Tag: Doesnt

  • Redistribution doesn’t work when there’s nothing left to redistribute

    Redistribution doesn’t work when there’s nothing left to redistribute

    Too many people across our country do not get the chance to succeed.

    So the government is committed to supporting the aspiration of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university or pursue an apprenticeship, regardless of their background, where they live and their personal circumstances.

    Those aren’t my words – they’re the words of the House of Commons’ HE supply teacher Janet Daby, who answers for actual (Lords) minister Jacqui Smith whenever a question comes up about universities or students.

    This answer is a typical one – in which she notes that in the summer, the department (for education) will set out its plan for HE reform and that it will expect providers to play an “even stronger” role in improving access and outcomes for all disadvantaged students.

    Specifically on financial support:

    Whilst many HE providers have demonstrated positive examples of widening access, including targeted outreach and bursaries, we want to see the sector go further.

    Back in 2014, partly to get “top-up fees” through Parliament, then secretary of state Charles Clarke announced that a new Office for Fair Access (OFFA) would be created – and that it would require universities to offer up some of their additional fee income in bursaries.

    Assuming that a proportion of student financial support should come partly via universities’ own budgets has always created a tension – between those who say that local decision making (aka institutional autonomy) is better at designing schemes that get the money to where it’s really needed, and those that argue that redistributing fee income within a provider rather than across the country means that financial support ends up being based not on need, but on the number of other students at your university that need it.

    We used to be able to see that clearly. OfFA used to track how many “OfFA countable” students each provider had and their spending on financial support, and it would generally show that providers doing the most for access tended to have the least to spend per student.

    Over time, direct student financial support declined in popularity. Research questioned bursaries’ impact on applications (unsurprising given how hard it was to find information on them), and it tended to struggle to find retention benefits from 2006-2011 – findings that then got extrapolated far beyond their timeframe.

    Pressure to demonstrate impact led providers to focus on entry and completion metrics rather than the experience students were having as a result. That seemed less critical in the mid-2010s when inflation was low and maintenance loans were cranked up to hide the fact that grants were eliminated. Students living at home (more likely from widening participation backgrounds) also got relatively generous maintenance support compared to their costs.

    Eventually, provider-level reporting on student financial support pretty much disappeared as the Office for Students started to emphasise outcomes over experience or spending transparency.

    But with maintenance support over the past few years some distance from inflation, and the income thresholds over which parents are expected to top up stuck at the level they were set at in the year that Madeleine McCann went missing (18 whole years ago), we really do need some sense of how the mix is panning out.

    So to help us to understand what’s been going on, for the fourth year running we’ve managed to extract some data out of OfS via an FOI request.

    The data

    Ever since the days of the Office for Fair Access (OFFA), HESA has collected data on the amounts of student financial support, and the number of students that helps, for each university in England – and here we have that data over the past few years.

    It covers four different types of spend on student financial support:

    • Cash: This covers any bursary/scholarship/award that is paid to students, where there is no restriction on the use of the award
    • Near cash: This includes any voucher schemes or prepaid cards awarded to students where there are defined outlets or services for which the voucher/card can be used
    • Accommodation discounts: This includes discounted accommodation in university halls / residences
    • Other: This includes all in-kind or cash support that is not included in the above categories and includes, but is not limited to, travel costs, laboratory costs, printer credits, equipment paid for, subsidised field trips and subsidised meal costs

    Some caveats: We remain less than 100 per cent convinced about the data quality, this doesn’t tell us how much money is going to disadvantaged students specifically, it doesn’t tell us about need (and the extent to which need is being met), I’ve yanked out most of what we used to call alternative providers for comparison purposes, and it only covers home domiciled undergraduates (and below, in terms of level of study).

    But it is, nevertheless, fascinating. Here’s the numbers for each provider in England:

    [Full Screen]

    If we nationally just look at cash help, in 2023/24 just over £496m went to just under 311k students – a spend per head of £1,598 – very slightly above last year’s £1,464 per head.

    But dive a little deeper and you find astonishing disparities. In the Russell Group the £ per head was £2,362 – about £40 up on the previous year. Across Million+ providers that figure was £726 – just £4 more than 2 years ago.

    Interestingly, per student helped, the Russell Group spent the same in cash help per student as it did in 2019. Maybe inflation doesn’t apply in elite universities, or maybe they’re getting worse at recruiting those on low incomes. Meanwhile the cash spend per student helped across Million+ universities has almost halved from £1,309 in 2019/20.

    Clearly all universities are under financial pressure – but what we see is almost certainly an artefact of redistributing fee income around a provider rather than around a country, and it appears to result in manifest unfairness.

    Even if we don’t adjust for inflation, spend per student helped has fallen for 45 universities between 2022/23 and 2023/24, and since 2019, it’s fallen for 56 universities. If we do apply inflation (CPI), only five are beating their 2019 SPH. No wonder students are struggling to come to campus.

    Some may say that it might be better just to look at what’s been going on under the auspices of formal, declarable access and participation work. HESA finance data now includes a look at expenditure – but not the number of students that expenditure covers, nor the total amounts invested pre-pandemic, and nor the amounts allocated in premium funding, all of which would aid meaningful comparison.

    Moving money around

    I tend, in general, to be a fan of redistribution and cross-subsidy. It can help reduce economic inequality, promote social stability, and ensure that everyone has access to basic necessities. It reflects a commitment to fairness and the idea that a society should care for all its members.

