Tag: reading

  • Nevada Funding for Dolly Parton Book Program in Clark County Dries Up – The 74

    Nevada Funding for Dolly Parton Book Program in Clark County Dries Up – The 74


    Join our zero2eight Substack community for more discussion about the latest news in early care and education. Sign up now.

    Over the past two years, upwards of 18,000 young children in the Las Vegas metro area have received free monthly books in the mail as part of an early literacy program started by country icon Dolly Parton. But that ends this month.

    Storied Inc., the Clark County-based nonprofit partner for Parton’s Imagination Library, last week announced to parents and guardians that its October books would be the last until additional funding for the program is secured. The program, when funded, provides a free, age-appropriate monthly book to children 0 to 5 years old.

    According to Meredith Helmick, executive director of Storied, the nonprofit sought funding from the Nevada State Legislature earlier this year to keep the program going after an initial two-years of state grant funding ended, but they came up empty handed.

    Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager sponsored a bill to appropriate $3.9 million to the United Way of Northern Nevada and the Sierra, which currently runs the Imagination Library for Washoe County residents, to expand the program statewide. The bill was referred to the Assembly Committee on Ways & Means, where it languished until the end of the regular session without a hearing or even a mention, according to the legislature’s website.

    Helmick also hoped the nonprofit program might be able to secure funding through Senate Bill 460, Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro’s omnibus education legislation.

    An early version of that bill appropriated $50 million for early childhood literacy readiness programs, but an amendment reduced that to $0 for the fiscal year beginning July 2025 and $12 million for the fiscal year beginning July 2026. Helmick says lawmakers chose to prioritize expansion of preschool seats, a Cannizzaro priority.

    SB460 was heavily negotiated and amended to include many of Gov. Joe Lombardo’s education priorities. Those priorities included setting aside $7 million in grant funding for charter school transportation.

    It appears those other priorities came at the expense of existing innovative programs that were working.

    Helmick says a survey of her families last year found 62% of them had fewer than 20 children’s books in their homes before enrolling their children in the program.

    “This program is such a low cost, high reward program,” she added.

    Helmick is hopeful the program can return to the Las Vegas area. She says Storied is having conversations with large companies and other nonprofits, reaching out to elected officials at all levels of government, and urging their supporters to do the same.

    “We’ve heard rumors of a special session,” she adds. “Can we rewrite SB460 to include the language that it took out? Are there other funds that we could add or tap into that we could fit under? Maybe that’s an avenue.”

    ‘It isn’t just about the books’

    Meredith Helmick and her husband, Kyle, were inspired to start Storied Inc. after attempting to sign up their daughter for Imagination Library only to learn the nationwide program didn’t serve their area.

    Dolly Parton launched Imagination Library in 1995 and the program has since given out more than 250 million free books to children in the United States and four other countries.

    Storied Inc. is one of several partners running the program in Nevada. According to Helmick, the other partners have managed to continue their programs, either in whole or by scaling down the number of kids served.

    The sheer size of Clark County’s population makes that a tougher task for Storied. According to the Imagination Library’s website, nearly 29,000 Nevada children are enrolled, the vast majority through Storied.

    Helmick says that before they even had a chance to market the program or figure out stable funding, an intrepid stranger found the sign up form and shared it on a social media group for parents in Las Vegas.

    “In 48 hours, we had 3,500 kids registered,” she recalls. “It was, like, ‘I guess we’re doing it now.’ But it all worked out beautifully.”

    From there, the program quickly grew just by word of mouth. It was funded from June 2023 to July 2025 by a grant from the state’s Early Childhood Innovative Literacy Program. Participation fluctuates each month as kids are signed up or age out at 5 years old, but Helmick says it stays in the range of 18,000 or 19,000 thousand children spanning most of Clark County.

    (Boulder City residents have a dedicated partner, Reading to Z, which currently serves fewer than 200 kids. Rural Clark County residents who live in Valley Electric Association’s service area can sign up for a program run by the energy cooperative’s charitable foundation.)

    Over the summer, with the funding drying up, Storied stopped accepting new kids into the program.

    “We didn’t want to disappoint families” by starting to send them books only to stop sending them a few months later, said Helmick. “One thing that sets (Imagination Library) apart is these books are sent directly to their home. I am a huge proponent of libraries. I’m there practically every week. But not everybody is able to do that. That is a barrier.”

    Additionally, the books arrive addressed to the child.

    “Getting it in the mail, the label with their name, it gives them ownership of the book,” says Helmick. “It makes a huge difference. I didn’t realize it until I heard it from families.”

    On the inside of each book cover is a note from Imagination Library with tips for parents on conversations they can have with their child about the book, or questions they can ask to boost critical thinking and early reading skills.

    “It isn’t just about the books and the words and the stories you’re reading with your kids,” said Helmick. “It’s sitting together side by side. It’s having conversations with them.”

    Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nevada Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Hugh Jackson for questions: [email protected].


    Did you use this article in your work?

    We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Moving home for the start of the academic year

    WEEKEND READING: Moving home for the start of the academic year

    UK universities are under mounting financial pressure. Join HEPI and King’s College London Policy Institute on 11 November 2025 at 1pm for a webinar on how universities balance relatively stable but underfunded income streams against higher-margin but volatile sources. Register now. We look forward to seeing you there.

    This blog was kindly authored by Philip Bakstad, Diversity and Inclusion Manager at Liverpool John Moores University.

    Chris’s mum died soon after his birth and his dad was out of the picture. He was brought up by his Nan, living with her in her council house. Chris’s Nan passed away while Chris was doing his foundation year at Liverpool John Moores University. The council wanted the house back. Still grieving for his Nan, Chris was at risk of becoming homeless and dropping out of university.

    Stories like Chris’ are not uncommon, yet they are at risk of being overlooked as university staff across the country gear up for the return of students each September. More on Chris later…

    The start of the academic year is both an exciting and hectic time for students and staff on university campuses across the country. For care-experienced and estranged students (CEES), this time of year often comes with a unique set of anxieties and challenges, as they not only navigate the usual issues around meeting new friends, understanding timetables and deciding which Freshers events to attend, but also transition into new living set-ups which will often now be their permanent home while studying at their new university.

    A diversity of experience

    The terms ‘care-experienced’ and ‘estranged’ encapsulate a broad range of lived experiences of students who have faced particular challenges related to their family circumstances while growing up. This can include having previously lived in a formal foster care arrangement with a Local Authority; being raised by another family member in kinship care or becoming estranged from their parents after the age of 16.

