Tag: greater

  • New ICE Policy Puts International Students at Greater Risk

    New ICE Policy Puts International Students at Greater Risk

    The Trump administration issued plans earlier this week for a new policy that vastly expands federal officials’ authority to terminate students’ legal residency status, according to newly released court documents.

    The policy detailed in the filings asserts that immigration officials have the “inherent authority” to terminate students’ legal residency status in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System “as needed.” It also explicitly lays out two new justifications for SEVIS terminations: the vague “evidence of failure to comply” with nonimmigrant visa terms, and a visa revocation, which can be issued without evidence of a violation by the State Department—and which, crucially, is not subject to court challenges.

    Immigration attorneys told Inside Higher Ed that if implemented, the new policy would enshrine broad permission for ICE to begin deporting students practically at will.

    “This is very bad news for foreign students,” said Charles Kuck, an immigration attorney representing 133 international students in the largest lawsuit challenging recent SEVIS terminations. “Any student who’s arrested, literally for any reason, is probably going to have their status terminated going forward.”

    Last Friday a U.S. attorney promised an official update to ICE policy on SEVIS terminations. On Tuesday, U.S. attorneys presented the document as evidence in a court filing in Arizona, describing it as “recently issued … policy regarding the termination of SEVIS records.”

    It was the first time that details of a new SEVIS termination policy were made public, and it was not at first clear whether it reflected official federal policy. On Tuesday, U.S. attorney Johnny Walker confirmed during another hearing for a SEVIS lawsuit in D.C. that it did, though the policy had yet to be finalized. Spokespeople for ICE did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed.

    The plan comes less than a week after the administration began restoring thousands of foreign students’ SEVIS statuses after a series of court decisions overturned hundreds of status terminations. Kuck said the plan seemed to be a way for ICE to get around those rulings.

    “This is basically a cover-your-ass policy,” he said. “The fact that ICE initially reinstated visas was no surprise. They probably had U.S. attorneys screaming at them, ‘What are you doing?’ Now they’re trying to retroactively develop a policy that would allow them to do what they already did.”

    Immigration lawyer and Columbia University Immigrants’ Rights Clinic director Elora Mukherjee has been counseling international students across New York City for the past two months. After the visa-restoration decision last week, some students wanted to know if they were in the clear; she cautioned them against celebrating prematurely.

    “Whiplash is a good way to describe it,” she said. “Students are losing sleep—not just those whose visas have been terminated but those who are worried theirs could be next any day.”

    Fly-by-Night Policymaking

    The updated policy was outlined in an internal Department of Homeland Security memo filed as evidence in an Arizona federal court on Wednesday, where one of more than 100 lawsuits challenging visa revocations is being litigated.

    The unorthodox manner in which it was publicized has left immigration attorneys scratching their heads and international students’ advocates wondering how to respond.

    It also appears to have taken some federal officials by surprise. Kuck said that when he heard about the memo and brought it before the judge in his own case in Georgia, the U.S. attorney defending the government asked if he could send him a copy.

    Fanta Aw, president of NAFSA, an association of international educators, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed that the document “should not be relied upon as ICE’s new policy.” She also emphasized that there is no change to ICE’s visa termination policy included in the memo, only SEVIS terminations.

    The document is labeled as a “broadcast message … for internal SEVP use only,” meaning it would have been sent to Designated School Officials working in colleges’ international student offices. But Aw said that’s not accurate, either, because it lacks the customary broadcast message number, and DSOs in her organization said they had not received it.

    Kuck said the lack of a rule-making process for a sweeping policy change like the one outlined in the memo is most likely unlawful, and he was working on filing an amendment to challenge it on Thursday. But that doesn’t mean it should be taken lightly.

    “People should view this as the future,” Kuck said. “This is clearly the power ICE wants to give itself, so they’re going to move ahead with it.”

    ‘A Nightmare Booby Trap’

    Mukherjee said such a broad license to terminate SEVIS status would allow ICE to deport international students far more quickly and with less accountability. The new policy, if implemented and upheld by the courts, wouldn’t just revert to the status quo of the last few months, she said; it would create a landscape in which ICE could begin deportation proceedings with impunity.

    “We’ve already seen many students whose SEVIS terminations led directly to removal proceedings,” Mukherjee said. “It’s terrifying.”

