Tag: Policy

  • The new international education strategy settles the policy direction – now we need to make it work

    The new international education strategy settles the policy direction – now we need to make it work

    It’s easy to think of international student recruitment as a numbers game.

    Inside institutions and within partners like IDP, we sit and analyse data to work out how many students will come to the UK, what institutions they will go to, into what disciplines, from what markets.

    As we pore over Tableau dashboards or – often – spreadsheets, it would be easy to forget that behind every number is not only a student, but an entire support system allowing, enabling and encouraging them on their international student journey.

    Last week’s International Education Strategy (IES), in a departure from its 2019 predecessor, didn’t get into international student number targets but instead plumped for an overall export goal of £40bn by 2030, spanning the whole gamut of internationalisation activity across the education sector.

    The rumbling (and often toxic) debate around net migration statistics continues to cast a gloomy shadow, so, understandably, it’s difficult for the government to gun for a numbers-based international student recruitment strategy when international students are such a large part of the overall migration number – around 36 per cent at last count. This is also, perhaps, the reason that endorsement of the strategy sees the FCDO teaming up with DfE and DBT, and no public backing from No. 10 or the Home Office. The wider focus of the strategy offers the opportunity though, to make the most of the government’s international education champion Sir Steve Smith, a role that is both the envy of other countries and a critical conduit between government and universities.

    Let’s not kid ourselves though: it’s clear that sustainable international recruitment in higher education will play a big role in reaching that goal. And the strategy is clear about where government expects higher education institutions should focus: on responsible recruitment, high-quality student experience, and “world class outcomes for graduates.”

    The discourse on outcomes is positive because it appears to go beyond the course completion rates that the BCA metrics capture, and degree classifications, to speak to the benefits students gain from their education, including graduate-level employment. Following many rounds of student sentiment research, as part of our Emerging Futures surveys, we know graduate employment outcomes remain the most important factor influencing student choice.

    A story of “us”

    The difference between the immigration white paper and the IES is the scope for immediate action. The BCA changes were clear, and institutions sprang into action to get their house in order. In the absence of a universal evidence-based for outcomes, we need to think about how universities prove they are doing the “right thing” here and how to get that message not only back to the government departments involved but also out to future students as a reason to come and study in the UK in the first place.

    The IES offers a settled view of government policy on international education that, all being well, should extend for the rest of this parliament. There is an opportunity, now, to respond positively and develop thinking further about how we can enable international graduates to have the best opportunity to develop skills to work and contribute professionally to our national workforce.

    International graduates can not only help fill local and national skills gaps but will also send that clear message to future students that support is available – support as an investment in them and their futures, just as they have invested in us. Simply put, this is the outcome that students are most interested in and the one most likely to reattract students to our institutions, in the face of stiff global competition.

    To keep ahead of the argument, we need to bring these outcome stories to life. It’s reassuring that there was commitment in the refreshed IES to continued promotion through the British Council’s Study UK campaign.

    Let’s tell the story about the student who came here and moved to the Innovation Founder route to start their own business. Let’s tell the story about the students who discovered new things about themselves during their studies; those who were able to explore politics and talk about their views safely; those who found new passions, new hobbies, new language skills. The ones who now say “aye” instead of “yes” or who call you “mate” or “pal” or “mucker” having made lifelong friends in their classrooms, student flats and in part-time jobs – the very places that support our university towns and cities and bring rich culture and diversity.

    We need to find new ways to bring these tales of the friendships forged, loves found and adventures taken – all while studying for a world-class degree in a safe, inclusive, welcoming environment – to the students of the future and those who have influence over them. Already, Brand Scotland are doing some stellar work in this space like this story of entrepreneurship.

    Pragmatism aligns with purpose

    Some early commentary suggests not much has changed between the 2019 IES and the 2026 version. For those of us who have been in the sector long enough, there are throwbacks to Tony Blair’s Prime Minister’s Initiative (PMI) in 1999. Both focus on strengthening the UK’s global education presence with an emphasis on partnerships and collaboration. This time around the focus leans more to taking the UK to the world, but for institutions to remain financially viable, we still need to bring the world to the UK. TNE and inbound student recruitment must be co-joined strategies, and one does not replace the other.

    Sustainable growth and a focus on quality is a sensible approach, one we all need to commit to and one we welcome. That focus is the right thing for the international students and in turn the right thing for domestic students, teaching staff and potential employers. At IDP, we remain concerned over English language testing. Appropriate preparation/testing is one clear way to ensure students arrive ready to succeed and to make the most of their time in our classrooms and in our communities.

    Linked to the focus on quality, we’ll also hold ourselves to account with compliance and we expect others in our space to do the same. We hope everyone shares that view. Our ambition is to be the most compliant recruitment partner to our UK partners – and our global partners, for that matter. To do this, we will work closely with all universities to analyse trends that point towards risk and we’ll act on that to maintain sustainable growth from key markets. We’ll continue to change our ways of working to fit with the Agent Quality Framework and we’ll continue to put students at the centre of what we do.

    For this to work, we’ll all have to adjust our lenses on what we want to achieve. Our commitment is simple: let’s re-forecast the numbers in the Tableau dashboards (and spreadsheets) to ensure the students behind the data points are given the best opportunity to thrive and to become successful graduates and positive ambassadors of our world-class education system.

    ***

    In the current academic year Wonkhe and IDP plan to convene a community of institutions keen to share ideas on further building the evidence base for quality, student experience and student outcomes as part of their sustainable international recruitment strategies. If you would like to be involved, please get in touch.