    Much has been done across the sector over the past two decades to address the under-representation of care-experienced and estranged students in higher education, but there remains a great deal of inconsistency. Young people who meet the formal definition of a ‘Care Leaver’ are eligible for a level of statutory support but this varies by Local Authority. For students who do not meet this legal definition but have experience of care or have faced other family disruption, there remains no national benchmark for what key support should be offered by all institutions across the higher education sector.

    Organisations such as NNECL, the Unite Foundation and the much-missed charity StandAlone have been invaluable partners as universities have developed Access and Participation Plans and specific interventions to not only improve the number of care experienced and estranged students accessing higher education, but also ensure that each care-experienced or estranged student receives a holistic support package, tailored to their individual needs.

    A home for success

    A key element of most institutions’ offer will be the provision of extended tenancies or ‘all year round’ accommodation. This recognises that many care-experienced and estranged students will be making their new accommodation their permanent base once the academic year begins. While this is now broadly accepted as best practice across the sector, many students still face difficulties in providing a guarantor or raising the funds for a deposit to secure the accommodation that will best suit their needs.

    At Liverpool John Moores University, we have long operated a ‘Guarantor Waiver’ scheme as part of our partnership arrangements with our accommodation providers in the city, ensuring that no care-experienced or estranged student should be excluded from accessing accommodation at this key transition point in their lives.  The Unite Foundation, led by students on their scholarship programme, are now campaigning for all universities to provide similar support.

    The following case studies provide some insight into the experiences of care experienced and estranged students and highlight the importance of accommodation as an invaluable support during their degree studies. Some details have been changed to protect anonymity.

    Case study 1 – growing up in kinship care

    Chris had been raised by his grandmother since an early age. During his Foundation Year at LJMU his grandmother sadly passed away and he contacted the Student Advice team for support as he would no longer be able to return home to their council house at the end of the academic year. Chris’ mother had passed away shortly after his birth and he had no contact with his biological father so he was at immediate risk of becoming homeless over the summer period.

    In the first instance, our accommodation partnership meant the university was able to reassure Chris that he would be able to extend his tenancy over the summer. At the same time, LJMU provided academic and wellbeing support to ensure his studies weren’t adversely impacted. 

    Chris’ key worry was having a stable home for the duration of his studies. He was very clear that living in halls worked for him as he had built up good relationships with the staff there. Moving into private accommodation and the logistical issues that posed caused him a great deal of anxiety.

    The university signposted him towards the Unite Foundation Scholarship and his application was a success. Chris lived in a Unite Students property, with his rent and bills covered by the Scholarship, for the duration of his studies at LJMU.

    As he navigated this complex period in his life, knowing that his university accommodation was guaranteed for three years was an anchor for Chris. He graduated with a 2:1 and is currently working in the IT sector.

    Case study 2 – becoming estranged at 18

    Alice became estranged from her mother aged 18, following a breakdown in the relationship between her and her mother’s new partner. She was asked to leave the family home and slept on friends’ sofas before her college became aware of her circumstances. She then moved into a young person’s foyer – a supported living space for young people who would otherwise experience homelessness.

    Alice’s Foyer Support Worker contacted LJMU as she was unable to provide a deposit or guarantor to secure her accommodation and had questions about how to apply for student finance as an independent student. Our partnership agreement enables LJMU to request that partner accommodation providers waive the need for a guarantor for care experienced and estranged students, so the university was able to quickly provide reassurance that the absence of a guarantor and deposit would not be a barrier to Alice booking her chosen accommodation.

    Upon arriving at LJMU, Alice met other estranged students at a social meet-up and chose to live in an LJMU partner hall with three other students for years 2 and 3 of their studies. While their family circumstances were all different, this sense of community and peer support was invaluable to Alice and her flatmates. She is now a high school teacher and keeps support staff at LJMU updated on new developments in her life.

    In conclusion

    There is so much to be excited about at the start of each academic year. Meeting new students and supporting them to step into independence is a privilege for both academic and Professional Service staff at universities across the country. It is an important milestone in every young person’s life but, for care experienced and estranged students, can be an even more pivotal moment of change and uncertainty. While I’ve only touched on the importance of accommodation in providing stability in this blog, it’s worth reflecting on the fact that not every student moving into university accommodation will be doing so with the support (and ‘Bank of’) Mum and Dad and that, for this group of students, we need to continue to go the extra mile to ensure they are able to get in and get on in higher education.

    Further information on LJMU support for care experienced and estranged students: https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/discover/student-support/inclusion/care-leavers

    Source link

  • Reading Between the Lines on Compact Responses

    Reading Between the Lines on Compact Responses

    Multiple universities have rejected President Trump’s proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, but they have taken different approaches to turning down the commander in chief. Some have declined pointedly, while others struck a more delicate balancing act.

    To be sure, leaders of the institutions invited to sign the compact have found themselves squeezed by both internal and external forces, under pressure from the federal government to approve the deal and from faculty and other campus constituents to reject it. Both public and private universities have also faced political pressure from state lawmakers, who in some cases urged them to sign and in others have threatened to strip funding if they do.

    Most of the nine universities originally invited to join the compact rejected it on or before the Oct. 20 deadline to provide feedback—well ahead of Nov. 21, the final date for making a decision. Their responses, released to the public, ranged from pointed to demure; in some cases, institutional leaders emphasized their core values in rebutting the proposal, which promised to grant preferential treatment in exchange for freezing tuition, capping international enrollment and suppressing criticism of conservatives, among other demands from the U.S. Department of Education.

    The Road to ‘No’

    Here are links to each institution’s response, in the order in which they were posted publicly:

    Together these statements offer insights into how institutions are responding to an unprecedented demand from the federal government: that they subscribe to President Trump’s culturally conservative vision of higher education in exchange for financial gain.

    Key Themes

    Experts note that while most institutions declined the deal, some statements stood out more than others.

    Brian Rosenberg, president emeritus of Macalester College, highlighted the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s statement as the clearest rejection. Unlike some of the other responses, it doesn’t promise future engagement on the federal government’s concerns and is a clear, resounding no based on MIT’s principles, he said.

    The first to reject the compact, MIT president Sally Kornbluth highlighted areas of agreement, such as an emphasis on merit in hiring, admissions and more, but she also argued that the proposal was “inconsistent with our core belief that scientific funding should be based on scientific merit alone.”

