Tag: reading

  • Student-created book reviews inspire a global reading culture

    Student-created book reviews inspire a global reading culture

    Key points:

    When students become literacy influencers, reading transforms from a classroom task into a global conversation.

    When teens take the mic

    Recent studies show that reading for pleasure among teens is at an all-time low. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), only 14 percent of U.S. students read for fun almost every day–down from 31 percent in 1984. In the UK, the National Literacy Trust reports that just 28 percent of children aged 8 to 18 said they enjoyed reading in their free time in 2023.

    With reading engagement in crisis, one group of teens decided to flip the narrative–by turning on their cameras. What began as a simple classroom project to encourage reading evolved into a movement that amplified student voices, built confidence, and connected learners across cultures.

    Rather than writing traditional essays or book reports, my students were invited to create short video book reviews of their favorite titles–books they genuinely loved, connected with, and wanted others to discover. The goal? To promote reading in the classroom and beyond. The result? A library of student-led recommendations that brought books–and readers–to life.

    Project overview: Reading, recording, and reaching the world

    As an ESL teacher, I’ve always looked for ways to make literacy feel meaningful and empowering, especially for students navigating a new language and culture. This video review project began with a simple idea: Let students choose a book they love, and instead of writing about it, speak about it. The assignment? Create a short, personal, and authentic video to recommend the book to classmates–and potentially, to viewers around the world.

    Students were given creative freedom to shape their presentations. Some used editing apps like Filmora9 or Canva, while others recorded in one take on a smartphone. I offered a basic outline–include the book’s title and author, explain why you loved it, and share who you’d recommend it to–but left room for personal flair.

    What surprised me most was how seriously students took the project. They weren’t just completing an assignment–they were crafting their voices, practicing communication skills, and taking pride in their ability to share something they loved in a second language.

    Student spotlights: Book reviews with heart, voice, and vision

    Each student’s video became more than a book recommendation–it was an expression of identity, creativity, and confidence. With a camera as their platform, they explored their favorite books and communicated their insights in authentic, impactful ways.

    Mariam ElZeftawy: The Fault in Our Stars by John Green
    Watch Miriam’s Video Review

    Mariam led the way with a polished and emotionally resonant video review of John Green’s The Fault in Our Stars. Using Filmora9, she edited her video to flow smoothly while keeping the focus on her heartfelt reflections. Mariam spoke with sincerity about the novel’s themes: love, illness, and the fragility of life. She communicated them in a way that was both thoughtful and relatable. Her work demonstrated not only strong literacy skills but also digital fluency and a growing sense of self-expression.

    Dana: Dear Tia by Maria Zaki
    Watch Dana’s Video Review

    In one of the most touching video reviews, Dana, a student who openly admits she’s not an avid reader, chose to spotlight “Dear Tia,” written by Maria Zaki, her best friend’s sister. The personal connection to the author didn’t just make her feel seen; it made the book feel more real, more urgent, and worth talking about. Dana’s honest reflection and warm delivery highlight how personal ties to literature can spark unexpected enthusiasm.

    Farah Badawi: Utopia by Ahmed Khaled Towfik
    Watch Farah’s Video Review

    Farah’s confident presentation introduced her classmates to Utopia, a dystopian novel by Egyptian author Ahmed Khaled Towfik. Through her review, she brought attention to Arabic literature, offering a perspective that is often underrepresented in classrooms. Farah’s choice reflected pride in her cultural identity, and her delivery was clear, persuasive, and engaging. Her video became more than a review–it was a form of cultural storytelling that invited her peers to expand their literary horizons.

    Rita Tamer: Frostblood
    Watch Rita’s Video Review

    Rita’s review of Frostblood, a fantasy novel by Elly Blake, stood out for its passionate tone and concise storytelling. She broke down the plot with clarity, highlighting the emotional journey of the protagonist while reflecting on themes like power, resilience, and identity. Rita’s straightforward approach and evident enthusiasm created a strong peer-to-peer connection, showing how even a simple, sincere review can spark curiosity and excitement about reading.

    Literacy skills in action

    Behind each of these videos lies a powerful range of literacy development. Students weren’t just reviewing books–they were analyzing themes, synthesizing ideas, making connections, and articulating their thoughts for an audience. By preparing for their recordings, students learned how to organize their ideas, revise their messages for clarity, and reflect on what made a story impactful to them personally.

    Speaking to a camera also encouraged students to practice intonation, pacing, and expression–key skills in both oral language development and public speaking. In multilingual classrooms, these skills are often overlooked in favor of silent writing tasks. But in this project, English Learners were front and center, using their voices–literally and figuratively–to take ownership of language in a way that felt authentic and empowering.

    Moreover, the integration of video tools meant students had to think critically about how they presented information visually. From editing with apps like Filmora9 to choosing appropriate backgrounds, they were not just absorbing content, they were producing and publishing it, embracing their role as creators in a digital world.

    Tips for teachers: Bringing book reviews to life

    This project was simple to implement and required little more than student creativity and access to a recording device. Here are a few tips for educators who want to try something similar:

    • Let students choose their own books: Engagement skyrockets when they care about what they’re reading.
    • Keep the structure flexible: A short outline helps, but students thrive when given room to speak naturally.
    • Offer tech tools as optional, not mandatory: Some students enjoyed using Filmora9 or Canva, while others used the camera app on their phone.
    • Focus on voice and message, not perfection: Encourage students to focus on authenticity over polish.
    • Create a classroom premiere day: Let students watch each other’s videos and celebrate their peers’ voices.

    Literacy is personal, public, and powerful

    This project proved what every educator already knows: When students are given the opportunity to express themselves in meaningful ways, they rise to the occasion. Through book reviews, my students weren’t just practicing reading comprehension, they were becoming speakers, storytellers, editors, and advocates for literacy.

    They reminded me and will continue to remind others that when young people talk about books in their own voices, with their personal stories woven into the narrative, something beautiful happens: Reading becomes contagious.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Bank holiday reading: Flying the Nest in the wrong direction – How we can attract our ‘lost boys’ back into HE

    Bank holiday reading: Flying the Nest in the wrong direction – How we can attract our ‘lost boys’ back into HE

    In sociology, the term ‘male flight’ refers to men abandoning fields, activities, or professions when they are perceived as becoming too ‘feminine’ or associated with women. Lisa Wade argues that this is ‘bad long-term strategy for maintaining dominance.’ Education, especially in recent years, has become a battleground for cultural and political struggles, particularly in the wake of growing far-right influence in both Europe and the United States. But is the shift away from higher education by young men simply a cultural power struggle, or are we failing to meet their needs and expectations?

    The Impact of Gender Dynamics on Higher Education Participation

    Men are increasingly opting out of higher education. The widening gender gap in college enrolment reveals a troubling trend: higher education is now facing what can be described as male flight. In the United States, this gap has expanded dramatically. In 1979, only 200,000 more women attended college than men; by 2021, that number had surged to 3.1 million more women than men. While the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted enrollment figures in 2021, this shift underscores a broader trend in gender and education that warrants serious consideration.

    A similar pattern is unfolding in the UK. In 2020/21, there were 2.75 million students enrolled in higher education, with women making up 57% of the student body. The undergraduate sector exhibits the largest gender gap. This growth, however, raises critical questions about the future of male participation in higher education.

    The Retreat of Men from Higher Education: A Closer Look

    The trend of male flight from higher education is unlikely to reverse without targeted intervention. A study by King’s College London highlights that young men today are particularly concerned about the challenges they face in society. Unlike their older counterparts, younger men and women hold vastly different views on education, social issues, and political ideologies. According to a survey of over 3,500 young people aged 16+, young men tend to be less supportive of gender equality initiatives and are increasingly aligning with right-wing political views. Within this context, right-wing political groups, such as Reform UK, advocate for a ‘no-nonsense’ approach to education, emphasizing a patriotic curriculum that they argue better addresses concerns about social equality. Their proposals often reflect a growing sentiment among some groups, particularly white men, who feel that their experiences and challenges do not align with current gender equality initiatives.  

    While the political rhetoric surrounding this issue is highly charged, it demands serious attention. The key question now is: How can we rebuild young men’s confidence in higher education? This is particularly pressing when considering young men from low-income or disadvantaged backgrounds. Research shows that white working-class men are disproportionately likely to cite the high cost of higher education as a barrier to entry.

    Fees and student loans are the biggest concern of young people as they look ahead onto the HE landscape, with over 25% of young Britons thinking that university is not worth it. Alongside this sector-wide issue, young men are retreating from HE in much higher numbers than any of their female or BAME counterparts. This is something that should not be ignored if we want truly inclusive HE.  

    What Can We Do? Policies to Address Inclusive Education and Rebuild Trust Among Disadvantaged White Men

    Many of these issues must be addressed by universities themselves. Male students often feel that higher education fails to cater to their unique needs. Young men are less likely to engage in extracurricular activities – such as sports or student unions – that are integral to the student experience. Neil Raven’s contribution to this blog last year highlights young men feeling unsupported and disengaged, and as with everything in this sector, the solution to this question is not straightforward. To truly address the challenges young men face in education, universities must acknowledge that their needs and experiences are distinct and deserve to be supported in meaningful and effective ways.

    When we talk about the financial red flags facing disadvantaged young white men, we’re really addressing the prospect of being burdened with debt—especially when they are just one choice away from avoiding it altogether. Adopting Tim Leunig’s recommendation to shorten the student loan repayment term from 40 years to 20 would give students greater confidence that they can achieve financial freedom by mid-life.  

    Furthermore, research conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies commissioned by the Department for Education (DfE) found that only 1 in 5 students would not be financially better off by going to university. This is reason enough to incentivise young white men back into the warm embrace of higher education.

    A shorter repayment term would not only alleviate long-term financial anxiety but also encourage people from all backgrounds to pursue higher education without the fear of being shackled by debt for life. The Higher Education Policy Institute’s own research, despite indicating young women being more debt-averse than men (even with men paying more of the debt due to higher salaries in the longer term), shows that most of our young people are opposed to the Labour government’s tuition fee increase. A shorter repayment term will perhaps not only restore the confidence of our young women – who are already sceptical of the lower salaries they will receive throughout their careers – but reassure all of our young people that student loans are not a lifelong burden, and that we have a system that rewards ambition rather than punishing those who take the leap.

    Moreover, this shift could help restore confidence in the value of a degree, particularly for those who currently see university as a risky financial gamble rather than a stepping stone to social mobility. This is, as Mr Raven identifies, especially important as men doubt and call into question graduate outcomes in the long term.

    Figure 1 New HEPI polling shows Labour’s tuition fee rise made more palatable by maintenance support increase – HEPI

    HEPI’s research also indicates that a tuition fee hike is made more palatable if accompanied by an increase in maintenance support. In a piece I wrote for the Sixteenth Council, I referred to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’s proposals regarding maintenance support. One of these was restoring the generosity of maintenance support to 2020 levels, which represents a 16% increase for the 23/24 intake. Yes, this means issuing £1.5bn in maintenance loans, but repayment levels would mean that the cost to the government and the taxpayer would fall to £0.4bn.

    Therefore, making HE more attractive for young people – especially those white, working-class young men who are lacking that engagement with education – involves reducing the repayment term for tuition fees down to 20 years and restoring maintenance support to pre-COVID levels. Ultimately, this would, as HEPI’s research indicates, make the recent tuition fee rise more palatable and, in turn, set young minds at ease.

    Another way of addressing these practical problems is spearheading a secondary school library-building scheme. The National Literacy Trust identified a strong link between school library use and reading attainment, which is especially important as low reading abilities help to ‘entrench’ education inequality in the UK. The provision and accessibility of school libraries from a young age can help boost attainment in early years and beyond, setting young men on a course that permits more positive thinking about further and then higher education.

