real-time to the people who need it. Think of it as an instructional co-pilot rather than a monkey on the back.

    This means moving away from data locked in the central office, requiring a 10-step approval process to access. Instead, imagine a decentralized approach where a fifth-grade team can instantly generate insights about their students’ reading growth, or where a high school counselor can identify seniors at risk of not graduating with enough time to intervene.

    This kind of data democratization requires significant change management. It demands training, clear protocols, and trust. But the payoff is educators empowered to make daily decisions grounded in timely, relevant information.

    Turning data into wisdom

    Data has been part of education from the very beginning. Attendance records, report cards, and gradebooks have always informed teaching. What’s different now is the volume of data available and the sophistication of tools to analyze it. K-12 educators don’t need to become data scientists, but they do need to become data literate: curious, critical consumers of information who can ask powerful questions and interpret results within the rich context of their professional expertise.

    The schools that harness their data effectively will be able to identify struggling students earlier, personalize interventions more effectively, and use educator time more strategically. But this future requires us to move beyond the dashboard and invest in the human capacity to transform data into wisdom. That transformation starts with data literacy, and it starts now.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Why universities struggle to act on early warning data

    Why universities struggle to act on early warning data

    Dashboards light up with warning signals weeks into term, yet intervention often comes too late—if at all.

    Despite significant investment in learner analytics and regulatory pressure to meet an 80 per cent continuation threshold for full-time undergraduates, universities consistently struggle to act when their systems flag at-risk students.

    This implementation gap isn’t about technology or data quality. It’s an organisational challenge that exposes fundamental tensions between how universities are structured and what regulatory compliance now demands.

    The Office for Students has made its expectations clear: providers must demonstrate they are delivering positive outcomes, with thresholds of 80 per cent continuation and 75 per cent completion for full-time first degree students. Context can explain but not excuse performance below these levels. Universities are expected to identify struggling students early and intervene effectively.

    Yet most institutions remain organised around systems designed for retrospective quality assurance rather than proactive support, creating a gap between regulatory expectations and institutional capability.

    The organisational challenge of early intervention

    When analytics platforms flag students showing signs of disengagement—missed lectures, incomplete activities, limited platform interaction—institutions face an organisational challenge, not a technical one. The data arrives weeks into term, offering time for meaningful intervention. But this is precisely when universities struggle to act.

    The problem isn’t identifying risk. Modern analytics can detect concerning patterns within the first few weeks of term. The problem is organisational readiness: who has authority to act on probabilistic signals? What level of certainty justifies intervention? Which protocols govern the response? Most institutions lack clear answers, leaving staff paralysed between the imperative to support students and uncertainty about their authority to act.

    This paralysis has consequences. OfS data shows that 7.2 per cent of students are at providers where continuation rates fall below thresholds. While sector-level performance generally exceeds requirements, variation at provider and course level suggests some institutions manage early intervention better than others.

    Where regulatory pressure meets organisational resistance

    The clash between regulatory expectations and institutional reality runs deeper than resource constraints or technological limitations. Universities have developed (sometimes over centuries) around a model of academic authority that concentrates judgement at specific points: module boards, exam committees, graduation ceremonies. This architecture of late certainty served institutions well when their primary function was certifying achievement. But it’s poorly suited to an environment demanding early intervention and proactive support.

    Consider how quality assurance typically operates. Module evaluations happen after teaching concludes. External examiners review work after assessment. Progression boards meet after results are finalised. These retrospective processes align with traditional academic governance but clash with regulatory expectations for timely intervention. The Teaching Excellence Framework and B3 conditions assume institutions can support students before problems become irreversible, yet most university processes are designed to make judgements after outcomes are clear.

    The governance gap in managing uncertainty

    Early intervention operates in the realm of probability, not certainty. A student flagged by analytics might be struggling—or might be finding their feet. Acting means accepting false positives; not acting means accepting false negatives. Most institutions lack governance frameworks for managing this uncertainty.

    The regulatory environment compounds this challenge. When the OfS investigates providers with concerning outcomes, it examines what systems are in place for early identification and intervention. Universities must demonstrate they are using “all available data” to support students. But how can institutions evidence good faith efforts when their governance structures aren’t designed for decisions based on partial information?