    This article is published as part of Wonkhe’s partnership with IDP.

    Source link

  • High-Stakes Policy Talks Shed Light on ED’s Playbook

    High-Stakes Policy Talks Shed Light on ED’s Playbook

    The Department of Education has had a successful few months when it comes to advancing policies that could dramatically reshape federal student aid. But officials’ tactics for doing so have raised concern among many of higher ed’s top leaders and policy analysts.

    Over the course of the last four months, Under Secretary Nicholas Kent and his staff secured unanimous support from a variety of college leaders, state officials and student advocates on plans that cap graduate student loans, expand the Pell Grant to short-term job training programs and establish a new accountability measure for all colleges and universities—an outcome that defied initial expectations and one Kent touted.

    “Here’s the reality: When you come to the table prepared with smart and dedicated people that are focused on a clear goal, you can move quickly and intentionally without sacrificing the thoroughness and the careful deliberation that this process deserves,” he said in December. “We have proven that speed and quality are not mutually exclusive.”

    Kent went on to tell Inside Higher Ed this month that in order to implement the policies under a tight July 1 deadline set by Congress, he needed to finalize his proposals and do it fast. The key to doing so, he said, was using open dialogue and compromise to reach consensus—even as the department held fast to its core principles. He also believed that unanimous agreement could put an end to years of back-and-forth over higher ed policy and provide clarity for the institutions and students it would affect.

    Nicholas Kent

    But some involved in the negotiations as well as outside policy analysts say the department “strong-armed” committee members into agreement by threatening them with what could happen if they voted no—if the committee didn’t reach consensus, department officials could scrap any compromises made and rewrite the proposal as they saw fit.

    Antoinette Flores, a higher ed policy expert who led similar negotiation sessions under the Biden administration and now works at a left-leaning think tank, said the committee members were repeatedly called into private meetings with Kent and department staff in which there was “heavy political pressure” to agree to the department’s proposal.

    “They were leveraging the power of consensus with a little bit of fear,” she said.

    Other observers, however, viewed the department’s tactics as nothing more than part of good dealmaking—a typical aspect of the rule-making process.

    Either way, the talks shed light on how determined department negotiators can control the direction and outcome of the discussion, in part by coming to the table with explicit priorities and refusing to give much ground, according to more than half a dozen committee members and outside experts.

    We were very honest throughout the process that this was a give-and-take. And we reminded people what was at stake and what the regulatory community could gain and lose.”

    —Under Secretary Nicholas Kent.

    Those interviewed cautioned that these talks aren’t necessarily a blueprint for future negotiations because they were largely driven by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which gave the department little wiggle room. Still, the rounds of negotiations revealed more about Kent’s playbook and how this Trump administration is more prepared to leverage the complicated policymaking process and advance the president’s priorities.

    And the department’s policy agenda for 2026 suggests that there are still many negotiations to come as officials plan to rework the rules for accreditation, civil rights investigations and foreign gifts.

    “Everybody should buckle up,” Kent said. “We’ve got a lot of work to do here.”

    Setting the Tone

    Before department staff reached the negotiating table, they knew what a tight timeline they’d be operating under. So with their eyes set on consensus, they worked to be “more prepared than [they] ever had been,” said Kent, who was hands-on during the talks and at one point made the unprecedented move to join the negotiating table.

    The department conducted listening sessions with multiple constituency groups to get a sense of the challenges and opportunities they may face, and officials then released drafts of their proposals ahead of the meetings, coming armed with data presentations to back up their policy changes.

    In two of the three rule-making sessions, Kent opted to condense negotiations that usually took place over the course of months down to one week. Public comment for all three was limited to one session held before any of the discussions began.

    The threats were not thinly veiled. They were very bold.”

    —Former Biden official

    Noting that the department dealt with some of the topics for many years, Kent said, “There’s no reason that we needed to come and ask people very philosophical questions at the beginning.”

    But coming in with detailed plans to kick off the talks also gave the department an upper hand. It narrowed the scope of debate and placed the burden on committee members to argue why and how any changes should be made, policy experts explained.

    “Twenty years ago when you did neg reg, the department would [merely] have ideas about what it wanted to workshop with the negotiators,” said Aaron Lacey, a higher education lawyer who negotiated the policies for Workforce Pell and new accountability measures. But that’s not the case anymore. “It also puts a much greater burden on the negotiators. You’re just working around the clock, drafting, reviewing and justifying proposals. Whereas in years past, it was four o’clock and you were done until the next day started. It’s just a totally different exercise.”

    To Lacey, the department was essentially working to “orchestrat[e] a consensus vote” on their plans.

    “I don’t know how I feel about that,” he said. “But I have to acknowledge that that’s what they’re doing, and they seem to be doing it very well.”

    Drawing Hard Lines

    Another, more direct way, that the department pushed for unanimous agreement, policy analysts said, was by limiting the changes it would consider and making clear that there would be consequences if consensus wasn’t reached.

    During the first negotiation over student loan caps in early fall, the department publicly dug its heels in over what programs could qualify for higher borrowing limits. And while ED made a few small concessions, multiple sources told Inside Higher Ed that those changes were used as bait to compel them to vote yes, even as they didn’t agree with other key issues in the department’s final proposal.

    They could have just treated neg reg as a formality, failed [to reach consensus] and then written the rule that they wanted to in the first place.”