    Kuck said it’s crucial that students understand that they’re still in danger of deportation even if their status was restored last week—and not just because of the new policy plan.

    The few hundred students who won a temporary restraining order in court over the past week have had their statuses reinstated and backfilled to when they were revoked. But the status of thousands more who did not file lawsuits was only reactivated from that point onward. That means they have a gap in status for the days or weeks in between—which, according to ICE policy, is grounds for removal from the country, even if their initial SEVIS termination was accidental.

    “This is a nightmare booby trap for these kids,” Kuck said.

    The only way to protect them, he said, is by filing a class action lawsuit for all affected international student visa holders. Kuck said he’s working on filing an injunction for one right now, and he is acting with urgency.

    In the meantime, Mukherjee said students—both those in the country and those who had planned to come in the fall—are “deeply unsettled.” She’s been asking them questions she’d never been concerned about before: whether they have any social media accounts or even tattoos.

    “I’m talking to international students who are currently in the U.S., to international students who’ve been admitted to study in the U.S. starting in the fall, and they’re asking, ‘Will we be able to complete our degree program?’” she said. “The answer is that it’s unclear.”

    Source link

  • This is what greater collaboration between further and higher education in England should look like

    This is what greater collaboration between further and higher education in England should look like

    With the UK government’s focus on opportunity as part of its mission-led approach, ensuring equitable access to higher-level skills development and training must be prioritised across all education sectors.

    To address skills shortages and support social mobility, high-quality, place-based solutions must be embedded within a cohesive tertiary landscape. College-based higher education plays a pivotal role in this system, not as a second-tier option, but as an essential component of the HE ecosystem.

    For the many people who cannot (or choose not) to leave their local area due to financial constraints, work or family commitments, higher education must remain a viable and accessible option. This means providing alternative, innovative pathways that allow individuals to develop higher level skills within their communities.

    Many institutions are committed to social justice, but existing policy structures, funding mechanisms and an emphasis on market competition between higher education institutions and further education colleges weakens local partnerships and impedes the development of inclusive pathways into higher education. Further education and higher education share a civic mission to deliver skills and education which drives social mobility and economic growth. To fulfil this mission, institutions must shift from competing for students and funding, to collaborating meaningfully to widen participation and create an inclusive HE system.

    Sharing knowledge

    Collaboration must extend beyond student recruitment strategies to include shared resources, further co-developed curricula and the integration of expertise between institutions. An example of this is the partnership between Loughborough University and Loughborough College, where both institutions work together to enhance provision rather than compete. This collaboration includes the sharing of facilities and staff expertise, ensuring delivery of high-quality education with clear progression routes, while successfully addressing regional skills needs.

    However, to be sustainable and effective partnerships must be structured equitably. Each institution must be valued and respected for its unique strengths and share a clearly defined ambition for learners. True partnership requires trust, ensuring that both HE and FE partners collaborate as equals, aligned to their strengths.

    Government policies must actively incentivise collaboration rather than perpetuate competition. This requires:

    • Revised funding models; rewarding collaboration instead of duplication of provision
    • Integrated quality assurance frameworks; streamlining oversight to prevent excessive bureaucracy and misaligned standards
    • Regional skills planning; aligning provision with workforce needs through engagement with combined authorities, local enterprise partnerships and other education providers including schools and multi-academy trusts.

    Further education colleges and higher education institutions have different but complementary knowledge and expertise. The government’s recent announcement to invest £600 million into construction training underscores its recognition that FE colleges are well placed to deliver high-quality technical education at scale. The plan to establish ten new technical excellence colleges builds on the success of institutes of technology, where FE institutions take the lead in delivering skills training, supported by higher education institutions and employers.By reinforcing the central role of FE colleges, the government is acknowledging their deep-rooted connections to local economies and their ability to respond flexibly to employer needs.

    It is this strong employer engagement that is crucial to a responsive tertiary system. FECs excel in building industry connections and adapting swiftly to workforce demands. Integrating HE institutions into these partnerships expands progression routes, ensuring access to technical training and advanced/professional qualifications. This is particularly critical in sectors facing acute skills shortages, such as digital technology, green industries and STEM. Joint curriculum development between FE and HE, informed by employer needs, ensures that students acquire both theoretical knowledge and the practical skills required in their chosen fields.