    Some institutions have tried to force early intervention through existing structures—requiring personal tutors to act on analytics alerts or making engagement monitoring mandatory. But without addressing underlying governance issues, these initiatives often become compliance exercises rather than genuine support mechanisms. Staff comply with requirements to contact flagged students but lack clear protocols for escalation, resources for support, or authority for substantive intervention.

    Building institutional systems that bridge the gap

    Institutions successfully implementing early intervention share common organisational characteristics. They haven’t eliminated the tension between regulatory requirements and academic culture—they’ve built systems to manage it.

    Often they create explicit governance frameworks for uncertainty. Rather than pretending analytics provides certainty, they acknowledge probability and build appropriate decision-making structures. This might include intervention panels with delegated authority, clear escalation pathways, or risk-based protocols that match response to confidence levels. These frameworks document decision-making, providing audit trails that satisfy regulatory requirements while preserving professional judgement.

    They develop tiered response systems that distribute authority appropriately. Light-touch interventions (automated emails, text check-ins) require minimal authority. Structured support (study skills sessions, peer mentoring) operates through professional services. Academic interventions (module changes, assessment adjustments) involve academic staff. This graduated approach enables rapid response to early signals while reserving substantive decisions for appropriate authorities.

    And they invest in institutional infrastructure beyond technology. This includes training staff to interpret probabilistic data, developing shared vocabularies for discussing risk, and creating feedback loops to refine interventions. Successful institutions treat early intervention as an organisational capability requiring sustained development, not a technical project with an end date.

    The compliance imperative and cultural change

    As the OfS continues its assessment cycles, universities face increasing pressure to demonstrate effective early intervention. This regulatory scrutiny makes organisational readiness a compliance issue. Universities can no longer treat early intervention as optional innovation—it’s becoming core to demonstrating adequate quality assurance. Yet compliance-driven implementation rarely succeeds without cultural change. Institutions that view early intervention solely through a regulatory lens often create bureaucratic processes that satisfy auditors but don’t support students.

    More successful institutions frame early intervention as aligning with academic values: supporting student learning, enabling achievement, and promoting fairness. They engage academic staff not as compliance officers but as educators with enhanced tools for understanding student progress. This cultural work takes time but proves essential for moving beyond surface compliance to genuine organisational change.

    Implications for the sector

    The OfS shows no signs of relaxing numerical thresholds—if anything, regulatory expectations continue to strengthen. Financial pressures make student retention more critical. Public scrutiny of value for money increases pressure for demonstrable support. Universities must develop organisational capabilities for early intervention not as a temporary response to regulatory pressure but as a permanent feature of higher education.

    This requires more than purchasing analytics platforms or appointing retention officers. It demands fundamental questions about institutional organisation: How can governance frameworks accommodate uncertainty while maintaining rigour? How can universities distribute authority for intervention while preserving academic standards? How can institutions build cultures that value prevention as much as certification?

    The gap between early warning signals and institutional action is an organisational challenge requiring structural and cultural change. Universities investing only in analytics without addressing organisational readiness will continue to struggle, regardless of how sophisticated their systems become. These aren’t simple changes, but they’re necessary for institutions serious about supporting student success rather than merely measuring it.

    The question facing universities isn’t whether to act on early warning signals—regulatory pressure makes this increasingly mandatory. The question is whether institutions can develop the organisational capabilities to act effectively, bridging the gap between data and decision, between warning and intervention, between regulatory compliance and educational values.

    Those that cannot may find themselves not just failing their students but failing to meet the minimum expectations of a regulated sector.

    Source link

  • Trump’s admissions data collection strains college administrators

    Trump’s admissions data collection strains college administrators

    by Jill Barshay, The Hechinger Report
    January 19, 2026

    Lynette Duncan didn’t expect to spend 20 hours over the past two weeks digging through a mothballed computer system, trying to retrieve admissions data from 2019.

    Duncan is the director of institutional research at John Brown University, a small Christian university in northwest Arkansas, an hour’s drive from Walmart’s headquarters. She runs a one-person office that handles university data collections and analyses, both for internal use and to meet government mandates. Just last year, she spent months collecting and crunching new data to comply with a new federal rule requiring that colleges show that their graduates are prepared for good jobs.

    Then, in mid-December, another mandate abruptly arrived — this one at the request of President Donald Trump. Colleges were ordered to compile seven years of admissions data, broken down by race, sex, grades, SAT or ACT scores, and family income.

    “It’s like one more weight on our backs,” Duncan said. “The workload – it’s not fun.”