    —Preston Cooper, senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute

    In a series of private caucuses with negotiators, department officials conveyed that if committee members didn’t vote in favor, they would not only drop their small concession on loan caps but void other changes in the loan-repayment regulations, which were also part of the negotiations.

    “The threats were not thinly veiled,” one former Biden appointee said on the condition of anonymity due to conflict with their current job. “They were very bold.”

    Then, in January, as the committee negotiated accountability measures, department officials made a similar move, telling some committee members that they would scrap a rule aimed at holding nondegree programs and for-profit colleges accountable. At the time, the department was seeking to water down the rule known as gainful employment in order to match it with a new one for all other college programs.

    Although the department’s threats once again worked, one negotiator spoke up about the tactics at the meeting.

    In her closing remarks, Tamar Hoffman, a consumer rights attorney who had represented the higher ed legal aid groups on both committees, said she wanted to vote no but was choosing to abstain from the vote—a move that didn’t block consensus.

    The students covered by gainful employment were “just too important for me to take that risk,” she said.

    Lacey, the committee member representing nonprofit institutions, later told Inside Higher Ed that the department suggested to him they could leave gainful employment and its higher standards if the institutional representatives didn’t vote yes.

    A group of Republican members of the House of Representatives, standing in front of a painting of George Washington and behind a podium that says "One Big Beautiful Bill Act."

    Congress passed a slew of higher education policy changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

    Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    To Kent and some negotiators, reminding committee members what was at stake was just the art of the deal.

    “We were very honest throughout the process that this was a give-and-take. And we reminded people what was at stake and what the regulatory community could gain and lose,” Kent said. “The department was very clear in the caucuses that we were not threatening, that we were not strong-arming, but that we were simply reminding people what’s at stake.”

    Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at a right-leaning think tank who represented taxpayers in the negotiation, said the department’s actions were a reasonable use of its upper hand in the rule-making process. Like Hoffman, he wanted to keep gainful employment, but he knew that ED didn’t have to try for consensus at all. In fact, he noted, that’s what previous administrations have done, so, in his eyes, Kent wasn’t twisting negotiators’ arms. Instead, he was invested in creating long-lasting solutions.

    “They could have just treated neg reg as a formality, failed [to reach consensus] and then written the rule that they wanted to in the first place,” he said.

    Will Consensus Last?

    At most, consensus on the policies will last until the department receives public comment. At that point, the department has to review and respond to those comments and can make changes to the regulations.

    “Consensus doesn’t get you that much. The department could, and has in the past, completely backtracked,” a former Biden official said. “So it will be very telling whether the administration is simply trying to stick with its consensus agreements, or whether the administration is trying to be responsive to the comments they get and set in place rules that are legally defensible, politically sustainable and that will let them implement these rules quickly.”

    Beyond the immediate rule-making process, not everyone is as convinced as Kent that these consensus votes are enough to end the game of higher ed policy ping-pong that’s played out over the last 10 years.

    Committee members seated at four rectangular tables arranged in a square, covered with black tablecloths. Most have laptops in front of them.

    The Education Department held three rounds of rule-making sessions over the last four months.

    Jessica Blake/Inside Higher Ed

    Flores, another former Biden appointee who is now at New America, isn’t so sure that the department would have achieved consensus if they hadn’t used such a “fear-based approach.” As a result, she said, it makes the legitimacy of the agreement “somewhat surface level.”

    If these regulations do last, she believes it will be because they are rooted in legislation.

    “It won’t be a consensus, per se, that leads to ending the whiplash. It is that we have big legislative changes and those things are hard to change overnight,” Flores explained.

    But even then, she noted, the legislation was passed on a rushed schedule through an atypical budget bill without bipartisan support. If Democrats win back power on the Hill, there could be future legislation to tweak the reforms. In the meantime, she said, the department’s approach, which included little opportunity or consideration for public feedback, could lead to legal challenges.

    A group of bipartisan lawmakers has already introduced legislation that would adjust the programs eligible for loan caps, following significant pushback from nurses and other health-care professionals who were not deemed professional and placed in the lower bracket.

    “I’d expect a legal challenge on the professional definition as soon as the rule is finalized, which will lead these questions to kind of linger and might delay implementation down the line,” Flores said.

    Source link

  • 4 education legal and policy trends to watch in 2026

    4 education legal and policy trends to watch in 2026

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

    After a tumultuous 2025, education policy and legal experts expect no let-up in 2026. The second Trump administration and its Education Department are continuing to reshape the direction of federal support for K-12, and courts are routinely hearing cases of great consequence for school district policies. 

    Continual change to the education landscape “makes it very difficult to plan and prepare, and to provide students with the quality public education they deserve,” said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, The School Superintendents Association. “School district leaders are facing mounting uncertainty, and should brace for more in 2026.”

    Here are four K-12 legal and policy trends for district leaders to monitor in the coming year. 

    Uncertainty around federal support

    The Trump administration’s push to “return education to the states” means that superintendents can expect less federal support and more change in 2026. This ranges from less help with administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress and managing federally funded programs, to unpredictability around the availability of federal funds and the makeup of the U.S. Education Department, education policy experts said. 

    “Anything that they’re used to getting from the federal government, I would expect them to essentially expect less,” said Jonathan Collins, assistant professor of political science and education at Columbia University’s Teachers College.

    Collins said districts in blue states can also anticipate being targeted for policies related to diversity, equity and inclusion —  including programs that support diversifying the teacher workforce — as well as LGBTQ+ rights.