    Lisa Corrigan, a communications professor at the University of Arkansas and an expert on rhetoric and political communication, flagged the University of Southern California’s statement as a notable response. She pointed out that while USC highlighted its commitment to promoting civil discourse, as many others did, it also emphasized its “commitment to ROTC and veterans.” (Brown and Arizona were the only other institutions to mention veterans in their responses.)

    “I thought USC really did a strong job in articulating exactly what values they are using to guide their decision-making in rejecting the compact,” Corrigan told Inside Higher Ed.

    Erin Hennessy, vice president at TVP Communications, flagged both the Dartmouth and Penn statements as notable for different reasons. With Dartmouth, Hennessy said she was struck by the brevity of the statement, which clocked in at about 230 words. And for Penn, she pointed out that it was the only university that did not share the rejection letter it sent to Education Secretary Linda McMahon along with its public statement. Every other institution that rejected the deal posted both a statement and the letter.

    (Asked for a copy of its response to the Department of Education, Penn declined to provide it.)

    Experts noted a number of other observations from the collective letters and accompanying statements—including how many presidents emphasized merit, which is mentioned in every response except Dartmouth’s. Altogether the word “merit” appears 15 times in the nine published university responses, and “meritocracy” is cited once.

    Hennessy posited that the focus on that specific word is an attempt to “push back on the perception of certain folks in the MAGA sphere that believe any program, or any consideration of race or class or ethnic background, is diametrically in conflict with the concept of merit.”

    Rosenberg suggested that universities are trying to turn the government’s argument against it. By emphasizing merit, universities are seizing on a “logical inconsistency in the position of the federal government,” he said. While the Trump administration is demanding merit in admissions, hiring and other areas, it also has signaled a willingness to provide preferential treatment on federal research funding based not on merit but a willingness to conform to political priorities.

    Many of the responses also mentioned institutional neutrality policies.

    USC, Virginia, Vanderbilt and WashU all cited the concept, though only USC and Virginia submitted clear rejections; WashU sent a mixed message, and Vanderbilt has committed only to offering feedback on the proposal. Dartmouth, which also has an institutional neutrality policy, did not mention it.

    Both Arizona and Virginia used a similar turn of phrase to reject the compact’s promise of preferential status in exchange for signing, with officials writing, “We seek no special treatment” in connection to advancing their missions.

    One word, however, is notably absent among all the responses: Trump. And only Dartmouth referenced political affiliation in its response to the federal government. President Sian Beilock wrote that she did not believe “the involvement of the government through a compact—whether it is a Republican- or Democratic-led White House—is the right way to focus America’s leading colleges and universities on their teaching and research mission.”

    WashU’s Muddled Messaging

    Though Washington University in St. Louis agreed to provide feedback to the federal government, administrators also appeared to tacitly reject the compact proposal. The university’s initial statement on Monday noted concerns about the compact but stopped short of an outright rejection; Chancellor Andrew Martin wrote that providing feedback does not mean “we have endorsed or signed on” to the proposal.

    But in a Tuesday email to faculty members, Martin wrote he “can confirm that we won’t sign the proposed Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education … or any document that undermines our mission or our core values.” Martin added WashU will provide feedback, emphasizing the importance of “having our voice at the table for these potentially consequential conversations.”

    WashU, however, has been reluctant to publicly call that a rejection.

    Asked by Inside Higher Ed about the authenticity of the email, first published by another news outlet, and whether it amounts to a rejection, a university spokesperson only confirmed it was official.

    Corrigan suggested that both WashU and Vanderbilt are trying to buy time “to see which universities are going to be in the next round, if any.” She added, “They want the opportunity to return to the conversation when there’s more political cover for them to potentially say no.”

    Institutional Silence

    While most universities invited to join the compact responded publicly by the deadline, both the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Kansas have remained silent on the matter.

    Neither has issued publicly shared feedback or other statements about the compact, though University of Texas system board leadership initially responded positively to the invitation to join.

    “For institutions that haven’t responded publicly yet, the questions I would be asking are, is there division between the president and the board on how to move forward on this? Is there division between the president and the faculty on how to move forward on this?” Hennessy said.

    To her, that silence signals that internal negotiations are likely at play, potentially involving debates over strategy, language and other points. She believes nonresponders are more likely to sign the compact and may be “trying to figure out how to make a yes more palatable” to critics.

    Rosenberg suggests there are likely legal concerns being discussed.

    “Like virtually everything else coming out of the government right now, it’s going to face a legal challenge once someone signs, because the limitations on free speech for members of the community are pretty severe,” he said. “Once someone signs, it’s going to end up in the courts.”

    Source link

  • Science of Reading Training, Practice Vary, New Research Finds – The 74

    Science of Reading Training, Practice Vary, New Research Finds – The 74


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

    North Carolina is one of several states that have passed legislation in recent years to align classroom reading instruction with the research on how children learn to read. But ensuring all students have access to research-backed instruction is a marathon, not a sprint, said education leaders and researchers from across the country on a webinar from the Hunt Institute last Wednesday.

    Though implementation of the state’s reading legislation has been ongoing since 2021, more resources and comprehensive support are needed to ensure teaching practice and reading proficiency are improved, webinar panelists said.

    “The goal should be to transition from the science of reading into the science of teaching reading,” said Paola Pilonieta, professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte who was part of a team that studied North Carolina’s implementation of its 2021 Excellent Public Schools Act.

    That legislation mandates instruction to be aligned with “the science of reading,” the research that says learning to read involves “the acquisition of language (phonology, syntax, semantics, morphology, and pragmatics), and skills of phonemic awareness, accurate and efficient work identification (fluency), spelling, vocabulary, and comprehension.”

    The legislature allocated more than $114 million to train pre-K to fifth grade teachers and other educators in the science of reading through a professional development tool called the Language Essentials for Teachers of Reading and Spelling (LETRS). More than 44,000 teachers had completed the training as of June 2024.

    Third graders saw a two-point drop, from 49% to 47%, in reading proficiency from the 2023-24 to 2024-25 school year on literacy assessments. It was the first decline in this measure since LETRS training began. First graders’ results on formative assessments held steady at 70% proficiency and second graders saw a small increase, from 65% to 66%.

    “LETRS was the first step in transforming teacher practice and improving student outcomes,” Pilonieta said. “To continue to make growth in reading, teachers need targeted ongoing support in the form of coaching, for example, to ensure effective implementation of evidence-based literacy instruction.”

