Tag: Doesnt

  • Abrupt Pause, Unpause of Grants Doesn’t End NIH Funding Woe

    Abrupt Pause, Unpause of Grants Doesn’t End NIH Funding Woe

    The Tuesday night news quickly sowed alarm among researchers: Media outlets reported that the Trump administration had stopped the National Institutes of Health from funding any new grants. The Wall Street Journal wrote that “certain grants that are up for renewal” were also cut off, and STAT, along with other outlets, later confirmed that reporting.

    The newspaper reported that the Office of Management and Budget was blocking these billions of dollars in research funding for the rest of the fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. After that, the dollars would return, unspent, to the Treasury. This nationwide halt to grants stemmed from an OMB footnote in a budget document, the Journal reported, adding that “the fourth quarter of the fiscal year is typically the busiest for grant-giving institutes at the NIH.”

    Inside Higher Ed reviewed screenshots of an email from an NIH employee saying, “Research grant, R&D contract, or training awards cannot be issued during this pause.” The funding halt would’ve meant an end to new research to help find and improve cures and treatments for diseases as well as stanched the flow of federal dollars to already financially beleaguered universities and labs nationwide.

    “This is undeniably an unforced error, since this will not only harm current and future American patients, but the disruptive and chilling effect of this sudden holding back of promised funds will further jeopardize the future of the American medical research enterprise,” Association of American Universities president Barbara R. Snyder said a statement Tuesday.

    But before the night was over, the Trump administration appeared to reverse course. In an updated article citing unnamed sources, the Journal reported that unnamed “senior White House officials intervened.” (OMB is part of the executive branch.) The Journal said officials at the Health and Human Services Department, which includes NIH, fought the pause for days, but OMB only relented after the newspaper published its initial story Tuesday.

    In response to Inside Higher Ed’s written questions and interview requests about the situation Wednesday, the White House and HHS both sent the same statement from an HHS spokesperson: “The programmatic review is over. The funds are out.”

    One OMB spokesperson posted on X that OMB had been “waiting for more information from NIH” before releasing the funds.

    The NIH is one of the largest sources of funding for research at colleges and universities, and it touts itself as the “largest single public funder of biomedical and behavioral research in the world.” Tuesday night’s controversy wasn’t the first—and likely won’t be the last—upheaval that this crucial agency has faced under the Trump administration.

    From grant cancellations to the White House proposal to slash the agency’s budget by 40 percent for the next fiscal year, institutions and researchers have seen the flow of NIH grant money stymied. Atop all this, the reportedly now-abandoned move by OMB to stop grant awards highlights continuing concerns about the fate of the grant dollars that the NIH still hasn’t given out this current fiscal year.

    Since Trump took office, the NIH has awarded fewer grants compared to previous years, multiple analyses have found. A former NIH official estimated to Science that at least $6 billion of the agency’s $48 billion budget could be sent back. In a higher estimate, Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement that what OMB reportedly tried to do before reversing course Tuesday “would choke off approximately $15 billion in funding that would otherwise go to institutions across the country.”

    A nongovernment official familiar with the NIH appropriations process told Inside Higher Ed that, within a sample of major universities surveyed, institutions are down 20 to 48 percent in NIH award and renewal funds compared to the same time last year.

    The official, who requested anonymity to maintain relationships with people within the administration, said Wednesday that there’s been “a very, very slow spend at NIH, even prior to last night’s fire drill.” The official said they don’t think NIH has ever had to push out so much remaining money in such a short time, and there’s “a very small amount of NIH staff left to allocate those funds.”

    Heather Pierce, senior director for science policy at the Association of American Medical Colleges, told Inside Higher Ed that Tuesday’s news “caused a real concern across the research enterprise very quickly. This is a community that has seen not just threats but actual damaging changes to the typically stable federally funded research grants take place overnight, or even faster.

    “By any measure, the pace of grant funding is a fraction of what it has been in any other year, and that includes grant renewals, that includes new funding opportunities,“ Pierce added. “And the pace with which grant applications are reviewed and awarded is far below what we’ve seen in the past, and that includes applications that were submitted a long time ago that have already been scored and gotten very competitive scores that would be expected to be funded.”

    Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said the reported freeze “just reinforced the current mood among researchers that the future of scientific research at NIH is still in question and could change at a moment’s notice, but also that this isn’t just about NIH. This cloud of uncertainty hovers over other agencies as well, such as the National Science Foundation.”

