Tag: English

  • Actually, It’s a Good Time to Be an English Prof (opinion)

    Actually, It’s a Good Time to Be an English Prof (opinion)

    It may sound perverse to say so. Our profession is under attack, our students are reading less, jobs are scarce and the humanities are first on the chopping block. But precisely because the outlook is dire, this is also a moment of clarity and possibility. The campaign against higher education, the AI gold rush and the dismantling of our public schools have made the stakes of humanistic teaching unmistakable. For those of us with the privilege of relative job security, there has never been a more urgent—or more opportune—time to do what we were trained to do.

    I am an English professor, so let me first address my own. Colleagues, this is the moment to make the affirmative case for our existence. This is our chance to demonstrate the worth of person-to-person pedagogy; to speak the language of knowledge formation and the pursuit of truth; to reinvigorate the canon while developing new methods for the study of ethnic, postcolonial, feminist, queer and minority literatures and cultural texts; to stand for the value of human intelligence. Now is when we seize the mantle and opportunity of “English” as a both a privileged signifier and a sign of humility as we fight alongside our colleagues in the non-Western languages and literatures who are even more endangered than we are— and for our students, without whom we have no future.

    I’m not being Pollyannaish. Between Trump 1 and Trump 2 sit the tumultuous COVID years, which means U.S. universities have been reeling, under direct attacks and pressures, for a decade. I started my first job in 2016, so that is the entirety of the time that I have worked as an academic. I spent six years in public universities in purple-red states, where austerity was the name of the game—and then I moved to Texas.

    There have been years of insults and incursions into the profession. We have been scapegoated as an out-of-touch elite and called enemies of the state. And no, we haven’t always responded well. In the face of austerity, we let our colleagues be sacrificed. Despite the bad-faith weaponization of “CRT,” “DEI” and “identity politics,” we disavowed identity. Against our better judgment, we assimilated wave after wave of new educational technologies, from MOOCs to course management platforms to Zoom.

    Now, we face a new onslaught: the supposedly unstoppable and inevitable rise of generative AI—a deliberately misleading misnomer for the climate-destroying linguistic probability machines that can automate and simulate numerous high-level tasks, but stop short of demonstrating human levels of intelligence, consciousness and imagination. “The ultimate unaccountability machine,” as Audrey Watters puts it.

    From Substack to The New York Times to new collaborative projects Against AI, humanities professors are sounding the alarm. At the start of this semester, philosopher Kate Manne reflected that her “job just got an awful lot harder.”

    Actually, I think our jobs just got a whole lot easier, because our purpose is sharper than ever. Where others see AI as the end of our profession, I see a clarifying opportunity to recommit to who we are. No LLM can reproduce the deep reading, careful dialogue and shared meaning-making of the humanities classroom. We college professors stand alongside primary and secondary school teachers who have already faced decades of deprofessionalization, deskilling and disrespect.

    There is a war on public education in this country. Statehouses in places like Texas are rapidly dismantling the infrastructure and independence of public institutions at all levels, from disbanding faculty senates to handing over curriculum development to technologists who have no understanding of the dialogical, improvisatory nature of teaching. These are folks who gleefully predict that robots with the capacity to press “play” on AI-generated slide decks can replace human teachers with years of experience. We need them out of our schools at every level.

    Counter to what university administrators and mainstream pundits seem to believe, students are not clamoring to use AI tools. Tech companies are aggressively pushing them. All over the country, school districts and universities are partnering with companies like Microsoft and OpenAI for fear of being left behind. My own institution has partnered with Google. Earlier this semester, “Google product experts” came to campus to instruct our students on how to “supercharge [their] creativity” and “boost [their] productivity” using Gemini and NotebookLM tools. Faculty have been invited to join AI-focused learning communities and enroll in trainings and workshops (or even a whole online class) on integrating AI tools into our teaching; funds have been allotted for new grant programs in AI exploration and course development.

    I didn’t spend seven years earning a doctorate to learn how to teach from Google product experts. And my students didn’t come to university to learn how to learn from Google product experts, either. Those folks have their work, motivations and areas of expertise. We have ours, and it is past time to defend them. We are keepers of canon and critique, of traditions and interventions, of discipline-specific discourses and a robust legacy of public engagement. The whole point of education is to hand over what we know to the next generation, not to chase fads alongside the students we are meant to equip with enduring skills. It is our job to strengthen minds, to resist what Rebecca Solnit calls the “technological invasion of consciousness, community, and culture.”

    Many of us have been trying to do this for some time, but it’s hard to swim against the tides. In 2024, I finally banned all electronics from my English literature classes. I realized that sensitivity to accessibility need not prevent us from exercising simple common sense. We know that students learn more and better when they take notes by hand, annotate texts and read in hard copy. Because my students do not have access to free printing, and because a university librarian told me that “we only go from print to digital, not the other way around,” I printed copies of every reading for every student. With the words on paper before them, they retained more, they made eye contact, they took marginal notes, they really responded to each other’s interpretations of the texts.

    That’s the easy part. As we college professors plan our return to blue books, in-class midterms and oral exams, the challenge is how to intervene before our students come to class. If AI is antithetical to the project of higher education, it’s even more insidious and damaging in the elementary, middle and high schools.

    My children attend Texas public schools in the particularly embattled Houston Independent School District, so I have seen firsthand the app-ification of education. Log in to the middle school student platform—which some “innovator” had the audacity to name “Clever”—and you’ll get a page with more than three dozen apps. Not just the usual suspects like Khan Academy and Epic, but also ABC-CLIO, Accelerate Learning, Active Classroom, Amplify, Britannica, BrainPOP, Canva, Carnegie Learning, CK-12 Foundation, Digital Theatre Plus, Discover Magazine, Edgenuity, Edmentum, eSebco, everfi, Gale Databases, Gizmos, IPC, i-Ready, iScience, IXL, JASON Learning, Language! Live, Learning Ally Audiobook, MackinVIA, McGraw Hill, myPLTW, Newsela, Raise, Read to Achieve, Savvas EasyBridge, STEMscopes, Summit K12, TeachingBooks, Vocabulary.com, World Book Online, Zearn …

    As both a professor and a parent, I have decided to intervene directly. Last year, I started leading a reading group for my 12-year-old daughter and a group of her classmates. They call it a book club. Really, it’s a seminar. Once a month, they convene around our dining table for 90 minutes, paperbacks in hand, to engage in close reading and analysis. They do all the stuff we English professors want our college students to do: They examine specific passages, which illuminate broader themes; they draw connections to other books we’ve read; they ask questions about the historical context; they make motivated references to current social, cultural and political issues; they plumb the space between their individual readings and the author’s intentions.