    Teachers’ feelings on the training

    Pilonieta was part of a team at UNC-Charlotte and the Education Policy Initiative at Carolina (EPIC) at UNC-Chapel Hill that studied teachers’ perception of the LETRS training and districts’ implementation of that training. The team also studied teachers’ knowledge of research-backed literacy practices and how they implemented those practices in small-group settings after the training.

    They asked about these experiences through a survey completed by 4,035 teachers across the state from spring 2023 to winter 2024, and 51 hour-long focus groups with 113 participants.

    Requiring training on top of an already stressful job can be a heavy lift, Pilonieta said. LETRS training looked different across districts, the research team found. Some teachers received stipends to complete the training or were compensated with time off, and some were not. Some had opportunities to collaborate with fellow educators during the training; some did not.

    “These differences in support influenced whether teachers felt supported during the training, overwhelmed, or ignored,” Pilonieta said.

    Teachers did perceive the content of the LETRS training to be helpful in some ways and had concerns in others, according to survey respondents.

    Teachers holding various roles found the content valuable in learning about how the brain works, phonics, and comprehension.

    They cited issues, however, with the training’s applicability to varied roles, limited differentiation based on teachers’ background knowledge and experience, redundancy, and a general limited amount of time to engage with the training’s content.

    Varied support from administrators, coaches

    When asking teachers about how implementation worked at their schools, the researchers found that support from administrators and instructional coaches varied widely.

    Teachers reported that classroom visits from administrators with a focus on science of reading occurred infrequently. The main support administrators provided, according to the research, was planning time.

    “Many teachers felt that higher levels of support from coaches would be valuable to help them implement these reading practices,” Pilonieta said.

    Teachers did report shifts in their teaching practice after the training and felt those tweaks had positive outcomes on students.

    The team found other conditions impacted teachers’ implementation: schools’ use of curriculum that aligned to the concepts covered in the training, access to materials and resources, and having sufficient planning time.

    Some improvement in knowledge and practice

    Teachers performed well on assessments after completing the training, but had lower scores on a survey given later by the research team. Pilonieta said this suggests an issue with knowledge retention.

    Teachers scored between 95% to 98% across in the LETRS post-training assessment. But in the research team’s survey, scores ranged from 48% to 78%.

    Teachers with a reading license scored higher on all knowledge areas addressed in LETRS than teachers who did not.

    When the team analyzed teachers’ recorded small-group reading lessons, 73% were considered high-quality. They found consistent use of explicit instruction, which is a key component of the science of reading, as well as evidence-backed strategies related to phonemic awareness and phonics. They found limited implementation of practices on vocabulary and comprehension.

    Among the low-quality lessons, more than half were for students reading below grade level. Some “problematic practices” persisted in 17% of analyzed lessons.

    What’s next?

    The research team formed several recommendations on how to improve reading instruction and reading proficiency.

    They said ongoing professional development through education preparation programs and teacher leaders can help teachers translate knowledge to instructional change. Funding is also needed for instructional coaches to help teachers make that jump.

    Guides differentiated by grade levels would help different teachers with different needs when it comes to implementing evidence-backed strategies. And the state should incentivize teachers to pursue specialized credentials in reading instruction, the researchers said.

    Moving forward, the legislation might need more clarity on mechanisms for sustaining the implementation of the science of reading. The research team suggests a structured evaluation framework that tracks implementation, student impact, and resource distribution to inform the state’s future literacy initiatives.

    This article first appeared on EdNC and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.


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

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Building the transatlantic cyber bridge: what ‘Careers-First’ really means for the future workforce

    WEEKEND READING: Building the transatlantic cyber bridge: what ‘Careers-First’ really means for the future workforce

    This blog was kindly authored by Professor Paul Marshall, Vice-President (Global Campus) and Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Careers & Enterprise), University of East London.

    As the UK Government prepares its long-awaited White Paper on the future of higher education, it is timely to reflect on the purpose and impact of our universities. At their best, they are not simply sites of knowledge creation – they are instruments of national capability. Few challenges illustrate that more vividly than cybersecurity.

    When I joined a panel at the CyberBay Cybersecurity Conference in Tampa earlier this month, Dr Richard Munassi, Managing Director of Tampa Bay Wave, opened with a warning that set the tone for the discussion:

    We are in a cyber war – a war waged by well-financed, state-backed criminal organisations so sophisticated that they have their own HR divisions.

    He was right. Earlier this year, Jaguar Land Rover was forced to suspend production after a ransomware attack that rippled across its global supply chain. The UK Government’s intervention – with a support package approaching £1.5 billion – made clear that cybersecurity is not an IT issue; it is economic infrastructure.

    As the sector awaits the Government’s vision for the future, one truth already stands out: higher education must not only prepare individuals for work –  it must prepare the nation for risk.

    At the University of East London (UEL), that challenge sits at the heart of our institutional strategy, Vision 2028, which seeks to transform lives through education, innovation, and enterprise. The strategy’s organising principle – Careers-First – redefines employability as capability.

    Rather than positioning careers as an outcome of study, it embeds professional practice, enterprise, and resilience into every degree and partnership. The test for every programme is simple: does it equip our students to adapt, contribute, and lead in industries defined by constant change?

    Nowhere is this approach more tangible than in cybersecurity. Our BSc Cyber Security & Networks, MSc Information Security & Digital Forensics, and Cyber Security Technical Professional Degree Apprenticeship all combine rigorous academic study with live, industry-based application. 

    Students work directly with BT, IBM, Fujitsu, and Ford, tackling real-time challenges in threat analysis, data forensics, and network defence. By the time they graduate, they are not simply work-ready — they are work-proven, having contributed to the resilience of the very sectors they will soon join.

    The results speak for themselves:

    • With Siemens UK, students tested firmware vulnerabilities in industrial systems, informing Siemens’ internal training programmes.
    • With Barclays Eagle Labs, they created a fraud-analysis dashboard now in pilot testing.
    • With NHS Digital, they developed a ransomware-simulation tool to train hospital teams in incident response.

    Each collaboration demonstrates a single idea: learning is most powerful when it changes the world beyond the classroom.

    UEL’s Institute for Connected Communities (ICC), led by Professor Julia Davidson OBE, anchors this model in research excellence and policy leadership. The ICC brings together computing, criminology, psychology, and social science to examine the human, technical, and organisational dimensions of online safety.

