CSIRO staff will have to wait until the new year to find out if they still have a job, as Australia’s premier science research organisation begins consultations to determine how it will divide up to 350 job losses.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
On the face of it, I can understand why the REF team have pressed pause on their guidance development for 2029.
The sector is in serious financial difficulties, and while most are keen to see a greater focus on People, Culture and Environment (PCE), the challenges experienced by pilot institutions with the proposed assessment mechanism were real.
We cannot get away from this.
But of course, where there’s a vacuum, people will rush to fill it with their own pet peeves and theories, up to and including a full reversion to the rules of REF 2021.
One of the biggest fallacies being promoted is this view that PCE is what Iain Mansfield, Director of Research at the Policy Exchange Thinktank, and former Special Adviser, called “a euphemism for Equity Diversity and Inclusion (EDI)”. This conflation of REF PCE with EDI is entirely false. In fact, the PCE pilot included five different enablers of research culture, only one of which related to inclusivity. Of the others (strategy, responsibility, connectivity, and development) two were already themes in REF 2021 Environment Statements (strategy and collaboration) so not exactly a dramatic shift in a whole new direction.
Indeed, the Code of Practice and Environment elements of REF 2021 already placed a significant focus on EDI. Equality Impact Assessments had to be performed at every stage of the submission, EDI training for REF decision-makers was an essential requirement for even submitting to the REF, and both institution- and unit-level environment statements demanded narratives as to how equality and diversity in research careers were promoted across the institution. So anyone seeking a reversion to REF 2021 rules in order to eliminate a focus on EDI is going to be deeply disappointed.
Perhaps the biggest disappointment about this attempt to row back on any deeper focus on research culture in the next REF is that having a thriving research culture is an integral part of any definition of research excellence, whilst being perhaps the second biggest challenge facing the sustainability of the research sector after funding. The Wellcome Trust report, and the Nuffield report that preceded it, taught us that poor incentives, highly competitive & toxic environments, precarious research careers, and unmanageable workloads, are leading to questionable research practices, increased retractions, a loss of talent and reduced trust in science. And all this at a time when we really need more talent and greater trust in science. It wasn’t that long ago that this all led to a Government R&D Culture Strategy making a clear case for better investment in research culture for the benefit of society, but still, in the recent DSIT survey of the UK Research & Development workforce, only 52 per cent of higher education respondents said the culture of their organisation enabled them to perform their best work, compared to 85 per cent in the private sector.
The point of adding greater weight, and a clearer assessment mechanism, to a broader range of culture elements in the next REF was thus to address exactly these issues. As a reminder, the international advisory group for the next REF recommended a split of 33:33:33 for PCE, outputs and impact. Reducing the weight allocated to PCE would not only reduce the attention given to promoting positive research cultures, but actually increase the weighting allocated to the element of REF that is most responsible for driving poor research cultures: publications. We know that the publish-or-perish culture is causing significant problems across the sector. Re-calibrating the assessment to put greater weight on publications would run counter to the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment’s first commitment: to recognise the diversity of contributions to research.
I do think the pause in REF is an opportunity to think about how we recognise, incentivise and reward the better research cultures we clearly need. I’ve written before about how many elements of our research culture are essentially hygiene factors and as such should not attract gold stars, but be established as a basic condition of funding. There is also an opportunity to supply culture-related data (e.g., research misconduct reporting, and research staff pay gaps) alongside the other environment data already supplied to support REF-decision making. This could be formative in and of itself, as could the use of case studies (a tested REF assessment technology) by which HEIs report on their research culture interventions.
Whatever is decided, no-one working in a research-intensive institution can deny the power of the additional weight allocated to PCE in REF 2029. The knowledge that 25 per cent of the next exercise will be allocated to not just E, but P and C, has naturally been a lever staff have pulled to get culture issues up the agenda. And we’ve seen significant improvements: policy changes, new initiatives, and culture indicators moving in a good direction. So whilst it might feel like an easier move to simply revert back to the rules of REF 2021, there is an opportunity cost to this. A lot has already been invested in preparing institutions for a greater focus on research culture, and more will need to be invested in reverting back to the rules for REF 2021.
Because of the REF’s direct link both to (unhypothecated) gold and (international) glory, nothing really motivates universities more. To row back on efforts to recognise, incentivise, and reward the thriving research cultures that are at the very heart of any ‘excellent’ research institution therefore makes little sense. And it makes even less sense when financial constraints are putting those environments under even more pressure, making it more important than ever that we put people first. Can we do it in a more sensitive and manageable way? Yes, of course. Should we ditch it and run for the cover of REF 2021 rules? Absolutely not.