    No phones, no computers, no apps. We have books (and snacks). And conversation. After each meeting, my daughter and I debrief. About four months in, she said, “You know, a lot of the previous meetings I felt like we were each just giving our own takes. But this time, I feel like we arrived at a new understanding of the book by talking about it together.” The club members had challenged and pushed each other’s interpretations, and together exposed facets of the text they wouldn’t have seen alone.

    The literature classroom is a space of collaborative meaning-making—one of the last remaining potentially tech-free spaces out there. A precious space, that we need to renew and defend, not give up to the anti-intellectual mob and not transform at the behest of tech oligarchs. We have an opportunity here to stand up for who we are, for the mission of humanistic education, in affirmative, unapologetic terms—while finding ways to build new alliances and enact solidarity beyond the walls of our college classrooms.

    This moment is clarifying, motivating, energizing. It’s time to remember what we already know.

    Source link

  • Counting the cost of financial challenges in English higher education

    Counting the cost of financial challenges in English higher education

    The financial health of UK universities has become a pressing concern, with widespread reports of deficits and shrinking operating surpluses. Yet until now, robust evidence on how these pressures shape institutional decisions – on investment, staffing, research, and student services – has been limited.

    To address this evidence gap, interviews were conducted with chief financial officers and directors of finance in 74 of the 133 higher education institutions in England between March and May 2025, covering 56 per cent of institutions.

    The study covered all TRAC peer groups, from research-intensive universities to specialist arts and music colleges. The findings reveal stark differences in financial resilience across the sector, but also common themes that underscore systemic vulnerabilities.

    A striking 85 per cent of institutions reported either an operating deficit, break-even position, or reduced surplus in the current year. Only 11 institutions – just under 15 per cent – maintained or improved their operating surplus. Even among these, financial pressures were evident, with cost-cutting and efficiency drives mirroring those in deficit institutions.

    Low research intensity institutions are most exposed, with 95 per cent in deficit or reduced surplus, while high research intensity universities fare slightly better at 79 per cent. Arts and music colleges also show significant vulnerability, with nearly nine in ten reporting financial strain.

    Strategies and trade-offs

    The origins of financial weakness vary by institutional type. For research intensive universities, the decline in international tuition fee income is the dominant concern, compounded by visa restrictions and heightened global competition. Medium and low research intensity institutions cite rising staff and estate costs, alongside pension liabilities. For arts and music colleges, the freeze on UK tuition fees was a critical issue, although face additional challenges given the liability of smallness.

    These challenges are not short-term blips. An overwhelming 97 per cent of respondents view the current situation as a structural, long-term problem. Many argue that the sector’s business model – heavily reliant on international student income and constrained by capped domestic fees – is fundamentally unsustainable. And more worryingly difficult to change in the short to medium term.

    Faced with financial stringency, universities are deploying a mix of defensive and adaptive strategies. Borrowing has been rare – only five per cent of deficit institutions increased debt – but asset sales and diversification of income streams are common. Over three-quarters of institutions are actively seeking new revenue sources, from commercialisation and estate rental to online learning and transnational education partnerships.

    Interestingly, financial pressure is not uniformly leading to retrenchment. While some institutions have closed departments or dropped programmes – particularly among medium and less research-intensive universities – many are introducing new courses, both undergraduate and postgraduate, to attract students and generate income.

    Staffing, however, tells a more sobering story. Nearly half of deficit institutions have implemented voluntary redundancy schemes, and around one-fifth have resorted to compulsory redundancies. Recruitment freezes are widespread, affecting academic and professional staff alike. These measures, while necessary for financial stability, risk eroding institutional capacity and morale.

    Counting the cost

    The ripple effects of financial constraint extend beyond staffing. Research support is under significant strain: over a third of institutions report cuts to research facilities and internal consortia. Yet there are pockets of investment – 18 per cent of institutions have increased funding for libraries and data services, and nearly one-fifth have boosted support for industrial collaborations, reflecting a strategic pivot toward partnerships and innovation.

    Student experience has, so far, been relatively protected. Most institutions have maintained spending on mental health, wellbeing, and inclusion initiatives, though career development and academic support have seen reductions in about a quarter of cases. Investment in estates is more uneven: while many institutions are deferring maintenance and new builds, over half are increasing spending on digital transformation – a clear signal of shifting priorities.

    Financial turbulence is also reshaping leadership dynamics. Nearly 90 per cent of respondents agree that leadership teams are under heightened pressure and scrutiny, with a growing emphasis on short-term decision-making. This environment is taking a toll on staff wellbeing: two-thirds of respondents report negative impacts on mental health, alongside rising workloads and job insecurity. Trust in leadership has declined in almost half of institutions, underscoring the human dimension of the financial crisis.

    Perhaps the most sobering finding is the sector’s view of external support. Over 60 per cent of respondents rated government and regional assistance as ineffective. The message is clear: incremental adjustments will not suffice. Respondents called for a fundamental review of the funding model in higher education. Without decisive intervention, the risk is not just institutional hardship but systemic decline – jeopardising the UK’s global standing in higher education and research.

    Source link

  • TCU Moves Race, Gender Studies Departments to English

    TCU Moves Race, Gender Studies Departments to English

    On June 1, Texas Christian University will close its stand-alone gender studies and race and ethnic studies departments and fold the majors and courses into the English Department, university leaders announced earlier this month.

    The research university in Fort Worth is one of the first private institutions in the state to announce changes to its gender, sexuality and race-related academic programs after firings at Texas A&M University prompted the state’s public institutions to flag, censor and cut classes related to gender, sexuality, race and ethnicity.

    In a meeting with English Department faculty on Oct. 22, TCU provost Floyd Wormley cited financial reasons for the change, asserting that political pressure “had no influence” on the decision to merge the Women and Gender Studies and Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies Departments into the English Department. But some faculty aren’t convinced. They say the move follows a decline in institutional support for the disciplines as the university faces immense pressure to eliminate any and all programming related to gender, race and ethnicity.

    “The explanation from the administration is financial, and that doesn’t necessarily track with earlier correspondence with the department,” said Brandon Manning, an associate professor of gender and sexuality and race and ethnic Studies. The university is expanding its physical footprint and its student body, and “there are new programs and departments popping up daily,” he added. “TCU has been receiving considerable criticism online, and this seems to be a way to placate that criticism.”

    A TCU spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that conversations about merging the departments started more than two years ago. The two departments already share a leadership structure. The English Department wasn’t mentioned as a partner until the Oct. 17 announcement, said Alexandra Edwards, an English instructor at TCU.

    The merger will affect seven faculty members, five of whom will likely follow the programs into the English Department. Other faculty and support staff will be deployed to other departments, Wormley and Sonja Watson, dean for the AddRan College of Liberal Arts, told faculty at the Oct. 22 meeting. The merger is part of a universitywide restructuring project and is primarily due to low enrollment in the two departments, they said. The Spanish and Modern Languages Departments will also be combined, and so will the Geology and Environmental Sciences Departments.