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    John Brown University is one of almost 2,200 colleges and universities nationwide now scrambling to comply by March 18 with the new federal reporting requirement, formally known as the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement, or ACTS. By all accounts, it’s a ton of work, and at small institutions, the task falls largely on a single administrator or even the registrar. Failure to submit the data can bring steep fines and, ultimately, the loss of access to federal aid for students.

    After the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning affirmative action in college admissions, the Trump administration suspected that colleges might covertly continue to give racial preferences. To police compliance, the White House directed the Department of Education to collect detailed admissions data from colleges nationwide.

    The data collection was unusual not only in its scope, but also in its speed. Federal education data collections typically take years to design, with multiple rounds of analysis, technical review panels, and revisions. This one moved from announcement to launch in a matter of months.

    A rush job

    One tiny indication that this was a rush job is in the Federal Register notice. Both enforce and admissions are misspelled in a proposal that’s all about admissions enforcement. Those words are spelled “admssions” and “enforece.” 

    A December filing with the Office of Management and Budget incorrectly lists the number of institutions that are subject to the new data collection. It is nearly 2,200, not 1,660, according to the Association for Institutional Research, which is advising colleges on how to properly report the data. Community colleges are exempt, but four-year institutions with selective admissions or those that give out their own financial aid must comply. Graduate programs are included as well. That adds up to about 2,200 institutions. 

    Related: Inaccurate, impossible: Experts knock new Trump plan to collect college admissions data

    In another filing with the Office of Management and Budget, the administration disclosed that none of the five remaining career Education Department officials with statistical experience had reviewed the proposal, including Matt Soldner, the acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. Most of the department’s statistical staff were fired earlier this year as a first step to eliminating the Education Department, one of Trump’s campaign promises. RTI International, the federal contractor in North Carolina that already manages other higher education data collections for the Education Department, is also handling the day-to-day work of this new college admissions collection. 

    During two public comment periods, colleges and higher-education trade groups raised concerns about data quality and missing records, but there is little evidence those concerns substantially altered the final design. One change expanded the retrospective data requirement from five to six years so that at least one cohort of students would have a measurable six-year graduation rate. A second relieved colleges of the burden of making hundreds of complex statistical calculations themselves, instead instructing them to upload raw student data to an “aggregator tool” that would do all the math for them. 

    The Trump administration’s goal is to generate comparisons across race and sex categories, with large gaps potentially triggering further scrutiny.

    Missing data

    The results are unlikely to be reliable, experts told me, given how much of the underlying data is missing or incomplete. In a public comment letter, Melanie Gottlieb, executive director of the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, warned that entire years of applicant data may not exist at many institutions. Some states advise colleges to delete records for applicants who never enrolled after a year. “If institutions are remaining compliant with their state policies, they will not have five years of data,” Gottlieb wrote.

    The organization’s own guidance recommends that four-year colleges retain admissions records for just one year after an application cycle. One reason is privacy. Applicant files contain sensitive personal information, and purging unneeded records reduces the risk of exposing this data in breaches.

    In other cases, especially at smaller institutions, admissions offices may offload applicant data simply to make room for new student records. Duncan said John Brown University has all seven years of required data, but a switch to a new computer system in 2019 has made it difficult to retrieve the first year.

    Even when historical records are available, key details may be missing or incompatible with federal requirements, said Christine Keller, executive director of the Association for Institutional Research, which previously received a federal contract to train college administrators on accurate data collection until DOGE eliminated it. (The organization now receives some private funds for a reduced amount of training.) 

    Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

    Standardized test scores are unavailable for many students admitted under test-optional policies. The department is asking colleges to report an unweighted grade-point average on a four-point scale, even though many applicants submit only weighted GPAs on a five-point scale. In those cases, and there may be many of them, colleges are instructed to report the GPA as “unknown.”

    Some students decline to report their race. Many holes are expected for family income. Colleges generally have income data only for students who completed federal financial-aid forms, which many applicants never file. 

    Ellen Keast, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, said in an email, “Schools are not expected to provide data they don’t have.” She added, “We know that some schools may have missing data for some data elements. We’ll review the extent of missing data before doing further calculations or analyses.”

    Male or female

    Even the category of sex poses problems. The Education Department’s spreadsheet allows only two options: male or female. Colleges, however, may collect sex or gender information using additional categories, such as nonbinary. 