The Trump administration, since returning to power in 2025, has escalated attacks on the foundations of democracy, the environment, world peace, human rights, and intellectual inquiry. While the administration has marketed itself as “America First,” its policies have more often meant profits for the ultra-wealthy, repression for the working majority, and escalating dangers for the planet.
Below is a running list of 100 of the most dangerous actions and policies—a record of how quickly a government can dismantle hard-won protections for people, peace, and the planet.
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement—again.
Dismantling the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Opening federal lands and national parks to oil, gas, and mining leases.
Gutting protections for endangered species.
Allowing coal companies to dump mining waste in rivers and streams.
Rolling back vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
Subsidizing fossil fuel companies while defunding renewable energy programs.
Suppressing climate science at federal agencies.
Greenlighting pipelines that threaten Indigenous lands and water supplies.
Promoting offshore drilling in fragile ecosystems.
Weakening Clean Water Act enforcement.
Dismantling environmental justice programs that protect poor communities.
Politicizing NOAA and censoring weather/climate warnings.
Undermining international climate cooperation at the UN.
Allowing pesticides banned in Europe to return to U.S. farms.
Threatening military action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.
Expanding the nuclear arsenal instead of pursuing arms control.
Cutting funding for diplomacy and the State Department.
Withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Weakening NATO alliances with inflammatory rhetoric.
Escalating drone strikes and loosening rules of engagement.
Providing cover for authoritarian leaders worldwide.
Walking away from peace negotiations in the Middle East.
Blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, Yemen, and other war-torn areas.
Expanding weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite human rights abuses.
Using tariffs and sanctions as blunt instruments against allies.
Politicizing intelligence briefings to justify military adventurism.
Abandoning refugee protections and asylum agreements.
Treating climate refugees as security threats.
Reducing U.S. participation in the United Nations.
Expanding family separation policies at the border.
Targeting asylum seekers for indefinite detention.
Militarizing immigration enforcement with National Guard troops.
Attacking reproductive rights and defunding women’s health programs.
Rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in schools and workplaces.
Reinstating bans on transgender service members in the military.
Undermining voting rights through purges and voter ID laws.
Packing the courts with extremist judges hostile to civil rights.
Weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.
Expanding surveillance powers with little oversight.
Encouraging police crackdowns on protests.
Expanding use of federal troops in U.S. cities.
Weakening consent decrees against abusive police departments.
Refusing to investigate hate crimes tied to far-right violence.
Deporting long-term immigrants with no criminal record.
Encouraging militias and extremist groups with dog whistles.
Using inflammatory rhetoric that stokes racial and religious hatred.
Equating journalists with “enemies of the people.”
Cutting funds for community-based violence prevention.
Politicizing natural disaster relief.
Treating peaceful protests as national security threats.
Expanding federal use of facial recognition surveillance.
Undermining local control with federal overreach.
Stigmatizing entire religious and ethnic groups.
Promoting conspiracy theories from the presidential podium.
Encouraging violent crackdowns on labor strikes.
Undermining pandemic preparedness and response.
Allowing corporations to sidestep workplace safety rules.
Shutting down diversity and inclusion training across agencies.
Promoting vigilante violence through online platforms.
Weakening the Department of Labor’s enforcement of wage theft.
Blocking attempts to raise the federal minimum wage.
Undermining collective bargaining rights for federal workers.
Supporting right-to-work laws across states.
Allowing employers to misclassify gig workers as “independent contractors.”
Blocking new OSHA safety standards.
Expanding exemptions for overtime pay.
Weakening rules on child labor in agriculture.
Cutting unemployment benefits during economic downturns.
Favoring union-busting corporations in federal contracts.
Rolling back protections for striking workers.
Encouraging outsourcing of jobs overseas.
Weakening enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in workplaces.
Cutting funding for worker retraining programs.
Promoting unpaid internships as a “pathway” to jobs.
Defunding the Department of Education in favor of privatization.
Attacking public universities as “woke indoctrination centers.”
Promoting for-profit colleges with predatory practices.
Restricting student loan forgiveness programs.
Undermining Title IX protections for sexual harassment.
Defunding libraries and public broadcasting.
Politicizing scientific research grants.
Firing federal scientists who contradict administration narratives.
Suppressing research on gun violence.
Censoring federal climate and environmental data.
Promoting creationism and Christian nationalism in schools.
Expanding surveillance of student activists.
Encouraging book bans in schools and libraries.
Undermining accreditation standards for higher education.
Attacking historians who challenge nationalist myths.
Cutting humanities funding in favor of military research.
Encouraging political litmus tests for professors.
Treating journalists as combatants in a “culture war.”
Promoting AI-driven “robocolleges” with no faculty oversight.
Gutting federal student aid programs.
Allowing corporate donors to dictate university policy.
Discouraging international students from studying in the U.S.
Criminalizing whistleblowers who reveal government misconduct.