    “Decisions are not based on academic content but on data,” a TCU spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed. “Students currently majoring in these programs have been notified that there will be no impact to their academic progress, meaning they will be able to complete their degrees as planned. TCU is growing and will need more faculty and staff—not less—to ensure that we meet the academic needs of students and demand for a TCU education.”

    This fall, Critical Race and Ethnic Studies enrolled nine majors and minors, and Women and Gender Studies enrolled just two. The two programs have never been large; since becoming stand-alone departments in 2018, their highest combined enrollment was 31 majors and minors, in fall 2020. But using low enrollments to justify the merger is unfair, Edwards argued. The programs haven’t had a chance to flourish because of constant structural changes, she said.

    “They have been through a ton of turmoil and leadership turnover and reassignment to various different colleges and units across the university, so for a long time they’ve been unable to become stable,” Edwards said. “I don’t see how gender studies or ethnic studies could become a priority in an English department that’s already … juggling a lot of competing interests and varied disciplines.”

    Department chairs weren’t given any warning about the merger with the English department, and faculty were not consulted before the decision was made, according to notes from the Oct. 22 meeting shared with Inside Higher Ed. When faculty asked why, Wormley said it was within “the purview of the institution to make those decisions.”

    A One-Man Campaign?

    While TCU isn’t subject to the same state laws that eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion efforts at Texas’s public institutions, the university is still getting plenty of external pressure to ax its gender and race studies offerings. Faculty say the campaign to abolish related classes, programs and events at the university is led by Bo French, a TCU alum and the son of a sitting TCU board member. French is also chairman of the Tarrant County Republican Party and a conservative politician who was denounced by members of his own party for using slurs for gay people and people with disabilities.

    French has berated the university online for what he described as “LGBTQ” and “radical Marxist” indoctrination. He celebrated on Oct. 10 when the university removed the “LGBTQ+” link from the “community initiatives” dropdown on its website. Three days earlier, he posted a poll on X asking followers if the university should “dismantle its entire racist DEI infrastructure and also stop offering courses in degenerate LGBTQ ideology.”

    French interpreted the merger news as a partial victory. “This is simply hiding what they do in another department. Nothing changes,” he wrote on X on Oct. 22. “However, it does show that the public pressure is working. They are bending, but we have to make them break completely and eliminate these courses altogether.”

    Since then, he has continued to wage a social media campaign against anything related to gender, sexuality or diversity at TCU. On Oct. 22 he also posted on X a photo of a lawn sign advertising campus Pride Month events, alongside the comment “I know a few things are happening behind the scenes at ⁦@TCU⁩ and I am now more hopeful than ever, but they haven’t happened yet and so stuff like this is still polluting the campus.”

    Publicly, university officials have said little in response to criticism by French and others, Edwards said. She noted that she was harassed and doxed by conservatives in August 2024 over posts she made before she worked at TCU, and she was advised by administrators to “lay low” until the firestorm subsided. A former TCU Women and Gender Studies professor who received a threat of violence in response to a 2023 course titled The Queer Art of Drag was asked by police to leave campus for his own safety, Edwards said. More recently, a political science professor was doxed for online comments she made in the wake of conservative firebrand Charlie Kirk’s death.

    Asked how the university has responded to political pressure and harassment of faculty, a spokesperson said, “The university has a thorough process to notify faculty and staff members and provide them with appropriate guidance and support to mitigate potential risks.”

    In conversations with faculty, TCU leaders have acknowledged the pressures of the political landscape on the university, particularly on the gender and race studies departments, Edwards said. At the end of the Oct. 22 meeting, Watson told faculty she had been concerned about the future of the departments since Trump was inaugurated in January. During a March 28 meeting between faculty and Watson about combining the gender and race studies departments, Watson expressed concern about recent executive orders from President Trump.

    “I think that we all know that the executive orders disproportionately affect [Comparative Race and Ethnic Studies], right? … As I said in the beginning, [I am] still very much committed to CRES and very much committed to growing the number of majors, and so I think the biggest challenge … is, how do we increase?” Watson said during the meeting, according to a recording obtained by Inside Higher Ed. “All liberal arts majors’ programs are having this issue for various reasons, but we see these issues manifest in a different way in both CRES and [Women and Gender Studies].”

    In an all-hands meeting on April 4, TCU president Daniel Pullin and general counsel Larry Leroy Tyner explained the difficult bind the current national and state political landscapes have put the university in.

    “If there’s a cliff that if you step off, there’s serious consequences, and [if] you don’t know where the edge of the cliff is, you stay way away from the edge,” Tyner said. “The combination of uncertainty and significant consequences creates the chilling effect.”

    About a minute later, Pullin added that he and his cabinet are “trying to figure out how to stay as far away from that unknown cliff as possible so we can stay on mission and live our values and execute our plan.”

    (This story has been updated to more accurately reflect the chronology of events precipitating the merger.)

    Source link

  • Bell English to close after 70 years

    Bell English to close after 70 years

    In a statement, Bell Educational Services Ltd confirmed that the group has served notice to put its three schools in Cambridge, London and St Albans into administration due to financial difficulties, with the schools set to close on October 31.

    “It is with deep regret that we announce Bell Educational Services Ltd has made the difficult decision to wind down its operations and will cease to trade shortly,” the group said in a statement.

    “Regrettably, the closure of the schools will also mean that staff members will face redundancy in the coming weeks,” it said, adding: “This is a deeply sad outcome for all involved”.

    English UK is finding replacement courses for some 125 students affected by the news under the student Emergency Support Scheme (SES), which obliges British Council-accredited centres to offer places to those whose schools have closed suddenly. The affected students are currently studying at Bell’s Cambridge and London locations, while the St Albans site will have no students by the closure date at the end of this month.

    English UK’s acting joint chief executive, Huan Japes, said he was “very sorry” for all those caught up in the closure. “[We] wish to pay our respects to the contribution that Bell has made to shaping the English language teaching industry over the last 70 years,” he added.

    “The English UK team is working with Bell management and nearby centres to ensure the students can continue their courses as quickly as possible. We have visited the school to answer the students’ questions in person, and we hope staff who have lost jobs find new employment quickly. We are very grateful to Bell staff and the administrators for managing the closure responsibly and with sensitivity.”

    Bell highlighted its “proud heritage spanning over 70 years” that has been “widely recognised as a pioneer in the teaching of English as a foreign language”.

    But it said it faced “significant cashflow challenges” and was unable to recover financially from the prolonged impact of the pandemic. Nor could it secure a buyer for the business.

    This is a very sad closure, but we don’t see it as part of a wider trend

    Huan Japes, English UK

    Bell school was founded by Frank Bell in 1955, having been inspired to start a language school after teaching languages in a prisoner of war camp.