    “That data is going to be, in my estimation, pretty worthless when it comes to really showing the different experiences of men and women,” Keller said. She is urging the department to add a “missing” option to avoid misleading results. “I think some people in the department may be misunderstanding that what’s needed is a missing-data option, not another sex category.”

    The new “aggregator tool” itself is another source of anxiety. Designed to spare colleges from calculating quintile buckets for grades and test scores by race and sex, it can feel like a black box. Colleges are supposed to fill rows and rows of detailed student data into spreadsheets and then upload the spreadsheets into the tool. The tool generates pooled summary statistics, such as the number of Black female applicants and admitted students who score in the top 20 percent at the college. Only the aggregated data will be reported to the federal government.

    At John Brown University, Duncan worries about what those summaries might imply. Her institution is predominantly white and has never practiced affirmative action. But if high school grades or test scores differ by race — as they often do nationwide — the aggregated results could suggest bias where none was intended.

    “That’s a concern,” Duncan said. “I’m hopeful that looking across multiple years of data, it won’t show that. You could have an anomaly in one year.”

    The problem is that disparities are not anomalies. Standardized test scores and academic records routinely vary by race and sex, making it difficult for almost any institution to avoid showing gaps.

    A catch-22 for colleges

    The stakes are high. In an emailed response to my questions, the Education Department pointed to Trump’s Aug. 7 memorandum, which directs the agency to take “remedial action” if colleges fail to submit the data on time or submit incomplete or inaccurate information.

    Under federal law, each violation of these education data-reporting requirements can carry a fine of up to $71,545. Repeated noncompliance can ultimately lead to the loss of access to federal student aid, meaning students could no longer use Pell Grants or federal loans to pay tuition.

    That leaves colleges in a bind. Failing to comply is costly. Complying, meanwhile, could produce flawed data that suggests bias and invites further scrutiny.

    The order itself contradicts another administration goal. President Trump campaigned on reducing federal red tape and bureaucratic burden. Yet ACTS represents a significant expansion of paperwork for colleges. The Office of Management and Budget estimates that each institution will spend roughly 200 hours completing the survey this year — a figure that higher-education officials say may be an understatement.

    Duncan is hoping she can finish the reporting in less than 200 hours, if there are no setbacks when she uploads the data. “If I get errors, it could take double the time,” she said.

    For now, she is still gathering and cleaning old student records and waiting to see the results… all before the March 18 deadline.

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about college admissions data was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-admissions-data-collection-strains-colleges/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&amp;ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

    <img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114400&amp;ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/proof-points-admissions-data-collection-strains-colleges/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

    Source link

  • Effective finance governance is about balancing high quality data with managing existential uncertainty

    Effective finance governance is about balancing high quality data with managing existential uncertainty

    Higher education institution finances are not like the finances of other organisations, in the strange blend of commercial imperative and charitable purpose.

    A big portion of their revenue is driven by loss-making activity in research and programmes that lose money; their surplus-driving activity in international recruitment is hyper-competitive; and they have a cost base in salaries, pensions, and infrastructure that are influenced by factors outside their direct control.

    The current moment of financial pressure on higher education has tightened focus on the governance of university finances, with concerns expressed by the Department for Education and the Office for Students in the English context, and particular scrutiny from government and regulators in Scotland in light of the financial crisis at the University of Dundee last year.

    To the extent that governments set the terms of the higher education funding settlement it is perhaps unreasonable to lay blame for any given higher education institution’s financial struggles at the feet of the board of governors or university leadership. But even with this caveat, the realities of the current moment call for well-managed internal financial governance and robust scrutiny and challenge of the executive’s plans from governing bodies.

    None of this is straightforward – the structures and cultures of higher education require a level of negotiation between academic priorities, external policy drivers, and organisational sustainability. Commercial acumen must be balanced with consciousness of the social mission and the rewards offered by short-term opportunities set against the responsibility to steward organisations that play a critical role in the national wellbeing for the long term.

    Together with TechnologyOne, we recently convened a private round table discussion among a group of COOs and financial directors, representing a diverse range of higher education institutions. We wanted to explore how these pressures are manifesting as emerging priorities for governance, and the nature of those priorities for finance leaders.

    Board cultures and capabilities

    One participant wryly observed that not every board member may have a full understanding of the scale of the challenges facing the sector as a whole, and their institution in particular, at the point of taking up their role, and their first exposure to the financial realities can sometimes be shocking. Commercial experience and acumen are much in demand on boards in financially challenging times, but that commercial awareness has to be deployed in the service of financial sustainability – and the definition of “sustainability” can be something of a moving target, especially when the future is uncertain.