    Carney added that “the head of the Office of Management and Budget has made public his interest in reducing spending and reducing the size of government and using what tools that he is able to use to do that.”

    Russell Vought, head of OMB, hasn’t sworn off using rescission legislation, which can be passed with a simple majority in both chambers of Congress, to take back already appropriated funds during a fiscal year. NPR also reported that he’s called Congress’s spending bills “a ceiling … not a floor.”

    Murray, who represents Washington State, previously warned that the Trump administration’s use of such legislation to claw back funds already appropriated for this fiscal year—like it recently did for public broadcasting money—could scuttle consensus on the budget for next fiscal year.

    Carney attributed the slowdown in NIH grants to multiple factors, including the regular change in presidential administrations, Congress adopting a continuing resolution instead of a budget for this fiscal year and the Trump administration’s executive orders and other actions.

    “It’s like throwing sand into the machine,” Carney said. She said her association is pleased “that the funding will continue to flow, but it’s still unknown whether that flow of funds will be in drips or will be full stream, and we only have two months left until the end of the fiscal year.”

    Some Senate Republicans recently called on NIH and OMB to send more money out the door, as directed in the continuing resolution Congress passed in March.

    “We are concerned by the slow disbursement rate of [fiscal year 2025] NIH funds, as it risks undermining critical research and the thousands of American jobs it supports,” the senators wrote in a letter to OMB. “Suspension of these appropriated funds—whether formally withheld or functionally delayed—could threaten Americans’ ability to access better treatments and limit our nation’s leadership in biomedical science. It also risks inadvertently severing ongoing NIH-funded research prior to actionable results.”

    Tuesday night’s controversy came as some Republican members of Congress have joined Democrats in opposing the president’s proposal to gut the NIH’s funding for fiscal 2026. The Senate Appropriations Committee is meeting today, and it’s set to unveil how much it plans to send NIH next fiscal year.

    Carney said, “The U.S. is considered a global leader in biomedical research and medical discoveries, and we can’t afford to lose opportunities for advancing new discoveries and therapies and treatments for diseases that affect millions all over the world.

    “So when it comes to Alzheimer’s or cancer or infectious diseases, this is about hope,” she said. “It shouldn’t be about politics.”

    Source link

  • Turkish police arrested magazine staff over Muhammad cartoon, but it doesn’t actually depict the prophet

    Turkish police arrested magazine staff over Muhammad cartoon, but it doesn’t actually depict the prophet

    Last year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

    Five arrests over cartoon “publicly demeaning religious values”

    Turkish police officers walking down street in Istanbul. (Shutterstock.com)

    Cartoons depicting Muhammad are a common feature in censorship news but the latest developments out of Turkey are a little unusual in that the magazine involved is adamant that the cartoon under fire…does not actually depict the prophet. 

    On June 30, Turkish police arrested four employees of satirical magazine LeMan on charges of “publicly demeaning religious values,” with one cartoonist also charged with “insulting the president.” They raided the magazine’s office as well and, two weeks later, arrested a LeMan editor at Istanbul’s airport upon his return from France. The arrests followed an attack on the LeMan office, with a mob breaking open windows and doors.

    The origin of the dispute? A June 26 LeMan edition with an anti-war cartoon depicting two winged men — one depicted as Muslim and introducing himself as Muhammad and the other as Jewish and calling himself Moses — shaking hands as they ascend over a burning city with bombs raining down. The Muhammad character, the magazine said, “is fictionalised as a Muslim killed in Israel’s bombardments” and is named so because it’s the “most commonly given and populous name in the world.”

    The magazine remains adamant its staff is being arrested on the basis of a willful misunderstanding, but for now Turkish officials — including President Erdogan, who called it a “vile provocation” that must be “held accountable before the law” — are intent on prosecution and have seized copies of the edition.

    There’s more free speech news out of Turkey. A new law granted the country’s Presidency of Religious Affairs the authority to ban Quran translations it deems “do not correspond to the basic characteristics of Islam,” including online and audio versions. Meanwhile, a Turkish court blocked some content produced by xAI’s Grok for insulting Erdogan and religious values.

    And Spotify has threatened to leave the Turkish market in part over a censorship dispute with the deputy minister of culture and tourism, who has accused the site of hosting “content that targets our religious and national values and insults the beliefs of our society.” That content apparently includes playlists like “The songs Emine Erdogan listens to while cleaning the palace,” which mocks Erdogan’s wife’s allegedly lavish spending. 