    English UK noted that many bastions of the ELT sector had worked for Bell at some point in their careers. “We extend our sympathies to all of Bell’s staff, students and partners affected by this closure,” it said.

    Despite the news, Japes asserted that English UK data monitoring showed the UK remained a resilient market for the ELT sector. In spite of “tough trading conditions”, English UK student numbers dipped just 0.6% between 2023 and 2024, he said.

    “Unexpected closures do happen, but they are rare. Bell English’s financial set up was very unusual for our industry as it was run by a charitable foundation. This is a very sad closure, but we don’t see it as part of a wider trend,” he continued.

    “We understand how shocking closures are to affected staff and students, and our student emergency scheme is here to help anyone affected complete their studies as planned. We encourage students and agents to continue booking English courses in the UK with confidence.”

    The company noted that Bell Switzerland SA – of which Bell is the sole shareholder – would be unaffected by the closure and would continue operating as usual.

    Source link

  • Celebrating heritage means honoring students’ languages

    Celebrating heritage means honoring students’ languages

    Key points:

    Every year, Hispanic Heritage Month offers the United States a chance to honor the profound and varied contributions of Latino communities. We celebrate scientists like Ellen Ochoa, the first Latina woman in space, and activists like Dolores Huerta, who fought tirelessly for workers’ rights. We use this month to recognize the cultural richness that Spanish-speaking families bring to our communities, including everything from vibrant festivals to innovative businesses that strengthen our local economies.

    But there’s a paradox at play.

    While we spotlight Hispanic heritage in public spaces, many classrooms across the country require Spanish-speaking students to set aside the very heart of their cultural identity: their language.

    This contradiction is especially personal for me. I moved from Puerto Rico to the mainland United States as an adult in hopes of building a better future for myself and my family. The transition was far from easy. My accent often became a challenge in ways I never expected, because people judged my intelligence or questioned my education based solely on how I spoke. I could communicate effectively, yet my words were filtered through stereotypes.

    Over time, I found deep fulfillment working in a state that recognizes the value of bilingual education. Texas, where I now live, continues to expand biliteracy pathways for students. This commitment honors both home languages and English, opening global opportunities for children while preserving ties to their history, family, and identity.

    That commitment to expanding pathways for English Learners (EL) is urgently needed. Texas is home to more than 1.3 million ELs, which is nearly a quarter of all students in the state, the highest share in the nation. Nationwide, there are more than 5 million ELs comprising nearly 11 percent of the U.S. public school students; about 76 percent of ELs are Spanish speakers. Those figures represent millions of children who walk into classrooms every day carrying the gift of another language. If we are serious about celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month, we must be serious about honoring and cultivating that gift.

    A true celebration of Hispanic heritage requires more than flags and food. It requires acknowledging that students’ home languages are essential to their academic success, not obstacles to overcome. Research consistently shows that bilingualism is a cognitive asset. Those who are exposed to two languages at an early age outperform their monolingual peers on tests of cognitive function in adolescence and adulthood. Students who maintain and develop their native language while learning English perform better academically, not worse. Yet too often, our educational systems operate as if English is the only language that matters.

    One powerful way to shift this mindset is rethinking the materials students encounter every day. High-quality instructional materials should act as both mirrors and windows–mirrors in which students see themselves reflected, and windows through which they explore new perspectives and possibilities. Meeting state academic standards is only part of the equation: Materials must also align with language development standards and reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of our communities.

    So, what should instructional materials look like if we truly want to honor language as culture?

    • Instructional materials should meet students at varying levels of language proficiency while never lowering expectations for academic rigor.
    • Effective materials include strategies for vocabulary development, visuals that scaffold comprehension, bilingual glossaries, and structured opportunities for academic discourse.
    • Literature and history selections should incorporate and reflect Latino voices and perspectives, not as “add-ons” during heritage month, but as integral elements of the curriculum throughout the year.

    But materials alone are not enough. The process by which schools and districts choose them matters just as much. Curriculum teams and administrators must center EL experiences in every adoption decision. That means intentionally including the voices of bilingual educators, EL specialists, and, especially, parents and families. Their life experiences offer insights into the most effective ways to support students.

    Everyone has a role to play. Teachers should feel empowered to advocate for materials that support bilingual learners; policymakers must ensure funding and policies that prioritize high-quality, linguistically supportive instructional resources; and communities should demand that investments in education align with the linguistic realities of our students.

    Because here is the truth: When we honor students’ languages, we are not only affirming their culture; we are investing in their future. A child who is able to read, write, and think in two languages has an advantage that will serve them for life. They will be better prepared to navigate an interconnected world, and they carry with them the ability to bridge communities.

    This year, let’s move beyond celebrating what Latino communities have already contributed to America and start investing in what they can become when we truly support and honor them year-round. That begins with valuing language as culture–and making sure our classrooms do the same.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • English skills are more essential than ever – the first PISA FLA proves it

    English skills are more essential than ever – the first PISA FLA proves it

    There has been much hype over the role AI can play, with increased speculation that, as this technology evolves, the need for learning languages will become less important. 

    This is obviously not the case.

    Used properly, AI can bring enormous benefits to classrooms. But there’s really no substitute for human-to-human learning with a skilled language teacher. It remains critical for students in school systems around the world to continue to learn real-life communicative language skills. AI can teach you a substantial amount of words and grammar, but language is about real-life communication, and this takes practise and guidance that AI just can’t provide.

    When it comes to testing language skills, it’s the same picture. AI can give an indication of knowledge, but it cannot reliably measure what students can do with the language and how well they can communicate.

    The Introduction of the in-depth English test for PISA

    The need for quality English skills in the age of AI is recognised worldwide. This is best proved by the fact that, for the first time, the PISA survey has added an assessment of foreign language skills – starting with English.

    The PISA Foreign Language Assessment (FLA) is using in-depth high-quality tests, developed by Cambridge, to make sure that it gives a really accurate picture of each participant’s language skills. By this, we mean their ability to interact, understand nuance and apply their language skills to real-world situations.

    This first PISA FLA is currently testing the English skills of thousands of students in 21 countries and economies around the world, providing unprecedented insights into what makes English language teaching and learning effective. Insights that are vital during this time of rapid change. Having a clear picture of what works in terms of language teaching in schools around the world, as a basis for improving future generations’ language skills, means we can measure change, learn and evolve.

    Why communicative language skills matter

    The benefits of learning communicative language skills are well documented. A recent paper by Cambridge and the OECD describes the benefits of learning another language in terms of the positive impact it can have on employability, critical thinking skills, and boosting cultural awareness – essential skills in today’s interconnected world.