    As such, the logical bit of my brian never had much of a problem with the Charles Clarke/OFFA expectation – it was at least aimed at ensuring that everyone got to have a decent experience at university.

    But the redistributive effects of moving money around a provider when some providers (which already tend to be the richest) have fewer poor kids to spend it on never really added up.

    If you really wanted the system to be fairer, and for the most money to reach those who need it most, you might start by acting regionally. I doubt that John Blake’s regional partnership structures – which will involve cohort-level renewal for Access and Participation Plans will actually go as far as expecting providers in a region to pool their bursary or hardship spend – but there’s a very good logical case for that kind of approach.

    When students at Salford are getting £358 each in cash help while their neighbours at the University of Manchester are getting £1,829, there’s a very strong case for pooling the money.

    But even if that was to happen, beware the regional agglomeration effects. The region with the lowest higher education participation rate in the UK is the North East of England, at 33.4 per cent. London, with its 63 per cent rate, ought to be giving some of its spend on student financial support away to support participation up North.

    And once you’re there, you (re)realise what many said at the time of the Clarke announcement – that moving money around a university when participation in universities is so unequal to start with is no way to run a fair system.

    And even more importantly, it’s not fair on fee-paying students. When the assumption was that fees were a small part of the overall funding mix, we could say to students that the state’s contribution would be focussed more on those in need.

    Even with fees at £9,000, the redistributive effects of some paying much more than that through interest of RPI+3% and some much less via the repayment threshold and the cut-off – all while funding a moderately comfortable financial support system for all – was some sort of egalitarianism in action.

    But once the subsidy slips away, and students are expected to pay back almost all of the debt they incur, we end up expecting their personal debt to do what the state ought to do. And while it’s one thing for your fees to be spent subsidising other students at your own university, it would be quite another for them to be spent subsidising those at others in your region, or even around the UK.

    Then add in the fact that in UUK’s cuts survey, just under half of universities (49 per cent) say they may still need to cut hardship funding and 59 per cent say they may need to cut bursaries. Even if some sort of tougher APP regime was to find a way to stop that, that just means that wider cuts will fall on everyone – and so for some students, less and less of their actual contribution will end up being spent on their actual education.

    It turns out that the progressive taxation – ensuring that those with higher incomes contribute a larger share of their earnings to public services – is the much better way to promote economic fairness and reduce income inequality. Who knew?

    Source link

  • Why doesn’t higher education make a difference?

    Why doesn’t higher education make a difference?

    by Amir Shahsavari and Mohammad Eslahi

    This blog is based on research reported in Shahsavari, A, & Eslahi, M (2025) ‘Dynamics of Imbalanced Higher Education Development: Analysing Factors and Policy Implications’ in Policy Reviews in Higher Education.

    Our study addresses the paradox of expanding higher education, particularly in Iran, failing to translate into substantial societal impact. We adopted an interpretive research paradigm to explore participants’ experiences and perspectives, emphasising qualitative inquiry. Specifically, we applied a basic qualitative research approach, focusing on thematic data analysis to understand underlying meanings and patterns. We conducted semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 23 professionals from Iran’s higher education system, including executive experts and academic scholars. The data was analysed using qualitative theme analysis with the thematic network approach. It highlights the interplay of internal and external factors driving this imbalance and offers practical recommendations for policymakers and university administrators. The study identifies multiple external and internal factors contributing to the imbalanced development of Iranian higher education.

    External Factors:

    1. Conflicting Political Discourse: Political divisions create inconsistent policy directions that hinder higher education reform. The resulting instability restricts universities from pursuing coherent strategies for social development.
    2. Deficient Decision-Making Structures: Inefficient policy frameworks restrict universities’ ability to align with national development goals. This limits their capacity to engage in long-term planning, research commercialization, and innovation.
    3. Lack of Social and Cultural Cohesion: Weak societal integration reduces higher education’s ability to contribute to social progress. Universities struggle to connect their knowledge outputs to broader societal needs without a shared cultural framework.
    4. Low Demand for Science and Technology in the Economy: Limited integration of scientific advancements into economic sectors hinders universities’ relevance. Weak industry-university linkages prevent research outcomes from driving innovation and economic growth.
    5. International Sanctions: Economic constraints and restricted access to global knowledge networks impede higher education progress. This isolation limits opportunities for research collaboration, technological exchange, and funding access.

    Internal Factors:

    1. Limited Engagement with National and Local Ecosystem Needs: Universities lack meaningful interaction with regional industries and communities. This disconnect limits their ability to address localized development challenges.
    2. Insufficient Attention to Territorial Advantages in Development Planning: Universities often fail to leverage local strengths and opportunities, weakening their contribution to regional economic development.
    3. Weak Endogenous Creativity: Overreliance on Western educational models stifles innovative academic approaches. As a result, Iranian universities struggle to develop unique solutions suited to local challenges.
    4. Promotion of Emigration: University environments inadvertently encourage student and faculty migration, reducing local impact. This trend diminishes the human capital available to drive national innovation.