    UK’s free speech controversies online and off — and in American visa policy

    The UK’s free speech issues are nothing new, but this time the U.S. is part of the story, too. UK prosecutors had already announced an investigation into Belfast rap trio Kneecap earlier this year — which, as of last week, has been dropped — but now duo Bob Vylan is on the list. 

    Bob Vylan caught global attention last month in a controversial Glastonbury set which included a “Death, death to the IDF” chant led by the band. Avon and Somerset Police confirmed they were reviewing footage to confirm “whether any offences may have been committed that would require a criminal investigation.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer also objected to the “appalling hate speech” and demanded answers from the BBC about its broadcast of the set. Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp also said the BBC “appears to have also broken the law.”

    Then the Trump administration joined in. Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau announced shortly after the incident that the U.S. revoked the visa of Bob Vylan members ahead of the band’s upcoming tour. “Foreigners who glorify violence and hatred are not welcome visitors to our country,” he wrote.

    Speech controversies also bloomed outside Glastonbury. UK police have now arrested dozens of demonstrators for attending events opposing the ban on Palestine Action, an activist group restricted under British anti-terrorism legislation for damaging military planes in a protest. Simply “expressing support” for the banned group is a crime. 

    The Wall Street Journal covered the UK’s (and Europe’s) “far and wide” crackdown on speech in a July 7 piece that also discussed the recent targeting of activist Peter Tatchell, arrested by police in London for a “racially and religiously aggravated breach of the peace.” Tatchell’s offense was holding a sign “that criticized Israel for its Gaza campaign as well as Hamas for kidnapping, torturing and executing a 22-year-old.”

    Also, in more unsurprising news, the UK’s troubling Online Safety Act is making its mark on the internet as social media platforms begin the process of age verification for UK-based users. Bluesky users will be required to use Kid Web Services or face content blocks and app limitations. Reddit users must verify too, or lose access to categories of material including “content that promotes or romanticizes depression, hopelessness and despair” and “content that promotes violence.”

    And, finally, is the UK getting a government-imposed swear jar? A district council in Kent is considering a £100 fine for swearing in public. That definitely won’t backfire. 

    Fake news, social media for teens, and more in the latest tech and speech developments 

    • Last week, Russian legislators passed rules issuing fines for people who “deliberately searched for knowingly extremist materials,” with heightened fines for those using a VPN to access them. That’s not just censorship of what you say, but also of what you simply try to see.
    • The European Court of Human Rights ruled in Google’s favor in its dispute with Russia over penalties the government issued against the company over its decision not to remove some political content and to suspend a channel tied to sanctions. Russia, it found, “exerted considerable pressure on Google LLC to censor content on YouTube, thereby interfering with its role as a provider of a platform for the free exchange of ideas and information.”
    • The Indian state of Karnataka is considering legislation that would punish fake news, misinformation, and other verboten forms of speech with fines and prison terms up to seven years.
    • India’s Allahabad High Court refused bail to a man who had posted “heavily edited and objectionable” videos of Prime Minister Modi relating to the country’s recent conflict with Pakistan. “Freedom of speech and expression does not stretch to permit a person posting videos and other posts disrespecting the Prime Minister of India,” the court wrote.
    • An 8-3 vote from Brazil’s Supreme Court ruled that social media companies will be held liable for failure to monitor and remove “content involving hate speech, racism, and incitement to violence.”
    • German police conducted a search of more than 65 properties in a crackdown on online hate speech, seeking out offenders allegedly engaged in “inciting hatred, insulting politicians and using symbols of terrorist groups or organizations that are considered to be unconstitutional.”
    • Dozens of online gay erotica writers, mostly young women, have been arrested in recent months in China for “producing and distributing obscene material.”
    • The Pakistan Telecommunication Authority has now blocked over 100,000 URLs across the internet for “blasphemous content.”
    • An Australian Administrative Review Tribunal ruling reversed a March order by the country’s eSafety Commissioner requiring X to take down a post from Canadian activist Chris Elston or face a $782,500 fine. Elston had called Teddy Cook, a trans man appointed to a World Health Organization panel, a “woman” who “belong[s] in psychiatric wards.”
    • New guidelines issued by the European Commission press for EU nations’ adoption of tools to verify internet users’ age to protect them against harmful content. The verification methods should be “accurate, reliable, robust, non-intrusive and non-discriminatory” — quite a Herculean feat to expect.
    • China is introducing a new digital ID system transferring the possession of users’ identifying information away from internet companies and into government hands. The process, voluntary at this time, will require users to submit personal information, including a facial scan.