    The importance of quality English skills was highlighted further in a recent article in the Financial Times, where journalist Simon Kuper comments that fluency in English “has become a non-negotiable qualification for high-level jobs in many professions.” He references a paper for the OECD that studied job vacancies across the EU and in the UK in 2021: 22% explicitly required knowledge of English. This is meaningful – as generative AI makes it easier for people to have a “passable grasp” of English, excellence in a language becomes a true differentiator in business and elsewhere.

    But of course, it’s not just about learning English. While English is an essential skill in so many areas, it’s equally important that people do not neglect their first language and that they take the time to learn other languages. Whether it’s a foreign language, the regional language of the place they live, the language of their parents or communities, or even the language of their favourite holiday destination, individuals can gain enormous benefits from learning more than one language.

    The impact of the PISA FLA

    We have a clear understanding of the benefits that English skills can bring. So, it is surprising that there has not been a comprehensive study in this area since 2011, when SurveyLang assessed the language competence of 50,000 pupils across 15 countries in Europe. The findings highlighted the importance of starting to learn English at an early age – and the benefits of exposure to language outside the classroom, through films, music, travel and other opportunities, to incorporate the language into the students’ lives. Whilst this is insightful, this was over 14 years ago, and we need contemporary and reliable data.

    For this reason, the results of the PISA FLA will mark a turning point for language education. Although it’s too early to speculate on the findings, the impact of the survey’s data has the unprecedented potential to transform language policy around the world. Leaders and policymakers will get access to the data they need to make decisions on which teaching methods and learning environments really work, where to focus resources and how to design curriculums. One of the ways it will achieve this is by assessing against the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (CEFR).

    The PISA FLA also demonstrates how meaningful language testing can be delivered at scale. The English test used in PISA – and developed through a partnership between Cambridge and the OECD – is a cutting-edge, multi-level, computer-adaptive assessment, and tests the spoken production of language via a computer-delivered test for the first time in a global survey of this kind.

    We are at an exciting moment of change. How we teach, how we learn, how we work and how we live is evolving every day. As providers of quality education, we have a responsibility to stay abreast of this change and ensure we are continually adding value – serving the current and very real needs of our learners.

    When it comes to language education, that means understanding how we can shape learning, teaching and assessment that will empower generations of learners to come. It also means understanding how we can contribute to an educational system fuelled by insights and data. The PISA FLA is the first step on this journey.

    Written by: Francesca Woodward, Global Managing Director, English at Cambridge University Press & Assessment

    Source link

  • Getting English Language Assessment Right: The key to sustained quality in UK higher education

    Getting English Language Assessment Right: The key to sustained quality in UK higher education

    Author:
    Pamela Baxter

    Published:

    This HEPI guest blog was kindly authored by Pamela Baxter, Chief Product Officer (English) at Cambridge University Press & Assessment. Cambridge University Press & Assessment are a partner of HEPI.

    UK higher education stands at a crossroads: one of our greatest exports is at risk. Financial pressures are growing. International competition for students is more intense than ever. As mentioned in Cambridge’s written evidence to the Education Select Committee’s Higher Education and Funding: Threat of Insolvency and International Students inquiry, one of the crucial levers for both quality and stability is how we assess the English language proficiency of incoming international students. This will not only shape university finances and outcomes but will have serious implications for the UK’s global reputation for educational excellence.

    The regional and national stakes

    The APPG for International Students’ recent report, The UK’s Global Edge, Regional Impact and the Future of International Students, makes clear that the flow of international students is not only a localised phenomenon. Their presence sustains local economies and drives job creation in regions across the UK. They help deliver on the Government’s wider ambitions for creating opportunities for all by bringing investment and global connectivity to towns and cities. Their impact also stretches to the UK’s position on the world stage, as recruitment and academic exchange reinforce our soft power and bolster innovation.

    International students bring nearly £42 billion to the UK economy each year, the equivalent of every citizen being around £560 better off. International talent is embedded in key sectors of life across the nations, with almost one in five NHS staff coming from outside the UK and more than a third of the fastest-growing UK start-ups founded or co-founded by immigrants. As HEPI’s most recent soft power index showed, 58 serving world leaders received higher education in the UK.

    The value of higher education is rising

    According to the OECD’s Education at a Glance 2025 report – recently launched in the UK  in collaboration with HEPI and Cambridge University Press & Assessment – higher education is delivering greater benefits than ever. Nearly half of young adults in OECD countries now complete tertiary education. The returns for individuals and societies in terms of employment, earnings and civic participation are substantial. But when attainment in higher education is so valuable, deficiencies in the preparation of students – including inadequate English language skills – can have considerable costs.

    Why robust testing matters

    Robust English language testing is, therefore, fundamental. It ensures that international students can fully participate in academic life and succeed in their chosen courses. It also protects universities from the costs that arise when students are underprepared.

    The evidence is clear that not all tests provide the same level of assurance. Regulated secure English language tests such as IELTS have demonstrated reliability and validity over decades. By contrast, newer and under-regulated at-home tests have been linked to weaker student outcomes. A recent peer-reviewed study in the ELT Journal found that students admitted on the basis of such tests often struggled with the academic and communicative demands of their courses.

    The HOELT moment

    The proposed introduction of a Home Office English Language Test (HOELT) raises the stakes still further. The Home Office has indicated an interest in at-home invigilation. While innovation of this kind may appear to offer greater convenience, it also risks undermining quality, fairness and security. The HOELT process must be grounded in evidence, setting high minimum standards and ensuring robust protections against misuse. High-stakes decisions such as the creation of HOELT should not be driven by cost or convenience alone. They should be driven, instead, by whether the system enables talented students to succeed in the UK’s competitive academic environment, while safeguarding the country’s immigration processes.

    Conclusion: Sustaining and supporting international student success

    International students enhance the UK’s educational landscape, bolster the UK’s global reputation and contribute to long-term growth and prosperity. But the benefits they bring are not guaranteed. Without trusted systems for English language assessment, we risk undermining the very conditions that allow them to thrive and contribute meaningfully.

    As the Government pursues the creation of its own HOELT, it has a unique opportunity to ensure policy is evidence-led and quality-driven. Doing so will not only safeguard students and UK universities but will also reinforce the UK’s standing as a world leader in higher education.

    Your chance to engage: Join Cambridge University Press & Assessment and HEPI at Labour Party Conference 2025

    These and other issues will be explored in greater detail at Cambridge University Press & Assessment’s forthcoming event in partnership with HEPI at the Labour Party Conference 2025, where policymakers and sector leaders will come together to consider how to secure and strengthen UK higher education on a global stage.

    Source link

  • English Path establishes its presence in Saudi Arabia

    English Path establishes its presence in Saudi Arabia

    Unveiled at the UK-Saudi Arabia GREAT Futures Leadership Summit in London, the announcement reflects the summit’s mission to drive cooperation across business, education, and innovation.