    Flexible pathways

    Ensuring accessible education also requires more flexible, modular learning pathways, particularly for adult learners balancing study with work and family. Colleges and universities alike are seeing an increase in students struggling with mental health challenges, which can impact attendance and academic performance. More comprehensive wrap-around student support, together with flexible and locally delivered learning plus adaptable timetables, are already helping to improve student retention and achievement in many further education colleges.

    However, rigid funding structures often restrict more flexible modular approaches to delivery. Effective funding adjustments are needed to support lifelong learning, allowing students to build qualifications, including sub degree provision progressively rather than committing learners to long-term study upfront.

    While collaboration is the logical and necessary path forward, inequitable funding remains a real barrier. Universities receive significantly higher per-student funding than colleges, despite the crucial role colleges play in delivering higher-level skills. Addressing this financial imbalance is essential if colleges are to deliver, sustain and expand high-quality Level 4 and 5 provision, particularly in sectors critical to economic growth.

    A more integrated tertiary system is needed, one that values the contributions of colleges, universities and other providers without unnecessary division. If done right, this will result in win/win for all students, employers and providers. This is not about merging the sectors but making collaboration the norm, underpinned by policy that prioritises partnership over competition and facilitates local, equitable access to high level skills and development.

    Debbie McVitty’s recent article on evolution vs. transformation in higher education is highly relevant to thinking through the future for place-based partnerships. While some advocate radical change, others prefer an evolutionary approach that builds on existing strengths. In FE and HE collaboration, enhancing partnerships, refining policies and expanding successful local models is more practical. This would enable more cost-effective delivery of skills and knowledge, while ensuring resources are not wasted on competition for students. Given the financial strain so many providers are currently under, this would be hugely beneficial.

    With genuine collaboration and more equitable funding, we can build a better-integrated, place-based higher education system that widens access and drives economic growth – advancing social mobility and regional prosperity.

    Source link

  • Greater width and greater depth: changing higher education in an electronic age

    Greater width and greater depth: changing higher education in an electronic age

    • Ronald Barnett is (www.ronaldbarnett.co.uk), Emeritus Professor of Higher Education at the Institute of Education and President of the Philosophy and Theory of Higher Education Society.

    Chris Husbands’ latest HEPI blog is fine so far as it goes but, I suggest, it goes neither wide enough nor deep enough.  Yes, the world is changing, and higher education institutions have to change, but the analysis of ‘change’ has to encompass the whole world (have great width) and also to burrow down into the deep structures of a world in turbulent motion (and so have much depth).

    The current crisis in UK higher education – and especially in higher education in England – has to be set more fully in the context of massive global shifts that directly affect higher education. These are too many to enumerate entirely here, but they include:

    • A hyper-fast world: Theorists speak of cognitive capitalism, but we have already moved into a new stage of electronic capitalism (of which AI is but the most evident feature).
    • Volatile labour markets (disrupting the relationship between higher education and the world of work)
    • A fragmenting state of student being: now, their higher education is just part of an incredibly complex life and set of challenges with which students are confronted
    • Geo-political shifts affecting (and the reduction of) the internationalisation of higher education; and
    • An entirely new complex of human needs (physical, cognitive, social, political, environmental, and phenomenological) for learning to be part of life, ‘cradle-to-grave’. 

    In short, the world is fast-changing not only around higher education but in the depths of higher education in ways not yet fully appreciated.  It is a world that is going through multiple and unimagined transformations, transformations that are replete with conflicts and antagonisms that are both material and discursive. These changes are already having effects on higher education, especially on what it is to be a student.

    Now, students are increasingly part-time (whatever the formal designation of their programmes of study). Moreover, they play out their lives across multiple ecosystems – including the economy, social institutions, culture, the polity, the self, knowledge, learning, the digital environment, and Nature. In the context of these nine ever-moving ecosystems, what it is to be a student is now torn open, fragmented, and bewildering to many. 

    More still, many students of today will be alive in the 22nd century and will have to navigate an Earth, a world, that will exhibit many stages of anxiety-provoking and even possibly terrifying change. Sheer being itself is challenged under such circumstances and, more so, the very being of students. And we see all this in spades in (quite understandable) growing student anxiety and even suicide.

    In this context, and under these conditions, a model and an idea of higher education bequeathed to the world largely from early 19th century Europe (Germany and England) no longer matches the present and the future age for which students are destined.