    This study contributes new insights by highlighting the interplay between external political pressures and internal university strategies. While previous studies have emphasized government interventions and economic constraints, this research reveals the disruptive effects of conflicting political ideologies and weak social cohesion. Additionally, the study expands on the “quadruple helix” model by illustrating the absence of place-based leadership and strategies as critical gaps in Iranian higher education. The study also introduces a framework for integrating participatory governance models into university decision-making processes, enhancing institutions’ responsiveness to societal needs. The study emphasizes three key strategies for improving higher education’s societal impact:

    1. Promoting National Dialogues via Universities: Encouraging open dialogue among academic leaders and policymakers can bridge ideological divides, fostering consensus on long-term educational goals. This step is vital to mitigate political interference and improve strategic planning for university development. Higher education can contribute to national stability and long-term planning by positioning universities as mediators in political debates.
    2. Increasing Science and Technology Demand: Policymakers should enhance economic incentives for scientific research integration. Encouraging industrial partnerships and market-driven research will amplify universities’ role in economic growth. By creating a more dynamic innovation ecosystem, universities can expand their influence on industry practices and economic modernization.
    3. Developing Science and Technology Diplomacy: Expanding diplomatic ties to bypass sanctions can enhance Iranian universities’ access to global scientific collaboration, fostering innovation and knowledge exchange. Such efforts include developing partnerships with international research centers and increasing participation in global academic networks.

    The study to address internal factors recommends:

    • Expanding participatory teaching models, such as service learning, to connect universities with community development. These models empower students to engage with social challenges directly, enhancing their sense of responsibility and practical skills.
    • Aligning government support for universities based on regional strengths, promoting competition, and enhancing educational quality. By linking funding models to regional priorities, universities can better tailor their strategies to local economic and social needs.
    • Supporting creative teaching and research initiatives to foster academic innovation. This includes incentivising faculty to develop unconventional teaching methods and interdisciplinary research projects.
    • Encouraging initiatives that promote national pride and social responsibility among students and faculty, mitigating emigration trends. Universities can strengthen students’ connection to local development through values-based education and encourage talent retention.

    The study highlights a critical limitation: its participants were drawn solely from the supply side of the science and technology ecosystem (university faculty and administrators). Future research should include stakeholders from the demand side, such as industry leaders, policymakers, and civil society representatives, to develop a more comprehensive understanding of higher education’s role in societal development. Exploring the interplay between social values, economic incentives, and political frameworks would provide deeper insights into higher education’s transformative potential.

    This research underscores the need for a holistic approach to higher education reform. By addressing internal and external challenges, policymakers can create an educational landscape promoting social, economic, and political progress. Universities must evolve beyond expanding access to higher education and focus on fostering creativity, engagement, and accountability to enhance their contributions to society. Developing partnerships with industry, embracing participatory governance, and promoting inclusive dialogues will empower universities to become key drivers of social and economic transformation.

    Amir Shahsavari is an Assistant Professor of Higher Education at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran, Iran. His academic interests lie in higher education policy, academic management and planning, and teaching and learning, mainly focusing on higher education studies in Iran. Drawing on his research, he seeks to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges and opportunities facing Iranian universities to inform policy and improve educational practices. am_shahsavari@sbu.ac.ir

    Mohammad Eslahi holds a PhD in Higher Education from the University of Tehran, Iran, specializing in Educational Administration and Planning. His research interests focus on the economics of higher education and the economics of university research. He is a lecturer and research assistant at the University of Tehran, actively contributing to teaching and scholarly endeavors in these fields. Eslahi.mohammad@ut.ac.ir

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Student experience is becoming more transactional – but that doesn’t make it less meaningful

    Student experience is becoming more transactional – but that doesn’t make it less meaningful

    It seems that few can agree about what the future student experience will look like but there is a growing consensus that for the majority of higher education institutions (bar a few outliers) it will – and probably should – look different from today.

    For your institution, that might look like a question of curriculum – addressing student demand for practical skills, career competencies and civic values to be more robustly embedded in academic courses. It might be about the structure of delivery – with the Lifelong Learning Entitlement funding per credit model due to roll out in the next few years and the associated opportunity to flex how students access programmes of study and accrue credit. It might be a question of modality and responding to demands for flexibility in accessing learning materials remotely using technology.

    When you combine all these changes and trends you potentially arrive at a more fragmented and transient model of higher education, with students passing through campus or logging in remotely to pick up their higher education work alongside their other commitments. Academic community – at least in the traditional sense of the campus being the locus of daily activity for students and academics – already appears at risk, and some worry that there is a version of the future in which it is much-reduced or disappears altogether.

    Flexibility, not fragmentation

    With most higher education institutions facing difficult financial circumstances without any immediate prospect of external relief, the likelihood is that cost-saving measures reduce both the institutional capacity to provide wraparound services and the opportunities for the kind of human-to-human contact that shows up organically when everyone is co-located. Sam Sanders

    One of the challenges for higher education in the decade ahead will be how to sustain motivation and engagement, build connection and belonging, and support students’ wellbeing, while responding to that shifting pattern of how students practically encounter learning.

    The current model still relies on high-quality person to person interaction in classrooms, labs, on placement, in accessing services, and in extra-curricular activities. When you have enough of that kind of rich human interaction it’s possible to some extent to tolerate a degree of (for want of a better word) shonky-ness in students’ functional and administrative interactions with their institution.

    That’s not a reflection of the skills and professionalism of the staff who manage those interactions; it’s testament to the messiness of decades of technology systems procurement that has not kept up with the changing demands of higher education operational management. The amount of institutional resource devoted to maintaining and updating these systems, setting up workarounds when they don’t serve desired institutional processes, and extracting and translating data from them is no longer justifiable in the current environment.