    The National Literacy Trust’s report also notes that library users receiving free school meals showed higher reading enjoyment and increased reading and writing for pleasure. They tended to read and write a greater variety of material relative to non-library users. In 2021, the Commons Education Committee found that white working class students were ‘by far the largest group of disadvantaged pupils’ with just under a million eligible for free school meals in 2020. Accessible libraries and reading spaces may be the next big step we can take to help disadvantaged pupils. The National Literacy Trust’s report reveals that white working-class boys receiving free school meals are particularly poised to benefit from a campaign of boosting libraries and reading spaces in educational settings, which may help improve their engagement with education as a whole.

    A few months ago, I attended the Publishers’ Association’s parliamentary drop-in event, where I learnt a lot about the importance of the relationship between school libraries, reading attainment, and the publishing industry as a whole. I enjoyed reading in my primary school’s small library space, and throughout my time at secondary school, I made use of both the school’s reading spaces and our local community library. Unfortunately, I must recognise that this was an enormous privilege for a white working-class student when it should just be a permanent feature of our outstanding education system.

    This is extremely relevant now as I look out on the educational landscape. Young men are falling behind women in education, a significant issue which goes way back to before primary school. According to the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), ‘From the day they start primary school, to the day they leave higher education, the progress of boys lags behind girls’.

    Ultimately, the success of higher education in the 21st century will depend on how effectively universities can adapt to the evolving needs of all students. In the case of young men, this means recognizing their unique challenges and addressing them with targeted, thoughtful solutions. Only by doing so can we create a higher education system that truly serves everyone, regardless of gender.

    As Mr Raven notes in his blog contribution, it is certainly ‘our problem, not theirs’.

    Source link

  • Bank holiday reading: Government control of US universities

    Bank holiday reading: Government control of US universities

    • Gill Evans is Emeritus Professor of Medieval Theology and Intellectual History at the University of Cambridge.

    In early March 2025, the Trump administration sent letters to 60 US universities warning them that they faced ‘potential enforcement actions’ for what it described as ‘failure to protect Jewish students on campus’ during the widespread pro-Palestinian protests on campuses during the last year. This Government direction not only permitted terms to be set on which continuing funding was to be conditional for a specific higher education provider, but also allowed those terms to encroach on the academic freedom of an institution to choose what to teach and how. This ‘Project 2025’  also allowed the President to require a significant proportion of funding to go to the provision of ‘business’ courses. 

    There were wider consequences of these Government directions. The resulting limitation of funding for research quickly prompted hints of restricted publication of results and encouraged US academics to seek employment in Canada, the UK and Europe.

    Though it was joined in its active resistance by Yale and Princeton, Harvard became a test case. It objected to the Government demand that it immediately agree:

    to implement the Trump administration’s demands to overhaul the University’s governance and leadership, academic programs, admissions system, hiring process, and discipline system—with the promise of more demands to come

     and thus ‘overtly seek to impose on Harvard University political views and policy preferences advanced by the Trump administration and commit the University to punishing disfavored speech’. [1] The US Education Department speedily responded, announcing on 14 April that it was freezing about $2.3bn of Harvard’s funding. On 15 April, Trump threatened to remove Harvard’s tax-exempt status,

    US universities are divided into the ‘private’ and ‘public’ on the basis of their funding and therefore differ in the extent to which they are at risk of loss of funding in attacks on their academic freedom. The ‘private’ Ivy League universities enjoy substantial endowments, making them less dependent on their supplementary Government funding than their ‘public’ counterparts.

    The Office for Students funds and regulates higher education in England. MEDR, the Welsh Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, funds and regulates higher education in Wales, taking these responsibilities over from the former Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The counterpart body for Scotland is the Scottish Funding Council. This depends on the Scottish Government for the funding it disburses to providers.

    English higher education providers enjoy an institutional autonomy, strengthened by the fact that Government funding for English higher education was greatly reduced with the progressive ending of a ‘block grant’ under the Higher Education Act of 2004 and the raising of tuition fees in 2012. That was replaced by much higher student tuition fees under the Higher Education and Research Act of 2017.

    Under the same legislation the autonomy of higher education providers in England is protected, with express reference to their right to design their own courses, choose their students and appoint their academic staff.  This extends to higher education at tertiary education levels 4 and 5 as well as to ‘degree-level’ 6 and postgraduate degrees at levels 7 and 8.

    This legislative permission does not allow a free-for-all. ‘University’ is a ‘sensitive term’ in English law, as are ‘higher’ and ‘accreditation’ when used of education. New providers may grant their own degrees and call themselves ‘universities’ only if they have powers to do so. In the case of new providers that requires Registration by the Office for Students (OfS). The OfS is subject only to ‘guidance on strategic priorities from the Department for Education’, though its activity is open to expressions of Parliamentary concern. For example, on 2 April 2025, the House of Commons debated ‘the impact of university finances on jobs in higher education’. It was suggested that ‘the funding model, which depends on international students paying higher fees, has harmed universities since Brexit’, but it was recognised that only public funding and such broad policy preferences lay with the Government.

    The accreditation of qualifications in the UK is the responsibility of a number of agencies, some of which are professional and some are public bodies. In the USA ‘relying on private, independent accrediting agencies has been the most important tool for preventing the centralized political control of higher education in the United States’.  The authority of the Trump directive over these seemed clear at first.

    What protects the institutional autonomy of US Universities? The nearest US counterpart to the Office for Students is the Higher Learning Commission, an independent agency founded in 1895. It accredits institutions granting degrees. The University of Michigan, for example seeks renewal of its accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission every ten years. Its ‘evaluations’ are conducted by reviewers from other institutions not the HLC itself.

    The award of ‘University title’ and degree-awarding powers is not restricted in the US as it is in England.  For example they may derive from a Charter establishing the institution. Its own Charter granted the Trustees of Columbia University degree-awarding powers and powers to create such:

    ordinances and by-laws which to them shall seem expedient for carrying into effect the designs of their institution; Provided always, That such ordinances or by-laws shall not make the religious tenets of any person a condition of admission to any privilege or office in the said college, nor be inconsistent with the constitution and laws of this state, nor with the constitution and laws of the United States.

    Private US universities

    The privately funded Ivy League Universities were set up with a degree of constitutional independence. Each had a State-based beginning. Harvard was established as a College by the General Court of Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1636 with funding of £400. Its stated purpose was to ensure that the Puritans should be provided with educated ministers, by advancing ‘learning’ to meet the needs of ‘posterity’ and to avoid leaving churches with ‘an illiterate ministry’. Princeton, founded in 1746 by the Presbyterian Synod as the College of New Jersey, had its name changed to Princeton University in 1896. Its present charter dates from 1748. It too has Trustees.  In an age when it could be expected that those arriving from England would be practising members of the Church of England, it was insistent about religious freedom:

    Petitioners have also expressed their earnest Desire that those of every Religious Denomination may have free and Equal Liberty and Advantage in the Said College any different Sentiments in Religion notwithstanding.

    Columbia, too, began as a College. It was granted a Royal Charter in 1754, making its governors a ‘body corporate’. In 1912, the corporate name was changed to ‘Columbia University’. A series of amendments followed,  with an Act of the people of the State of New York in 1810 clarifying the position. Its Trustees were to form ‘a body politic and corporate’ ‘in the City of New York’, with ‘continual succession for ever’ and a common seal. The powers of its Trustees as governors were set out in detail, separating them decisively from the ‘professors’ and ‘tutors ‘. The Trustees were to:

    have full power and authority to direct and prescribe the course of study, and the discipline to be observed in the said college, and also to select by ballot or otherwise, a president of the said college, who shall hold his office during good behavior,

    but no ‘professor, tutor, or other assistant officer’ was to be a Trustee.   There was to be an executive body, consisting of eleven of the Trustees, constituting ‘a quorum for the despatch of all [routine] business’.  

    Its Statutes include a ‘Code of Academic Freedom and Tenure’:

    Academic freedom implies that all officers of instruction are entitled to freedom in the classroom in discussing their subjects; that they are entitled to freedom in research and in the publication of its results; and that they may not be penalized by the University for expressions of opinion or associations in their private or civic capacity; but they should bear in mind the special obligations arising from their position in the academic community.

    In March 2025, seeking to force the University of Columbia to comply with his instructions, the President of the USA withdrew $400m of federal funding.  Nine specific ’reforms’ had been called for in this case, including a change of Departmental Head and modifications to its provision of Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies. A Senior Vice-Provost was to review the educational programmes.

    The University published a statement of its own view that certain ‘protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are generally not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct’ because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities’.  Yet Columbia acceded to the Trump administration’s demands, including an agreement to expand ‘intellectual diversity’ as ‘defined by the Trump administration’.

    Princeton spoke of resistance when the ‘Trump administration suspended dozens of grants to the University from several agencies, including the Department of Energy, NASA, and the Department of Defense’, pending ‘an investigation into antisemitism on campus’. Yale too declared its resistance in a letter signed by 900 of its Faculty, protesting at ‘unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance’. On March 31, Cornell published an op-ed by its President in the New York Times, describing the point which had been made in the interests of freedom of speech when the University held a Panel conversation exploring ‘pathways to peace’ for Israel and Palestine.

    On 24 March, the American Association of University Professors and Democracy Forward explained the decision to litigate. On 11 April 202,5 Harvard began its own litigation about ‘the Trump administration’s unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech on a university campus’. It complained that on March 31 ‘an investigation of Harvard University’ had been announced and on April 3 this had been followed by an order to ‘adopt a list of vague yet sweeping programmatic and structural changes to university management, operations, and curriculum’ as a condition of the University continuing to be the ‘recipient’ of $9 billion ‘federal taxpayer dollars’.

    Harvard argued that the Government had failed to take the required preliminary steps under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. These requirements, it pointed out, existed because ‘Congress recognized that allowing federal agencies to hold funding hostage, or to cancel it cavalierly, would give them dangerously broad power in a system in which institutions depend so heavily upon federal funding’.  It pointed out that the Trump administration had:

    frozen over $1 billion in funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University, with an even more shocking lack of process, not even purporting to issue communications providing notice under Title VI or any other legal authority.

    Public US universities

    US public universities are subject to national Government control as recipients of Government funding. State legislation about them is also significant. The University of North Carolina was established by legislation in 1789, becoming America’s first public university. Its many schools and offshoots were brought together by the North Carolina General Assembly in 1972.  The Constitution of the State of Texas states that its legislature shall ‘establish, organise and provide for the maintenance, support, and direction of a University of the first class’ with a new ‘undergraduate curriculum’ and also ‘establish a more demanding standard for leadership of academic departments and research centres’. As a public research university, the University of Texas at Austin (founded 1883) now describes itself as ‘the flagship institution of the University of Texas System’.

    Conclusion

    A wise US university makes provision to respond to both Government and State supervision. Michigan has a Vice President for Government Relations, acting ‘as the university’s bridge between local, state, and federal governments’. Its ‘State Relations team is committed to building and nurturing strong relationships with state government officials and agencies’, seeking ‘to secure funding, influence policy, and represent the university’s interests in state-level discussions.  It also has a Federal Relations team ‘dedicated to fostering and maintaining collaborative relationships between the university and federal government entities including the U.S. Congress’. It too has been subject to Donald Trump’s demands and has stopped the successful diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) program it has run since 2016,  and closed the office it had set up to deal with it.