    “You should expect them to turn up the heat,” Collins said of the federal government’s crackdown on Title VI and Title IX issues, which bar race- and sex-based discrimination, respectively, in federally funded education programs. 

    In the past, the federal government typically invoked the statutes to protect underserved students, but the Trump administration has instead used them to target DEI efforts and protections for LGBTQ+ students. “I think the nozzle on the gas is going to change to an even higher level this upcoming year,” Collins added. 

    A bigger religious footprint in public education

    Recent years have seen a surge in First Amendment lawsuits related to the religious rights of parents and teachers, especially spurred on by the parental choice movement circling around issues like curriculum and LGBTQ+ culture in schools. 

    In 2025, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court required a Maryland district to allow curriculum opt-outs for parents who don’t want their children exposed to LGBTQ+-related content. That ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor set legal precedent for other districts’ policies on such opt-outs. 

    In 2026, additional rulings on similar issues are expected to influence district policies, according to education policy experts. For example, lawsuits are pending on LGBTQ+ student pronoun usage and state laws requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in classrooms. 

    Districts, especially those in red states, can expect “to exercise even more authority” over school prayer, teaching of the 10 Commandments, “and just any initiative or program or aspect of schooling that especially caters to Christianity,” said Collins. “I think you can expect to see an even bigger upsurge in those kinds of things happening.” 

    Religious-based organizations are also likely to continue pushing — under the mantle of the First Amendment — for the creation of religious public charter schools.

    As a result of a deadlock due to Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recusal in one such case, the Supreme Court kept in place an Oklahoma ruling that blocked what would have been the nation’s first religious public charter school. However, after that Catholic school’s failed launch, another religious charter was proposed for Oklahoma in November —  this time by a Jewish organization. Whether that school succeeds, and what it could mean for other efforts to establish religious public schools, will be watched in 2026.

    Source link

  • Federal policy uncertainty is disrupting planning, college leaders say

    Federal policy uncertainty is disrupting planning, college leaders say

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Nearly all senior higher education leaders — 98% — reported that federal policymaking has introduced uncertainty into institutional planning, according to the latest pulse survey from the American Council on Education. 
    • Topping the list of senior leaders’ most pressing concerns is state and federal interference with colleges’ autonomy. Over 70% of leaders said they were either extremely or moderately concerned about threats to independence and academic freedom.
    • “Uncertainty around research funding, immigration and international engagement, academic freedom, and student aid policy are shaping institutional decision-making and straining long-term planning efforts,” the report’s authors wrote.

    Dive Insight:

    After 2025’s many policy upheavals, it would be shocking only if college leaders didn’t report some uncertainty. 

    Last year, President Donald Trump and his administration upended many of the sector’s longstanding precedents and fundamental assumptions. Trump’s executive branch attacked everything from the U.S. Department of Education as a whole, to research funding, to the visa system for international students, to individual colleges, many of which became targets of civil rights investigations and political pressure campaigns.

    Trump and congressional Republicans also ended the 20-year-old Grad PLUS loan program and introduced new caps on federal student loans that some worry will limit students’ access to graduate education. 

    All of that tumult is clearly weighing on the minds of college leaders. 

    Nearly three in four senior leaders described their level of uncertainty about the federal policy environment and its impact on planning as “extreme” or “moderate,” according to the poll. Another 19% reported “some” uncertainty and 7% described it as “slight.” 

    Trump’s impact on international student enrollment — with recent studies showing dips in graduate and new students from abroad — also loomed large for many leaders. Sixty percent said they were extremely or moderately concerned about immigration restrictions and visa revocations.

    Academic freedom and institutional autonomy are also arguably more at risk than they have been in generations.

    Trump’s government has tried to force policy changes at colleges through federal investigations, research funding cuts and his compact for higher education. In some cases, the administration has wrested payments and policy changes from institutions under pressure. 

    But many colleges and universities are also losing their independence through new state laws that aim to weaken governance, direct course content, and banish diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. 

    In a recent report, the free expression group PEN America described 2025 as a “catastrophe” for higher ed. The group counted 21 bills across 15 states enacted in 2025 that it says censor higher education and were the “result of a relentless, years-old campaign to exert ideological control over college and university campuses.” 

    College leaders also flagged perennial challenges among their concerns in the ACE poll. That includes fiscal pressures, with 44% reporting either extreme or moderate concern about long-term financial viability. Enrollment, the mental health of students and perceptions about higher education’s value were all among leaders’ most pressing concerns as well. Over 75% reported extreme or moderate concern around what the public and policymakers thought about the sector. 

    The ACE report drew from a December survey of 386 senior leaders from colleges nationwide.

    Source link

  • From policy to practice: preparing for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    From policy to practice: preparing for the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    This blog was kindly authored by Mark Jones, Executive Vice President – Education, TechnologyOne.

    Having worked with higher education institutions globally for three decades, I’ve seen policy-driven transformation succeed and fail. The difference comes down to whether institutions treat fundamental change as a strategic and commercial opportunity, or merely as a compliance burden.

    Across UK universities, conversations are increasingly centred on what the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) will mean in practice. The LLE fundamentally restructures how higher education is funded and accessed. Learners will be able to study modular provision at levels 4 to 6 in government-prioritised subjects, pay for individual credits, accumulate learning over decades, and transfer credits between providers.

    The policy intent – making higher education more accessible – is clear. For institutions built around three-year undergraduate programmes, delivering on that requires more than administrative adjustment. It demands a rethink of curriculum design, digital systems, academic regulations and student support models.