    Former Panamanian president alleges U.S. visa revocation for his political speech 

    Martín Torrijos, a former president of Panama, says the U.S. canceled his visa over his opposition to political agreements made between the two countries. Torrijos suggested his signature on the “National Unity and Defense of Sovereignty” statement, which criticized “expansionist and hegemonic intentions” by the United States, also contributed to the revocation. 

    “I want to emphasize that this is not just about me, neither personally nor in my capacity as former president of the Republic,” Torrijos said. “It is a warning to all Panamanians: that criticism of the actions of the Government of Panama regarding its relations with the United States will not be tolerated.”

    Free press news, from Azerbaijan to Arad 

    • Zimbabwe Independent editor Faith Zaba penned a satirical column about the country’s role in the Southern African Development Community — and was then arrested by police and charged with “undermining the authority of the president.”
    • Yair Maayan, mayor of Israeli city Arad, announced he intended to ban the sale of Haaretz over the newspaper’s investigation into the IDF.
    • Tel Aviv police arrested journalist Israel Frey on suspicion of incitement to terrorism for his response to the death of five IDF soldiers. “The world is a better place this morning, without five young men who partook in one of the most brutal crimes against humanity,” he posted on social media.
    • The Baku Court of Serious Crimes sentenced seven staffers at Azerbaijani investigative outlet Abzas Media to prison terms ranging from seven to more than nine years on various tax and fraud charges. Press freedom advocates say the charges are in retaliation for the outlet’s reporting on presidential corruption.
    • A German court overturned the ban on Alternative for Germany-linked magazine Compact, which Interior Minister Nancy Faeser had called “a central mouthpiece of the right-wing extremist scene.” The court found that the measure was not justified.
    • The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s military arrested journalist Serge Sindani after he shared a photo showing military planes at Bangoka International Airport.
    • At least two journalists were injured during recent protests in Kenya, where the country’s Communications Authority demanded “all television and radio stations to stop any live coverage of the demonstrations” or risk “regulatory action.”
    • Police in Nepal are ignoring a court order and attempting to hunt down and arrest journalist Dil Bhushan Pathak for his reporting alleging political corruption.  

    Changes on the horizon in higher education abroad

    New wide-ranging guidance from the UK’s Office for Students includes the recommendation that universities amend or terminate international partnerships and agreements if necessary to protect the speech rights of their community. This is welcome advice given global higher education’s failure to acknowledge and account for the challenges internationalization has posed to expressive rights, a problem I discuss in my forthcoming book Authoritarians in the Academy, out Aug. 19 and available for pre-order now.

    And, like in the United States, universities in Australia are facing pressure over allegations of campus antisemitism. The nation’s Special Envoy’s Plan to Combat Antisemitism advocates various measures, including adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition and its examples. Universities that “facilitate, enable or fail to act against antisemitism” may face defunding. (FIRE has repeatedly expressed concerns about these applications of the IHRA definition in the U.S. and the likelihood it will censor or chill protected political speech.) The report also advises that non-citizens, which would include international students, “involved in antisemitism should face visa cancellation and removal from Australia.”

    Source link

  • Student-Led Teaching Doesn’t Help Underprepared Students

    Student-Led Teaching Doesn’t Help Underprepared Students

    New research finds peer instruction models may be less impactful for students with lower standardized test scores than their higher-achieving peers.

    miodrag ignjatovic/E+/Getty Images

     

     

     

     

    Introductory STEM courses serve as a gatekeeper for students interested in majors or careers in STEM fields, and students from less privileged backgrounds are often less likely to succeed in those courses.

    As a result, researchers have explored what practices can make a difference in student outcomes in such courses, including creating sections with diverse student populations and offering grade forgiveness for students who performed poorly.

    A recent research article from the University of Texas at Austin examined the role peer instructors play in helping students from a variety of backgrounds. Researchers discovered that students who were enrolled in an interactive peer-led physics course section had worse learning outcomes and grades than their peers in a lecture section taught by an instructor. Students with lower SAT scores were also less likely to achieve a high grade in the student-taught class.