    It remains to be seen how far the present President of the USA will succeed in enlarging Government control of the nation’s institutions of higher education by linking direction of academic activity with their funding. Former President Barack Obama did not hesitate to express his support for Harvard, calling Trump’s action ‘unlawful and ham-handed‘.

    [1] Harvard Faculty Chapter, and American Association of University Professors v. United States Department of Justice, filed 11 April, 2025.

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Imperfect information in higher education

    Weekend Reading: Imperfect information in higher education

    • Joseph Morrison-Howe is an undergraduate Economics student at the University of Nottingham. He completed an internship with HEPI during the summer of 2024. In this weekend long read, he discusses the history of marketisation in higher education and considers whether applicants have enough information to make informed judgements about where and what they study.

    Executive summary

    Study at university can be hugely beneficial for students intellectually, socially and financially. However, degrees that lead to low earnings can make individuals who study in higher education financially worse off and can impose an external cost on the taxpayer. This HEPI Policy Note uses the economic framework of market failure to argue it is likely that too many students are studying degrees that result in low earnings. Applicants should be free to choose a course according to their preferences but, they need to be encouraged to use salary outcome data to help them make an informed decision about what degree to study.

    Key findings:
    • Existing data suggest that one in five graduates would have been financially better off not entering higher education at all. Some 40% of undergraduate students might have chosen a different route, although only 6% would not have entered higher education.
    • This report argues that reforms announced in 2022 to the repayment terms of student loans, from the old Plan 2 to the new Plan 5 system, will likely make university financially worthwhile for fewer students.
    • The graduate premium, the difference between the earnings of graduates and non-graduates, is also likely to decrease as the National Living Wage increases the wages of non-graduates.
    • This report proposes imperfect information as a possible cause of market failure. Prospective students should make best use of information about graduate earnings when choosing what, where or whether to study at university. The official website for information about higher education, Discover Uni, had less than 7,000 website visits in July of 2024. In the same month, nearly half a million visited the website of the Complete University Guide, an online university league table.
    Policy recommendations:
    • Discover Uni data about graduate earnings should be displayed on UCAS so that more students use this information when making decisions about university studies.
    • Satisfied average graduate earnings for each course should be displayed alongside the annual salary for National Living Wage work and the average graduate and non-graduate salaries. This should help students judge if studying individual courses would be financially worthwhile.
    • Careers advisors should support applicants to be fully informed about the benefits of higher education – including that not everyone is financially better off for attending university.

    Market analysis and higher education

    Prior to the 1830s, one would be hard-pressed to convincingly describe higher education in England as a competitive market – a place where many buyers choose to buy goods or services from many sellers, who compete to win the choice of these buyers. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge maintained a duopoly (a market dominated by two sellers) for nearly 500 years.[i] Since the early nineteenth century, changes in government policy, alongside growth in the number of universities and students, have meant higher education in England has taken on more of the characteristics of a market.

    The barriers to becoming a university in England have decreased over time and choice for students has broadened. Prior to the Coalition Government of 2010, the following changes happened to the higher education sector which incidentally laid the foundation for marketisation:

    • Growth in the number of universities, which provided more choice for students;
    • growth in student numbers; and
    • the formation of UCAS (originally UCCA, the Universities Central Council on Admissions), providing a ‘single nationwide application process’, creating a sector that resembled a marketplace.[ii]

    It was the introduction and gradual increase of tuition fees paid by the student as opposed to funding via grants from the Government that really introduced market incentives to higher education in England.

    By the 1990s, with growing demand from students, the government’s ability and willingness to fund the higher education sector came into question; between 1976 and 1996, government funding per student fell by 40%, according to the Dearing Report.[iii] As a result, the greater burden for funding higher education fell on students. Tony Blair’s government introduced ‘top-up’ fees of £1,000 paid upfront by students in 1998 to supplement government funding. In 2004, the fees rose to £3,000, covered by an income-contingent loan.

    The Coalition Government’s rise in tuition fees to £9,000 caused the most significant change in the structure of the higher education sector in England. This is because, as David Willetts (then University Minister) wrote, the new higher fees largely

    replaced funding via a Government agency providing grants to universities with funding via the fees (funded by loans) which students brought with them.[iv]

    Consequently, to attract funding for teaching, universities had to compete to attract students, as the funding came directly from students. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) wanted ‘to ensure that the new student finance regime supports student choice, and that in turn student choice drives competition’.[v] The characteristics of choice and competition that BIS wanted to introduce are the key characteristics of a market.

    The new funding model increased competition between universities for students, first because they received funding for each student they taught and secondly, because these policy changes allowed for the removal of student number caps, which had thus far artificially limited the number of places institutions could provide. More places were made available and students were given more meaningful choice about where to study.

    The increasing number of universities and the introduction of UCCA were not policies intended to create a market, but there is evidence from the coalition government of purposeful marketisation. The 2011 white paper ‘Students at the Heart of the System’ from BIS showed their clear intention to introduce what they referred to as ‘a more market-based approach’ to higher education with the new funding system.[vi] The Coalition Government’s support for the new funding system was not just as a solution to the instability and underfunding of the grant-based system but because of the market incentives a fee-based funding model would introduce.

    Not all aspects of the current higher education sector in England operate like a typical market. Entry requirements mean that students’ ability to choose between universities is contingent on the grades they achieve (but the growth in the number of universities means that for a given set of grades, a student can choose between many universities). Also, students only bear the cost of their studies if they can afford to do so, as student loan repayments are only made above a particular level of earnings. In typical markets, consumers bear the cost upfront. Though important for making university studies accessible, we will see, the fact that payment is not made upfront makes the sector vulnerable to market failure.

    Despite these qualities, it is clear the sector has been marketised:

    • students now have more choice, and
    • universities now engage in more competition.

    There are lots of reasonable critiques of marketisation. Nevertheless, since marketisation has taken place, it can be useful to apply economic analysis to higher education. This report considers the higher education sector as a market and consequently uses economic analysis to assess if the higher education sector works efficiently for both students and wider society. The purpose of this economic analysis is to identify how to improve the higher education sector so it works best for students and wider society.

    Markets and market failure in higher education

    Marketisation policies introduce characteristics of a market in the hopes that the outcomes of a market will materialise. The prized outcome of markets is efficiency. An efficient market is one where the resources are allocated to give the best outcomes for society; choice allows the allocation of students to the university that best suits them, and competition incentivises the allocation of university funds where they will most improve the institution. If a market is efficient, the allocation of resources cannot be changed to make someone better off without making someone else worse off.

    The outcome of markets is not always efficient; markets are prone to fail.

    Market failure occurs when resources are not allocated efficiently, to give the best outcomes for the consumer and wider society.

    A market failure usually results in:

    • too much of a good being provided;
    • too little of a good being provided; or sometimes,
    • none of a certain good being provided at all.

    One example of market failure might be the market for antibiotics. If antibiotics are cheap to buy, people might purchase them even if they are not sure they need them. Over time, the overuse of antibiotics can lead to the development of antibiotic resistance, where antibiotics no longer work for the people who really need them. This is a case where market failure has led to a good being provided in excess and a more efficient outcome would see less of it provided.

    This report focuses on the higher education market failing and allocating too many students to degrees that result in low earnings. In this section, I discuss how students studying degrees that lead to low earnings can result in market failure, under certain conditions. In the next section, I will analyse a possible cause of this market failure.

    Market failure: degrees that lead to low earnings

    For the majority of graduates, studying at university gives them ­­— and the wider economy — good financial returns. However, the market fails and allocates too many students to courses that will lead to low graduate earnings (‘low-earning degrees’). This makes individual graduates financially worse off, compared to if they had not gone to university, and imposes an external cost on the taxpayer.11 In this case the choice of degree (or to study at all) has led to suboptimal outcomes for the individual (the student) and wider society and is therefore a case of market failure.

    There is evidence to suggest many students believe they would have been individually better off making a different choice of degree, institution or even entire pathway (such as doing an apprenticeship instead). In the 2024 HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey, four in ten students said they would have been better with a different choice (though only 6% would not have entered higher education).[vii] This suggests these students think there was a more efficient way of allocating (their own) resources even before they know what their lifetime earnings will be.

    Not all degrees that result in low earnings are necessarily cases of market failure. There is only a market failure present if there could have been a better allocation of resources, that is, students could have made a different choice that bettered themselves or wider society.

    It is likely many students do not just think about earnings when they consider the value of their degree. If the individual valued their Philosophy degree for other reasons – they enjoyed the content, valued the overall university experience, and so on – it may still have been worth it for them even if it did not increase their earnings. In this case, a degree like Philosophy may have been the best option for society if these benefits to the individual student outweigh the lower earnings (and another other costs to both the student and wider society). If so, the allocation would still be efficient and this would not be a case of market failure.

    Another situation where a low-earning degree may not be a case of market failure is when the degree has such large social (as opposed to individual) benefits that the choice of any other alternative would lead to a worse outcome for society. For example, if a student studies to be a social worker and this leads to low earnings, the benefits to society that stem from the social work degree will be large enough that any other choice on the student’s behalf would have made society worse off.

    The examples of Philosophy and Social Work degrees are not cases of market failure because of the benefits they offer to either the individual or the rest of society. These benefits are not easily quantifiable, so it is difficult to determine which low-earning degrees are examples of market failure and which are not. Below, I will argue that if students are given clear information about the earnings from different degrees, they will be more capable of making that judgement themselves.

    The effect of too many students studying low-earning degrees (before reforms to loan repayment terms)

    For individual students, there is a financial consequence of choosing to study a degree that will likely result in low earnings. A 2020 report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) looked into the impact of undergraduate study on lifetime earnings. The report estimated that ‘one in five undergraduates would have been better off financially had they not gone to university.’[viii]

    The IFS compared the lifetime earnings of a cohort of graduates to a counterfactual group that did not attend university, accounting for the difference in income tax, National Insurance and student loan repayments the graduates will have paid over their working life compared to the non-graduates. They then calculated the net lifetime returns for graduates, defined as ‘the lifetime gain or loss in earnings as a result of attending higher education for the individual, after taking into account the effect of the tax and student loans system.’[ix] The IFS found that a fifth of graduates earn less over their lifetimes than if they had not entered higher education.

    Not all of the 20% of graduates that would have been better off had they not entered higher education will be cases of market failure. Some may be a Philosophy student that places a high personal value on the knowledge they gained, some may be social workers that provide great value for society, others may have studied a high earning degree and not utilised it. Furthermore, changing the discount rate the IFS use changes the proportion of students that finically benefited from higher education, as David Willetts points out. [x] Though, the IFS results are clear that not everyone entering higher education benefits from it financially.

    When students choose to study a low-earning degree, there is also an external cost to the taxpayer. This external cost (a cost to a third party not involved in the transaction) arises because the taxpayer must cover the proportion of a student loan which a graduate has not paid back by the time their loan is written off. Prior to the implementation of reforms in the repayment terms of student loans announced in 2022, only 27% of graduates were estimated to repay their student loan in full.[xi]

    The resource allocating and budgeting (RAB) charge is used to estimate the ‘cost to Government of borrowing to support the student finance system’. London Economics, an economics consultancy, estimated that the RAB charge for the 2022/23 cohort of students (who began their studies before the implementation of the 2022 reforms) was 10.2%. That is, the government was expected to cover 10.2% of the total value of the student loans taken out that year.[xii]

    These costs, imposed on the student and wider society, might be avoided if students chose different degrees. Future earnings can be altered by a student’s choice of course to study and choice of institution to study at:

    Even when comparing students with similar prior attainment and family background, different degrees appear to have a significantly different impact on early career earnings. Studying medicine or economics increases earnings five years after graduation by 25 per cent more than studying English or history. Attending a Russell Group university increases earnings by about 10 per cent more than the average degree.[xiii]

    If students who chose to study low-earning degrees had instead chosen to study higher-earning degrees, they would have been less likely to impose an external cost on the taxpayer. Though, as I will explain, reforms to the student loan system mean the external cost to the taxpayer is now very small. Importantly, those students would also be more likely to give themselves positive net lifetime returns to their studies. These outcomes could make society better off. The current allocation of too many students to degrees that result in low earnings is an inefficient one. In the sense defined above, the higher education market is failing.