    A technology inflection point

    The LLE is more than a policy change. It represents a technology inflection point for higher education. For years, institutions have made incremental adjustments to systems designed for cohort-based, September-to-June academic cycles. The LLE exposes the limitations of those systems.

    Institutions will need to track lifetime credit accumulation across multiple providers, process granular payments that may be months or years apart, verify external prerequisites in real-time, and maintain learning relationships that span decades rather than discrete degree programmes.

    This creates space for innovation. The challenge is not simply to adapt existing platforms, but to reimagine student record systems, finance integration, and learner engagement from the ground up. The technologies that enable personalised digital experiences in sectors such as media streaming or retail banking offer relevant models. International developments – for example, micro-credentials in Australia – provide both cautionary tales and promising precedents.

    The question shifts from ‘How do we make current systems cope?’ to ‘What would we build if we designed for modular, lifelong, multi-provider learning from the outset?’

    The market waiting to be served

    The demand signals are clear. UCAS 2025 data shows UK mature acceptances (aged 21+) have declined 3.3% to 106,120, with steeper drops among those aged 30 and over. Meanwhile, 31% of UK 18-year-olds now intend to live at home while studying (89,510 students, up 6.9% from 2024), driven by affordability constraints.

    The Post-16 education and skills white paper explicitly recognises the need for workforce upskilling at scale. Career transitions require targeted learning rather than full degrees and learners need options that fit alongside work and caring responsibilities.

    The technology enabling this market – flexible enrolment, credit portability, lifetime learner accounts – represents a fundamental refresh of how higher education operates digitally. The LLE removes the policy barriers. The remaining question is whether institutions can build the infrastructure to deliver on the opportunity.

    The curriculum challenge that unlocks it

    Serving this market demands more than breaking degrees into smaller units. Each module must function as both a standalone learning experience and as a component that can stack with credits from other providers. Prerequisites must enable learners to navigate pathways independently. Assessment models must work for twelve-week episodes rather than three-year relationships.

    Academic regulations designed for continuous programmes need to adapt to episodic engagement over decades. Student services built around sustained relationships must be reimagined for twelve-week presences. These aren’t minor adjustments; they’re fundamental policy framework redesigns.

    Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) becomes central rather than peripheral. The issue is not whether institutions can scale existing processes, but whether they can reimagine how learning is valued when it originates elsewhere.

    Timeline realism

    LLE applications open in September 2026. For institutions targeting January 2027 launches, timelines are extremely tight. Across the sector, universities are planning phased September 2027 launches with limited subject scope, rather than ambitious early rollouts that risk operational failure.

    Institutions making meaningful progress are treating LLE as a strategic transformation requiring executive vision. They are testing actual workflows, allocating dedicated resources, and making deliberate scope decisions that acknowledge building capability takes time. Importantly, they’re approaching LLE as an opportunity, not just an obligation.

    The transformation ahead

    The LLE creates space for institutions to rethink digital infrastructure fundamentally rather than incrementally. The most successful technology transformations occur when external pressure aligns with internal ambition – when ’we have to change’ meets ‘here’s what we could build’.

    Institutions approaching this purely as a compliance exercise experience compressed timelines and onerous requirements. Those that view it as an innovation catalyst find that it justifies investments in modern, integrated platforms that have been deferred for years. It enables a more ambitious question: ‘What would a student system designed for lifelong, modular, multi-provider learning actually look like?’

    The opportunity to serve learners historically excluded from higher education is genuine. So too is the opportunity to modernise infrastructure that has struggled under incremental adaptation. The sector’s challenge is translating policy ambition into operational reality for institutions, students, and the communities higher education serves. Those that thrive will be the ones that treat the LLE as permission to innovate, not just an obligation to comply.

    These implementation challenges and more will be explored at TechnologyOne Showcase London on 25 February at HERE & NOW at Outernet, featuring an executive panel with voices from UCISA, ARC, HEPI, SUMS, and institutional leaders discussing how governance, culture, technology, and commercial strategies need to adapt to this new policy landscape. Register for TechnologyOne Showcase here.

    Source link

  • New HEPI Policy Note: Are students still ‘woke’?

    New HEPI Policy Note: Are students still ‘woke’?

    Author:
    Nick Hillman OBE

    Published:

    A new HEPI Policy Note reveals striking and contradictory attitudes among today’s students towards free speech on campus.

    While support for the principle of free expression has grown stronger over the past decade, a significant minority of students also favour firm limits in practice. Most notably, 35% of full-time undergraduates say Reform UK should be banned from speaking at events held in UK universities – a higher level of support for a political ban than recorded previously for any other group.

    Drawing on data collected for HEPI by the polling company Savanta in November 2025 and building on comparable surveys from 2016 and 2022, the findings paint a complex picture. Students overwhelmingly feel able to express their own views, yet almost half believe universities are becoming less tolerant of diverse viewpoints. Support for free speech in the abstract sits alongside rising strong backing for specific restrictions.

    These results are explored in detail in Are students still ‘woke’? (HEPI Policy Note 68), written by HEPI Director Nick Hillman. The report examines how student attitudes are evolving, why apparent contradictions exist and what this means for policy, regulation and debate in higher education. Click here to read the press release and find the full report.

    Source link

  • 3 major policy changes college leaders should keep tabs on

    3 major policy changes college leaders should keep tabs on

    ORLANDO, Fla. — Higher education policy reached a watershed moment last year. 