    Crucially, here, we are confronted by profound changes that are not just institutional and material in that sense, but we are – and students are – confronted with unnoticed changes in the discourse of higher education.  Not just what it means to be a student but the very meaning of student is changing in front of us; yet largely unnoticed. (Is being a student a matter of dutifully acquiring skills for an AI world or is it to set up encampments so as actively to engage with and to be a troublesome presence in world-wide conflicts?)

    Fundamental here is the idea of higher education.  Fifty years ago, some remnants of the idea of the university from 19th century Europe could romantically be held onto. Ideas of reason, truth, student development, consciousness-raising, critical thinking and even emancipation were concepts that could be used without too much embarrassment.  But now, that discourse and the pedagogical goals and relationships that it stood for have almost entirely dissolved, overtaken and trivialised by talk of skills, work-readiness, employability, impact and of using but of being ‘critical’ of AI.

    It is a commonplace – not least in the higher education consultancies and think-tanks – to hear murmurings to the effect that institutions of higher education must change (and are insufficiently changing). Yes, most certainly.  And some signs of change are apparent. In England alone, we see talk of (but little concerted action on) life-long learning, formation of tertiary education as such, better higher education-further education connections, micro-credentials, ‘alternative providers’, shortened degrees, AI and recovering part-time higher education (disastrously virtually vanquished, regretted now by David Willetts, its progenitor).

    These are but some of the adjustments that the large and complex higher education can be seen to be making to the challenges of the age.  But it is piecemeal in a fundamental sense, namely that it is not being advanced on the basis of a broad and deep analysis of the problem situation. 

    Some say we need a new Robbins, and there is more to that idea than many realise. Robbins was a free-market economist, but the then general understanding as to what constituted a higher education and the balance of the Robbins committee, with a phalanx of heavy-weight educationalists, resulted in a progressive vision of higher education. Now, though, we need new levels of analysis and imaginative thinking. 

    Consider just one of the changes into which English higher education is stumbling, that of life-long learning and its associated idea of credit accumulation. Credit accumulation was first enunciated as an idea in English higher education in the 1980s through the Council for National Academic Awards (and there through the efforts especially of Norman Evans and Peter Toyne). But the idea of universities as a site where the formation of human beings for a life of never-ending inquiry, learning and self-formation has never seriously been pursued, either practically or theoretically. 

    Now, life-long learning is more urgent than ever, but the necessary depth and width of the matters it prompts are hardly to be seen or heard.  However, and as intimated, this matter is just one of a raft of interconnected and mega issues around post-school education today.

    As is said, there is no magic bullet here in such an interconnected world. Joined-up progress is essential, from UNESCO and suchlike to the teacher and class of students. The key is the individual institution of higher education, which now has a responsibility to become aware of its multiple ecosystem environment and work out a game-plan in each of the nine ecosystems identified above.

    At the heart of that ecosystem scanning has to be the individual student. Let this design process start from the bottom-up – the flourishing of the individual student living into the C22.  It would be a design process that tackles head-on what it is to live purposefully in a world of constant change, challenge and conflict and what might we hope for from university graduates against such a horizon.  Addressing and answering this double question within each university – for each university will have its own perspective – will amount to nothing less than a revolution in higher education.

    Source link

  • Engagement and wellbeing analytics: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts

    Engagement and wellbeing analytics: the whole is greater than the sum of the parts

    By Rachel Maxwell, Principal Advisor at Kortext.

    Data at the heart of student support

    A successful and integrated framework for academic support that is built around students comprises three core elements: data, theory and people. The university ‘ethos’ around student support frames the collection and use of data that in turn are both interpreted and used by staff to collaboratively design meaningful interventions with students to support engagement, wellbeing and academic development. The data proxies used to support academic engagement are proven and well-established (see Foster and Siddle, 2019; Rimmington, 2024; University of Essex, 2023). Data proxies for wellbeing are more embryonic in nature and it is less clear how to effectively use both data sets effectively to maximise the overall impact on student success.

    Mental health matters

    That the sector, if not the country, is facing an unprecedented crisis in the mental health of young people is well established. Underreporting or non-disclosure of issues masks the true scale of the picture, and the increasing severity of those issues imposes an additional layer of complexity and resource for higher education providers to address.