    Lots of institutional leaders accept that change is coming. Many are leading significant transformation and reform programmes that respond to one or more of the changes noted above. But they are often trying – at some expense – to build a change agenda on top of a fragile foundational infrastructure. And this is where a change in mindset and culture will be needed to allow institutions to build the kind of student experiences that we think are likely to become dominant within the next decade.

    Don’t fear the transactional

    Maintaining quality when resources are constrained requires a deep appreciation of the “moments that matter” in student experience – those that will have lasting impact on students’ sense of academic identity and connection, and by association their success – and those that can be, essentially, transactional. Pete Moss

    If, as seems to be the case, the sector is moving towards a world in which students need a greater bulk of their interaction with their institution to be in that “transactional” bucket two things follow:

    One is that the meaningful bits of learning, teaching, academic support and student development have to be REALLY meaningful, enriching encounters for both students and the staff who are educating them – because it’s these moments that will bring the education experience to life and have a transformative effect on students. To some degree how each institution creates that sense of meaningfulness and where it chooses to focus its pedagogical efforts may act as a differentiator to guide student choice.

    The second is that the transactional bits have to REALLY work – at a baseline be low-friction, designed with the user in mind, and make the best possible use of technologies to support a more grab-and-go, self-service, accessible-anywhere model that can be scaled for a diverse student body with complicated lives.

    Transactional should not mean ‘one-size-fits-all’ – in fact careful investment in technology should mean that it is possible to build a more inclusive experience through adapting to students’ needs, whether that’s about deploying translation software, integrating assistive technologies, or natural language search functionality. Lizzie Falkowska

    Optimally, institutions will be seeking to get to the point where it is possible to track a student right from their first interaction with the institution all the way through becoming an alumnus – and be able to accommodate a student being several things at once, or moving “backwards” along that critical path as well as “forwards.” Having the data foundations in place to understand where a student is now, as well as where they have come from, and even where they want to get to, makes it possible to build a genuinely personalised experience.

    In this “transactional” domain, there is much less opportunity for strategic differentiation with competitor institutions – though there is a lot of opportunity for hygiene failure, if students who find their institution difficult to deal with decide to take their credits and port them elsewhere. Institutional staff, too, need to be able to quickly and easily conduct transactional business with the institution, so that their time is devoted as much as possible to the knowledge and student engagement work that is simply more important.

    Critically, the more that institutions adopt common core frameworks and processes in that transactional bucket of activity, the more efficient the whole sector can be, and the more value can be realised in the “meaningful” bucket. That means resisting the urge to tinker and adapt, letting go of the myth of exceptionalism, and embracing an “adopt not adapt” mindset.

    Fixing the foundations

    To get there, institutions need to go back to basics in the engine-room of the student experience – the student record system. The student system of 15-20 years ago was a completely internally focused statutory engine, existing for award board grids and HESA returns. Student records is now seen as a student-centric platform that happens to support other outputs and outcomes, both student-facing interactions, and management information that can drive decision-making about where resource input is generating the best returns.

    The breadth of things in the student experience that need to be supported has expanded rapidly, and will continue to need to be adapted. Right now, institutions need their student record system to be able to cope with feeding data into other platforms to allow (within institutional data ethics frameworks) useful reporting on things like usage and engagement patterns. Increasingly ubiquitous AI functionality in information search, student support, and analytics needs to be underpinned by high quality data or it will not realise any value when rolled out.

    Going further, as institutions start to explore opportunities for strategic collaboration, co-design of qualifications and pathways in response to regional skills demands, or start to diversify their portfolio to capture the benefits of the LLE funding model, moving toward a common data framework and standards will be a key enabler for new opportunities to emerge.

    The extent to which the sector is able to adopt a common set of standards and interoperability expectations for student records is the extent to which it can move forward collectively with establishing a high quality baseline for managing the bit of student experience that might be “transactional” in their function, but that will matter greatly as creating the foundations for the bits that really do create lasting value.

    This article is published in association with KPMG.

    Source link

  • Trump doesn’t rule out recession as tariffs roil market (ABC News)

    Trump doesn’t rule out recession as tariffs roil market (ABC News)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Trump doesn’t rule out recession as tariffs roil market (ABC News)




    Source link

  • Why California Still Doesn’t Mandate Dyslexia Screening – The 74

    Why California Still Doesn’t Mandate Dyslexia Screening – The 74


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

    California sends mixed messages when it comes to serving dyslexic students.

    California Gov. Gavin Newsom is the most famous dyslexic political official in the country, even authoring a children’s book to raise awareness about the learning disability. And yet, California is one of 10 states that doesn’t require dyslexia screening for all children. 

    Education experts agree that early screening and intervention is critical for making sure students can read at grade level. But so far, state officials have done almost everything to combat dyslexia except mandate assessments for all students.

    “It needs to happen,” said Lillian Duran, an education professor at the University of Oregon who has helped develop screening tools for dyslexia. “It seems so basic to me.”

    Since 2015, legislators have funded dyslexia research, teacher training and the hiring of literacy coaches across California. But lawmakers failed to mandate universal dyslexia screening, running smack into opposition from the California Teachers Association.