    Its research informs the UK Council for Internet Safety, Ofcom, UNICEF, and multiple international governments. Through projects such as Global Kids Online, ICC research directly shapes teaching, ensuring that our graduates understand not only how to secure systems, but why digital trust matters to society.

    As policymakers consider the future role of universities in the forthcoming White Paper, the ICC already provides a working example of how academic research translates into practical and regulatory impact.

    The White Paper will also need to consider how global collaboration strengthens national capability. UEL’s Global Campus model demonstrates how this can work in practice — connecting students and employers across India, Greece, Egypt, and the United States to create shared pathways for study, innovation, and employment.

    Our developing partnership with Tampa Bay Wave, framed within the UK–Florida Memorandum of Understanding (2023), offers one illustration. We are building both virtual and physical experiences that will enable UEL students to engage with Florida’s growing cybersecurity and fintech ecosystem through mentoring, live projects, and placements, while providing a London base for US start-ups entering the UK market.

    A genuine transatlantic bridge is being constructed –  designed for movement in both directions, connecting students, researchers, and entrepreneurs to co-create secure-by-design technologies and governance frameworks. It is the Careers-First model, scaled globally.

    The next phase of cybersecurity will occur where AI, data, and physical systems converge. Attacks will target intelligent infrastructure –  transport grids, hospitals and manufacturing. UEL is already embedding these challenges into its curriculum, guided by ICC research. Students design adversarial-AI tests, examine supply-chain vulnerabilities, and develop frameworks for organisational resilience.

    This approach recognises that technology evolves faster than any static syllabus. Students are therefore treated as co-creators, working alongside academics and employers to design the solutions industry will need next.

    As the UK Government prepares its White Paper, one principle should underpin the national conversation: universities are not peripheral to resilience –  they are central to it. They educate the workforce, generate the research, and sustain the partnerships that keep the nation secure.

    UEL’s Careers-First model, aligned to Vision 2028, embodies that principle. It fuses employability, enterprise, and global engagement into one coherent system of capability. Our collaboration with Tampa Bay Wave is a single, tangible expression of this –  connecting East London’s lecture theatres to innovation ecosystems across the Atlantic.

    In a global cyber war, the question is not whether universities should respond, but how fast they can. At UEL, that response is already underway –  this is what Careers-First looks like.

    Source link

  • How We Outperformed National Reading Scores – And Kept Students at Grade Level – The 74

    How We Outperformed National Reading Scores – And Kept Students at Grade Level – The 74


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

    As reading scores remain a top concern for schools nationwide, many districts are experimenting with ability-based grouping in the early grades. The idea is to group students in multiple grade levels by their current reading level — not their grade level. A classroom could have seven kindergartners, 10 first graders, and three second graders grouped together for reading because they all read at the same level.

    While this may work for some schools, in our district, Rockwood School District in Missouri, we’ve chosen a different path. We keep students together in their class during whole-class instruction — regardless of ability level — and provide support or enrichment by creating flexible groups based on instructional needs within their grade level.

    We’re building skilled, confident readers not by separating them, but by growing them together.

    Children, like adults, learn and grow in diverse groups. In a Rockwood classroom, every student contributes to the shared learning environment — and every student benefits from being part of it.

    Our approach starts with whole-class instruction. All students, including English multilingual learners and those working toward grade-level benchmarks, participate in daily, grade-level phonics and comprehension lessons. We believe these shared experiences are foundational — not just for building literacy, but for fostering community and academic confidence.

    After our explicit, whole-group lessons, students move into flexible, needs-based small groups informed by real-time data and observations. Some students receive reteaching, while others take on enrichment activities. During these blocks, differentiation is fluid: A student may need decoding help one day and vocabulary enrichment the next. No one is locked into a static tier. Every day is a new opportunity.

    Students also engage in daily independent and partner reading. In addition, reading specialists provide targeted, research-based interventions for striving readers who need additional instruction.

    We build movement into our instruction, as well — not as a brain break, but as a learning tool. We use gestures for phonemes, tapping for spelling and jumping to count syllables. These are “brain boosts,” helping young learners stay focused and engaged.

    We challenge all students, regardless of skill level. During phonics and word work, advanced readers work with more complex texts and tasks. Emerging readers receive the time and scaffolded support they need — such as visual cues and pre-teaching or exposing students to a concept or skill before it’s formally taught during a whole-class lesson. That can help them fully participate in every class. A student might not yet be able to decode or encode every word, but they are exposed to the grade-level standards and are challenged to meet the high expectations we have for all students.

    During shared and interactive reading lessons, all students are able to practice fluency and build their comprehension skills and vocabulary knowledge. Through these shared experiences, every child experiences success.

    There’s a common misconception that mixed-ability classrooms hold back high achievers or overwhelm striving readers. But in practice, engagement depends more on how we teach rather than who is in the room. With well-paced, multimodal lessons grounded in grade-level content, every learner finds an entry point.

    You’ll see joy, movement, and mutual respect in our classrooms — because when we treat students as capable, they rise. And when we give them the right tools, not labels, they use them.

    While ability grouping may seem like a practical solution, research suggests it can have a lasting downside. A Northwestern University study of nearly 12,000 students found that those placed in the lowest kindergarten reading groups rarely caught up to their peers. For example, when you group a third grader with first graders, when does the older child get caught up? Even if he learns and progresses with his ability group, he’s still two grade levels behind his third-grade peers.

    This study echoes what researchers refer to as the Matthew Effect in reading: The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Lower-track students are exposed to less complex vocabulary and fewer comprehension strategies. Once placed on that path, it’s hard to catch up. Once a student is assigned a label, it’s difficult to change it — for both the student and educators.

    In Rockwood, we’re confident in what we’re doing. We have effective, evidence-based curricula for Tier I phonics and comprehension, and every student receives the same whole-class instruction as every other student in their grade. Then, students receive intervention or enrichment as needed.

    At the end of the 2024–25 school year, our data affirmed what we see every day. Our kindergarteners outperformed national proficiency averages in every skill group — in some cases by more than 17 percentage points, according to our Reading Horizons data. Our first and second graders outpaced national averages across nearly every domain. We don’t claim to have solved the literacy crisis — or know that our model will work for every district, school, classroom or student — but we’re building readers before gaps emerge.

    We’ve learned that when every student receives strong Tier I instruction, no one gets left behind. The key isn’t separating kids by ability. It’s designing instruction that’s universally strong and strategically supported.