    The research: Historically, instructors teaching STEM courses have delivered content through lectures, with students taking a largely passive role, according to the paper. However, more active learning environments have been tied to higher student engagement and are largely preferred by learners. A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found that 44 percent of respondents said an interactive lecture format helps them learn and retain information best, compared to 25 percent who selected traditional lectures.

    Interactive lectures can include instructors asking students questions throughout the class period or creating opportunities for them to reflect on course material, according to the paper. Peer instruction is touted as an effective means of flipped classroom teaching, requiring students to finish readings prior to class and reserving class time for interactive activities.

    While previous studies show the value of peer-led courses, much of that research focused on selective, private institutions, where students may have more similar backgrounds or levels of academic preparation, according to the authors of the new study.

    So researchers designed a study that would compare apples to apples: They looked at the outcomes for students learning physics in one course section taught by a professor versus one taught by fellow students to see which had a greater impact.

    The results: The paper analyzed the learning outcomes of two sections of students in an introductory mechanics course at a large public institution over three years. One section of the course was taught by a peer instructor, mostly in a small-group discussion format. The other section was taught by the professor using interactive lectures.

    Students completed identical homework and midterm exams on the same days and had the opportunity to attend identical tutoring sessions supported by teaching assistants.

    Though the course is designed for physics and astronomy majors, students from other majors participated as well. Each section had between 41 and 82 students, for a total of 367 students taking the course over three years.

    Not only did students in the peer-instruction section have lower grades, but students who had lower SAT scores from high school were less likely to demonstrate learning in fundamental concepts, as well as less likely to earn an A, compared to their peers with similar test scores taught by a professor. However, students with higher SAT scores made smaller gains (less dramatic grade increases or learning demonstrated) in the lecture section compared to students taught by peers, which researchers believe could mean that students with less academic preparation may benefit more from an instructor-led course, while their peers who had a high achievement history in high school could thrive more in a peer-led section.

    The analysis does not provide an explanation for why these differences exist, but researchers theorized that group work or peer dependency could result in some students being less knowledgeable about content matter because they trust others in the class to answer correctly. Creating postdiscussion follow-up questions can lessen this learning gap.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • ‘Strong evidence’ Harvard doesn’t meet accreditation standards, feds say

    ‘Strong evidence’ Harvard doesn’t meet accreditation standards, feds say

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Two federal agencies on Wednesday notified Harvard University’s accreditor of “strong evidence to suggest” the Ivy League institution no longer meets its accreditation standards.
    • In a letter to the New England Commission of Higher Education, the U.S. departments of Education and Health and Human Services cited recent HHS findings alleging that Harvard is in “violent violation” of federal antidiscrimination law and has been “deliberately indifferent” to the harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its campus.
    • The announcement comes the week after Columbia University got word from its accreditor that its approval “may be in jeopardy” following similar findings by HHS against the New York institution.

    Dive Insight:

    A wide-ranging April executive order from President Donald Trump directed U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to “promptly” provide accreditation agencies with any findings of noncompliance with Title VI, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs.

    On Wednesday, McMahon did so for Harvard’s accreditor, NECHE.

    “By allowing antisemitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked on its campus, Harvard University has failed in its obligation to students, educators, and American taxpayers,” she said in a statement. 

    The Education Department expects NECHE to “enforce its policies and practices” and keep the agency “fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards,” McMahon added.

    Without accreditation, Harvard would lose eligibility to accept federal financial aid — a crucial revenue source for all colleges, even the wealthiest ones.

    After HHS accused the university of violating Title VI last week, NECHE released a FAQ addressing its next steps.

    The commission made clear that the federal government cannot direct it to revoke a college’s accreditation. Likewise, a college does not automatically lose its accreditation if it is put under investigation, the FAQ said.

    NECHE gives institutions “up to four years to come into compliance when found by the Commission to be out of compliance, which can be extended for good cause,” it said, adding that institutions remain accredited during that time.

    Under NECHE policies, the commission will conduct an independent review of the allegations against Harvard.

    Meanwhile, HHS’ findings heavily cited an April report from Harvard on antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on its campus. The internal report found that Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students and employees at the university felt shunned or harassed at times during the 2023-24 academic year.

    Since the report published in April, the Trump administration has repeatedly used it in attempts to cut off Harvard from enrolling international students and terminate more of its federal funding.