    Congress passed a massive spending package over the summer, dubbed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, that makes major changes to federal student lending and other higher education policies. And the Trump administration pursued large-scale policy changes, such as new restrictions on international enrollment. 

    This year, colleges will begin to bear the brunt of many of those changes, with the end of the Grad PLUS loan program and the introduction of new lending caps taking effect July 1. The Trump administration is likewise expected to finalize several regulations governing the higher education sector in the coming days and months. 

    Meanwhile, lawmakers are weighing further changes to student aid in the federal government’s budget for fiscal 2026, including the potential elimination of some major programs. 

    This week, higher education experts at the Council of Independent Colleges’ Presidents Institute — an annual gathering of hundreds of top leaders at private nonprofit institutions — broke down some of the policy changes expected in the year ahead and called on college presidents to advocate for their sector’s interests. 

    “We really all do rise or fall as a sector, certainly in terms of federal policy,” CIC President Marjorie Hass said during a conference event Wednesday. “Even the largest and loftiest institutions have discovered that.” 

    Congress is weighing major changes to federal student aid

    Congressional lawmakers ended the longest government shutdown in history in November by passing a measure to continue federal funding through Jan. 30, 2026. But they still need to pass a budget package to fund the government for the rest of the fiscal year. 

    So far, proposals released from the House and Senate’s appropriations committees for higher education funding are drastically different. 

    The House’s version, for instance, would eliminate all funding for the Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant program, which provides need-based financial aid to undergraduate students. It would also lower funding for Federal Work-Study, which provides part-time employment to students to help them pay for college, to $779 million — $451 million less than 2025 levels. 

    However, the House’s plan would hold the maximum Pell Grant steady at $7,395. 

    Meanwhile, the Senate’s version would keep funding level for FSEOG, Federal Work-Study and the maximum Pell Grant. 

    “A lot of the student aid started about 50 some years ago,” Barbara Mistick, president of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, said Wednesday. “If we want to continue to secure that student aid for the next decade, it’s on us.”

    Mistick told conference attendees that it’s important for them to weigh in on these issues annually. “If you sent a letter last year, don’t think they’re still holding on to that letter and going to take a look at it again,” Mistick said. 

    Regulators mull which programs are “professional”

    One of the biggest changes in the OBBBA is the end of the Grad PLUS loan program, which for two decades has allowed graduate students to borrow up to the cost of their attendance. 

    Lawmakers also capped graduate student lending at $100,000 for most programs and $200,000 for professional programs. The U.S. Department of Education convened a committee late last year to craft regulatory language to carry out the new legislation through a process called negotiated rulemaking. 

    That committee — composed of different higher education stakeholders, including college and student representatives — reached consensus on language specifying which programs are deemed professional and thus eligible for the higher lending caps. 

    However, the language drew immediate pushback for excluding some major fields, such as graduate nursing, occupational therapy and physician associate programs. 

    “If you’ve got deans and you’ve got nursing schools and health sciences programs on your campus, [or] other programs that were not deemed professional, get those professional organizations involved,” Mistick said. 

    Source link

  • New HEPI Policy Note: Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Advance Translational Research

    New HEPI Policy Note: Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Advance Translational Research

    Author:
    Rose Stephenson and Lan Murdock

    Published:

    A new report by HEPI and Taylor & Francis explores the potential of AI to advance translational research and accelerate the journey from scientific discovery to real-world application. 

    Using Artificial Intelligence (AI) to Advance Translational Research (HEPI Policy Note 67), authored by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Strategy at HEPI, and Lan Murdock, Senior Corporate Communications Manager at Taylor & Francis, draws on discussions at a roundtable of higher education leaders, researchers, AI innovators and funders, as well as a range of research case studies, to evaluate the future role of AI in translational research. 

    The report finds that AI has the potential to strengthen the UK’s translational research system, but that realising these benefits will require careful implementation, appropriate governance and sustained investment. 

    You can find the press release and read the full report here.

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: LSST gave me a second chance: policy should protect, not penalise institutions like it

    WEEKEND READING: LSST gave me a second chance: policy should protect, not penalise institutions like it

    This blog was kindly authored by Ahmed Al-Athwari, PGCert Student and Academic Support Tutor employed at the London School of Science and Technology (LSST).

    My name is Ahmed Al-Athwari. I was born in Yemen and raised amid hardship, eventually graduating from Sana’a University with a degree in Oceanography and Environmental Science.

    My life changed dramatically in December 1999 when I was forced to flee Yemen. I found myself in a refugee camp in the Netherlands, starting from scratch in a new country, with a new culture and language. Rebuilding my life was not easy, but I succeeded, securing a job with the city council in Heerlen.

    In 2012, family reasons brought me to the UK, and once more, I had to adapt to a different culture and environment, starting over.

    While living in the Netherlands in 2006, I tried to enrol in an MSc programme. My application to the University was rejected due to limited experience in environmental issues and language requirements. I was advised to start with a BSc, but this application also failed because, at the time, the system didn’t allow students over 30 to access government loans. My dream of higher education, to fulfil the promise I made to myself and make my family in Yemen, and later my children, proud, never left me.

    After moving to the UK, I continued my quest. In 2013, I visited Birmingham City University and contacted several higher education providers to explore MSc opportunities in Environmental Sustainability Engineering. In 2016, I finally received an offer. However, at the first meeting, my application was rejected again, citing the long gap since I completed my BSc in Yemen. That was the moment I almost gave up, truly believing the obstacles were insurmountable. It was a moment of certainty that the train had truly passed, and any hope that I would get a second chance to correct the course of my life, which circumstances beyond my control had diverted, vanished.