    We recognize that every community faces distinct challenges. If you’re a district leader weighing the trade-offs of ability grouping, consider this: When you pull students out of the room during critical learning moments, the rich vocabulary, the shared texts and the academic conversation, you are not closing the learning gap, but creating a bigger one. Those critical moments build more than skills; they build readers.

    In Rockwood, our data confirms what we see every day: students growing not only in skills, but also in confidence, stamina and joy. We’re proving that inclusive, grade-level-first instruction can work — and work well — for all learners.


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

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: University Collaboration – the case for admissions and professional registration  

    WEEKEND READING: University Collaboration – the case for admissions and professional registration  

    This HEPI guest blog was kindly written by James Seymour, who runs an education consultancy focusing on marketing, student recruitment, admissions and reputation and Julie Kelly who runs a higher education consultancy specialising in registry and governance challenges. Julie and James have worked for a range of universities at Director level in recent years.  

    The Challenge  

    All through August and September, many admissions and faculty/course teams have been working hard to get thousands of new students over the line and onto the next stage of their lives. It is more than just their UCAS application, interview, selection and firm acceptance or journey through Clearing – they have to actually enrol and succeed too.  

    Many of these students are training to be nurses, teachers, paramedics, social workers and doctors amongst many other allied health professional and education courses. They all need to go through essential and important Professional, Statutory and Regulatory Body (PSRB) requirements and additional compliance checks, from passports, to Disclosure and Barring Service questionnaires, to health questionnaires and more. Many are mature students who must demonstrate GCSE or equivalent competency at Grade C/4 or above. They are less likely to have support navigating this process as they are less likely to be in full-time education.  

    Most of these applicants have already been interviewed, attended selection days or Multiple Mini Interviews – MMIs (like selection speed dating) involving lots of competency stations.  

    These health students also must apply for their Student Finance loans in good time to trigger the all-important £5K+ NHS learning support fund – essential to enable them to succeed and even get to their clinical placements via bus, train or car.  

    It’s a very onerous process for applicants, their supporters, and the academic, admissions, and compliance teams, who must arrange and record all of this.  

    Clearly, getting all this information recorded and verified is important, but does it have to be so admin-heavy and time-consuming? Are we putting up barriers and disincentives deterring students from starting their studies?  

    At present, we have an inconsistent mess, often involving email and incessant chasing.  

    There has to be a better way  

    Over the last 10 years we have been involved in a number of process improvement/student journey projects at a number of UK universities.  In our experience it takes at least five times longer to admit a Nurse compared to a Business, Law or English student, and at least twice as long compared to a creative arts student who submits their portfolio for interview and review. Data from The Student Loans Company indicates that at least 25% of all new students only apply for their loans on or after results day in August – presenting real risk of delays in getting their money in time for enrolment.  

    Typically, only 85-90% of Nurses and other key NHS-backed students who have a confirmed UCAS place in August actually enrol in September. Another 3-5% have left before January.  

    This is not all about motivation or resilience – part of the issue is linked to getting these students over the line with all the additional hoops they have to jump through.  

    Another issue is around wasted resource across the sector and a poor student experience.  A student typically applies to their five UCAS choices, and many universities undertake the additional PSRB checks during the admission process.  A student is therefore having to supply their information to multiple institutions, which then need to be processed for students who may never actually enrol.  Surely it is better for students to supply this information once during the initial application stage? 

    Postgraduate Teachers including PGCE and Teach First students have to navigate a gov.uk application process (rather than UCAS) which feels like completing your tax return. A daunting and clunky first step to train in one of the most important careers any of us will ever do. They also only get three choices for courses that start in early September – only 2-3 weeks after many final year degree results are confirmed, putting undue pressure both on students, schools and institutions alike. 

    It’s clear that in the context of improving efficiency, eventual enrolment and reducing stress for all, a more collaborative approach across UK HE and professional training would be a real win. The same issues apply for onboarding, applications and selection for degree and higher apprenticeships.  

    The NHS workforce plan signals a clear need to train more Nurses and other key NHS staff and we know that teacher recruitment targets have been missed again this year.  

    Solutions and Future Projects 

    In the context of collaboration between universities, NHS, UKVI, UCAS and DfE we propose some key, essential ways to improve the process and increase the pipeline of future health and education professionals.  

    1. Create a safe, secure one-stop shop for PSRB checks, uploads and compliance so that students do it once and can be shared with all their university choices and options. There are a number of Ed Tech companies as well as UCAS, providing portals for applicants and the Gov.uk system is already improving each year.  
    1. As well as the process, revisit the timeline for applications and compliance for NHS and other PSRB courses – if this is all checked and ready by April-May and directly linked up to Student Finance Applications and/or NHS bursary support – far more students would be able to enrol, train and be ready to learn.  This would require proper process mapping and joined up thinking across different government departments, UCAS and universities themselves.  
    1. The HE sector and NHS should collectively review the factors, groups and critical incidents affecting non-enrolment and first year drop out – nationally and across all PSRB courses – and work at pace to ‘fix the leaks’ accordingly. At present these data sets are not shared or acted upon across the UK but only via individual universities, trusts and occasionally at conferences and sector meetings.  
    1. UCAS and exam boards need to urgently bring forward automatic sharing of GCSE results via the ABL system so that universities and applicants can be assured of level 2 qualifications.  
    1. Look at alternatives to the ‘doom loop’ of GCSE Maths and English retakes and essential requirement for entry to NHS and other professional courses. There are already alternative qualifications including Functional Skills and these need to be amplified, so more students are able to get over the line and start training.  
    1. Universities should work together not against each other. Each university or training provider spends many tens of thousands each year on recruitment campaigns.  For Nursing degrees alone, we estimate this to be at least £1M per year; pooling just 10% of this figure to ensure a consistent brand and overarching campaign would widen the pool of applicants rather than pit universities against each other.  
    1. Review the application process for Postgraduate Teacher Training – consider whether it should be given back to UCAS or another tech platform to improve visibility, choice, applicant journey and eventual enrolment figures.  Clearly only three choices is not enough with some providers being more efficient than others in responding to applicants and dealing with application volumes. The resulting bottlenecks impact on applicant confidence in the system. The early September start date for PG teaching courses also needs a review.  Apart from the application time pressure, these students are also starting before the campus (and school?) is truly ready for the start of term.  Why not start with the rest of their peers at the end of September and also introduce a January start point as an option? 
    1. Make funding more consistent and long term – at present universities are only paid to train students based on first year intake each year, leading to short term decisions, volatility and competition. The LLE due in 2027 is unlikely to lead to flexibility in PSRB course transfer. Giving universities and health trusts a 3-4 year funding model would iron out that volatility, encourage new entrants and provide certainty to invest in facilities, staff and support to train those students.  