Promoting conspiracy theories over peer-reviewed science.
Normalizing ignorance as a political strategy.
In today’s higher education landscape, the idea that future students will need more academic support is far from a catchphrase—it reflects a profound shift in both student needs and faculty responsibilities.
Over the past few decades, the demands on faculty have surged due to an increasing number of accommodation requests and the diverse challenges that students bring from their varied high school experiences and personal lives. Consequently, educators are now expected to deliver a more personalized and differentiated education than ever before.
As the student population becomes increasingly diverse and faces new external pressures, traditional support models are proving inadequate. We must move beyond reactive accommodations and embrace a comprehensive, tailored and proactive system of academic support. This transformation is essential for empowering both students and educators to thrive in an increasingly complex academic environment.
One of the most noticeable changes in today’s academy is the sharp increase in the number of students requiring accommodations. As many as a quarter of my students have a registered disability, and the accommodations that I am required to provide have changed in significant ways post-pandemic.
Previously, universal design principles were seen as adequate to ensure accessibility for all. Courses were retrofitted with extended deadlines, recorded lectures and online resources, providing a common platform without isolating individual needs.
However, today’s reality demands a more nuanced and tailored approach. Accommodations now often involve significant modifications—such as flexible attendance policies, alternative assessment formats and even exemptions from standard class participation—that alter the very nature of the educational experience.
These changes necessitate careful planning and ongoing communication between faculty, students and disability services to create a learning environment where every student can succeed. It also requires more training, resources and support for faculty and students—which hasn’t taken place.
Another key challenge arises from the uneven educational experiences that many students received in high school. Over the past several decades, the disparity in academic preparation has widened significantly. As a result, students now enter college with a much broader range of skills, background knowledge and even vocabulary than in previous generations.
For some, high school provided a strong foundation, equipping them with the critical thinking skills and subject mastery necessary for the rigors of higher education. These students are well prepared to dive into complex course material and participate actively in academic discussions.
In contrast, others come from educational environments where resources were limited or where the curriculum was less challenging. These students frequently struggle to meet the high standards expected at the collegiate level, finding themselves overwhelmed by the pace and depth of instruction.
This variation in preparation places an additional burden on faculty, who must continuously adapt their teaching strategies to meet the needs of an unevenly prepared student body. In many classes, instructors face the daunting task of simultaneously engaging students who excel academically while also providing targeted support for those who are less prepared.
This often means developing multiple instructional approaches, creating supplementary materials and offering additional feedback and tutoring sessions. Faculty must work diligently to ensure that every student has the opportunity to succeed, balancing the needs of advanced learners with those who require more foundational support.
The challenge of uneven educational backgrounds underscores the critical need for a more flexible and individualized approach to teaching. Institutions must recognize this disparity and invest in innovative teaching methods, robust academic support services and ongoing faculty development. Only through such concerted efforts can educators ensure that all students, regardless of their starting point, are given the tools they need to thrive in college and beyond.
Today’s students confront unprecedented pressures on their time. The demands of balancing work, extracurricular activities and family responsibilities have become an everyday reality, leaving many with significantly less time to devote to their studies. This predicament is not merely an inconvenience—it directly affects students’ academic performance and well-being.
One of the most critical challenges is that these competing demands can hinder students’ ability to engage fully with challenging course material. I expect my students to tackle lengthy, demanding texts that demand deep concentration and sustained effort. When students are pressed for time, they often resort to skimming or incomplete reading, which can lead to gaps in understanding and ultimately a shortfall in academic achievement.
This phenomenon not only compromises the quality of their learning but also contributes to a broader pattern of stress and burnout. The cumulative effects of these pressures can have long-lasting impacts on both academic performance and overall mental health.
Given these realities, it is incumbent upon faculty to recognize the multiple challenges faced by today’s students. Traditional teaching methods and rigid assessment schedules may no longer be effective or equitable. Instead, educators must explore flexible teaching methods and alternative assessment strategies that allow students to manage their time more effectively.
For example, integrating online discussion or tutoring sessions, offering modular coursework and incorporating a mix of formative assessments can provide students with the flexibility they need to engage with the material at their own pace. Such approaches not only accommodate the varied schedules of modern students but also help maintain academic integrity by ensuring that learning outcomes are met without forcing students to sacrifice quality for convenience.
Adapting teaching strategies to reflect the realities of modern student life is not just a matter of convenience—it is a necessity for fostering academic success and reducing stress. By creating more flexible, responsive learning environments, faculty can help students overcome the challenges of time management and ensure that they have the resources needed to thrive both academically and personally.
This rethinking of academic support is essential in an environment where the well-being of students must remain at the heart of the educational experience.