    The impact of the reforms to the repayment terms of student loans (the move from Plan 2 to Plan 5)

    The reforms announced in 2022 to the ‘Plan 2’ repayment terms on student loans have shifted the financial burden of low-earning degrees from the taxpayer to the graduate.

    Under the new Plan 5 system, the income threshold at which graduates begin to make loan repayments was lowered from £27,295 to £25,000, the repayment period (after which loans are written off) was lengthened from 30 years to 40 years and the interest rate on student loans was reduced from RPI+3% down to just RPI (a measure of inflation).[xiv] These reforms have an uneven effect on graduates across the income distribution.[xv] The reduction in the repayment threshold will mean that lower-earning graduates will pay back more of their debt, and some will begin to pay it back for the first time. The lengthening of the repayment period will mean that low-earning graduates will pay back their loan for longer. The lowering of the interest rate will mean that high-earning graduates (who always would have paid back their loan in full) will now make smaller interest payments.

    Figure 1, source: IFS[xvi]

    London Economics estimates that the RAB charge under the new terms of repayment will fall to 4.1% from 10.2%. This means that the reforms have transferred the costs of low-earning degrees from the government, which will now have to write off less debt, to the graduate, who must pay back more of it. As low-earning graduates will now make larger student loan repayments, attending university will not be financially worthwhile for more of them.

    A fair assumption is that, since costs are only incurred in the future, prospective students will not be very responsive to these reforms by choosing low-earning degrees in lower numbers. Even after maximum fees were raised from around £3,000 to £9,000 in 2012, there was no significant long-term decrease in the number of applicants.[xvii] If this is the case, a greater proportion of students will now have negative net lifetime returns from their studies. Therefore, for this reform to have a positive outcome on low-earning graduates, these impacts would have to be available and clearly explained to prospective students.

    The graduate premium and positive financial returns

    The graduate premium is the increase in salary attributed to achieving a degree. To receive positive financial returns from studying, one’s graduate premium must be larger than their loan repayments and increased income tax and National Insurance payments. There is evidence to suggest that the graduate premium has fallen as the higher education sector has grown. Due to increases in the minimum wage, I believe the graduate premium is likely to fall further. This is likely to put a strain on the amount of students experiencing positive financial returns.

    As the number of graduates increased throughout the 20th and into the 21st century, it was thought that the graduate premium would decrease. This is, in part, because as the supply of graduates increased their scarcity reduced meaning the premium an employer would pay to hire a graduate over a non-graduate should have fallen. A 2021 study by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) and a team at the University of Warwick found early evidence of a 7-percentage point decline in the graduate premium.[xviii]

    Figure 2, source: House of Commons Library [xix]

    Recent increases in the National Living Wage are likely to further reduce the graduate premium by increasing the average wage of non-graduates. To make the UK a high-wage economy, the Government has been using National Minimum Wage legislation to increase the pay of the lowest paid. In 2020, the Conservative Government asked the Low Pay Commission to ensure the National Living Wage was two-thirds of median earnings by 2024, a target which has now been met.19 Assuming non-graduates are more likely than graduates to earn the National Living Wage. As National Living Wage has increased in relation to median pay, the average wage of non-graduates will have likely increased more than that of graduates. The graduate premium is likely to have further declined. As a result, for more students, it will not have been financially worthwhile to attend university.

    Conclusion

    In this section, I argue that there is a market failure and too many students are choosing to study degrees that result in low earnings. The reforms to the repayment terms of student loans and a possible decline in the graduate premium are likely to increase the proportion of graduates who are financially worse off for having gone to university. The next section of this Policy Note attempts to explain why this market failure of too many students choosing to study low-earning degrees is taking place.

    The causes of market failure in higher education

    This section will look at imperfect information as a possible cause of the market failure. There are other possible causes, such as low teaching quality or the fact that an individual student’s decision about whether and where to study also has effects on wider society. The government’s provision of information about graduate salaries is thought to have solved the problem of imperfect information. But this Policy Note focuses on imperfect information because prospective students are not seeing the information about graduate salaries.

    Imperfect information occurs when all the parties in a transaction do not have full information about the transaction. If applicants do not know about the career prospects of a low earning degree, they may choose to study it thinking it will enhance their career prospects and then struggle to find a well-paying job after graduation. This could cause an inefficient allocation of students to courses.

    People familiar with the higher education sector could likely name the universities that frequently top league tables and which subjects generally lead to high earnings. They may therefore may believe that applicants have roughly enough information to choose the best course for them. This knowledge is not common for all applicants, particularly for applicants who will be the first in their family to attend university (now roughly two-thirds of current undergraduates).[xx] An A-level student who I tutor recently demonstrated that some applicants do not have perfect information about university courses. I asked him out of the universities he wanted to apply to, which he would most like to attend. He wanted to study Management. He said he would like to go to university x “because they have a brand-new building for the business school.” I then showed him that average earnings for Management graduates 5 years after completing university x’s course were over £20,000 less than those of another university he planned to apply to. After this conversation, he chose not to apply to university x. Not all applicants have sufficient knowledge about university courses and this can cause them not to choose the course that would have been best for them.

    While introducing marketising reforms since 2010, successive governments have been keen to ensure that applicants do not have imperfect information. A 2016 white paper stated an ambition for ‘more competition and informed choice into higher education’.[xxi] 

    As a result, prospective students now arguably have access to enough information to make informed choices. The official website for information about higher education, Discover Uni (formally Unistats) provides a wealth of information to prospective students. Discover Uni has information on student satisfaction, the entry grades of past students and information about career prospects for each course at a given university. Data from the Graduate Outcomes Survey and the Longitudinal Educational Outcomes data set are used to provide prospective students with information about the employment rate of past graduates and their earnings 15 months, three years and five years after completing a course. The wealth of information available to prospective students suggests that imperfect information cannot be the reason for too many students choosing courses that will lead to them earning less over a lifetime than if they had not studied at all.

    Figure 3 Source: Adherf[xxii]

    Although prospective students have access to information about employment prospects on the Discover Uni website, few choose to use it. In July 2024, only 6,600 people visited the website.22 In the same month, 481,800 people visited the website of The Complete University Guide, an online university league table, suggesting rankings like these are used more often to make decisions about what and where to study. In the same month, 1,100,000 people visited the UCAS website (the main way to apply for higher education in the UK), which gives an indication of just how many see the information about courses and institutions it provides.

    The problem may not be imperfect information, but imperfect knowledge. That is, it is not the lack of availability of information that means too many students study degrees that are not financially worthwhile but instead that applicants are not seeing the information about employment prospects.

    Ensuring students see information about graduate salaries will help to correct the market failure of too many students choosing to study low-earning degrees, but it may not fully address information problems. This is because, graduate outcomes data is not a perfect indicator of what a given prospective student will earn. Past data on graduate outcomes cannot tell a prospective student about future labour market changes. However, compared to using no data at all, graduate outcomes give prospective students a good indicator of what they are likely to earn.

    Graduate outcomes data may not be currently used because students (and teachers) might not fully understand the implications of the new Plan 5 repayment system. Students may have less incentive to find out the financial returns of a degree if they think a negative return would be covered by the government ‘safety net’. It may therefore be more important than ever to explain that since the 2022 reforms, most students will pay back all or almost all of their loans themselves.

    The next section of this report shall propose recommendations to improve the use of the data on Discover Uni.

    Policy response

    Some students are choosing to study degrees that will likely lead to them having low earnings. When applying to university, students are not using the information about graduate salaries for specific courses, provided on the Discover Uni website. Without the proper use of information about how financially worthwhile degrees are, a fifth of students choose degrees that result in them earning less over their lifetime than if they had not studied at undergraduate level.9

    The choice of what and where to study is an individual one; it may depend on what dream job one had as a child, the fact one may have to stay close to home to care for a relative or because one wants to improve their lifetime earnings. Regardless of why one chooses to study a given course, as it is now the student who is most likely to pay for their studies, they should be free to choose what and where to study. However, students should be exposed to the reality that their choice of course may result in them earning less over a lifetime than if they had not studied at university. Students should be encouraged to use information about graduate outcomes and this information should be explained to them. Careers advisors should explain that not all degrees are financially worthwhile and help applicants navigate the available information on graduate salaries.

    To prevent students from unknowingly choosing courses that will likely lead to them earning low salaries, information about graduate outcomes should be made more usable. Therefore, the main recommendation from this HEPI Policy Note is that all of the data on Discover Uni (the government website for data which students rarely use) should be integrated into the UCAS pages for individual courses. This includes the salary outcomes for each course, or the lowest level of granularity Discover Uni provides. This makes it more likely that students applying for a course via UCAS will use this information to better inform their decisions.

    Discover Uni graduate earnings data should be stratified before it is integrated into UCAS information pages. This involves weighting graduate earnings by social background, reflecting the proportion each social group represents in the wider population. Stratification would ensure that high earnings statistics from a given course do not simply reflect a cohort dominated by already affluent students.

    Alongside the average graduate salaries for specific courses, the average graduate and non-graduate salaries should be displayed. Prospective students could be shown the current salary for a full-time minimum wage worker of £23,795 to help them judge if going to university would be financially worthwhile.[xxiii] 

    [i] William Whyte, The Medieval University Monopoly, History Today, March 2018 https://www.historytoday.com/miscellanies/medieval-university-monopoly

    [ii] David Willetts, A University Education, 2015,p40-44

    [iii] The Dearing Report, Higher Education in the learning society, 1997, p267

    [iv] David Willetts, A University Education, 2015, p. 274

    [v] Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Students at the Heart of the System, June 2011, p.19  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31384/11- 944-higher-education-students-at-heart-of-system.pdf

    [vi] Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Students at the Heart of the System, June 2011, p.73  https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/31384/11- 944-higher-education-students-at-heart-of-system.pdf

    [vii] Calculation from: Jonathan Neves, Josh Freeman, Rose Stephenson & Dr Peny Sotiropoulou, Student Academic Experience Survey 2024, June 2024, p.27https://www.hepi.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/SAES-2024.pdf

    [viii] Jack Britton, Lorraine Dearden, Laura van der Erve and Ben Waltmann, The impact of undergraduate degrees on lifetime earnings, Institute of Fiscal Studies, February 2020, p.8  https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/R167-The-impact-of-undergraduate-degrees-on-lifetime-earnings.pdf

    [ix] Jack Britton, Lorraine Dearden, Laura van der Erve and Ben Waltmann, The impact of undergraduate degrees on lifetime earnings, Institute of Fiscal Studies, February 2020, p.22 https://ifs.org.uk/sites/default/files/output_url_files/R167-The-impact-of-undergraduate-degrees-on-lifetime-earnings.pdf

    [x] David Willets, Are universities still worth it?, The Policy Institute King’s College London, January 2025, p.24 https://www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/are-universities-worth-it.pdf

    [xi] Paul Bolton, Student loan statistics, House of Commons Research Briefing, July 2024 https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01079/

    [xii] Dr Gavan Conlon, Maike Halterbeck and James Cannings, Examination of higher education fees and funding in England, London Economics, February 2024, p.55 https://londoneconomics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/LE-Nuffield-Foundation-HE-fees-and-Funding-in-England-FINAL.pdf