    Attendees shared several examples of the kind of tensions around financial decision-making boards have to work through: between the cash demands of the next 18 months and the longer-term investments that will ensure the institution is still able to achieve its mission five years or a decade into the future; or between stockpiling reserves to guard against future risks versus delivering mission-led activity.

    There can be no right answer to these questions, and ultimately it is for the leadership of the institution to be accountable for these kinds of strategic choices. It is not that board members don’t understand the financial fundamentals, but that, attendees reflected, the nature of the trade-offs and the implications of some decisions may not be fully taken account of as the discussion unfolds. Financial directors and CFOs can play a critical role in ensuring these board-level discussions are shaped constructively, through prior briefing with board and committee chairs, and through being brought into the discussion as appropriate.

    Risk, risk appetite and forecasting

    Boards are, in light of ongoing public discussion about the risk of institutional financial crisis or even insolvency, naturally concerned about avoiding being the next institution to hit the headlines as facing serious financial challenge. Paradoxically, there was also a sense that this driving concern can lead to risk averse behaviours that are not always in the best interest of the organisation, such as conserving cash that could be used for surplus generating activity, or looking at revenue raising independently from the costs implied in raising revenue – the gap between the revenue and real cost of undertaking research being a classic example.

    One area to improve is understanding of risks, and risk appetite. Boards can, broadly, be appraised of risk and particularly financial risk. However, they can be less fluent in considering the risk they are willing to endure in order to solve some of their underlying challenges, or the relationship between risk and opportunity. For example, boards may see an inherent risk in their cash flow position. They often lean toward conserving cash (a low risk appetite) but this may actually worsen their cash position if they do not look at revenue generation (a more risky proposition.) At the other end of the spectrum boards may be tempted to pursue opportunities to raise revenue that do not contribute to, or distract from, the wider organisational mission and strategic objectives.

    Dealing with uncertainty is never easy, and there was a lively discussion about the role and purpose of financial forecasting, with one attendee pointing out that the idea of creating a five year financial forecast in a sector that is changing so rapidly is “a bit of a nonsense” with another observing “the only thing we know when we’re putting together our forecast is that it’s wrong.”

    It was noted that some boards spend very little time on the forecast and it was suggested that this was an area for greater focus, not to attempt to accurately predict the unpredictable but to socialise discussion about the nature of the uncertainties and their implications. One attendee argued that the point of the forecast is not in the accuracy of the numbers but that there are agreed actions following from the forecast – “we know what we’re going to do as a result.” Another suggested that the Office for Students could potentially offer some additional insight into what it expects to see in the financial returns at the point of preparing those returns, rather than raising concerns after the fact.

    Data and systems

    The institutional systems that bring together disparate financial systems into a single picture are of varying quality. Sometimes, universities are dependent on an amalgamation of systems, spreadsheets, and other data sources, that involve a degree of manual reconciliation. Inevitably, the more systems that exist and the more people who input the more room there is for disagreement and error. Even the most sophisticated systems that include automation and checks are only as accurate as the information provided to them.

    The accuracy and clarity of financial information matters enormously. Without it it becomes impossible to know where the gaps are in terms of income and costs. Managers and budget-holders cannot understand their own situation and it becomes much harder to present a clear picture to executive teams and from there, to boards. A key “ask” of financial management systems was to integrate with other data sources in ways that allow the presentation of financial information to be legible and allow for a clear story to emerge.

    Attendees at the round table reported a number of areas of focus in tightening up internal financial management and visibility of financial information. One critical area of focus was in improving general financial literacy across the organisation, so that institutional staff could understand their institution’s financial circumstances in more detail. Institutional sustainability is everybody’s problem, not just the finance team’s.

    In reporting to board, attendees were working on shortening and clarifying papers, providing more contextual information, and making greater use of visual aids and diagrams, with one attendee noting “the quality of management reports is an enabler of good governance.”

    In times of financial pressure and challenge, the quality of financial decision-making is ever more intimately tied to the quality of financial information. Budget holders, finance teams, executive teams, and boards all need to be able to assess the current state of things and plan for the future, despite its uncertainties.