    The union argued that since teachers would do the screening, a universal mandate would take time away from the classroom. It also said universal screening may overly identify English learners, mistakenly placing them in special education. 

    The California Teachers Association did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In a letter of opposition to a bill in 2021, the union wrote that the bill “is unnecessary, leads to over identifying dyslexia in young students, mandates more testing, and jeopardizes the limited instructional time for students.”

    In response, dyslexia experts double down on well-established research. Early detection actually prevents English learners — and really, all students — from ending up in special education when they don’t belong there.  

    While California lawmakers didn’t vote to buck the teachers union, they haven’t been afraid to spend taxpayer money on dyslexia screening. In the past two years, the state budget allocated $30 million to UC San Francisco’s Dyslexia Center, largely for the development of a new screening tool. Newsom began championing the center and served as its honorary chair in 2016 when he was still lieutenant governor. 

    “There’s an inadequate involvement of the health system in the way we support children with learning disabilities,” said Maria Luisa Gorno-Tempini, co-director of UCSF’s Dyslexia Center. “This is one of the first attempts at bridging science and education in a way that’s open sourced and open to all fields.”

    Parents and advocates say funding dyslexia research and developing a new screener can all be good things, but without mandated universal screening more students will fall through the cracks and need more help with reading as they get older.

    Omar Rodriguez, a spokesperson for the governor did not respond to questions about whether Newsom would support a mandate for universal screening. Instead, he listed more than $300 million in state investments made in the past two years to fund more reading coaches, new teacher credentialing requirements and teacher training.

    The screening struggle

    Rachel Levy, a Bay Area parent, fought for three years to get her son Dominic screened for dyslexia. He finally got the screening in third grade, which experts say could be too late to prevent long-term struggles with reading. 

    “We know how to screen students. We know how to get early intervention,” Levy said. “This to me is a solvable issue.”

    Levy’s son Dominic, 16, still remembers what it felt like trying to read in first grade.

    “It was like I was trying to memorize the shape of the word,” he said. “Even if I could read all the words, I just wouldn’t understand them.”

    Dyslexia is a neurological condition that can make it hard for students to read and process information. But teachers can mitigate and even prevent the illiteracy stemming from dyslexia if they catch the signs early.

    Levy, who also has dyslexia, said there’s much more research today on dyslexia than there was 30 years ago when she was first diagnosed. She said she was disappointed to find that California’s policies don’t align with the research around early screening.

    “Unfortunately, most kids who are dyslexic end up in the special education system,” Levy said. “It’s because of a lack of screening.”

    Soon after his screening in third grade, Dominic started receiving extra help for his dyslexia. He still works with an educational therapist on his reading, and he’s just about caught up to grade level in math. The biggest misconception about dyslexia, Dominic said, is that it makes you less intelligent or capable.

    “Dyslexics are just as smart as other people,” he said. “They just learn in different ways.”

    The first step to helping them learn is screening them in kindergarten or first grade.

    “The goal is to find risk factors early,” said Elsa Cárdenas-Hagan, a speech-language pathologist and a professor at the University of Houston. “When you find them, the data you collect can really inform instruction.”

    Cárdenas-Hagan’s home state of Texas passed a law in 1995 requiring universal screening. But she said it took several more years for teachers to be trained to use the tool. Her word of caution to California: Make sure teachers are not only comfortable with the tool but know how to use the results of the assessment to shape the way they teach individual students.

    A homegrown screener

    UC San Francisco’s screener, called Multitudes, will be available in English, Spanish and Mandarin. It’ll be free for all school districts. 

    Multitudes won’t be released to all districts at once. UCSF scientists launched a pilot at a dozen school districts last year, and they plan to expand to more districts this fall. 

    But experts and advocates say there’s no need to wait for it to mandate universal screenings. Educators can use a variety of already available screening tools in California, like they do in 40 other states. Texas and other states that have high percentages of English learners have Spanish screeners for dyslexia.

    For English learners, the need for screening is especially urgent. Maria Ortiz is a Los Angeles parent of a dyslexic teenager who was also an English learner. She said she had to sue the Los Angeles Unified School District twice: once in 2016 to get extra help for her dyslexic daughter when she was in fourth grade and again in 2018 when those services were taken away. Ortiz said the district stopped giving her daughter additional help because her reading started improving.

    “In the beginning they told me that my daughter was exaggerating,” Ortiz said.

     “They said everything would be normal later.”

    California currently serves about 1.1 million English learners, just under a fifth of all public school students. For English learners, dyslexia can be confused with a lack of English proficiency. Opponents of universal screening, including the teachers association, argue that English learners will be misidentified as dyslexic simply because they can’t understand the language. 

    “Even the specialists were afraid that the problem might be because of the language barrier,” Ortiz said about her daughter’s case.

    But experts say dyslexia presents a double threat to English learners: It stalls them from reading in their native language and impedes their ability to learn English. And while there are some Spanish-language screeners, experts from Texas and California say there’s room for improvement. Current Spanish screeners penalize students who mix Spanish and English, they say. 

    Duran, who helped develop the Spanish version of Multitudes, said the new screener will be a better fit for how young bilingual students actually talk. 

    “Spanglish becomes its own communication that’s just as legitimate as Spanish on its own or English on its own,” Duran said. “It’s about the totality of languages a child might bring.”