    [xiii] Chris Belfield and Laura van der Erve, What determines graduates’ earnings?, The Times, June 2018 https://www.thetimes.com/business-money/economics/article/what-determines-graduates-earnings-w0x6mlwj6

    [xiv] Dr Gavan Conlon, Maike Halterbeck and James Cannings, Examination of higher education fees and funding in England, London Economics, February 2024, p.54 https://londoneconomics.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/LE-Nuffield-Foundation-HE-fees-and-Funding-in-England-FINAL.pdf

    [xv]  Kate Ogden and Ben Waltmann, Student loans in England explained and options for reform, Institute for Fiscal Studies, July 2023 https://ifs.org.uk/articles/student-loans-england-explained-and-options-reform

    [xvi]  Kate Ogden and Ben Waltmann, Student loans in England explained and options for reform, Institute for Fiscal Studies, July 2023 https://ifs.org.uk/articles/student-loans-england-explained-and-options-reform

    [xvii] Mark Corver, UCAS analysis answers five key questions on the impact of the 2012 tuition fees increase in England, UCAS,November 2014 https://www.ucas.com/corporate/news-and-key-documents/news/ucas-analysis-answers-five-key-questions-impact-2012-tuition

    [xviii] Gianna Boero, Tej Nathwani, Robin Naylor and Jeremy Smith, Graduate Earnings Premia in the UK: Decline and Fall?, HESA, November 2021, p.1 https://www.hesa.ac.uk/files/Graduate-Earnings-Premia-UK-20211123.pdf

    [xix] Brigid Francis-Devine, National Minimum Wage statistics, House of Commons Library, March 2024, p.10 https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7735/CBP-7735.pdf

    [xx] Harriet Coombs, First-in-Family Students, Higher Education Policy Institute, January 2022, p.40 https://www.hepi.ac.uk/?s=Harriet+Coombs

    [xxi] Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, Success as a Knowledge Economy: Teaching Excellence, Social Mobility and Student Choice, May 2016, p.8 https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a817487ed915d74e33fe4ca/bis-16-265-success-as-a-knowledge-economy-web.pdf

    [xxii] Data from aherfs website traffic checker. Data collected in October 2024

    [xxiii] Cogent staffing, Understanding the 2024 UK National Minimum Wage increase, February 2024 https://cogentstaffing.co.uk/understanding-the-2024-uk-national-minimum-wage-increase/

    Source link

  • Lunchtime Reading: Will having more male teachers as role models solve ‘the boy question’?

    Lunchtime Reading: Will having more male teachers as role models solve ‘the boy question’?

    • Mark Roberts is an English teacher and Director of Research at Carrickfergus Grammar School. He is the author of several books, including Boys Don’t Try? and The Boy Question, both published by Routledge.

    Spurred on by the huge response to the TV series ‘Adolescence’, Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education, has this week called for more male teachers to act as role models for disaffected boys.

    As a teacher who has been writing about issues with boys and education for many years, I’m delighted to see an increased focus on the debate about how best to support boys in school.

    Yet, while the idea of male teachers as role models is an alluring one, the plan is deeply flawed. Even if we can persuade lots of men to take up the call to arms to rescue our boys, there’s little evidence to suggest that the plan will work.

    The case for more male teachers

    Just as we have pushed more girls into STEM professions, we should be pushing more boys into HEAL (Health, Education, Admin and Literacy) professions. As I wrote in my book The Boy Question (2021):

    Seeing more men in teaching roles, and especially in primary settings, would help change attitudes towards both education and society at large. It would probably encourage more boys to consider teaching as a possible future career  option for themselves.

    But, in the rush to save boys from Tate and his ilk, we need to ask a key question: Will more men in teaching actually make a difference? In the age of the manosphere, would more male teachers help shift boys’ attitudes? And, from the perspective of participation in higher education, would these new recruits help improve their academic outcomes?

    The problem with male teachers as role models

    Unfortunately, there are numerous problems with the role model plan:

    1. Men are reluctant to go into teaching

      Given the relatively low pay, workload expectations and lack of status, attracting men into teaching is a challenging prospect. Efforts to recruit 6500 new teachers already look dubious, with only 200 more trainee teachers signing up in 2024/25. Without a plan to tackle negative perceptions of teaching as a career prospect, the idea is doomed from the start.

      2. Nobody can agree on what a male teacher role model looks like

        Cushman (2008) surveyed 250 New Zealand primary school principals to discover what qualities they were seeking in male teachers[i]. The principals had a long list of often contradictory desirable qualities, including outstanding sporting prowess. Research by Brownhill (2014) listed 65 different role model requirements[ii]. Meeting this idealised checklist is a big ask for any individual. Pupils, parents and politicians would also have their own role model requirements. Is any one man capable of being all those things, all the time, to all stakeholders? And even if these Supermen are capable of all this, are they also equally confident talking about misogyny as talking about algebra or Shakespeare?

        3. Children very rarely view teachers as role models

        Even if teachers were willing to try and adopt the position of idealised male teacher, there’s little evidence to suggest that boys would see them as father figures. Bricheno & Thornton (2007) found that between the age of 10-16, boys named relatives as their ‘most important role models’. Compared to 32% of young people who said they looked up to a parent, a mere 2.4% of students identified a teacher as a role model. [iii]

        4. There’s little evidence to suggest boys learn better with male teachers

        One key reason given for more male role model teachers is the suggestion that disaffected boys will respond better to teachers of their own gender. But the evidence doesn’t stack up. A 2010 study by Lam et al. of nearly 5,000 Grade 4 students in Hong Kong found no evidence that boys improved their reading when taught by men[iv]. In 2008, Carrington et al. found no teacher gender effect on attainment data and pupil attitudes in British primary schools[v]. In the same year, Marsh et al. found ‘little or no evidence’ to support the idea that boys will be more motivated by male than female teachers in secondary maths, science and English classes’[vi]. I could go on. While I welcome any efforts to recruit more male teachers, we shouldn’t expect this to lead to better results for boys.

        5. It judges female teachers unfairly

        Many of the calls for more male teachers come from voices bemoaning the ‘feminisation’ of schools. Such voices believe that female teachers are incapable of providing guidance for boys and helping them become productive members of society. This deficit model is frankly insulting to the many thousands of female teachers doing a wonderful job of educating boys in often challenging circumstances.

        Rather than getting distracted by the male role model debate, we should focus on fully supporting teachers to help boys succeed academically and get the grades required to, should they wish, enter higher education. Because that, above all, will make the biggest difference to boys’ lives.

        [i] Cushman, P. (2008) ‘So what exactly do you want? What principals mean when they say ‘male role model’’, Gender and Education, 20:2, pp. 123–136.

        [ii] Brownhill, S. (2014) ‘‘Build me a male role model!’ A critical exploration of the perceived qualities/characteristics of men in the early years (0–8) in England’, Gender and Education, 26:3, pp. 246–261.

        [iii] Bricheno, P., & Thornton, M. (2007) ‘Role model, hero or champion? Children’s views concerning role models’, Educational Research, 49:4, pp. 383–396.

        [iv] Lam, Y.H., Tse, S.K., Lam, J.W.I., & Loh, K.Y.E. (2010) ‘Does the gender of the teacher matter in the teaching of reading literacy? Teacher gender and pupil attainment in reading literacy in Hong Kong’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, pp. 754–759.

        [v] Carrington, B., Tymms, P., & Merrell, C. (2008) ‘Role models, school improvement and the ‘gender gap’ – Do men bring out the best in boys and women the best in girls?’ British Educational Research Journal, 34, pp. 315–327.

        [vi] Marsh, H., Martin, A., & Cheng, J. (2008) ‘A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and climate: potential benefits of male teachers for boys?’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, pp. 78–95.

    Source link

  • Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Cost of Higher Education – A Lecture Revisited

    Weekend Reading: Rethinking the Cost of Higher Education – A Lecture Revisited

    • This lecture was originally delivered by the Rt Hon John Denham MP, former Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills in Gordon Brown’s Government. He gave this lecture from Opposition in January 2014. More than eleven years later, we revisit his lecture to consider what lessons it holds for today’s higher education sector.

    At the RSA in 2014,  I tried to address the mounting challenges facing the higher education sector:  a system with stressed finances, eye-watering fees,  educationally not fit for purpose in some parts, and in which limited public funds were written off while incentivising the provision of a monochrome one-size fits all teen-focussed education.  The National Accounting rules which framed much of the technical financial analysis have now changed.

    Overseas student fees held the crisis away much longer than I expected, albeit at the cost of financial and reputational vulnerability, but it’s with us now. I’d argue that today, ministers face much the same issues that I discussed.  

    The lecture is clearly a provocation, not a plan, but its key tenets are valid. It is better to use what money you have to teach students and reshape the sector today than write off unjustifiable debts in the future. Ministers should have the courage to incentivise a greater diversity of provision, options for cheaper study, different ways of working and closer relations with employers. Unless a lot more money is to be found, some of these questions can’t be ducked.

    John Denham, March 2025

    RSA Lecture – The Cost of Higher Education

    Good evening.

    Thank you to Matthew for hosting the meeting, Alison for agreeing to respond, and you for coming. You may not agree with me tonight. But if I don’t challenge at least some current assumptions about how we fund and deliver higher education I shall have failed.

    I want to change the terms of the debate, not present a detailed plan for university education.

    What’s the problem?

    But I suppose the first question is, why bother? Isn’t everything going very well?

    UCAS figures show the largest ever number of admissions last September, there’s further progress, in widening participation, and even a small increase in free school meal students going to the 35 most selective universities.

    And the Chancellor is apparently so flush with money he can lift the cap on student numbers, funding an extra 60,000 a year.

    I’m sure researchers and the UCU will say it’s no bed of roses, but cash from new fees means university life has been a lot more congenial than life in local government or the NHS for the past three years.

    The private cost is eye-watering but haven’t the high fees been accepted by parents and students?

    The problem, of course, is that the whole system of university finance for English students is sliding slowly but surely off a cliff.

    •  The £9000 fee is declining in real value
    • Capital spending has been slashed, pushing more universities further into debt driven investment
    •  The science budget will have fallen by 20% in real terms by 2016 – undoing the huge impact of Labour’s ten year investment
    •  The system runs so hot that a small misjudgement about student numbers creates a huge hole in the BIS budget. So we have ministers arguing about whether to cut research or support for poorer students
    •  The NAO have highlighted the black hole of unrecoverable loans, including those to EU students
    •  The cost of debt cancellation– the so-called Resource Account Budgeting or RAB charge – is rising steadily.
    •  The Chancellor’s new expansion – apparently based on the same accounting principles as Merdle’s Bank – has many questions about its sustainability.

    Across universities you hear the same story. ‘We might get through the next few years. But it can’t go on like this for long’.

    We already have the world’s most expensive public university system yet most proposals for change are variations on the theme of asking graduates to pay even more.

    But that’s not the end of the bad news.

    Quality and relevance

    English universities have huge strengths, of course. Our international research reputation is outstanding; we remain a magnet for international students; there is much excellence in our teaching.

    But concerns about what parts of higher education deliver simply won’t go away. Despite improvements, many employers remain deeply critical of the employability of too many graduates. One quote is not evidence, but it’s not hard to find ones like this one:

    ‘Despite our best efforts we have come to the decision that we would prefer to be understaffed than hire poor-quality applicants,’ said Bryan Urbick, founder and CEO of the Consumer Knowledge Centre. ‘As the economy rebalances, we will need more highly-skilled employees, particularly for young people with science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) degrees, but businesses are struggling to recruit good graduates from the UK.’