Higher education’s student body is more diverse than ever, encompassing a wide range of cultural, linguistic and socioeconomic backgrounds. This diversity enriches the academic environment, infusing classrooms with a wealth of perspectives and experiences. However, it also brings significant challenges, particularly when it comes to addressing varied perspectives on identity, language and values.
In today’s classrooms, educators are tasked not only with delivering academic content but also with navigating a complex array of social sensitivities and assertive demands for cultural responsiveness.
One emerging trend is that many students have become increasingly sensitive about their peers’ feelings. They are cautious about expressing opinions that might inadvertently harm or offend, reflecting a heightened awareness of diversity and the impact of language on identity. They worry about appearing stupid or out of touch. This sensitivity, while rooted in a genuine desire for inclusivity, can lead to self-censorship in discussions and a reluctance to engage in the robust debates that have long been a hallmark of academic inquiry.
In contrast, another segment of the student population is more assertive and less deferential than in the past. These students actively demand that the curriculum reflects their interests and addresses the realities of their lives. They expect academic content to be culturally responsive—incorporating diverse voices and challenging traditional perspectives. This shift in attitude is not merely about political correctness; it is about ensuring that the educational experience is relevant and reflective of the complex, diverse, globalized world in which they live.
To meet these evolving needs, courses must be designed with a keen awareness of these differences. Faculty must create learning environments that are both safe and intellectually challenging, where discussions are inclusive yet rigorous and where students feel empowered to express themselves without fear of causing unintended harm.
This requires a deliberate shift in curriculum design and pedagogical approaches. Educators must become facilitators of cultural dialogue, employing strategies such as structured debates, reflective exercises and collaborative projects that allow students to explore multiple perspectives. In doing so, instructors not only address academic objectives but also help students develop the critical communication skills needed to advocate for themselves and engage in meaningful discourse.
Moreover, institutions must invest in professional development for faculty, ensuring that they are well equipped to navigate these complexities. Workshops on culturally responsive teaching and conflict resolution can provide valuable tools for managing sensitive discussions and balancing diverse viewpoints. By integrating these practices into everyday teaching, universities can foster a dynamic academic community that respects individual differences while promoting shared learning.
The challenges posed by a more sensitive yet assertive student body underscore the need for a broader rethinking of the educational experience. True academic support must be proactive and individualized—transcending one-size-fits-all accommodations to embrace a model that is responsive to the unique needs and cultural contexts of each student. This holistic approach not only enhances academic performance but also enriches the overall learning environment, creating a space where every student can thrive.
In the past, courses were often structured around a standardized curriculum intended to serve a homogeneous student body. Universal design for learning provided a foundation for making courses accessible, yet it was designed as a one-size-fits-all solution. Today, however, students enter higher education with vastly different backgrounds, learning styles and personal challenges. These differences demand a more nuanced approach. Faculty must now consider how to build courses that not only accommodate diverse needs but actively build on each student’s unique strengths.
This involves reimagining traditional assignments and assessments to allow for multiple avenues of expression—whether through essays, presentations, projects or creative multimedia formats—ensuring that mastery of the subject matter is measured in ways that align with individual capabilities.
To implement these changes effectively, educators must transition from being mere transmitters of information to becoming facilitators of a dynamic, inclusive learning environment. This shift requires faculty to develop new skills and adopt innovative teaching strategies that go beyond conventional lectures.
For instance, incorporating collaborative learning methods, peer mentoring and structured feedback sessions can help create a classroom culture where students feel empowered to engage with the material and with one another. Such methods not only support individual learning journeys but also foster a sense of community and shared responsibility for academic success.
One of the most glaring weaknesses in current disability policies at many colleges, including mine, is their failure to equip students with the practical skills and resources necessary for long-term academic success.
While accommodations—such as extended deadlines, modified attendance requirements or alternative assessment methods—are undoubtedly important, they often function as a one-way street. Disability centers, overwhelmed by demand and constrained by limited resources, focus primarily on implementing reactive measures rather than providing proactive, skill-building support.
This approach leaves many students without the essential tools they need to navigate the rigors of higher education independently. For instance, while accommodations may allow a student to attend class remotely or receive extra time on exams, they rarely come with training in self-advocacy. Students who struggle to articulate their needs or negotiate further modifications remain at a disadvantage, potentially compromising their academic performance.
Similarly, critical skills such as effective study techniques, note taking and time management are often overlooked. Without guidance in these areas, students may continue to face obstacles that hinder their ability to fully engage with course material and meet academic expectations.
The result is a support system that, while well intentioned, treats accommodations as the end point rather than the beginning of a broader educational strategy. True academic support should empower students to develop self-reliance and resilience, ensuring that they are not merely recipients of modified policies but active participants in their own learning journeys.
This requires a fundamental shift from a model that simply reacts to student needs toward one that proactively builds the skills necessary for lifelong success.