    I still remember September 2019 vividly; I felt as if I were standing on a platform at dusk as the last train approached. My English was uncertain. I was an older student, grey-haired and full of doubt, wondering if it was too late to begin again.

    Then, the London School of Science and Technology (LSST) opened the door. What changed everything was the opportunity to study through a franchised programme: Buckinghamshire New University (BNU) offered its degree through a partnership, with BNU as the lead provider and LSST as the local delivery partner. Had recent proposals to restrict franchising been in place, that pathway might not have existed. This highlights why policy matters. Franchised provision is often portrayed as a risk; however, my experience suggests the opposite. When a university designs a rigorous curriculum and assures academic quality, and a dedicated local partner delivers responsive support, the model can widen participation and deliver strong outcomes.

    From the very first week, I felt seen. Study-skills sessions were strategic, showing me that progress is a process, not a miracle. I learned to draft summaries, write in focused bursts, and seek feedback early. By my second year, I could argue a point, speak without freezing, and write with purpose.

    Returning to education later in life is not the same as going straight from school to university. It means entering a classroom after years away, carrying not just books but a whole life, work, bills, family, and responsibilities that don’t pause for a 9am seminar. I studied on buses, revised in corridors, and wrote essays between school drop-offs. Some weeks were woven from early mornings and late nights, as sleep was traded for progress.

    Back in Yemen, the conflict that began in 1994 has only worsened. Family emergencies don’t wait for exam schedules. Calls come at difficult hours. News from home can drain your focus in an instant. In that context, studying is not just an academic pursuit; it is an act of hope.

    I chose LSST because it offered access with ambition. The message was clear: if you are willing to work, we are eager to help. I was not looking for easy; I was looking for possible.

    I was not seeking the prestige or amenities of a traditional campus. I needed a campus culture that understood mature students, commuters, and migrants, one that offered affordability, flexibility, and personalised support. Had regulation squeezed out providers like LSST, many students, especially those returning to education, would face far fewer choices.

    The support at LSST was practical and visible, comprising one-to-one academic advice, workshops on academic skills, access to librarians and digital resources, quiet study spaces, and well-being support when life outside the classroom became overwhelming. Encouragement was not sentimental; it was momentum. Gradually, the platform’s feeling faded. I was no longer chasing the train; I was on it.

    Through this route, I completed a BA (Hons) in Business Management with BNU via LSST, then progressed to an MSc in International Business Management at the University of West London. I am now completing a PGCert while preparing for my PhD. The habits I developed outlining, redrafting, critical reading, referencing did more than help me pass assignments; they sharpened my voice. The clarity that earned praise reflects a more profound truth: well-governed franchise partnerships can combine access with quality. The HEPI report “What Is Wrong with Franchise Provision?” explores perceived risks and argues for robust oversight, reporting, and governance to ensure these benefits are realised.

    In 2023 I won first prize for an essay on the Metaverse, which was praised by the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change and CNN for its clarity and narrative flow. The essay competition was organised by LSST.

    I often wonder what my journey would have looked like without LSST. Honestly, I might still be on that platform, promising myself “next term,” studying alone after long days, writing without a reader, working without a mentor. I would have continued caring and staying busy, but I missed the compound effect of structure, feedback, community, and belief. Franchised provision is not a loophole; it is a lifeline.

    Later, I became a Student Ambassador and then a Students’ Union Coordinator, roles that helped new cohorts feel they belonged and allowed me to work with staff to improve the student experience. As an Academic Support, I help students turn feedback into meaningful change.

    This pathway, from hesitant mature entrant to aspiring lecturer, was made possible by a policy environment that allowed universities to franchise degrees through trusted partners. Recent regulatory proposals risk painting those partnerships as inherently problematic. However, my experience suggests something different: the right approach is not to strangle the model, but to strengthen it, ensuring quality while maintaining open access.

    If you are coming from a non-traditional route, returning after years away, balancing work or caring responsibilities, or studying across borders, know this: you do not need a perfect start. You need the right place, steady habits, and people who will back you.

    Higher education policy should also consider this. If regulation makes it harder for providers like LSST to operate, the students who lose out will be those who most need a second chance. The focus should be on transparent quality assurance, risk-based oversight, and supportive partnerships between lead and delivery partners, not on discouraging the model altogether.

    Studying at LSST not only gave me degrees; it gave me resilience, confidence, and the belief that nothing is easy, but everything is possible. With the encouragement of my former professors, now my colleagues, I am currently preparing to submit a doctoral proposal.

    I began all this on a platform at dusk, afraid the last train would leave without me. It did not. I got on, learned the rhythm, and kept moving. Policy should keep that train running for others.

    Source link

  • All I want for Christmas is for policy to align its ambition with its action

    All I want for Christmas is for policy to align its ambition with its action

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Kate Wicklow, GuildHE Director of Policy and Strategy

    The higher education sector is renowned for its innovation and global standing, with diverse providers consistently delivering great work and immense value. However, the sector could also certainly do with some festive cheer at the moment. There are multiple pressures placed upon us which impact our resilience and threaten our energies and resources to continue to be a global powerhouse. 

    A vision without the tools to deliver it

    The Post-16 White Paper has offered the sector a new vision, one where it asks higher education institutions to govern themselves differently, with greater collaboration between providers, and therefore less market based ideologies within sector activity. But it places all of the responsibility to fix the sector challenges on individual providers rather than offering systems leadership or policy support.