    And

    ‘Strong overall performance on higher skills participation must not be allowed to mask the skills shortages already impacting upon key sectors of the economy, which point to a mismatch between supply and demand’ said Katja Hall, Policy Director at the CBI.

    47% of new graduates, and a third of those who graduated five years ago, don’t work in graduate jobs. They’re in debt and its not the reason many went to Uni in the first place.

    There’s some big questions here about the links between higher education, the economy and economic growth.

    Social Mobility

    Despite steady progress in widening participation we are still miles away from a genuinely meritocratic, lifelong higher education system. The change in the most selective institutions has been small and there has been a sharp fall in mature student applications and a collapse in part time student numbers. These are the routes which have previously allowed talented individuals to enter higher education later in life.

    Austerity

    And austerity has not gone away.

    £25bn of more cuts, says the Chancellor. Labour may not have signed up to those sums, but every pound will be closely scrutinised.

    As a country, we actually spend too little on higher education. But we can’t even open the case for more until we’ve scrutinised every current pound we spend.

    And that’s not just the public money.

    The cohort of students who started in September 2013 will pay back £7.8bn over the years ahead. You can’t ask people to pay sums like this if you can’t prove it will be well spent.

    Getting more from current spending is not alternative to higher investment. It’s the essential precursor to it.

    My aim tonight

    I will argue that of the £bns taxpayers spend on higher education, hardly anything is spent directly on teaching students.

    I’m going to ask a radical question – what would universities look like if the state actually spent all it could on teaching students things.

    I will argue that we have foolishly turned our backs on modes of higher education which, for the right students, would be more cost-effective and better tailored to the economy’s needs, and do more for real social mobility.

    I’ll ask what a more cost-effective university system would look like.

    I will argue that the £bns that graduates will pay are inflated by all sorts of costs which are not their responsibility, the system lacks transparency and which, despite all the talk of choice, is actually narrowing many of the options students used to enjoy.

    I’ll ask what a fairer, more diverse university system might look like.

    And finally, I will argue that current spending does far too little to foster the real partnerships with employers that would benefit students, business and the wider economy.

    I’ll ask how we could use taxpayers more effectively to boost recovery and growth.

    Taken together, I’ll show how these changes will widen student choice, reduce the costs of higher education and improve social mobility

    I want to change the terms of the debate, not present a detailed plan for university education.

    The independent policymaker faces many obstacles.

    BIS [The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills] doesn’t allow independent access to their higher education finance model so we have to rely on their crude ‘ready reckoner’ published some time ago. An updated version promised before Christmas arrived on Tuesday – too late for today. We have, for example, had to assume a RAB charge of 35%, not the 40% which now seems likely.

    I have drawn heavily on the incomparable Paul Bolton in the House of Commons Library. But I’ve asked Paul to make so many heroic assumptions and approximations that the responsibility for using the figures is mine, not his.

    Higher Education finance

    Let’s take a quick look at the public finance of higher education

    On the government’s figures, by 2015-16 (and ignoring for now the sketchy announcement in the Autumn Statement):

    •  Of the £6.7bn of tax-funded spending, just £700m will be spent directly on teaching grant
    •  Of the rest £4.2bn is spent on debt cancellation (RAB charges)
    •  £330m goes on supporting more disadvantaged students to successfully complete their courses, and £1.5bn goes on maintenance grants to low-income students.

    Taxpayers now spend £6 on debt cancellation for every £1 they spend on teaching students anything.

    Defenders of the current system will say I just don’t understand the system.

    It is fees that pay for teaching costs, they say. And that’s made possible by RAB charges which are a progressive policy which protects graduates from degrees which turn out to be of limited economic value.

    The reality of course is that RAB charges are not so much a progressive policy as a simple recognition of the political reality that you can’t get blood out of a stone.

    According to David Willetts, perhaps 50% of this September’s students will not repay their loans in full.

    Half of all today’s students will pay 9% of all their income above the repayment threshold for the next 30 years and they still won’t clear their debts. And that takes no account of bank loans, credit cards and any other debts that mount up while studying

    We do have to hope that the mind-broadening, growing up, parts of their degree are worth it, because economically it hardly looks a good deal for them, taxpayers or the wider society.

    The RAB charge was 28% under Labour’s fee system, a projected 32% when the new system was introduced, now ministers say it is 40% and many independent experts say it will be higher.

    It’s not just that rising RAB charges are a problem for the government and the public finances.

    Debt write off also forces up everyone’s fees by top-slicing money which could have been spent on teaching, so keeping fees down.

    So it’s equally true to say that every time the RAB charge goes up it means fewer and fewer successful graduates paying off the debts of more and more economically less successful graduates.

    Or to put it another way,’ if your son didn’t go to that unsuitable course at that weak university, my daughter could pay lower fees for her degree at her more prestigious college.’

    That may not be an issue in English politics today, but it will be.

    Ever rising fees will lead more and more students and parents to ask what and who they are paying for.

    I don’t know of any progressive principle which thinks it is a good idea to induce people, generally from lower income backgrounds, to take on huge loans, demand big payments, and then to tell them they don’t have to pay after all. It’s not how progressive parents bring up our children, and the state shouldn’t do it to them either.

    Of course, some people will die, fall ill, devote themselves to their children or do what I did and spend 18 years after graduation working in low paid jobs in the voluntary sector.

    But a sound, progressive, politically sustainable system would have loans sufficiently affordable that the great majority pay them in full. If we want wealthy graduates to pay more we should tax them fairly.

    The economic and political costs of a high fees policy

    If you look at HE funding again, something else may stand out.

    Look at how many elements were the consequence of introducing a high fee market system. They are either economically unavoidable, or politicians had to introduce them to allay public concerns about high fees.

    A high cost of debt cancellation is simply unavoidable, but the repayment threshold also reflects a political calculation.

    The £150m a year National Scholarship Programme which flared and died in just three years was otherwise known as the Save Nick Clegg’s Face fund.

    In one of the largest politically driven programmes, the Office of Fair Access requires universities charging more than £6000 to plough around £700m of their fee income into bursaries, fee remission and the like of little proven benefit. The cost-effective AimHigher scheme was scrapped by the coalition

    The maintenance grant was increased by Labour and again by the Coalition to offset criticism of fees – even though there is little logical connection between the two.

    Received wisdom is that this spending is politically untouchable.

    But we must dare to think differently. Crude politics has created too many bad policies in the past.

    Let’s start by taking the radical step of putting all this money into teaching. And then, put back, working from first principles, the programmes that are really needed.

    Positive feedback

    As you put more money into teaching the cost of fees comes down. As fees fall, RAB charges fall, and the % of debt repaid increases. So you plough these RAB savings back into teaching, fees fall, RAB charges come down, you put the money into teaching and so on. The effect is striking.

    In our model, which also builds in some other changes I’m going to outline, spending on teaching rises from £700m to £4800m – a seven- fold increase. The spending on debt cancellation falls from £4,200m to £2,200m. In other words we have transferred £2bn from debt cancellation into the education of students!

    My first aim was to see what happens if we put all public funding into teaching. It turns out it would nearly halve current fees.

    But I’ve explored other changes which, though they contribute to reducing the cost of fees further, are really there because they are inherently desirable.

    In my view our university system would be stronger if it offered more choice to students who cannot or do not want to spend three years full time studying for a degree; if it gave students more choices of ways to reduce their living costs; if it made it easier for employers to partner universities in the delivery of degrees; and if it freed up other resources for re-investment.

    Cutting fees and debt repayments will ease the burden on graduates. The more immediate problem for most students is surviving while they study.

    Recent NUS research shows a £7000 shortfall per year between student living costs and the maximum income from grants and maintenance loans.

    I don’t want to sound like a party hack but the term ‘cost of living crisis’ comes to mind here.

    There’s just no prospect of finding the sort of public money which could make a significant impact on student incomes. The only way is to give students more choice of less expensive modes of study, whether

    studying more intensively for a less time, mixing part-time and full time education, combining work and study, or studying from home.

    Yet we seem to be going in the opposite direction.

    A one size fits all university system?

    Even the most fervent advocates of Labour’s 50% target would surely be surprised that it has been achieved almost entirely through the most expensive mode of higher education – the three year degree studied away from home.

    Part time education is collapsing. The number of two year honours degrees has barely changed. Labour’s employer backed degrees have been dropped. Fewer mature students are applying.

    Higher education is becoming ever more a one size fits all approach.

    It is almost a rite of passage for young people, defended as much for the so-called ‘student experience’ as the quality of education.

    I wouldn’t knock it; I enjoyed it myself.

    But should our universities be so focussed on this single mode of study?

    No one suggests that Open University graduates do not have real degrees, even though they – by definition – eschew the entire ‘student experience’.

    There is second reason for challenging our ever growing reliance on the three year degree study away from home.

    Of all the OECD countries, the UK has the highest percentage of young graduates. And this was before the fall in mature and part time student applications. Today, 90% of full time English students at university are under 25.

    More than anywhere else in the OECD we have made higher education a one-shot deal, for young people to do as early as possible.

    What on earth have we done?

    Our schools system fails more than most in overcoming inequality and social disadvantage by the age of 18 or 19. Yet on top of this inequitable schools system we have imposed the youngest HE system in the world.

    It is is impossible for all young people to compete fairly in such a system.

    Now, I don’t think we should give up trying to get the Russell Group to take admissions seriously. We should support Alan Milburn’s efforts to open up the professions. We should challenge the abuse of interns.

    But for the foreseeable future, a genuine commitment to social mobility will require the construction of routes for the late developers, those who went to weak schools and those whose parents had low aspirations.

    So as part of my thought experiment I’ve looked at the role of more intensive degrees, studying from home and combining work and study.

    Two year degrees

    Two year degrees exist in both the public and private sector.

    The private University of Buckingham repeatedly tops the National Student Survey for student satisfaction.

    We can’t know the real demand for two year courses – current financial rules make it hard for public universities to introduce them. Research for Kaplan, albeit an interested party, suggests an untapped market and good awareness of the pros and cons of intensive study.

    It certainly looks as though some students could study more intensively.

    David Willetts says that students study 5 hours a week less than in the 1960s. On average, students study for 30 hours a week for 30 weeks of the year.

    The Higher Education Policy Institute and Which study highlighted variations between similar courses in different institutions.

    And according to HEPI, EU students on the Erasmus programme find our courses less intensive than in other European countries.

    I have suggested that 30% of courses – half of them employer co-sponsored – should be taught intensively.

    Suggestions of two year degrees always bring out fears of dumbing down. But given their potential to save money both for students and the taxpayer, knee jerk responses are irresponsible unless soundly evidence based.

    In my model I’ve assumed a two year intensive degree – say 39 weeks of study a year– would cost 20% less to deliver than a three year degree. This is based on both public and private sector charges.

    But I’ve also set out to graduate the same number of students – three two year cohorts every six years rather than two three year cohorts if you like.

    So at any one time, teaching costs are about 7% less than at present, and there are 10% fewer students in the system.

    But I’ve also designed the system so that overall university income remains unchanged.

    So we have fewer students at any one time, lower costs, and the same resources. Better student-staff ratios. Less pressure on facilities. New options for research time and staff sabbaticals

    There is no reason at all why standards should fall.

    The key thing here is the use of intensive periods of study.

    Someone in work could work four intensive half years over a four year period. Someone else might do a couple of part-time years at a local college followed by an intensive full year at another university.

    Intensive study may not be for everyone. It will require commitment and a maturity of approach. In fact, perfect for the somewhat older student with work experience who needs a route into higher education but neither wants nor can afford a leisurely three year degree.