    Effective governance in this context doesn’t mean fundamentally changing the management processes or governors departing from their traditional role of scrutiny and accountability, but it does mean engaging in an ongoing process of improving basic financial processes and management information – while at the same time embedding a culture of constructive discussion about the overall financial position across the whole institution.

    This article is published as part of a partnership with TechnologyOne, focused on effective financial governance. Join Wonkhe and TechnologyOne on Thursday 29 January 12.00-1.00pm for a free webinar, Show them the money: exploring effective governance of university finances.

    Source link

  • Data Shows AI “Disconnect” in Higher Ed Workforce

    Data Shows AI “Disconnect” in Higher Ed Workforce

    Nearly half of higher ed workers feel a mix of caution and enthusiasm about AI.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | hoozone and PhonlamaiPhoto/iStock/Getty Images | skynesher/E+/Getty Images

    New data shows that while 94 percent of higher education workers use AI tools, only 54 percent are aware of their institution’s AI use policies and guidelines. And even when colleges and universities have transparent policies in place, only about half of employees feel confident about using AI tools for work.

    “[That disconnect] could have implications for things like data privacy and security and other data governance issues that protect the institution and [its] data users,” Jenay Robert, senior researcher at Educause and author of “The Impact of AI on Work in Higher Education,” said on a recorded video message about the report. Educause published the findings Monday in partnership with the National Association of College and University Business Officers, the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources and the Association for Institutional Research.

    In the fall, roughly three years after generative artificial intelligence tools went mainstream and some higher education institutions began partnering with tech companies, researchers surveyed 1,960 staff, administrators and faculty across more than 1,800 public and private institutions about AI’s relationship to their work. Ninety-two percent of respondents said their institution has a work-related AI strategy—which includes piloting AI tools, evaluating both opportunities and risks and encouraging use of AI tools. And while the vast majority of respondents (89 percent) said they aren’t required to use AI tools for work, 86 percent said they want to or will continue to use AI tools in the future.

    But the report also reveals concerns about AI’s integration into the campus workplace, and shows that not every worker is on the same page regarding which tools to implement and how.

    For example, 56 percent of respondents reported using AI tools that are not provided by their institutions for work-related tasks. Additionally, 38 percent of executive leaders, 43 percent of managers and directors, 35 percent of technology professionals and 30 percent of cybersecurity and privacy professionals reported that they are not aware of policies designed to guide their work-related use of AI tools.

    “Given that institutional leaders and IT professionals are the two groups of stakeholders most likely to have decision-making authority for work-related AI policies/guidelines, the data suggest that many institutions may simply lack formal policies/guidelines, rather than indicating insufficient communication about policies,” Robert wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.

    And even if they are aware of AI use policies, most workers still don’t know whether to fear or embrace AI.

    The majority of respondents (81 percent) expressed at least some enthusiasm about AI, with 33 percent reporting that they were “very enthusiastic/enthusiastic” and 48 percent reporting a mix of “caution and enthusiasm.” Meanwhile, 17 percent said they were “very cautious/cautious” about it.

    The survey yielded a similar breakdown of responses to questions about impressions of institutional leaders’ attitudes toward AI: 38 percent said they thought their leaders were “very enthusiastic/enthusiastic”; 15 percent said they were “very cautious/cautious” about it, and 36 percent said their leaders express a mix of “caution and enthusiasm.”

    But Kevin McClure, chair of the department of educational leadership at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, told Inside Higher Ed that embrace of AI may be skewed. That’s because only 12 percent of the survey’s respondents were faculty, whereas the rest held staff, management or executive roles.

    “This survey was also sent to institutional researchers and people affiliated with human resources,” he said. “Those people are working in the realm of technology, processing forms, paperwork data analysis and filing reports.”

    And the framing of the report’s questions about workers’ levels of caution and enthusiasm may have contributed to the elevated excitement about AI captured in the report, McClure added.

    So many people said they share a mix of caution and enthusiasm “because that was one of the choices,” he said. “To me, it reads like people are feeling it out—they can see the use cases for AI but also have concerns. That gets washed out by combining it with enthusiasm.”

    Risks and Rewards

    Nonetheless, that mix of caution and enthusiasm stems from the risks and benefits higher education workers associate with AI.

    Sixty-seven percent of respondents identified six or more “urgent” AI-related risks, including an increase in misinformation, the use of data without consent, loss of fundamental skills requiring independent thought, student AI use outpacing faculty and staff AI skills, and job loss. Some of those concerns align with the findings of Inside Higher Ed’s own surveys of provosts and chief technology officers, which found that the majority of both groups believe AI is a moderate or serious risk to academic integrity.