    Ways to address the crisis, using student data, are therefore logical and essential, but also unclear. The Jisc Core Specification for Student Engagement Analytics identifies five wellbeing data points that indicate risks to retention and continuation alongside six more traditional student engagement data points. The inclusion of wellbeing analytics is an essential part of a whole provider approach to supporting student success alongside access and participation activity or the embedding of the University Mental Health Charter from Student Minds. Successful initiatives can now be shared via TASO’s Student Mental Health Evidence Hub.

    The evaluation of an Office for Students mental health and analytics project at Northumbria University concluded that student wellbeing can be accurately predicted and can provide operational value to intervention models within student support in addition to students requiring academic support identified through engagement or learning/learner analytics. And while poor mental health is likely to evidence itself in non-engagement, not all non-engagement is indicative of a wellbeing risk.

    … but it’s complex

    Universities grappling with the thorny issue of accurately identifying students who are struggling and need support with their mental health will naturally be considering whether the Northumbria approach can be successfully transferred and scaled up within their own settings. Answering this question is particularly important in the case of initial non-disclosure or subsequent development of mental health issues, particularly given the fairly significant caveats associated with the project:

    • Data cleanliness, accuracy and availability is essential – but it was only possible following a decade-long data and digital transformation project at the university
    • Over 800 data variables were reviewed alongside dynamic data from relevant systems and associated student support facilities
    • Human decision-making by mental health and wellbeing experts remains central, to ‘see’ the person behind the risk rating, avoid potential ‘blind spots’, false positives and ‘misses’, and, crucially, to understand how an individual’s mental health is actually impacting their university experience
    • Although deemed successful, the Northumbria project has not (yet) resulted in a deliverable service.

    The whole is greater than the sum of the parts

    The Kortext student engagement analytics product, StREAM, provides an effective comparison point with early work to turn wellbeing indicators into effective data proxies suitable for risk determination.

    One critical difference is that StREAM can effectively identify risk with an average of 90% accuracy based on data drawn from just 2 core systems – the VLE and the student record. However, identification of the causes of disengagement comes only through meaningful conversations with students, based both on their data and on contextual information about personal and demographic circumstances. It is important that the significance of those circumstances is explored collaboratively with the student at a relevant time to determine subjective impact, rather than presuming risk in advance.

    In light of the mental health crisis, effective, holistic student support requires the use of analytics based on both engagement and wellbeing to provide frontline staff with a richer picture of their students. This approach will also enable universities to demonstrate that they have discharged their legal responsibilities to their students as fully as possible. Waiting until a possible mental health situation is starting to manifest in a student’s engagement data may be seen as too late and potentially too risky, being reliant upon all staff members to identify and act upon risk at the precise moment the student starts to disengage with their learning. While the need to provide ongoing information, advice and guidance to all students has long been identified as good practice, tailoring that messaging based on predictive and unsubstantiated subjective risk requires handling with care.

    What next for health and wellbeing analytics?

    Deploying engagement and wellbeing analytics together across an institution is complex. One size will not fit all in terms of using one approach to achieve dual objectives (retention/continuation and wellbeing), nor will the approach be the same across all institutions. More research is required to explore a range of questions, including:

    1. How many of the students identified as being ‘at risk’ by an engagement analytics system require mental health support?
    2. How many of those who don’t (at least initially) disclose a mental health condition, were subsequently identified as having low or no engagement by an engagement analytics system?
    3. Would the use of the wellbeing analytics proxies identify the same group of students as having mental health concerns as those picked up by an engagement analytics system and, following a conversation, be appropriately categorised as having a mental health concern?
    4. What level of confidence can be placed in each data set in terms of identifying the right students and, critically, doing so at the right time?
    5. Can the wellbeing data points inform the development of a mental health algorithm, when such data points are not easily reduced to a 1 or 0?
    6. What are the policy implications of a combined approach – both across the sector and within institutions – to demonstrate that a university has actively and meaningfully met their legal responsibilities for all students?
    7. How can ‘prior knowledge of a possible risk’ be combined with near real-time data in a student analytics platform to pinpoint an acute mental health situation and support early intervention?

    Here at Kortext, we are interested in undertaking in-depth research with universities and others to explore these questions and find ways to use both data sets to support successful academic outcomes and a healthy student population. If you’re interested, please let us know here: www.kortext.com/stream/contact

    Source link