    EP, part of the GEDU group, has already established campuses across the UK, Europe, North America, the Middle East, and Australia and now aims to support Saudi Arabia in fulfilling its future visions.

    As EP operates under the Global Institute of Entrepreneurship Training Institute (GIE), which is licensed by Saudi Arabia’s Technical and Vocational Training Corporation (TVTC), this new venture will deliver internationally accredited English language programs with a focus on outstanding teaching and student support.

    EP’s Riyadh campus offers a wide range of programs, from Classic English courses for adults and teens to more intensive study options designed to accelerate progress. The portfolio also includes business management and leadership training, IELTS preparation, classes that focus on speaking, and weekend clubs for younger learners.

    Tom Buckley, CEO of EP, described the move as a pivotal milestone for the organisation, as it establishes EP in what is a high-growth global market.

    “EP empowers learners with world-class language education, and we’re thrilled to be bringing this offering to Saudi Arabia”
    Tom Buckley, English Path

    “EP empowers learners with world-class language education, and we’re thrilled to be bringing this offering to Saudi Arabia,” said Buckley.

    Buckley stressed that the Kingdom represents one of the world’s rapidly growing education markets, highlighting the role of private sector investment in supporting the government’s 2030 Vision strategy, which places a strong emphasis on developing education and student mobility.

    “We at EP and GEDU are also proud to be collaborating with leading Saudi private and government organisations, strengthening our mission to empower learners and contribute to the Vision 2030 goals. Vision 2030 places a strong emphasis on education, and we share this ambition to make Saudi Arabia a magnet for education at all levels, and global student mobility.”

    “The strong collaboration we have seen at the UK-Saudi Arabia GREAT Futures Leadership Summit is critical to future developments across key sectors, and will bring mutual benefits to both the UK and the Kingdom in both the short and long term,” explained Buckley.

    “Our ambition as a group extends beyond just ourselves – we want to partner with other institutions to help them bring their education offerings to the Kingdom, and offer pathway programmes to other universities around the world.”

    Source link

  • English Teachers Work to Instill the Joy of Reading. Testing Gets in the Way – The 74

    English Teachers Work to Instill the Joy of Reading. Testing Gets in the Way – The 74


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

    A new national study shows that Americans’ rates of reading for pleasure have declined radically over the first quarter of this century and that recreational reading can be linked to school achievement, career compensation and growth, civic engagement, and health. Learning how to enjoy reading – not literacy proficiency – isn’t just for hobbyists, it’s a necessary life skill. 

    But the conditions under which English teachers work are detrimental to the cause – and while book bans are in the news, the top-down pressure to measure up on test scores is a more pervasive, more longstanding culprit. Last year, we asked high school English teachers to describe their literature curriculum in a national questionnaire we plan to publish soon. From responses representing 48 states, we heard a lot of the following: “soul-deadening”; “only that which students will see on the test” and “too [determined] by test scores.”

    These sentiments certainly aren’t new. In a similar questionnaire distributed in 1911, teachers described English class as “deadening,” focused on “memory instead of thinking,” and demanding “cramming for examination.” 

    Teaching to the test is as old as English itself – as a secondary school subject, that is. Teachers have questioned the premise for just as long because too many have experienced a radical disconnect between how they are asked or required to teach and the pleasure that reading brings them.

    High school English was first established as a test-driven subject around the turn of the 20th Century. Even at a time when relatively few Americans attended college, English class was oriented around building students’ mastery of now-obscure literary works that they would encounter on the College Entrance Exam. 

    The development of the Scholastic Aptitude Test in 1926 and the growth of standardized testing since No Child Left Behind have only solidified what was always true: As much as we think of reading as a social, cultural, even “spiritual” experience, English class has been shaped by credential culture.

    Throughout, many teachers felt that preparing students for college was too limited a goal; their mission was to prepare students for life. They believed that studying literature was an invaluable source of social and emotional development, preparing adolescents for adulthood and for citizenship. It provided them with “vicarious experience”: Through reading, young people saw other points of view, worked through challenging problems, and grappled with complex issues. 

    Indeed, a national study conducted in 1933 asked teachers to rank their “aims” in literature instruction. They listed “vicarious experience” first, “preparation for college” last.

    The results might not look that different today. Ask an English teacher what brought her to the profession, and a love of reading is likely to top the list. What is different today is the  unmatched pressure to prepare students for a constant cycle of state and national examinations and for college credentialing. 

    Increasingly, English teachers are compelled to use online curriculum packages that mimic the examinations themselves, composed largely of excerpts from literary and “informational” texts instead of the whole books that were more the norm in previous generations. “Vicarious experience” has less purchase in contemporary academic standards than ever. 

    Credentialing, however, does not equal preparing. Very few higher education skills map neatly onto standardized exams, especially in the humanities. As English professors, we can tell you that an enjoyment of reading – not just a toleration of it – is a key academic capacity. It produces better writers, more creative thinkers, and students less likely to need AI to express their ideas effectively.

    Yet we haven’t given K-12 teachers the structure or freedom to treat reading enjoyment as a skill. The data from our national survey suggests that English teachers and their students find the system deflating. 

     “Our district adopted a disjointed, excerpt-heavy curriculum two years ago,” a Washington teacher shared, “and it is doing real damage to students’ interest in reading.” 

    From Tennessee, a teacher added: “I understand there are state guidelines and protocols, but it seems as if we are teaching the children from a script. They are willing to be more engaged and can have a better understanding when we can teach them things that are relatable to them.”

    And from Oregon, another tells us that because “state testing is strictly excerpts,” the district initially discouraged “teaching whole novels.”  It changed course only after students’ exam scores improved. 

    Withholding books from students is especially inhumane when we consider that the best tool for improved academic performance is engagement – students learn more when they become engrossed in stories. Yet by the time they graduate from high school, many students  master test-taking skills but lose the window for learning to enjoy reading.

    Teachers tell us that the problem is not attitudinal but structural. An education technocracy that consists of test making agencies, curriculum providers, and policy makers is squeezing out enjoyment, teacher autonomy and student agency. 

    To reverse this trend, we must consider what reading experiences we are providing our students. Instead of the self-defeating cycle of test-preparation and testing, we should take courage, loosen the grip on standardization, and let teachers recreate the sort of experiences with literature that once made us, and them, into readers.


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

    Source link

  • English lessons: Review of Nick Gibb’s book on educational reform after 2010 – by HEPI Director Nick Hillman

    English lessons: Review of Nick Gibb’s book on educational reform after 2010 – by HEPI Director Nick Hillman

    • HEPI Director Nick Hillman reviews Reforming Lessons: Why English Schools Have Improved Since 2010 and How This Was Achieved by Nick Gibb and Robert Peal.
    • On Tuesday, 9 September 2025, HEPI will be hosting the launch of the OECD’s flagship Education at a Glance report. Book a place (in person or online) here.