    “Almost more important than the specific risks that people are pointing out is the number of risks that people are pointing out,” Robert, the report’s author, said. “This really validates the feeling that we’re all having about AI when it comes to this feeling of overwhelm that there really are a lot of things to pay attention to.”

    At the same time, 67 percent of respondents to the Educause survey identified five or more AI-related opportunities as “most promising,” including automating repetitive processes, offloading administrative burdens and mundane tasks, and analyzing large datasets.

    “A lot of people want tools that will simplify the [administrative burden] of higher ed. Not a lot of that is going to save a ton of time or money. It’s just going to be less of an annoyance for the average worker,” McClure said. “That suggests that people aren’t looking for something that’s going to transform the workplace; they just want some assistance with the more annoying tasks.”

    And according to the report, most colleges don’t know how efficient those tools are: Just 13 percent of respondents said their institution is measuring the return on investment (ROI) for work-related AI tools.

    “Measuring the ROI of specific technologies is challenging, and this is likely one of the biggest reasons we see this gap between adoption and measurement,” Robert said. “As higher education technology leaders consider longer term investments, ROI is becoming a more pressing issue.”

    Source link

  • Breaking barriers: what the data tells us about care experienced and estranged applicants

    Breaking barriers: what the data tells us about care experienced and estranged applicants

    Over the weekend, HEPI published blogs considering whether we are fixing or unmaking universities, and asking why there haven’t been more institution mergers.

    This blog was kindly authored by Fiona Ellison, Co-Director, Unite Foundation.

    It is the fourth blog in HEPI’s series with The Unite Foundation on how to best support care experienced and estranged students. You can find the first blog here, the second here, and the third here.

    Higher education is often described as a transformative experience, but for some students the journey begins with significant barriers. Care experienced and estranged applicants – those who have spent time in care or are studying without family support – face unique challenges that impact their access, retention and success. At the Unite Foundation, we believe that the first step toward creating a more inclusive sector is to understand the data that underpins these challenges. We are grateful to do this in partnership with our long-term donor – Unite Students.

    In 2022, Unite Students first undertook their annual applicant index, which sheds light on the experiences of students starting university for the first time. This year, we’ve been able to compare the experiences of ‘traditional’ students with those who identify as either care experienced or estranged. The findings reveal stark differences in financial pressures, mental health, social connection and academic engagement.

    Who are we talking about?

    Across two years of survey data, 370 respondents identified as care experienced or estranged, compared to 2,981 who did not. These students are not a homogenous group, but patterns emerge: they also reflect a diverse demographic profile. For example, 17.8% of care experienced and estranged applicants identified as transgender, compared to just 2.3% of other applicants. Similarly, 3.8% identified as non-binary (vs 1.6%). These figures highlight the intersectionality of working with this group of students – we know that if you can get it right for care experienced and estranged students you can get it right for all students.

    The impact of financial pressure on mental health

    Financial insecurity is a recurring theme. Over a quarter (27.3%) of care experienced and estranged applicants reported that financial issues affect their mental health, compared to 19.6% of their peers. This is not surprising. Without family support, these students often navigate university life without the safety net others take for granted. We know from HEPI, TechnologyOne and Loughborough University’s Minimum Income Standard for Students that those studying without financial support – e.g. care experienced & estranged students – even with the full maintenance loan, would still need to work over 20 hours at minimum wage to achieve the minimum income standard needed to survive at university.  

    The implications are clear. Financial stress compounds mental health challenges, which in turn affect academic performance and retention. This was clear from the analysis we did of the Student Academic Experience Survey, which found that 43% of care experienced students and 44% of estranged students have considered withdrawing from university, compared to 28% of their peers. 

    Whilst the survey doesn’t give us insight into the reasons why, it does provide clues. For example, care-experienced students and estranged students work significantly more hours in paid employment, with care experienced students working, on average, 11.3 hours/week, and estranged students working 11.1 hours/week, compared to 8.8 hours/week for other students. 

    Social isolation and belonging

    University is often marketed as a time of social connection, but for many care experienced and estranged students, isolation is the norm. Only 26.8% said they have someone to turn to in a crisis, compared to 42.3% of other applicants. More than one in five (21.8%) expressed little interest in the social side of university life, almost double the proportion of their peers (11.2%).