    ‘Studying from home’

    In our model, the public finance effect of more students studying from home is relatively small and not enough to justify taking choice away.

    My real motive in raising this issue is to challenge the lazy assumption that it does not matter if vast numbers of students have to leave home to study a suitable course. If anything, the current competitive regime has forced more universities to trawl a national market, not their more local communities.

    The effect is to impose quite avoidable costs on students which inevitably hit the poorest hardest. A new social divide is opening between those students who can only afford to study from home and those whose family gives them the choice to study away.

    We should give students a real choice to study from home because it is much cheaper and is the only realistic way of bridging the gap between the maintenance system and the real costs of studying.

    I’ve assumed that 60% of students might choose to study from home if they could.

    We can’t make students study from home. Many couldn’t for personal or geographical reasons.

    But we are a densely populated largely urban society with many universities; there is a network of FE/HE colleges already delivering respected degrees; it should be possible to offer the vast majority of students a real, quality, choice of courses within reach of their own homes.

    It is a scandal that, too often, that choice does not exist and universities in the same locality barely talk to each other.

    I’ve no illusions about how challenging this is.

    On the one hand, it would be big cultural shift in the way many young people and their parents see university education.

    On the other, it would be an even bigger cultural challenge to universities.

    It would actually mean – heaven forbid –suggesting that they sit down together at local or sub-regional level; Russell Group members and Million+; Alliance and GuildHE, to actually cooperate and collaborate on the delivery of courses. Real flexibility of study would enable students to study mutually recognised credits at universities within their locality.

    Some may think this is where my thought experiment breaks down completely!

    But shouldn’t we challenge universities to change their insular attitudes?

    Employer sponsored degrees

    Finally let’s look at the end product of all this.

    Of course, university education is not all about getting a job; etc; etc.

    But, you know, for many students the idea of getting a decent job is probably in there somewhere.

    The ONS figures tell us that nearly 50% of new graduates, and a third of those who graduated five years ago, don’t work in graduate jobs. Things have got steadily worse during the recession, but they were not great before the banking crisis.

    The figures don’t prove we are educating too many graduates. They do show that producing more graduates doesn’t automatically increase the demand for graduates – the drivers for that lie in research, development, innovation and the incentives for long term business investment.

    But they probably also tell us that employers are not wrong when they say many graduates lack the employability which would make employers to want them in graduate jobs.

    ‘One way to address this is to develop more partnership-based provision, with greater levels of business involvement in colleges and universities, as well as boosting apprenticeships. But the market in ‘learn-while-you-earn’ models – such as higher apprenticeships and more flexible degree programmes like part-time study – is underdeveloped.’

    CBI Tomorrow’s growth: New routes to higher skills (2013)

    So my final proposal is to subsidise employers to put their employees – current employees or potential students they recruit – through university. I’ve aimed for 50,000 a year – that’s half the total number of intensive two-year degrees.

    I would base this on the workforce development programme I introduced at DIUS [Department of Innovation, Universities and Skills] which after just three years was creating 20,000 places a year with employers paying wages and an average of £3000 towards the course costs. I’m not proposing a rigid system. We already have some companies, like JLR at Warwick, who pay the full fee costs. Others could not pay much at all. It’s the principle that matters.

    Employers and universities would work together to design the right course. Big companies can do it for themselves. Smaller companies will need to work together, but that may be a real strength if employers, perhaps under the umbrella of the Local Economic Partnerships, come together to shape provision in local universities.

    Bringing it together

    I have looked at four changes.

    • We put as much money as possible into teaching.
    •  We use public and private contributions more effectively by encouraging more intensively taught degrees
    • We ensure that more students can minimise the cost of study by providing a genuine choice of quality courses within reach of home, and that there are more routes for older students
    •  And we incentivise new collaboration between employers and universities.

    A brief financial overview

    It may be helpful to run back over the key changes this makes to HE finance

    These tables will repay a longer look when I publish this lecture, but they’ll give some idea of what is going on.

    The approximate financial impact shows how we have switched resources into teaching and away from RAB charges. By putting money from widening participation and maintenance grants into teaching, and by shortening courses, with more students studying at home, and employer backed courses, we make an initial savings of £2.3bn. The second and third round impact on RAB charges releases an additional £1.2bn.

    The next slide shows that we have kept public sector spending on higher education constant – at £6.730bn.

    And the next slide on institutional steady state income shows that the total university income also remains constant – allowing for rounding errors – at £9.430bn.

    Institutional income remains the same even though we have more students on cost-effective intensive courses and fewer students in the system at any one time. That’s why, as I mentioned earlier, student-staff ratios improve and there are resources to invest in teaching quality.

    Not shown almost £700m OFFA tells universities to spend on widening participation. With fees slashed, the case for such central dictation falls away. If you end this requirement, the money available to universities rises to £10.1bn.

    We shouldn’t overstate the case.

    One of the quirks of my model is that, while graduate numbers remain constant in the first few years, overtime they would decline.

    Clearly, we don’t want this to happen. The first call for more investment would be on the spare capacity built into our model and the second on the current OFFA spending. The next model will address this but here is more than enough money in the system to deal with it.

    Investment in widening participation by the most selective universities remains essential. But even so, I believe substantial sums could be freed up for research.

    The model has considerable flexibility.

    If you feel I have pushed for too many intensive courses, aimed for too many home students, been over optimistic about employer contributions, or the student

    Estimated institutional steady state income directly connected to full time English undergraduates: higher loans fully replace grants for low income students, and 15% premium

    premium is too low, then we can draw on these funds to adjust the system or make relatively modest changes to the level of the student entitlement and fees.

    I’ve pushed change as far as I can – partly to show what could be achieved, and partly because, frankly, I think it is essential to free up resources for research if we possibly can.

    We could deliver this system in different ways, but I think we need a fresh start; as clear, transparent and fair as it can be. So let’s make a radical break with both the current system and that left by Labour.

    The student entitlement

    I suggest that every student accepted on an honours degree course attracts a flat rate student entitlement which goes to their university. Flat rate, irrespective of institution, course, length of course or current fee level charged.

    So, you take the £4.7bn we have now allocated to teaching. You top slice, of course, the extra money required to support science, engineering and other high cost courses. And then you divide the rest amongst the students.

    In the simplest form, this produces a student entitlement of £14,800 per student.

    The fee now payable is the difference between the current cost of a degree and the value of the entitlement. It would be financed and paid back as at present.

    The total fee cost of the average three year degree – and remember that in my model the great majority of degrees, 70% – would be three year degrees or longer – the average total would be less than £10,000 – about the levels fees were at when Labour left office.

    And the total fee cost of a full cost university – currently £27k – would fall to about £12,000.

    The total fee cost for a two-year degree would be less than £5000.

    For those on employer sponsored degrees of course, there would be no fees and they would receive a wage as well.

    There are many different routes through this system. But this example – a three year degree studied away from home (so the most expensive option) – show how total debt falls, total payment falls, and the % repaying in full increases.

    The second example is a two-year degree – but again, assuming study away from home, so the most expensive choice – shows an even more marked difference.

    Students get a lot of choice. Money follows the student.

    But it is an entitlement, not a voucher.

    It is high time we set aside the childish fad which said that every public service reform had to be expressed in the banal and vacuous language of consumer capitalism.

    If my proposal were adopted it would be because the people of England had decided to establish an entitlement for their children to go to university, and that’s how it should be described.

    Support for low income students

    Significant fee reductions come from investing in teaching, rather than the political and economic costs of a high fee system.

    But some students from non-traditional backgrounds do need more support to complete their courses successfully. Students from poorer homes do have to live while they study. So we need to ensure these needs are still met.

    I doubt that the OFFA-mandated money has much effect. Bursaries may shift students between institutions, not get them to apply in the first place. Fee remission is simply inequitable in a system of graduate repayments. Much of this money could be better spent either on teaching or on research.

    The needs of students who need extra support are real as Million+ have argued. We could simply retain the current widening participation spending or student opportunity as it is now called.

    But I would rather create an additional student entitlement, a student premium if you like, which would clearly make disadvantaged students financially more attractive to universities. My model builds in a 15% enhancement to the student entitlement.

    My model replaces the student grant with a loan. By doing so we ensure that the low income student has just as much money to live on as at present.

    While their maintenance debt will go up, their fees have fallen dramatically, and it is the total debt – fees and maintenance – which determines how much graduates have to pay back.

    In all the modelling we have done, low-income students will end up owing less money and paying back less money on every single mode of study and length of course. But still have as much to live on while they study.

    This is such a radically different picture to the one we have today – lower fees, lower debt, lower payments, as many graduates, and new money for research and teaching – that you might be forgiven for thinking there is some sleight of hand. Mistakes aside, there isn’t.

    All I have done is ask a few basic questions about using money better.

    What George Osborne should have done

    In the Autumn Statement George Osborne announced that he would put money from the sale of the student loans book into creating 60,000 additional student places. He says it will cost £700m a year.

    There’s too little information to incorporate it into our modelling.

    But all other things being equal, if George had invested £700m in this system, he could have created as many additional graduates, at lower cost, and had money left over to invest in teaching quality or research.

    A few closing thoughts

    I’ve packed a lot into a short lecture, so I want to allow time for Alison’s response and your questions.

    But in closing, let me touch on a few other issues

    Firstly, we have cut private repayments by £2.4bn without reducing university income. I wanted to lower the private cost of a degree.

    But this does also substantially reduce payments by the wealthiest graduates; would that be fair?

    The option is there to introduce a free standing graduate tax. A 1% tax above the threshold would produce £1bn a year after 20 years and £2.5bn in the longer term. It would take time to start as you wouldn’t want anyone to be paying more than the current 9%. But it soon be generating useful funds.

    My model doesn’t depend on it. But it may be part of the longer term answer of generating new, hypothecated income for our universities.

    Second, no one is going to price a part-time degree higher than a full time degree, so part-time degree costs will fall. So we can trigger a renaissance in part time education.

    Thirdly, you would really want to integrate these reforms with higher level apprenticeships and the real problems of taught masters. We can at least see the analogies between higher level apprenticeships and employer co-sponsored degrees, and it’s worth noting that an integrated masters degree, with intensive teaching, would cost students less than a current three year degree.

    Fourth, It won’t be long before the most research intensive universities – come along and ask ‘can we put our fees up now please?’. This is indeed more politically feasible than under the current model.

    But we shouldn’t rush into it. We’ve raised university spending by £700m, largely by reducing obligations on the more expensive universities. So we need to know more about the impact of these reforms on different types of university.

    But, in any case, tough conditions would have to be met. We would need a self-limiting clawback mechanism of the type proposed by Browne; universities would have to take responsibility for any additional fee loans and write-offs; they would have to demonstrate collaboration with other local universities on courses and mutual recognition of credits; and they would have to deliver progress, not aspiration, on widening participation.

    Fifth, I’ve not looked at implementation. But I would note that if we started now we could take advantage of the current demographic decline and reduce the number of three year degrees more than the proportion of students taking them. We could build demand for intensive courses, beginning by ring-fencing money for the growth in employer co-sponsored degrees.

    Several people have already asked whether this is about to become Labour policy.

    I certainly hope Labour will look at this, but I hope others will too.

    The modelling is crude, the assumptions broad, the approximations considerable. It’s not a detailed plan for higher education and it’s in no state to go into anyone’s manifesto!

    We’ve had enough damage done by enthusiastic politicians working on the back of envelopes already.

    Wouldn’t it be good if BIS now took this concept, put it in their more sophisticated models, and informed a genuine public debate? But that would take Ministers who don’t feel personally or ideologically wedded to the current system.