    This is the second book on education in a row that I have reviewed on the HEPI website that comes from a right-of-centre perspective. The previous review (of a book by the President of the New College of Florida) garnered some pointed attacks underneath – ‘No doubt we’ll soon be seeing articles offering a “more balanced” perspective on Putin and Orban’s records in office’. So let me start by noting HEPI has also run many reviews (by me and others) of books written by left-of-centre authors as well as centrist authors, such as Sam Friedman and Aaron Reeve, Simon Kuper, Francis Green and David Kynaston, Melissa Benn, and Lee Elliot Major and Stephen Machin.

    Let me also note that we are always on the lookout for reviews of recent books that are likely to be of interest to HEPI’s audience, irrespective of where on the political spectrum the authors of the books in question or – indeed – the reviewers sit. When we started running book reviews on the HEPI site many years ago, they tended to receive less engagement than other output, but that has changed over the years and they are often now among our most-read pieces. We hope this remains true on our brand new website. So the door is wide open. Come on in.

    Now down to business. Reforming Lessons is a defence of the changes wrought by the long-standing and thrice-appointed Minister for Schools, Nick Gibb, and to a lesser extent his boss Michael Gove, co-written by Gibb himself. The other author is Robert Peal, who was one of a group of young state-school teachers (often, like Peal, powered by Teach First) who made up the advancing phalanx for the school reforms that were implemented by the Coalition and subsequent Conservative Governments. (John Blake, the Office for Students’s Director for Fair Access and Participation was another member of this front line and merits a mention in the book, as was Daisy Christodoulou, who has contributed a Foreword and who features multiple times.)

    At the risk of further brickbats, it would be absurd for HEPI to have ignored this particular book at this particular time, for it is currently a huge talking point among educationalists. But is not just about education; it is also a book about the practice of politics. As the authors themselves write, it is an account of ‘the virtues of a subject-specialist minister driven by conviction in a specific cause rather than personal ambition.’ It fulfils this brief very well indeed, so it should be read far beyond the education world, especially by aspiring ministers in any field where they want to make a difference. But, and I do not mean this to be in any way rude, I suspect it was not – in one important sense – all that hard for Gibb and Peal to make their case.

    This is because the key international data on school performance, which come from the OECD’s comparative PISA (the Programme for International Student Assessment), show England forging ahead, including against other parts of the UK, between 2009 and 2022. So Gibb and Peal had a secure evidence base on which to build their story.

    We may argue that PISA is not a perfect measure: it tests only a small number of disciplinary areas and to a fairly basic level of knowledge and it has not always been completed the same way (sometimes on paper and sometimes on screen), but it is better than anything else we have when it comes to comparing school systems – and infinitely better than anything we have in higher education. So anyone who wants to shoot down the book’s central claim that Nick Gibb succeeded as a Minister will struggle to find equally robust performance data for their argument – though they could presumably focus on other evidence such as on an apparent narrowing of the curriculum (though Gibb and Peal get their defence on this in first – see pages 123 and 124).

    Near the start, the book takes a look at how any education changes begun in 2010 had to be extremely cost-effective – cost-cutting or else free – given the dire fiscal position which led every major political party to promise drastic spending cuts at that year’s general election. Gibb and Peal also paint a picture of the ineffectiveness and wastefulness of the expensive centralised initiatives based on existing orthodoxies that preceded the Coalition. The multi-billion pound Building Schools for the Future programme was perhaps the archetype for, as Gibb shows, tens of millions of pounds were spent on building individual schools with open-plan classrooms where staff struggled to teach and pupils struggled to learn. Another challenge during the 2000s is that schools were overwhelmed with bureaucracy: in 2006/07 alone, we are told, there were around 760 missives to schools from Whitehall and quangos – four-per-day for the whole school year.

    Yet Nick Gibb is far from being a free-for-all libertarian right-winger. He is, rather, someone who wants to use the power of the state to drive policy, including how to teach reading (synthetic phonics) as well as how to shape other aspects of the school curriculum. It is easy to see how this approach could have gone wrong but Gibb’s primary goal is always to follow the evidence as he sees it, and I cannot be the only parent who was amazed by how quickly their children started to read during their initial school years in the second half of the 2010s. Gibb has given more thought to schooling than any other modern politician and he rejects many of the ideas of his colleagues as much as those from the political left: he did not favour a wave of new grammar schools, he did not want GCSEs to be replaced by O-Levels and he opposed Rishi Sunak’s Advanced British Standard.

    The book might begin and end somewhat immodestly and uncollegiately by reminding readers that many commentators picked out education as the one and only really big success of the Coalition and Conservative years, yet this is not by any stretch of the imagination a selfish book. Nick Gibb shows how his worldview was built upon teachers like Ruth Miskin, academics like ED Hirsch and others – even his researcher Edward Hartman gets a namecheck (or rather two) for introducing him to Hirsch. He shows how his agenda was carried forward by people like Hamid Patel, Katharine Birbalsingh and Jon Coles.

    Political colleagues like Michael Gove and David Cameron are given credit for changing Whitehall’s approach to schooling. The triumvirate of advisers, Dominic Cummins, Sam Freedman and Henry de Zoete all receive praise, as does Nick Timothy for his stint in Number 10 as Theresa May’s Joint Chief of Staff. Andrew Adonis garners the most praise of all for starting ‘the revolution we undertook whilst in office’, and Kenneth Baker is lauded for getting the successful City Technology Colleges (the forerunners of academies) off the ground in the 1980s. Gibb and Peal note there have been ‘squabbles’ between Conservatives and Lib Dems over who designed the Pupil Premium policy but they do not join in, concluding instead that ‘we should celebrate that it was jointly pursued and agreed upon by the Treasury’.

    There is high praise even for the man who temporarily displaced Gibb as the Minister for Schools, David Laws, especially for the design of the school accountability measure Progress 8 as well as for Lord Nash, who oversaw academies and free schools from the House of Lords. Gibb admits he did not agree with Nicky Morgan, who replaced Michael Gove as the Secretary of State for Education in 2014, on pushing ‘character education’ as a discrete concept but he excuses her on the grounds that ‘she had been transferred to Education from the Treasury with no notice, so never had the luxury of time I had enjoyed to read up on education philosophies.’

    The tales from Gibb’s period as a backbench MP and then Shadow Minister also remind us that the most effective Ministers have typically learnt their briefs in the years before they take office rather than on the job. They then stay in post long enough to make a difference (or, in Gibb’s case, do the job more than once). Even for bold reforming ministers, like Gibb and Gove, good policy tends to be patient policy. In contrast, many of Gibb’s predecessors as the Minister for Schools (who include the current Minister for Skills, Jacqui Smith, who did the job in 2005 to 2006) were not in post for long enough to make a major sort of difference. Gibb’s account of his time in office also serves to remind us that it is wrong to think effective ministers must have worked in the field they are overseeing before entering Parliament: Gibb was an accountant, not a teacher, just like David Willetts, the well-respected Minister for Universities and Science during the Coalition, was a civil servant rather than an academic or scientist.