In order to address this critical shortfall, institutions must invest in comprehensive support programs that extend beyond traditional accommodations. Workshops on self-advocacy, time management and effective study habits should be integrated into the academic framework.
Moreover, disability centers need to establish stronger partnerships with academic departments to create a seamless support network that bridges the gap between accommodations and skill development. Only by adopting a holistic approach can colleges ensure that students with disabilities are not just surviving within the academic system, but truly thriving.
One of the biggest challenges is that most faculty members were neither expected to learn nor trained in these inclusive teaching practices. The rapidly evolving educational landscape demands continuous professional development. Institutions must invest in workshops, seminars and training programs that equip faculty with the latest strategies in inclusive pedagogy and collaborative teaching.
By learning to use new digital tools and adapting to flexible teaching methods, educators can better address the wide range of learner needs. Ongoing training is crucial for fostering an environment where faculty feel supported and empowered to experiment with innovative teaching practices without compromising academic rigor.
Faculty members face mounting pressure to adapt to new teaching methodologies, technological advancements and evolving accommodation practices. While universities routinely mandate training on issues like conflicts of interest, Title VI and IX compliance and technology risks, support in the core areas of pedagogy and assessment remains minimal. To address this gap, institutions must invest in comprehensive, ongoing in-service training for faculty. This training should cover inclusive teaching practices, innovative assessment strategies and the effective integration of digital tools into the classroom.
Moreover, faculty should have continuous access to expert guidance and peer support. Dedicated centers for teaching excellence or mentoring programs need to offer real-time assistance, enabling instructors to navigate challenges as they arise. By fostering a culture of professional development and collaboration, universities can empower educators to experiment with new approaches and refine their methods over time—ensuring that teaching remains both rigorous and responsive to the diverse needs of modern students.
The current model of academic support—with its patchwork of reactive accommodations and sporadic training sessions—is no longer sufficient to address the evolving challenges facing both faculty and students. The demands of modern higher education have shifted dramatically, requiring more than temporary fixes; they demand a radical reimagining of the educational experience that is individualized, personalized and differentiated to meet the unique needs of every member of the academic community.
At the heart of this transformation lies a fundamental shift in institutional priorities. Universities must reallocate resources toward continuous professional development for educators and establish robust support systems for students. This means creating structured, ongoing training programs that equip faculty with the latest inclusive teaching strategies and digital tools, enabling them to adapt their methods to the diverse learning styles and backgrounds of today’s students.
Such an investment not only enhances academic performance but also cultivates the critical skills and self-advocacy that are essential for lifelong success.
Moreover, we must move beyond the reactive, one-size-fits-all accommodations that have characterized the past. Instead, academic support should be integrated into every aspect of teaching and learning, forming the backbone of a dynamic and responsive educational ecosystem.
For example, early intervention strategies, such as formative assessments and iterative feedback, ensure that learning gaps are addressed before they widen and personalized learning plans can be developed to build on each student’s unique strengths.
The benefits of such a comprehensive approach are twofold. First, it supports academic success by creating an inclusive learning environment that is adaptable to the individual needs of each student. Second, it alleviates the burden on faculty, who currently face the daunting task of juggling research, administrative duties and the increasing diversity of student needs.
By establishing a framework of proactive support, institutions can empower both educators and learners to thrive in a challenging, rapidly shifting academic landscape.
As higher education continues to evolve, so too must our strategies for academic support. The traditional model of reactive accommodations and ad hoc training is no longer adequate in the face of growing student diversity, uneven preparation and heightened external pressures on students’ time.
Only by embracing a comprehensive, proactive and flexible approach can we ensure that every student—and every educator—is equipped to navigate the complexities of modern academic life.
This reimagined support system will not only boost academic performance but also enrich the overall educational experience, fostering a vibrant, inclusive and resilient community that is prepared to meet the challenges of the future.
In an era of tightening institutional finances and overburdened faculty, the shift toward a more individualized approach to education may seem like an overwhelming challenge. However, this shift is not optional—it is both a legal requirement and an essential strategy for improving student retention, graduation rates and postgraduation outcomes.
As student populations become increasingly diverse and face complex external pressures, campuses must prioritize academic and faculty support to create a learning environment where every student can thrive.
Legislation such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act mandate that institutions provide equal access to education for all students. These legal frameworks require not only reactive accommodations but also proactive, individualized support that anticipates and addresses the diverse needs of the student body.
In practice, this means that colleges and universities must design courses, develop teaching methods and implement support systems that are flexible and tailored to individual learning styles. Ignoring this mandate not only risks legal repercussions but also undermines the institution’s commitment to inclusivity and equal opportunity.