    Providing Multitudes free of cost is important to schools with large numbers of low-income students. Dyslexia screeners cost about $10 per student, so $30 million might actually be cost-effective considering California currently serves 1.3 million students in kindergarten through second grade. The tool could pay for itself in a few years. Although there are plenty of screeners already available, they can stretch the budgets of high-poverty schools and districts.

    “The least funded schools can’t access them because of the cost,” Duran said.

    In addition to the governor, another powerful state lawmaker, Glendale Democratic state Sen. Anthony Portantino, is dyslexic. While chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, he has repeatedly, and unsuccessfully, authored legislation to require public schools to screen all students between kindergarten and second grade. 

    Portantino’s 2021 bill received unanimous support in the Senate Education and Appropriations committees, but the bill died in the Assembly Education Committee. Portantino authored the same bill in 2020, but it never made it out of the state Senate.

    “We should be leading the nation and not lagging behind,” Portantino said. 

    Portantino blamed the failure of his most recent bill on former Democratic Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell, who chaired the Assembly Education Committee, for refusing to hear the bill. 

    “It’s no secret, Patrick O’Donnell was against teacher training,” Portantino said. “He thought our school districts and our educators didn’t have the capacity.”

    O’Donnell did not respond to requests for comment. Since O’Donnell didn’t schedule a hearing on the bill, there is no record of him commenting about it at the time.

    Portantino plans to author a nearly identical bill this year. He said he’s more hopeful because the Assembly Education Committee is now under the leadership of Assemblymember Al Muratsuchi, a Democrat from Torrance. Muratsuchi would not comment on the potential fate of a dyslexia screening bill this year.

    Levy now works as a professional advocate for parents of students with disabilities. She said without mandatory dyslexia screening, only parents who can afford to hire someone like her will be able to get the services they need for their children.

    “A lot of high school kids are reading below third-grade level,” she said. “To me, that’s just heartbreaking.”

    This was originally published on CalMatters.


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

    Source link

  • Research flexibility doesn’t have to mean researcher precarity

    Research flexibility doesn’t have to mean researcher precarity

    If we think about research as a means of driving innovation and by extension economic growth, there is a need to consider the lives of the people who are doing the research.

    The UK has a significant strength in the quality and diversity of its higher education system – which trains a large proportion of the staff who end up working in universities (and elsewhere) performing research. We should, in other words, be better than we are at sustaining and shaping research capacity through supporting the people who contribute research throughout their careers.

    Certainly, that’s the case that the University and College Union makes in last week’s research staff manifesto – noting that nearly two thirds of research staff are on fixed term contracts, following research funding and strategic decisions around the country at a significant detriment to their personal lives and professional development.

    How does the system work?

    Precarity is not an accident of the system – it is the entire design of the system. Becoming a postdoc is not the final stage of the undergraduate to postgraduate to researcher pipeline: it is a step into a new system where the trial of job-hopping, house moving, city shifting work, may one day lead to a full time post.

    The first step after undertaking a doctorate is, unsurprisingly post-doctoral work – the postdoc. The term is confusing as it implies simply the job someone does after being awarded a PhD. Over time the taxonomy has changed to take on a specific meaning. It has become synonymous with precarious employment tied to grant funding. As an example, Imperial College London describes their postdocs as follows

    • a member of staff who will have a PhD, and be employed to undertake research
    • commonly on an externally funded grant secured by their principal investigator (PI) e.g. Research Council standard grant
    • responsible for their own career development but entitled to the support of their PI and the PFDC
    • entitled to 10 days development per year
    • entitled to 25 days leave plus bank holidays and college closure dates (if full time, pro-rata for part time)
    • entitled to regular one-to-one meetings with their line manager
    • entitled to a mid and final probation review
    • entitled to a Personal Review and Development Plan (PRDP) meeting once per year

    Crucially, in the section which describes what a postdoc is not, it includes being “a permanent member of academic staff.”

    This is often the case because postdocs are tied to grant funding and grant funding is limited to a certain period of time to cover a specific project. UKRI, for example, does not fund postdocs directly but funds research organisations directly through a mix of focused studentships and capacity funding. Research organisations then fund postdocs.

    This means that the flexible deployment of resources is the very start of the system. It’s not an accident or a quirk, it is that the UK’s research system is built around incentivising human capital to move to the organisations and places that most closely aligns to their research skills. The upside of this is that, in theory, it should mean resources are efficiently deployed to the people and places that can use them most productively. In reality, it means that instability and structural barriers to progressing to full research contracts are the norm.

    It’s not that UKRI are not aware of this problem. In a 2023 blog on team research Nik Ogryzko, Talent Programme Manager at UKRI, wrote that

    We’ve built a system where research groups sometimes act as their own small business inside an institution. And this leads to a very particular set of weaknesses.

    Employment contracts have become linked to individual research grants, with research staff often highly dependent on their principal investigator for career progression, or even their continued employment.

    Group leaders are often not equipped to support their staff into anything other than an academic career, and we know most research staff do not end up there.

    We also know such precarious employment and power imbalances can in some cases lead to bullying, harassment and discrimination. Such structural factors further compromise the integrity of our research, despite the strong intrinsic motivation of our researchers and innovators.“

    A number of institutions are signatories to The Concordat to Support the Career Development of Researchers. When it comes to the use of fixed-term contracts the concordat states that

    […]some of the areas of most concern to researchers, such as the prevalence of fixed-term contracts and enforced mobility, will require long term systemic changes, which can only be realised through collective action across stakeholders.