    The recently published new OfS strategy also offers a welcome reset of the regulator-institution relationship to be less combative. However, the actions proposed to underpin the strategic statements seem disconnected from the DfE vision of sector coordination, likely in part due to their unfortunate simultaneous development. The OfS strategy roadmap provides no clarity on how the regulator plans to either reduce the regulatory burden or sustain its current risk-based methodology. Furthermore, it omits measures essential for safeguarding sector diversity, an obligation under the Higher Education and Research Act (HERA), and one that is arguably critical in the current climate.

    The missing piece: financial realism

    Both documents omit the critical financial realities institutions face, which aren’t solely due to governance failings, but rather mounting pressures that are well rehearsed and have forced the sector to do more with less for the last 13 years – which just isn’t sustainable. At some point, the system breaks, and we are seeing cracks widen now. While the White Paper offered a fee uplift, the unexpected international student levy negates this. We are certainly in a critical moment for the future shape of the sector, which makes the forthcoming review of OfS’s Strategic Priority Grant particularly concerning in its potential to destabilise what additional state funding is received.

    A sector whose diversity is its strength – and its vulnerability

    GuildHE represents the UK’s most diverse range of higher education providers, varying in size, location, and operational models. Our members, who include small and large, rural and urban, practice-based and online, specialist and more generalist, and both publicly and privately funded institutions, are renowned for delivering practical, industry-relevant education, research, and innovation. Thanks to this unparalleled diversity, GuildHE acts as a crucial gauge for the higher education sector, offering unique insights into the opportunities and challenges affecting the entire landscape.

    The white paper rightly highlights the immense value that this diverse range of higher education providers brings to students, local economies, and the nation as a whole. Our member institutions are often pioneers in their fields, offering unique courses and producing highly skilled graduates. Yet, despite this declared commitment to diversity, policy mechanisms and funding models always seem to operate with an inevitable bias towards scale and homogenisation.

    The true barrier to sustaining sector excellence and diversity isn’t simply a lack of commitment from institutions, but a contradiction at the heart of policymaking: the very mechanisms of funding and regulation are inadvertently acting as a constraint on the diversity they claim to champion. 

    The current regulatory framework, built for a typical large-scale, multi-faculty provider, often inadvertently penalises innovative and smaller-scale or specialist institutions. A clear example is how the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), with its emphasis on metrics,  disadvantages, by design, providers with small student cohorts. The core issue is not just which metrics are used, but the inherent volatility of data when applied to small cohort sizes. Offering providers the opportunity to contextualise their quantitative data with other evidence is therefore vital, but adds additional burden on these institutions.

    Funding must recognise the distinctiveness and value of specialist institutions, both in teaching and in research. For research, the White Paper encourages institutions to focus on strengths, specialise, and collaborate, but we must ensure this doesn’t undermine world-leading specialists by overusing the ‘specialist’ term too liberally. Equally, there must be incentives for collaboration, tangible reasons for larger institutions to work with smaller-scale or different partners, and levers pulled to encourage institutions not to simply rinse and repeat the same collaborative arrangements. In addition, innovation funding remains skewed towards larger-scale operations, with thresholds on HEIF remaining a particular barrier for smaller-scale institutions. We need fresh thinking on knowledge exchange and innovation funding to diversify recipients, sustain innovation across all institutions, and enable commercialisation. 

    In teaching funding, the review of SPG will inevitably create winners and losers. There are worries in the sector that the subject prioritisation will not reflect all of the I8 areas. For example, creative skills are at the top of the Industrial Strategy and are regularly cited as being important to all industries. The creative industries are rife with skills shortages and clearly require graduate skills (75% of the industry have degrees,  significantly higher than the UK average of 51%). Yet we are concerned that the forthcoming SPG review will not redress years of creative subject funding cuts to deliver this much-needed pipeline.

    Specialist institutions of all types require state-of-the-art equipment, from professional-grade theatres to medical-grade clinics and working farms. These learning environments come with high fixed costs, regardless of student numbers, which themselves need to remain fairly static to ensure the equipment is accessible to all students for a high-quality experience. If funding is driven solely by student volume, without adequate recognition of the fixed costs of this distinctiveness, the business model for specialist institutions becomes perpetually precarious. This is what we’ve seen materialise over the past 10 years and is why the OfS and DfE recognise the additional financial needs through specialist institution funding. This funding is also under review in the new year.

    Aligning ambition with action

    To genuinely champion institutional diversity, the OfS must do more than offer rhetorical support or simply monitor providers. In line with the white paper’s emphasis on protecting and preserving diversity, the OfS has a duty to ensure its funding proposals reflect this goal. If OfS is serious about safeguarding diversity, its conclusions on funding and its response to the white paper must lead to a review of the regulatory policies and processes that currently encourage uniformity. This is essential to create the conditions necessary for all types of institutions to not just survive, but truly thrive. DfE also has a bigger role to play in thinking about diversity within its policy development and vision for the sector. Moving away from market-style regulatory dynamics offers them new levers and ideas for bringing us all together to collectively support our world-class provision to grow and innovate. 

    GuildHE will continue to push for a regulatory landscape that is proportionate and focused on fostering greater sector collaboration in order to achieve excellence across the widest range of institutions because that is how we deliver for the widest range of students.  

    So our Christmas wish is simple: that policymakers seize more opportunities to make good on HERA and the white paper’s stated ambition to protect the sector’s diversity.

    Source link