In addition, the current challenges faced by students—ranging from increased accommodation needs and uneven educational backgrounds to intense time pressures and cultural diversity—demand more than a one-size-fits-all solution.
When students receive personalized academic support, retention and graduation rates improve significantly. Tailored support enables students to engage deeply with course material, develop critical skills and ultimately achieve better postgraduation outcomes. By creating a comprehensive support system, institutions can help bridge the gap between diverse student needs and the rigorous demands of higher education, ensuring that every student has the opportunity to succeed.
For faculty, the shift to an individualized educational model requires a significant rethinking of traditional teaching methods.
Instructors must balance the needs of advanced learners with those requiring additional support, all while managing other academic responsibilities such as research and grant writing. This challenge is compounded by the lack of sufficient training and resources currently available to help educators implement inclusive teaching practices. Institutions must respond by reallocating resources and prioritizing continuous professional development.
Only by providing faculty with the necessary tools and support can universities foster a dynamic, responsive learning environment that benefits both teachers and students.
The move toward a more individualized, personalized and differentiated approach to education is no longer a luxury—it is a legal and institutional imperative. As student needs evolve in a rapidly changing world, institutions must reframe academic support as a core element of the educational experience.
By prioritizing continuous faculty training, investing in robust support systems and rethinking course design, colleges and universities can enhance academic performance, improve student retention and graduation rates and ensure better outcomes after graduation.
There is no way around this transformation: If we are to equip every student and educator to thrive in an increasingly complex academic environment, the shift to a comprehensive, proactive and flexible support model must become the cornerstone of higher education.
Washington, D.C. – CoSN today awarded Delaware Area Career Center in Delaware, Ohio, the Trusted Learning Environment (TLE) Mini Seal in the Business Practice. The CoSN TLE Seal is a national distinction awarded to school districts implementing rigorous privacy policies and practices to help protect student information. Delaware Area Career Center is the sixth school district in Ohio to earn a TLE Seal or TLE Mini Seal. To date, TLE Seal recipients have improved privacy protections for over 1.2 million students.
The CoSN TLE Seal program requires that school systems uphold high standards for protecting student data privacy across five key practice areas: Leadership, Business, Data Security, Professional Development and Classroom. The TLE Mini Seal program enables school districts nationwide to build toward earning the full TLE Seal by addressing privacy requirements in one or more practice areas at a time. All TLE Seal and Mini Seal applicants receive feedback and guidance to help them improve their student data privacy programs.
“CoSN is committed to supporting districts as they address the complex demands of student data privacy. We’re proud to see Delaware Area Career Center take meaningful steps to strengthen its privacy practices and to see the continued growth of the TLE Seal program in Ohio,” said Keith Krueger, CEO, CoSN.
“Earning the TLE Mini Seal is a tremendous acknowledgement of the work we’ve done to uphold high standards in safeguarding student data. This achievement inspires confidence in our community and connects us through a shared commitment to privacy, transparency and security at every level,” said Rory Gaydos, Director of Information Technology, Delaware Area Career Center.
The CoSN TLE Seal is the only privacy framework designed specifically for school systems. Earning the TLE Seal requires that school systems have taken measurable steps to implement, maintain and improve organization-wide student data privacy practices. All TLE Seal recipients are required to demonstrate that improvement through a reapplication process every two years.
To learn more about the TLE Seal program, visit www.cosn.org/trusted.
About CoSN CoSN, the world-class professional association for K-12 EdTech leaders, stands at the forefront of education innovation. We are driven by a mission to equip current and aspiring K-12 education technology leaders, their teams, and school districts with the community, knowledge, and professional development they need to cultivate engaging learning environments. Our vision is rooted in a future where every learner reaches their unique potential, guided by our community. CoSN represents over 13 million students and continues to grow as a powerful and influential voice in K-12 education. www.cosn.org
About the CoSN Trusted Learning Environment Seal Program The CoSN Trusted Learning Environment (TLE) Seal Program is the nation’s only data privacy framework for school systems, focused on building a culture of trust and transparency. The TLE Seal was developed by CoSN in collaboration with a diverse group of 28 school system leaders nationwide and with support from AASA, The School Superintendents Association, the Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO) and ASCD. School systems that meet the program requirements will earn the TLE Seal, signifying their commitment to student data privacy to their community. TLE Seal recipients also commit to continuous examination and demonstrable future advancement of their privacy practices. www.cosn.org/trusted
About Delaware Area Career Center Delaware Area Career Center provides unique elective courses to high school students in Delaware County and surrounding areas. We work in partnership with partner high schools to enhance academic education with hands-on instruction that is focused on each individual student’s area of interest. DACC students still graduate from their home high school, but they do so with additional college credits, industry credentials, and valuable experiences. www.delawareareacc.org
Connect With Us
There is a multi-directional relationship between research culture and research assessment.