    Again, should a researcher be lucky enough to pass through their postdoc a permanent role is not guaranteed or even the norm. In reading through the websites of universities the reasons for fixed term contracts are various including; to align with grant-funding, to cover peak demand, to meet uncertain demand, to cover staff absence, to cover time-limited projects, secondments, training, and to bring in specialist skills.

    It is not that universities don’t recognise the issue of fixed term contracts, institutions like the University of Exeter has a whole framework on the appropriate use of these contacts, it’s that in a funding system which places a premium on project working it is necessary to have a highly flexible staff force.

    However, this does not mean that this system is inevitable or that the number of fixed term contracts is desirable.

    What is going on?

    According to HESA data, that number is slowly falling – both numerically and proportionally – for research only academic staff. As of the 2023-24 academic year, 63.9 per cent of “research only” academic staff (64,265) are on a fixed term contract. This sounds like a lot, but it is down slightly from a peak of 68 per cent (70,050) in 2019-20.

    [Full screen]

    The proportion of fixed term contracts for teaching only academics (another prominent early career route, often coupled with weekends at the kitchen table writing literature reviews for publication in an attempt to bolster credentials for a research job in an underfunded field) is also on a downward trajectory. Some 44.3 per cent of teaching only contracts (equating to 64,300 people) were fixed term in 2019-20 – by 2023-24 the numbers were 35.7 per cent and 63,425.

    If we take this to provider level we can see that a significant research focus is no predictor of a reliance on fixed term contracts. This chart shows the proportion of all academic staff on research only contracts on the y axis, with the proportion of all academic staff on fixed term contracts on the x axis.

    [Full screen]

    What this chart shows is that a strong focus on research (with many research only academic contracts) does not predict a reliance on fixed term contracts – indeed, there are many providers with a significant proportion of fixed term contracts that have no research only academic staff at all. While a fixed term contract is a poor basis on which to plan long term as an individual, for many higher education institutions it is a useful answer to wildly varying income and recruitment. Whereas for more traditional institutions it makes sense to maintain capacity even as prevailing conditions worsen, in smaller and more precarious providers unutilised capacity is a luxury that is no longer as affordable.

    If you look back to the first chart, you may notice a “salary source” filter. One of the prevailing narratives around fixed term contracts is that these necessarily link to the “fixed term” nature of funded research projects – the argument being that once the money is finished, the staff need to find new jobs. In fact, this is less of a factor than you might imagine: the proportions of research only academic staff on fixed term contracts is higher for externally funded than those funded internally, but the difference isn’t huge.

    Plotting the same data another way shows us that around a quarter of research only salaries are funded entirely by the higher education provider, with a further five per cent or so partially supported by the host institution – these figures are slightly lower for fixed-term research only staff, but only very slightly.

    [Full screen]

    So we can be clear that fixed term salaries are (broadly) a research thing, but there’s not really evidence to suggest that short term external funding is the whole reason for this.

    As a quick reminder, the research councils represent about a quarter of all external research funding, with the UK government (in various forms) and the NHS representing about another (swiftly growing)fifth. That’s a hefty chunk of research income that comes from sources that the government has some degree of control over – and some of the language used by Labour before the election about making this more reliable (the ten year settlements of legend) was seen as a recognition of the way funding could be reprofiled to allow for more “livable” research careers and an expansion of research capacity.

    [Full screen]

    This chart also allows you to examine the way these proportions land differently by provider and subject area (expressed here as HESA cost code). The volatility is higher at smaller providers, as you might expect – while research in the arts and humanities is more likely to be funded by research councils than in STEM or social sciences. But it is really the volume, rather than the source, of research funding that determines how researcher salaries are paid.

    Although the established pathway from research postgraduate to research is by no means the only one available (many postgraduate research students do not become academics) it is an established maxim – dating back to the post-war Percy and Barlow reviews – that to produce the researchers we need requires training in the form of postgraduate research provision.

    Although it’s not really the purpose of this article, it is worth considering the subject and provider level distribution of postgraduate research students in the light of how funding and capacity for research is distributed. As the early research career is often dominated by the need to move to take on a fixed term contract, one way to address this might be to have research career opportunities and research students in the same place from the start.

    [Full screen]

    What can we learn from this?

    Research capacity, and – for that matter – research training capacity, can’t be turned off and on at a whim. Departments and research centres need more than one short-term funded project to begin delivering for the UK at their full potential, because developing capacity and expertise takes time and experience. That’s a part of the reason why we have non-ringfenced funding: streams like those associated with QR in England – to keep research viable between projects, and to nurture developing expertise so it can contribute meaningfully to national, regional, and industrial research priorities. It’s funds like these that support researcher training and supervision, and the infrastructure and support staff and components that make research possible.

    But what the data suggests is that while the short-term nature of project funding does have an impact, especially at smaller providers and emerging research centres, there are many universities that are able to sustain research employment between projects. A part of this is bound to be sheer scale, but it doesn’t happen at all large research performing organisations by any stretch of the imagination. A part of the answer then, must be the strategic decisions and staffing priorities that makes sustaining researcher employment possible.