    The book is peppered by illustrative and illuminating anecdotes. The one I found most shocking is about a visit Nick Gibb made in the mid-1990s to a school in Rotherham, where he was fighting a by-election: a headteacher ‘explained how she had completed an “audit” of her school library, removing any old-fashioned books that simply conveyed information.’ (A few years later, Tory party HQ abolished their library altogether, so it was not just schools that fell down this hole.) The second most shocking anecdote, at least to me, concerns the first draft of the rewritten National Curriculum for primary schools: ‘when the first draft of the curriculum was sent out for informal consultation amongst maths subject associations, it returned with all 64 mentions of the word “practice” expunged from the document.’ The funniest anecdote is one about Gibb visiting a successful academy that had converted from being an independent school: ‘On my train up to Yorkshire, I saw a pupil’s tweet expressing disappointment to find out the politician visiting her school was not Nick Clegg, as she had been led to believe, but instead “some random” called Nick Gibb.’

    Personally, I dislike the language used by those who talk of an educational ‘blob’, not least because it paints all educationalists in the same negative light. Gibb dislikes the term too, and he was uncomfortable with his political colleagues throwing it about. He is pro-teachers and there were always some classroom teachers who held out against the knowledge-light ‘progressivist ideology’ even at its height. Gibb’s reforms were designed to dilute the educational orthodoxy of unions and quangos and to give power to trusted headteachers as well as to multi-academy trusts instead – the mantra was ‘high autonomy and high accountability’. His core goals were to find the best resources and teachers, then to free school leaders to make the biggest differences they could and finally to encourage others to emulate them, especially via high-performing multi-academy trusts. If Blair’s mantra was ‘education, education, education’, Gibb’s was ’emulation, emulation, emulation’.

    But while rejecting the ‘blob’ term, the book does help one to understand how the moniker came to gain such currency. Gibb tells a story, for example, of how, as an MP and a member of the Education Select Committee, he was summoned to the ‘salubrious offices in Piccadilly’ of the Qualification and Curriculum Authority. Once there, the Chief Executive and Chairman demanded Gibb stop asking parliamentary questions about their work. It was an error of immense proportions – perhaps if they had known Gibb had circulated anti-communist propaganda in Brezhnev’s Russia, they would have had a better idea of how tough he is under the polite demeanour. Either way, the scenario served to remind Gibb not to back down in battles once he became a minister.

    One surprise in the book is the degree to which Gibb thinks his reforms have deep roots and are here to stay. He makes a persuasive case for this, especially in the Conclusion, when he notes how embedded and successful some multi-academy trusts now are. Yet his book also recounts how Scotland and Wales have in recent years moved in the opposite direction to England, downplaying knowledge in their school curricula (and suffering the consequences in international comparisons). So one-way travel is surely not guaranteed.

    Keith Joseph talked of a ‘ratchet effect’ in British politics and it might be too early to tell if the Gibb / Gove reforms are locked in or whether the pendulum could now swing back. What I saw after the 2024 general election from my vantage point of being a long-standing Board member of the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) gives me less confidence that educational policy is now settled. Despite Gibb’s belief his reforms will last, even he notes in passing the recent attempt to water down the freedoms enjoyed by academies. What is taught in schools, and how, will surely continue to be fervently debated and it is why HEPI has sought to focus minds in higher education on the important Curriculum and Assessment Review under Professor Becky Francis.

    The book is all about the pipeline to higher education but it is not really about higher education except near the end, where the authors take a look at teacher training. Those running university education departments were among the people who did not take Nick Gibb seriously while in Opposition or in Government and they too paid the price for it:

    ‘Of all the different sectors of the education establishment, university education faculties were – by a stretch – the most difficult with which to work. … the main message I received whenever I visited university education faculties was, as Jim Callaghan had been told 40 years previously, “keep off the grass”. Meetings I had usually consisted of being talked at for 90 minutes in a boardroom with no appetite or opportunity for discussion. If I, as a minister, showed any interest in what they thought, they would mistily invoke the virtues of “academic independence”, and insist the government had no place stepping on their hallowed turf.’

    At the very end of the book, Gibb bemoans the fact that, when it comes to ‘the evidence revolution in English education’, ‘university education faculties have been – with one or two exceptions – notable only by their absence’. And when it comes specifically to school teaching, Gibb regards universities as part of the problem rather than the solution. (So perhaps we should not be surprised that Gibb and Peal do not mention the short-lived attempt by Theresa May’s Government to get universities to sponsor academies.) As Universities UK prepare to release new research on public perceptions of higher education institutions, I was left wondering whether there might be lessons for how the higher education sector can best engage with Ministers and officials. 

    While Twitter / X may often be a sewer today, Gibb argues that various education bloggers and tweeters (often from the political left) played a vital role in shoring up his reforms, for example in helping Michael Wilshaw sort out Ofsted, who we are told ‘succeeded where Chris Woodhead could not.’ Gibb may point the finger of blame at those who pushed the ‘progressivist ideology’ that he has fought against but when it comes to A-Level grade inflation, for example, he does not limit his criticism to the Blair / Brown Governments, also complaining about his Conservative predecessors. Yet despite the ferocious attacks he was subjected to as a Minister, Gibb does not respond in kind, confident instead that his policies rested on evidence from the UK and overseas rather than polemic.

    This is a lengthy book and a very very good one, though it does not stop me wanting to know more about what Gibb thinks in one or two areas. For example, we surely do not talk enough about demographics in education. Yet it was the growing number of young people that was part of the reason why the Treasury and others accepted lots of brand new schools called ‘free schools’, just as it was the falling number of school leavers prior to 2020 which helped persuade the Treasury to remove student number caps for undergraduates in England. Gibb does acknowledge the impact of changes to the birth rate in boosting his agenda, but personally I would like to have read more than the single paragraph on page 155 about it.

    Churchill is said to have remarked, ‘history will be kind to me, for I intend to write it’. I kept thinking of this as I was reading the book, so it is perhaps too much to expect a deep dive into educational areas that the Conservatives failed to fix in their 14 years in charge. For me, these are: the educational underperformance of boys relative to girls, which does not merit any specific mentions; the current crisis in the supply of new teachers, which gets less than a page of dedicated text; and post-COVID truancy rates, which gets a paragraph and a couple of other fleeting mentions. But Nick Gibb is, and will rightly remain, one of the most important Ministers of recent decades – and to think he never even made it into the Cabinet.

    Source link