    Conclusion and next steps  

    As the HE sector looks back on admission and enrolment for the 2025/26 academic year and prepares for 2026/27 entry we feel that something must change to enhance the admission process for PSRB courses, all of which are critical to the future of the UK.  

    The practical steps and ideas included within the article are all deliverable but need joined-up thinking across different parts of the process. We propose establishing a working group or task force to address quick wins and consider a roadmap for addressing longer-term solutions. 

    Source link

  • NAEP scores for class of 2024 show major declines, with fewer students college ready

    NAEP scores for class of 2024 show major declines, with fewer students college ready

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

    Students from the class of 2024 had historically low scores on a major national test administered just months before they graduated.

    Results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, released September 9, show scores for 12th graders declined in math and reading for all but the highest performing students, as well as widening gaps between high and low performers in math. More than half of these students reported being accepted into a four-year college, but the test results indicate that many of them are not academically prepared for college, officials said.

    “This means these students are taking their next steps in life with fewer skills and less knowledge in core academics than their predecessors a decade ago, and this is happening at a time when rapid advancements in technology and society demand more of future workers and citizens, not less,” said Lesley Muldoon, executive director of the National Assessment Governing Board. “We have seen progress before on NAEP, including greater percentages of students meeting the NAEP proficient level. We cannot lose sight of what is possible when we use valuable data like NAEP to drive change and improve learning in U.S. schools.”

    These results reflect similar trends seen in fourth and eighth grade NAEP results released in January, as well as eighth grade science results also released Tuesday.

    In a statement, Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the results show that federal involvement has not improved education, and that states should take more control.

    “If America is going to remain globally competitive, students must be able to read proficiently, think critically, and graduate equipped to solve complex problems,” she said. “We owe it to them to do better.”

    The students who took this test were in eighth grade in March of 2020 and experienced a highly disrupted freshman year of high school because of the pandemic. Those who went to college would now be entering their sophomore year.

    Roughly 19,300 students took the math test and 24,300 students took the reading test between January and March of 2024.

    The math test measures students’ knowledge in four areas: number properties and operations; measurement and geometry; data analysis, statistics, and probability; and algebra. The average score was the lowest it has been since 2005, and 45% of students scored below the NAEP Basic level, even as fewer students scored at NAEP Proficient or above.

    NAEP Proficient typically represents a higher bar than grade-level proficiency as measured on state- and district-level standardized tests. A student scoring in the proficient range might be able to pick the correct algebraic formula for a particular scenario or solve a two-dimensional geometric problem. A student scoring at the basic level likely would be able to determine probability from a simple table or find the population of an area when given the population density.

    Only students in the 90th percentile — the highest achieving students — didn’t see a decline, and the gap between high- and low-performing students in math was higher than on all previous assessments.

    This gap between high and low performers appeared before the pandemic, but has widened in most grade levels and subject areas since. The causes are not entirely clear but might reflect changes in how schools approach teaching as well as challenges outside the classroom.

    Testing officials estimate that 33% of students from the class of 2024 were ready for college-level math, down from 37% in 2019, even as more students said they intended to go to college.

    In reading, students similarly posted lower average scores than on any previous assessment, with only the highest performing students not seeing a decline.

    The reading test measures students’ comprehension of both literary and informational texts and requires students to interpret texts and demonstrate critical thinking skills, as well as understand the plain meaning of the words.

    A student scoring at the basic level likely would understand the purpose of a persuasive essay, for example, or the reaction of a potential audience, while a students scoring at the proficient level would be able to describe why the author made certain rhetorical choices.

    Roughly 32% of students scored below NAEP Basic, 12 percentage points higher than students in 1992, while fewer students scored above NAEP Proficient. An estimated 35% of students were ready for college-level work, down from 37% in 2019.

    In a survey attached to the test, students in 2024 were more likely to report having missed three or more days of school in the previous month than their counterparts in 2019. Students who miss more school typically score lower on NAEP and other tests. Higher performing students were more likely to say they missed no days of school in the previous month.

    Students in 2024 were less likely to report taking pre-calculus, though the rates of students taking both calculus and algebra II were similar in 2019 and 2024. Students reported less confidence in their math abilities than their 2019 counterparts, though students in 2024 were actually less likely to say they didn’t enjoy math.

    Students also reported lower confidence in their reading abilities. At the same time, higher percentages of students than in 2024 reported that their teachers asked them to do more sophisticated tasks, such as identifying evidence in a piece of persuasive writing, and fewer students reported a low interest in reading.

    Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

    For more news on national assessments, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • WEEKEND READING: Money’s Too Tight (to Mention) – Universities and students are on a knife edge as the party conference season and the new academic year kick off in earnest, by Nick Hillman (HEPI Director)

    WEEKEND READING: Money’s Too Tight (to Mention) – Universities and students are on a knife edge as the party conference season and the new academic year kick off in earnest, by Nick Hillman (HEPI Director)

    • As policymakers look ahead to the bigger party conferences and students and staff ready themselves for the new academic year*, HEPI Director Nick Hillman takes a look ahead. [* Except in Scotland, where it has already begun.]
    • Information on HEPI’s own party conference events is available here.

    Money’s Too Tight (to Mention)

    When the Coalition Government for which I worked tripled tuition fees for undergraduate study to £9,000 back in 2012, it was a big and unpopular change. But it represented a real increase in support for higher education that led to real increases in the quality of the student experience, with improvements to staffing, facilities and student support services.

    Because the fee rise shifted costs from taxpayers to graduates via progressive student loans, it enabled another fundamental change: the removal of student number caps in England. No longer would universities be forced to turn away ambitious applicants that they wanted to recruit. It was the final realisation of the principle that underlined the Robbins report of 1963: ‘courses of higher education should be available for all those who are qualified by ability and attainment to pursue them and who wish to do so.’ A higher proportion of students enrolled on their first-choice place. (It never ceases to amaze me how many people wish to return to a world in which your children and mine have unwarranted obstacles reimposed between them and attaining the degree they want.)