    That’s not to let the funding side of the equation off the hook either. There is a sense that the Labour party was moving in the right direction in considering longer term research funding settlements – but we have yet to learn how this will work in practice. By its very nature, research is discovery and opportunity led: a few years ago artificial intelligence research was a minor academic curiosity, currently it is big money – but will it be a priority in 2035? Could there be some areas – medical and healthcare research, large scale physics, engineering – where we can be more sure than others?

    You’ll note we didn’t mention the arts, humanities, and social sciences in that list – but these may be some of the most valuable areas of human activity, and government-supported research plays a more prominent role in sustaining not just discovery and innovation but the actual practice of such activity. Such is the paucity of money available in the arts that many practitioners subsidise their practice with research and teaching – and it feels like arts funding more generally needs consideration.

    Sure, the UK punches above its weight in the sciences and in health care – but in arts, heritage, and social policy the work of the UK is genuinely world leading. It has a significant economic impact (second only to financial services) too. Research funding is a part of the picture here, but a long term commitment to these industries would be one of the most valuable decisions a government can make.

    What are the other choices?

    The fundamental challenge is maintaining a system which is dynamic, where the dynamism is not solely reliant on a highly transient workforce. A simple, albeit extremely limited, conclusion from the data would be that there is too great a supply of researchers to meet the demand for their skills.

    The more important question is what is the value of such a highly educated workforce and how can society make the most of their talents. This is not to say the UK should operate a supply led model. A world where funding is allocated based purely on the academic interests of researchers might be good for placing emphasis on intellectual curiosity but it would not allow funders to match social and economic priorities with researcher’s work. Put another way, it isn’t sufficient to tackle climate change by hoping enough researchers are interested in doing so. It would also not necessarily create more permanent jobs – just different ones.

    Conversely, a system which is largely demand led loses talent in other ways. The sheer exhaustion of moving between jobs and tacking research skills to different projects in the same field means stamina, not just research ability, is a key criterion for success. This means researchers whose abilities are needed are not deployed because their personal incentive for a more stable life trumps their career aspirations.

    The current system does penalise those who cannot work flexibly for extended periods of time, but more fundamentally the incentives in the system are misaligned to what it hopes to achieve. There can be no dynamism without some flexibility, but flexibility should be demonstrable not permanently designed. Flexibility of employment should be used to achieve a research benefit not only an administrative one.

    This is not wholly in the gift of universities. A careful consideration by government, funders, institutions, and researchers, of how flexibility should be used is the key to balance in the system. There are times where the research system requires stability. For example, the repeated use of fixed term contracts on the same topic is a clear market signal for more stable employment. Furthermore, it is undesirable to have a forever changing workforce in areas governments have singularly failed to make progress on for decades. Nobody is arguing that if only research into productivity was a bit more transient the UK’s economies woes could be fixed.

    The need is coordinated action. And unlike in Australia there is no single review of what the research ecosystem is for. Until then as priorities change, funders work on short time horizons, and institutions respond to ever changing incentives, the downstream effect is a workforce that will be treated as entirely changeable too.

    Source link

  • Academic freedom doesn’t require college neutrality

    Academic freedom doesn’t require college neutrality

    Amid public campaigns urging universities to commit to “institutional neutrality,” the American Association of University Professors released a lengthy statement Wednesday saying that the term “conceals more than it reveals.”

    The statement, approved by the AAUP’s elected national council last month, says it continues the national scholarly group’s long commitment to emphasizing “the complexity of the issues involved” in the neutrality debate. “Institutional neutrality is neither a necessary condition for academic freedom nor categorically incompatible with it,” it says.

    The push for universities to adopt institutional neutrality policies ramped up as administrators struggled over what, if anything, to say about Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israelis and Israel’s swift retaliation in the Gaza Strip.

    The AAUP statement notes that “institutional neutrality” has varied meanings and that actions—not just words—convey a point of view. For instance, some argue that to be neutral, institutions shouldn’t adjust their financial investments for anything other than maximizing returns. But the AAUP says that “no decision concerning a university’s investment strategy counts as neutral.”

    The AAUP asserts that by taking any position on divestment—which many campus protesters have asked for—a university “makes a substantive decision little different from its decision to issue a statement that reflects its values.”

    “A university’s decision to speak, or not; to limit its departments or other units from speaking; to divest from investments that conflict with its mission; or to limit protest in order to promote other forms of speech are all choices that might either promote or inhibit academic freedom and thus must be made with an eye to those practical results, not to some empty conception of neutrality,” the AAUP statement says. “The defense of academic freedom has never been a neutral act.”

    Steven McGuire, Paul and Karen Levy Fellow in Campus Freedom at the conservative American Council of Trustees and Alumni, called the statement “another unhelpful document from the AAUP.”

    “Institutional neutrality is a long-standing principle that can both protect academic freedom and help colleges and universities to stick to their academic missions,” McGuire told Inside Higher Ed. “It’s critical that institutional neutrality be enforced not only to protect individual faculty members on campus, but also to help to depoliticize American colleges and universities at a time when they have become overpoliticized” and are viewed as biased.

    Source link

  • Decoder Replay: Bacteria doesn’t stop at the border

    Decoder Replay: Bacteria doesn’t stop at the border

    During the Covid pandemic, nations realized they needed to work together to keep their people safe. That’s where the World Health Organization comes in. 

    Source link

  • The US Will Lose To China If It Doesn’t Stop (Rogue Rocket)

    The US Will Lose To China If It Doesn’t Stop (Rogue Rocket)

    Source link