    Pleasingly, expectations of belonging are similar across groups. 53.2% of care experienced and estranged applicants expected to feel a sense of belonging at university, compared to 54.8% of others. We know through our work supporting the All of Us Community – a space for all care experienced and estranged students to come together and connect with their peers – that creating opportunities for connection to help build that sense of belonging is crucial which is why we offer our ‘Funding for Fun’ small grants pot to facilitate connection between students online and in person across institutions.

    Learning challenges and attendance

    Academic engagement is another area of concern. Care experienced and estranged applicants are twice as likely to have prolonged absences due to mental health:

    • 22.9% missed 5–20 days in the past two years (vs 11.0% of non-care experienced students)
    • 21.9% missed more than 20 days (vs 10.1% of non-care experienced students).

    They are also more likely to struggle to keep up with their course (27.3% vs 18.8%). We know that this group of students are more likely to be working additional hours to fund their studies and this takes a toll on their ability to commit time to studies.

    That’s why, for students who received the Unite Foundation scholarship, we see their progression rates from year 1-2 at the same rate as non-care experienced peers and they graduate at a rate much closer to their non-care experienced peers. They’re not having to work as many hours as their peers, as they have a safe space to live with their rent covered for 365 days a year, for up to 3 years.

    This requirement to work to fund their studies shows up in the data – a striking 38.7% of care experienced and estranged applicants report significant work experience, compared to 27% of their peers.

    What does this all mean?

    The data tells a clear story: care experienced and estranged students face systemic barriers that cannot be solved by goodwill alone. Financial support, mental health provision and inclusive community-building must be embedded in institutional strategies.

    For policymakers, this means recognising these students as a priority group in widening participation agendas – not just paying lip service, but embedding and regulating for action. For universities, it means moving beyond access to focus on retention and success – using evidence based solutions, such as the Unite Foundation scholarship to create the conditions to enable care experienced and estranged students to thrive.

    If you want to explore how action to address accommodation issues can better support you care experienced and estranged students the Unite Foundation Blueprint framework can support your institution in building a safe and stable home for students, improving retention and attainment outcomes.  

    Source link

  • Education Department data shows slight dip in public school enrollment

    Education Department data shows slight dip in public school enrollment

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

    Public school student enrollment across the U.S. dipped slightly by 0.3% to 49.3 million in the 2024-25 school year compared to the year before, according to data released in December by the U.S. Department of Education for the 50 states and the District of Columbia. 

    Meanwhile, the number of operating elementary and secondary public schools decreased by 0.2% — from 99,297 in 2023-24 to 99,073 in 2024-25. 

    The data release, part of the Education Department’s annual Common Core of Data collection, does not offer explanations for the trends, but it does mirror reported enrollment dips that are leading some school systems to consider school closures or consolidations. 

    Although many factors may contribute to each community’s school enrollment figures, nationally, some experts have said lower birthrates and increased school choice competition are having an adverse impact on public school enrollment. 

    On the other hand, some states are seeing year-over-year enrollment increases, including the District of Columbia (2%) and Arkansas (1.2%), according to an analysis of the federal data by Burbio, a business intelligence service that works with suppliers to K-12 education. The three states that lost the most students between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years were Louisiana (5.9%), Maine (3.5%), and West Virginia (1.9%).

    Here are some other figures from the Education Department and from the Burbio’s analysis:

     

    By the numbers

     

    19,183

    The number of operating public school districts nationwide in 2024-25.

     

    -2.8%

    The percent decrease in the number of public school students between 2019-2020 and 2024-25.

     

    +2.6%

    The percent increase in the number of public charter school students between 2023-24 and 2024-25. Charter school students make up 8% of all public school students.

     

    1,859

    The number of special education-specific public schools in 2024-25. That’s down 3.8% from 2019-2020.

     

    +1.8%

    The percent increase in number of students in the Philadelphia City school district between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

     

    -0.9%

    The percent decrease in the number of students in New York City Public Schools between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

     

    -2.8%

    The percent decrease in the number of students attending Los Angeles Unified School District between 2023-24 and 2024-25.

     

    10.3-to-1

    The student-teacher ratio in Vermont classrooms in 2024-25 — the lowest of all states and the District of Columbia.

     

    21.7-to-1

    The student-teacher ratio in California classrooms in 2024-25 — the highest nationwide.

    Source link