Poor research assessment can lead to poor research cultures. The Wellcome Trust survey in 2020 made this very clear.
Assessing the wrong things (such as a narrow focus on publication indicators), or the right things in the wrong way (such as societal impact rankings based on bibliometrics) is having a catalogue of negative effects on the scholarly enterprise.
In a similar way, too much research assessment can also lead to poor research cultures. Researchers are one of the most heavily assessed professions in the world. They are assessed for promotion, recruitment, probation, appraisal, tenure, grant proposals, fellowships, and output peer review. Their lives and work are constantly under scrutiny, creating competitive and high-stress environments.
But there is also a logic (Campbell’s Law) that tells us that if we assess research culture it can lead to greater investment into improving it. And it is this logic that the UK Joint HE funding bodies have drawn on in their drive to increase the weighting given to the assessment of People, Culture & Environment in REF 2029. This makes perfect sense: given the evidence that positive and healthy research cultures are a thriving element of Research Excellence, it would be remiss of any Research Excellence Framework not to attempt to assess, and therefore incentivise them.
The challenge we have comes back to my first two points. Even assessing the right things, but in the wrong way, can be counterproductive, as may increasing the volume of assessment. Given research culture is such a multi-faceted concept, the worry is that the assessment job will become so huge that it quickly becomes burdensome, thus having a negative impact on those research cultures we want to improve.
Just as research culture is not so much about the research that you do but the way that you do it, so research culture assessment should concern itself not so much with the outcomes of that assessment but with the way the assessment takes place.
This is really important to get right.
I’ve argued before that research culture is a hygiene factor. Most dimensions of culture relate to standards that it’s critically important we all get right: enabling open research, dealing with misconduct, building community, supporting collaboration, and giving researchers the time to actually do research. These aren’t things for which we should offer gold stars but basic thresholds we all should meet. And to my mind they should be assessed as such.
Indeed this is exactly how the REF assessed open research in 2021 (and will do so again in 2029). They set an expectation that 95 per cent of qualifying outputs should be open access, and if you failed to hit the threshold, excess closed outputs were simply unclassified. End of. There were no GPAs for open access.
In the tender for the PCE indicator project, the nature of research culture as a hygiene factor was recognised by proposing “barrier to entry” measures. The expectation seemed to be that for some research culture elements institutions would be expected to meet a certain threshold, and if they failed they would be ineligible to even submit to REF.
This proposal did not make it into the current PCE assessment pilot. However, the REF already has a “barrier to entry” mechanism, of course, which is the completion of an acceptable REF Code of Practice (CoP).
An institution’s REF CoP is about how they propose to deliver their REF, not how they deliver their research (although there are obvious crossovers). And REF have distinguished between the two in their latest CoP Policy module governing the writing of these codes.
But given that REF Codes of Practice are now supposed to be ongoing, living documents, I don’t see why they shouldn’t take the form of more research-focussed (rather than REF-focussed) codes. It certainly wouldn’t harm research culture if all research performing organisations had a thorough research code of practice (most do of course) and one that covers a uniform range of topics that we all agree are critical to good research culture. This could be a step beyond the current Terms & Conditions associated with QR funding in England. And it would be a means of incentivising positive research cultures without ‘grading’ them. With your REF CoP, it’s pass or fail. And if you don’t pass first time, you get another attempt.
The other way of assessing culture to incentivise behaviours without it leading to any particular rating or ranking is to simply start collecting & surfacing data on things we care about. For example, the requirement to share gender pay gap data and to report misconduct cases, has focussed institutional minds on those things without there being any associated assessment mechanism. If you check out the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) data on proportion of male:female professors, in most UK institutions you can see the ratio heading in the right direction year on year. This is the power of sharing data, even when there’s no gold or glory on offer for doing so.
And of course, the REF already has a mechanism to share data to inform, but not directly make an assessment, in the form of ’Environment Data’. In REF 2021, Section 4 of an institution’s submission was essentially completed for them by the REF team by extracting from the HESA data, the number of doctoral degrees awarded (4a) and the volume of research income (4b); and from the Research Councils, the volume of research income in kind (4c).
This data was provided to add context to environment assessments, but not to replace them. And it would seem entirely sensible to me that we identify a range of additional data – such as the gender & ethnicity of research-performing staff groups at various grades – to better contextualise the assessment of PCE, and to get matters other than the volume of research funding up the agendas of senior university committees.
That is not to say that Codes of Practice and data sharing should be the only means of incentivising research culture of course. Culture was a significant element of REF Environment statements in 2021, and we shouldn’t row back on it now. Indeed, given that healthy research cultures are an integral part of research excellence, it would be remiss not to allocate some credit to those who do this well.