    Harvard also released a second report in tandem that addressed anti-Muslim, anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian bias on campus, finding that Harvard students and employees in these demographics also said they experienced harassment and discrimination during the same time frame.

    However, the Trump administration has not highlighted the findings from the second report in its news releases about Harvard’s alleged failure to protect students from harassment. And the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights has thus far stayed silent on issues of Islamophobia under Title VI.

    Source link

  • Centralising assessment doesn’t mean standardising pedagogy: Opinion – Campus Review

    Centralising assessment doesn’t mean standardising pedagogy: Opinion – Campus Review

    On CampusTechnology

    Adopting this approach has to be flexible and take into account different modalities used to assess students’ work, according to Piero Tintori

    Most universities dream of a future that embraces digital assessment and exams, but the journey to get there is complex and not universally supported.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • 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

  • Kidney disease doesn’t have to be a death sentence

    Kidney disease doesn’t have to be a death sentence

    At first, Carolyn Atim thought the headaches she was experiencing were just the residual echoes of pregnancy. Consultations then indicated she had high blood pressure. Slight of frame, barely out of her twenties, Atim had given birth to a boy in 2013. 

    Nine months later, the headaches hadn’t gone away and she was feeling unrelenting fatigue. She brushed them off.

    “I was so tiny,” she said. “And you know the perception that a tiny person doesn’t suffer from high blood pressure!” 

    Her doctor suggested she take some comprehensive tests. So she did them: renal function, liver function and complete blood counts. The verdict came as a blow. “You have end-stage kidney disease,” the specialist said.

    Atim didn’t know where to place that phrase. End-stage. It sounded so final. “You look at yourself, and you’re told you have a chronic illness,” she said. “You see yourself dying. I had hallucinations of being buried. I saw myself in a coffin.”

    The holistic costs of kidney disease

    In Uganda, kidney disease is not just a medical condition — it’s a verdict with economic, emotional and systemic implications. The country is slowly clawing its way toward better care, thanks in part to pioneers like Dr. Robert Kalyesubula, one of Uganda’s first nephrologists. 

    When he began his profession 15 years ago, he was only the third in the nation. Today, there are 13 kidney specialists and two more are expected. That’s progress, but measured against a growing burden.

    “About seven in every 100 Ugandans are living with kidney disease,” Kalyesubula said. 

    That translates to 7% or roughly 3.2 million people — a statistic that may not seem extraordinary at first glance. After all, the global burden is heavy. 

    A 2023 report in Nature Reviews Nephrology estimated that 850 million people — one in 10 worldwide — live with some form of chronic kidney disease. In the United States, the rate climbs to 15% of adults; in Europe, it ranges from 10 to 16% depending on the country.

    But prevalence tells only part of the story. 

    Inequity in healthcare

    In high-income countries, there are safety nets: screening programs, subsidised treatment and specialist care. In much of sub-Saharan Africa, the same illness unfolds without a cushion or warning.

    The World Health Organisation already ranks chronic kidney disease among the top 10 causes of death globally. The trajectory is alarming. By 2040, researchers expect it to become the fifth leading cause of years of life lost, overtaking many cancers. 

    The drivers are familiar: longer life spans, surging rates of hypertension and diabetes and widespread neglect of early detection. In countries like Uganda, where comprehensive testing is still a luxury, the disease often makes itself known only when the body is in full collapse.

    “Fifty-two percent of our patients come when they are already at stage five,” Kalyesubula said.

    By then, treatment is no longer medical alone — it is economic. Stage five is the red zone: dialysis or death. Dialysis, in Uganda, will demand four million shillings per month — about US $1,100, cash on delivery — just to keep the body’s silent custodian from shutting down.

    A transplant? That fantasy starts at 100 million shillings (about US $27,000). This, in a nation where only 1% of about 23 million working Ugandans earn more than a million shillings a month. Nearly half survive on less than 150,000 shillings. 

    An economic death sentence

    In countries like Uganda, kidney failure isn’t just a medical crisis, it’s an economic death sentence. But Atim’s story didn’t end at diagnosis.

    She found herself clawing at survival — medical appointments twice a week, pill regimens that bloated her cabine and a spiritual fog that refused to lift. Her saving grace came in a rare combination: a devoted husband, an unusually supportive employer and a doctor who didn’t just treat her but stood by her.