    Source link

  • Try Reading Job Descriptions With a Growth Mindset (Opinion)

    Try Reading Job Descriptions With a Growth Mindset (Opinion)

    In a résumé workshop with a group of Ph.D. students, I shared a job description for a position for which they were qualified. The students had participated in an advanced pedagogy program at my university’s Center for Teaching and Learning, and the position was an instructional technologist at a small liberal arts college. Immediately, the students searched the job description for qualities and experiences they lacked and reasons why they were unqualified. Many were so turned off by the job title that they likely would not have continued reading had they come across this position on their own.

    Then I encouraged the students to approach the position description with a bias toward “I’m qualified.” In other words, instead of starting with the assumption that they were not qualified for the role, do the opposite. Once they changed their mindset and believed that they were qualified, they were able to see many connections between their skills and experiences and what they read in the job description.

    In my work as a graduate student career adviser, I have found that this tendency for Ph.D. students to approach descriptions for jobs outside their academic field from a deficit perspective is quite common. Graduate students who have trained for years with an eye toward an academic position in their field often see themselves as utterly unqualified when they begin to search for jobs in other sectors. This can even be the case for those who have spent considerable amounts of time on career exploration and self-reflection and feel committed to a career in a field other than academia. Once they get to the job search process, they get hung up on the job descriptions themselves.

    When I told another career adviser about my “bias toward ‘I’m qualified’” approach, she said that this reminded her of the growth mindset concept. Psychologist Carol Dweck came up with the concept of the growth mindset nearly 20 years ago, and it has since been applied to everything from business to professional sports to early childhood education. In short, a growth mindset is, to cite Dweck’s definition, “based on the belief that your basic qualities are things you can cultivate through your efforts, your strategies, and help from others.” In other words, you can change and improve many aspects of yourself through hard work and help from others. This is in contrast to a fixed mindset, which is the belief that your qualities are “carved in stone” and cannot be changed.

    This concept has many applications in work and life, and when we are stressed about a job search it is easy to let a fixed mindset take over. However, adopting a growth mindset in just one context—reading job descriptions—can help you be more positive and open-minded in your job search. Of course, not everyone can do every job, but a growth mindset will help you see and articulate both your qualifications and your potential in a new career field.

    Consider the following ways in which reading job descriptions with a growth mindset can create more opportunities in your career exploration and job search.

    • See and articulate your transferable skills and experiences.

    Talk to a career adviser for five minutes, and they are likely to discuss the importance of transferable skills. Yet it can be tough to conceive of your skills, know which skills are most important, see how they might come in handy in other contexts and then articulate those skills in a way that is appealing to other audiences. Here is an example from my own career about how reading a job description with a growth mindset helped me identify and articulate a skill set I didn’t know I had.

    Shortly after finishing my Ph.D., I came across a job posting for a school relations manager at a nonprofit organization, liaising between high school teachers and the organization. The job fit my interests, but at first glance it didn’t seem to match my skill set. In particular, the job description asked for relationship-building skills, which I had never thought about as a skill set, let alone one that I possessed. As I reflected on my experience throughout my time in graduate school, I thought about a short-term, part-time position I had meeting once a month with high school history teachers to help them design lesson plans. I enjoyed this work and was good at it and, though I had never thought about it before, realized that I could frame this experience as relationship building. In my application materials and job interviews, I emphasized this skill set and expressed confidence in continuing to grow in this area, and I got the job.

    • Open up new career fields.

    Several years ago, I worked with a Ph.D. student in art history who was interested in a career in user experience research. Although she was still two years away from graduation, she started looking at job descriptions to get a better sense of the responsibilities and qualifications for the kinds of roles she desired. In her research, she noticed that many positions asked for evidence of user experience projects, and some even asked for a portfolio. While some students would have seen this as an insurmountable barrier (a fixed mindset), she instead let her growth mindset kick in and got to work building her portfolio through project-based online courses, independent projects and on-campus jobs, and continued to network with practitioners in the field. Her hard work and help from others paid off, and she was able to move into the field after she graduated.

    • Compete for jobs for which you may be somewhat underqualified.

    Students often let the perception of being underqualified for a job prevent them from applying. This is a well-documented tendency among women and underrepresented groups, and, for graduate students, the impostor phenomenon often contributes to reduced confidence in relation to career possibilities. Most graduate students know about this tendency and the advice to apply if you meet 60 to 75 percent of the qualifications, Yet, many still have difficulty getting over the hump to apply when they don’t meet 100 percent of the qualifications in the job description. Or, if they do apply, they undersell their qualifications in their application materials.

    When you approach a position description for a job that interests you but feels like a reach, start with the job responsibilities and imagine yourself performing the tasks listed. If there are things on the list you haven’t done before, imagine how you could build on the skills and capacities you have in a new setting and then improve over time. Next, go through each qualification and look for some connection, however tenuous, to something you have done before and write it down. If you have trouble doing this on your own, work with a career adviser who can help. Usually this process helps you see capacities and qualifications you didn’t know you had and will give you confidence that you can grow into a role that feels like a stretch.

    • Apply for jobs for which you may feel overqualified.

    This next piece of advice addresses the other end of the spectrum—jobs for which you feel overqualified. Ph.D. students who are entering a field other than academia are making a career transition, which often requires spending some time in a role that might feel beneath your qualifications. This is especially true in certain industries like publishing, journalism, marketing and communications, and others. It can feel demoralizing for doctoral students to apply for jobs that only require a bachelor’s degree.

    In this case, use a growth mindset to imagine how you could advance within the organization or how this first position could be a stepping-stone to another opportunity in a couple of years. Keep in mind that people with advanced degrees tend to get promoted to a higher level and more quickly than those with just a bachelor’s. You won’t be stuck in this first role forever, and it will give you a chance to demonstrate your skills in your new field.

    Underlying these tips is a nudge to get online and read some job descriptions, even if you aren’t yet ready to apply. Just make sure that when you do, you suit up with your growth mindset first.

    Rachel Bernard is the GSAS Compass Consultant at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Arts and Sciences, where she focuses on career development for master’s and doctoral students. She is a member of the Graduate Career Consortium—an organization providing a national voice for graduate-level career and professional development leaders.

    Source link

  • AI Support for Teachers

    AI Support for Teachers

    Collaborative Classroom, a leading nonprofit publisher of K–12 instructional materials, announces the publication of SIPPS, a systematic decoding program. Now in a new fifth edition, this research-based program accelerates mastery of vital foundational reading skills for both new and striving readers.

    Twenty-Five Years of Transforming Literacy Outcomes

    “As educators, we know the ability to read proficiently is one of the strongest predictors of academic and life success,” said Kelly Stuart, President and CEO of Collaborative Classroom. “Third-party studies have proven the power of SIPPS. This program has a 25-year track record of transforming literacy outcomes for students of all ages, whether they are kindergarteners learning to read or high schoolers struggling with persistent gaps in their foundational skills.

    “By accelerating students’ mastery of foundational skills and empowering teachers with the tools and learning to deliver effective, evidence-aligned instruction, SIPPS makes a lasting impact.”

    What Makes SIPPS Effective?

    Aligned with the science of reading, SIPPS provides explicit, systematic instruction in phonological awareness, spelling-sound correspondences, and high-frequency words. 

    Through differentiated small-group instruction tailored to students’ specific needs, SIPPS ensures every student receives the necessary targeted support—making the most of every instructional minute—to achieve grade-level reading success.

    “SIPPS is uniquely effective because it accelerates foundational skills through its mastery-based and small-group targeted instructional design,” said Linda Diamond, author of the Teaching Reading Sourcebook. “Grounded in the research on explicit instruction, SIPPS provides ample practice, active engagement, and frequent response opportunities, all validated as essential for initial learning and retention of learning.”

    Personalized, AI-Powered Teacher Support

    Educators using SIPPS Fifth Edition have access to a brand-new feature: immediate, personalized responses to their implementation questions with CC AI Assistant, a generative AI-powered chatbot.

    Exclusively trained on Collaborative Classroom’s intellectual content and proprietary program data, CC AI Assistant provides accurate, reliable information for educators.

    Other Key Features of SIPPS, Fifth Edition

    • Tailored Placement and Progress Assessments: A quick, 3–8 minute placement assessment ensures each student starts exactly at their point of instructional need. Ongoing assessments help monitor progress, adjust pacing, and support grouping decisions.
    • Differentiated Small-Group Instruction: SIPPS maximizes instructional time by focusing on small groups of students with similar needs, ensuring targeted, effective teaching.
    • Supportive of Multilingual Learners: Best practices in multilingual learner (ML) instruction and English language development strategies are integrated into the design of SIPPS.
    • Engaging and Effective for Older Readers: SIPPS Plus and SIPPS Challenge Level are specifically designed for students in grades 4–12, offering age-appropriate texts and instruction to close lingering foundational skill gaps.
    • Multimodal Supports: Integrated visual, auditory, and kinesthetic-tactile strategies help all learners, including multilingual students.
    • Flexible, Adaptable, and Easy to Teach: Highly supportive for teachers, tutors, and other adults working in classrooms and expanded learning settings, SIPPS is easy to implement well. A wraparound system of professional learning support ensures success for every implementer.

    Accelerating Reading Success for Students of All Ages

    In small-group settings, students actively engage in routines that reinforce phonics and decoding strategies, practice with aligned texts, and receive immediate feedback—all of which contribute to measurable gains.

    “With SIPPS, students get the tools needed to read, write, and understand text that’s tailored to their specific abilities,” said Desiree Torres, ENL teacher and 6th Grade Team Lead at Dr. Richard Izquierdo Health and Science Charter School in New York. “The boost to their self-esteem when we conference about their exam results is priceless. Each and every student improves with the SIPPS program.” 

    Kevin Hogan
    Latest posts by Kevin Hogan (see all)

    Source link

  • Reading, Writing, and Thinking in the Age of AI – Faculty Focus

    Reading, Writing, and Thinking in the Age of AI – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Indiana First Lady to Raise Money for Dolly Parton’s Library Program – The 74

    Indiana First Lady to Raise Money for Dolly Parton’s Library Program – The 74


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

    After slashing a popular reading program from the budget, Gov. Mike Braun said Friday he asked First Lady Maureen Braun to spearhead an initiative to keep Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library in Indiana.

    “She has agreed and she will work with philanthropic partners and in consultation with state leadership to identify funding opportunities for the book distribution program,” the governor said in a news release.

    The program gifts free, high quality, age-appropriate books to children from birth to age five on a monthly basis, regardless of family income.

    Former Gov. Eric Holcomb included a statewide expansion of the program in his 2023 legislative agenda. The General Assembly earmarked $6 million for the program in the state’s last biennial budget — $2 million in the first year and $4 million in the second — to ensure that all Hoosier kids qualify to receive free books.

    But when Gov. Braun prepared his budget proposal in January he discontinued the funding as part of an overall effort to rein in state spending.

    “I am honored to lead this work to help ensure our youngest Hoosiers have as much exposure as possible to books and learning,” said First Lady Maureen Braun. “Indiana has many strong community partners and I am confident we will collaborate on a solution that grows children’s love of reading.”

    Jeff Conyers, president of The Dollywood Foundation, said he appreciates Braun’s commitment to early childhood literacy.

    “The Imagination Library brings the joy of reading to over 125,000 Hoosier children each month in all 92 counties across the state, and we are encouraged by Governor and First Lady Braun’s support to ensure its future in Indiana. We look forward to working with the Governor and First Lady, state leaders, and Local Program Partners to keep books in the hands of Indiana’s youngest learners and strengthen this foundation for a lifetime of success,” he said.

    Indiana Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com.


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

    Source link