Of course there are significant challenges to making such assessments robust and fair in the current climate. The first of these is the complex nature of research culture – and the fact that no framework is going to cover every aspect that might matter to individual institutions. Placing boundaries around what counts as research culture could mean institutions cease working on agendas that are important to them, because they ostensibly don’t matter to REF.
The second challenge is the severe and uncertain financial constraints currently faced by the majority of UK HEIs. Making the case for a happy and collaborative workforce when half are facing redundancy is a tough ask. A related issue here is the hugely varying levels of research (culture) capital across the sector as I’ve argued before. Those in receipt of a £1 million ‘Enhancing Research Culture’ fund from Research England, are likely to make a much better showing than those doing research culture on a shoe-string.
The third is that we are already half-way through this assessment period and we’re only expected to get the final guidance in 2026 – two years prior to submission. And given the financial challenges outlined above, this is going to make this new element of our submission especially difficult. It was partly for this reason that some early work to consider the assessment of research culture was clear that this should celebrate the ‘journey travelled’, rather than a ‘destination achieved’.
For this reason, to my mind, the only thing we can reasonably expect all HEIs to do right now with regards to research culture is to:
Once again, there is an existing REF assessment mechanism open to us here, and that is the use of the case study. We assess research impact by effectively asking HEIs to tell us their best stories – I don’t see why we shouldn’t make the same ask of PCE, at least for this REF.
The UK joint funding bodies have made a bold and sector-leading move to focus research performing organisations’ attention on the people and cultures that make for world-leading research endeavours through the mechanism of assessment. Given the challenges we face as a society, ensuring we attract, train, and retain high quality research talent is critical to our success. However, the assessment of research culture has the power both to make things better or worse: to incentivise positive research cultures or to increase burdensome and competitive cultures that don’t tackle all the issues that really matter to institutions.
To my mind, given the broad range of topics that are being worked on by institutions in the name of improving research culture, and where we are in the REF cycle, and the financial constraints facing the sector, we might benefit from a shift in the mechanisms proposed to assess research culture in 2029 and to see this as a stepping stone REF.
Making better use of existing mechanisms such as a Codes of Practice and Environment and Culture data would assess the “hygiene factor” elements of culture without unhelpfully associating any star ratings to them. Ratings should be better applied to the efforts taken by institutions to understand, plan, monitor, and demonstrate progress against their own, mission-driven research culture ambitions. This is where the real work is and where real differentiations between institutions can be made, when contextually assessed. Then, in 2036, when we can hope that the sector will be in a financially more stable place, and with ten years of research culture improvement time behind us, we can assess institutions against their own ambitions, as to whether they are starting to move the dial on this important work.
Sustainability and the challenges of protecting our environment are key concerns for the Go Higher Diploma and for the University as a whole. A couple of weeks into semester two, our students were invited to work on a PowerPoint presentation and voice over, focusing on the topic of sustainability and / or the environment.
The range of topics which they chose to focus on and research was hugely impressive. The task enabled them to not only develop their investigative and PowerPoint skills but also to highlight an issue which was important to them personally.
Our Go Highers embraced this task, producing work of a high quality: innovative, dynamic, and engaging. By way of example, here are some titles: ‘Sustainability in Fashion’; ‘The important role frogs play in environment’, through to ‘Dogs’ ‘business’’ and its impact on our environment, to the fascinating subject of ‘Light Pollution’, collectively, a wide-ranging and diverse bank of work.
I chatted with one of our Go Higher, who, reflecting on their presentation, highlighted positive aspects of their ‘PowerPoint experience’. They observed that ‘the presentation was a nice way to lead into the start of the new semester’. They noted, with appreciation, the freedom to select their theme within the topic remit, adding that ‘there were opportunities to settle on a subject that might not be widely known’, drawing attention to it, through the medium of PowerPoint.
A further reflection highlighted the usefulness of having a sample presentation, plus rough working notes, as part of the task guidance. This advice served as an alarm bell, warning that not everything, however relevant and interesting, could be included within the five slide limit, so encouraging the development of discerning editing skills. The nature of this task was commented on as being instrumental in ‘taking the pressure off’, affording an opportunity to concentrate efforts on an item of work that would receive constructive comment, rather than a grade.
A positive outcome, resulting from the presentation task, was pinpointed during our conversation – the interconnection between this assignment and the forthcoming Philosophy podcast – feedback evidencing that the path towards making a podcast had been eased, because of the experience of providing a commentary to a PowerPoint presentation, speaking to an audience, a practice run for the podcast. This is a feature of Go Higher: there are linkages throughout the different modules with students supported to develop their skills and potential at a pace that is right for them.
It’s terrific to see how much hard work has gone into producing engaging presentations that are both engaging and informative. Well done everyone!
Image by Freepic