    “Dr. Kalyesubula told me, ‘You’re still a young girl. Get me a donor, and we shall find the money. God will help us,’” she said.

    Atim did find a donor. Her sister stepped forward. Her employer, moved by her story, urged her to go to the media — not to plead, but to make a case to headquarters for support. Her husband’s workplace did the same. Friends, colleagues, family — they all mobilized.

    “I was lucky,” Atim said. “Other people go to the media to beg. For me, my company said, ‘Go, so we can help you.’”

    A new lease on life

    The transplant took place in India in 2015. The morning of the operation, someone unexpected showed up at her bedside.

    “I opened my eyes, and there he was — Dr. Kalyesubula. I didn’t even know he had flown in. That humbled me,” she said. “He had seen the journey through.”

    For Kalyesubula, his work is a calling. “One day I was with my family at school — visiting day,” he said. “I had promised my daughter I won’t work. But then I got this call — ‘You are the one who has to save me.’ I had to leave.”

    Uganda now has over 300 dialysis machines — up from just three when Dr. Kalyesubula started — and more than 25 centers spread across the country. 

    Kidney care is expanding, even if slowly. Yet transplants within Uganda remain rare, and still rely heavily on partnerships with hospitals in India. The selection process is tight: donors must be related, young and a near-perfect match. Atim knows how slim her chances were.

    “If Dr. Kalyesubula hadn’t insisted on a preemptive transplant, I would have gone on dialysis,” she said. “And with our income, that might have been the end.”

    Instead, she got her life back. She’s gained weight. “From 40 kilos to 72,” she said, laughing. And she works full-time. 

    Their bond has grown beyond prescriptions and reviews. They speak quarterly, consult online and even banter like old friends. “We call each other ‘dear’ — like family,” she said. “We even joke now. He says he won’t compete with me again on weight loss — I always win.” 

    Expanding treatment for all

    Kidney disease still looms in Uganda, but progress is undeniable. Over 300 dialysis machines now serve patients in multiple districts. Transplants are possible — though limited to close relatives — and awareness is growing.

    Dr. Kalyesubula doesn’t mince words when it comes to the kidney’s role in the body. “If it’s not working well, you die,” he said. “Its importance is in making blood. Its importance is in removing toxins. Its importance is in controlling your blood pressure, regulating electrolytes, maintaining your internal environment — so that everything else can function at all.” 

    Think of it as the body’s meticulous custodian — part janitor, part electrician, part life support, he said. It scrubs the blood clean, balances the chemistry of survival and even directs traffic, ensuring oxygen-rich blood reaches the brain, the heart, the muscles. Without it, the delicate machinery of the body grinds to a halt.  

    But here’s the twist: Since only 7% of the country is living with kidney disease, he said, what are the rest doing that they’re not? Is it luck? Genetics? Or something more mundane?

    The best treatment, it seems, is prevention. “Drink enough water, avoid excessive salt and alcohol, eat fruits and fresh foods, move your body — exercise — don’t take over-the-counter drugs carelessly,” he said. “And once you click 30 — at least do a body check-up once a year.” 

    Raising awareness

    Prevention is simple and inexpensive advice, but ignoring it carries a steep price, especially in Uganda, where a kidney disease diagnosis can unravel the life of an ordinary working person faster than the disease itself.  

    That’s why Atim has become a leader in the silent, underserved world of kidney patients in Uganda, sharing her story when asked, opening up her pain so others might find their way out of theirs.

    She’s become a relentless advocate for affordable medication, creating and distributing kidney disease awareness, chasing down funding and forging hospital partnerships, all in the name of accessibility. It’s a fight born of necessity. She knows too well the scramble for kidney drugs, the way they vanish from pharmacy shelves, the maddening logistics of imports when the local supply runs dry.  

    She still sees Dr. Kalyesubula quarterly. She still worries about infections and relapses. But she is alive and raising her son. She is living. 

    “The transplant gave me a second chance,” she said. “I think that’s what many people don’t realize — it’s not about being whole again. It’s about having time. A support system, and never losing hope. Saying to death, ‘not today’. And for me, that’s everything.”

     

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why do fewer people in the United States die from kidney disease per capita than in the Uganda?

    2. What are some ways to prevent kidney disease?

    3. Do you think young people need to worry about diabetes? 

     

    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. [email protected]

    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. [email protected]

    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