    But back in 2012, no one in their wildest dreams thought the new fee level would be frozen for most of the next decade and more. After all, the fee rise was implemented using the Higher Education Act (2004), which had enabled Tony Blair to introduce the current model of tuition fees, and the Blair / Brown Governments to raise fees each year without any fuss.

    Yet the political ructions caused by introducing £9,000 fees in 2012 made policymakers timid. Towards the end of the Conservatives’ time in office, Ministers bizarrely sought to make a virtue of their pusillanimity. Even as inflation was biting, the Minister for Higher Education (Rob Halfon) said raising fees was ‘not going to happen, not in a million years’.

    The result has been a crisis in funding for higher education institutions that has changed their priorities. Top-end universities have looked to increase their income via more and higher (uncapped) fees from international students – hardly surprising, when an international student taking a three-year degree is worth £69,000 a year more than a home student! They have also sought to tempt UK students away from slightly less prestigious institutions.

    Meanwhile, newer universities have been even more entrepreneurial. Limited in their ability to recruit lots of international students, they have instead shifted towards franchising, whereby other organisations pay them for the privilege of teaching their degrees.

    Universities in the middle have had a particularly tough time. Most notably, many universities originally founded in the expansionary post-Robbins environment are struggling today. (It has been suggested that the tie-up between Kent and Greenwich is partly borne of necessity.) Plus with no fees for home students, Scottish universities have been hurting even more than those elsewhere.

    Even though recruiting more people from overseas and large-scale franchising have helped some institutions to keep the wolf from the door, Ministers have condemned both. The UK Home Office want fewer international students and England’s Department for Education have promised new legislation to tackle the growth in franchising. (Six months ago, Bridget Phillipson wrote in the Sunday Times, ‘I will also bring forward new legislation at the first available opportunity to ensure the Office for Students has tough new powers to intervene quickly and robustly to protect public money’.)

    No British university has ever gone bust but, as financial advisers know, the past can be a sorry guide to the future. When asked, Ministers say they would accept the closure of a university or two. But a university is usually a big local employer, a big supporter of local civic life and a source of local pride – and money. Most have been built up from public funds.

    Closing a university would not just risk local upset. It would reduce confidence, including among those who lend to universities, and could even risk a domino effect, as people lose faith in the system as a whole, thereby putting the reputation of UK education at risk. So there are good reasons why, for example, Dundee University is currently being bailed out, even if it comes with a distinct whiff of moral hazard.

    Bills, Bills, Bills

    Students are hurting just as much as institutions. Contrary to the expectations of years gone by, the proportion of school leavers proceeding to higher education is barely rising. There is likely more than one cause, including negative rhetoric about universities from across the political spectrum and a false sense that degree apprenticeships for school leavers are plentiful.

    Perhaps most significantly, maintenance support for students is nothing like enough. There are three big problems.

    1. The standard maximum maintenance support in England is now worth a little over £10,000, which is just half the amount students need.
    2. Parents are expected to support their student offspring but they are not officially told how much they should contribute.
    3. England’s household income threshold at which state-based maintenance support begins to be reduced has not increased for over 15 years. At £25,000, it is lower than the income of a single-earner household on the minimum wage.

    As a result, according to the HEPI / Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey, over two-thirds of students now undertake paid employment during term time, often at a number of hours that negatively affects their studies. These students are limited in their ability to take part in extra-curricular activities, for they are time poor as well as strapped for cash.

    An increase in maintenance support is long overdue, just as an increase in tuition fees for home students is long overdue. But we could also perhaps help students help themselves by providing better information in advance about student life. In particular, given the epidemic of loneliness among young people, we should remind them that you are more likely to be lonely if your room is plush but you do not have enough money left over for a social life than if your living arrangements are basic but your social life is lively.

    The Masterplan

    The Government came to office claiming to have a plan for tackling the country’s challenges. But more than a year on, the fog has not cleared on their plans for higher education. Patience is now wearing gossamer thin. As Chris Parr of Research Professional put it on Friday, ‘Still we wait.’ As far as we can discern from what we know, it seems universities will be expected to do more for less – on civic engagement, access and economic growth.

    Higher education institutions have made it clear, including through Universities UK’s Blueprint, that they are keen to play their part in national renewal. But it is not only the financial squeeze that limits their room for manoeuvre. Political chaos as well as the geography of Whitehall threaten the institutional autonomy that has been the key ingredient of UK universities’ success.

    Unlike in the past, there are different regulators, Ministers and Departments for the teaching and learning functions of universities on the one hand and their research functions on the other, meaning coordinated oversight is missing. The latest machinery of government changes risk another dog’s dinner, as ‘skills’ continue to bounce around Whitehall, newly residing for now (but who knows for how long) in the Department for Work and Pensions. Meanwhile, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology is thought to have less regard for university-based research than for research conducted elsewhere, at least in contrast to the past.

    Moreover, each of the two Ministers with oversight of higher education institutions (Baroness Smith and Lord Vallance) are newly split across two Whitehall departments, with one foot in each. This sort of approach tends to be a recipe for chaos. (As I saw close up during my own time in Whitehall, split Ministers usually reside primarily in just one of their two departments, the one where their main Private Office is situated.) 

    The choice now is clear. If Ministers want to direct universities more than their predecessors, then they need to fund them accordingly. But if Ministers want universities to play to their own self-defined strategies in these fast-changing times, then they should reduce the barriers limiting their capacity to behave more entrepreneurially.

    Source link

  • Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Key points:

    While most teachers are eager to implement the science of reading, many lack the time and tools to connect these practices to home-based support, according to a new national survey from Lexia, a Cambium Learning Group brand.

    The 2025 Back-to-School Teacher Survey, with input from more than 1,500 K–12 educators nationwide, points to an opportunity for district leaders to work in concert with teachers to provide families with the science of reading-based literacy resources they need to support student reading success.

    Key insights from the survey include:

    • 60 percent of teachers are either fully trained or interested in learning more about the science of reading
    • Only 15 percent currently provide parents with structured, evidence-based literacy activities
    • 79 percent of teachers cite time constraints and parents’ work schedules as top barriers to family engagement
    • Just 10 percent report that their schools offer comprehensive family literacy programs
    • Teachers overwhelmingly want in-person workshops and video tutorials to help parents support reading at home

    “Teachers know that parental involvement can accelerate literacy and they’re eager for ways to strengthen those connections,” said Lexia President Nick Gaehde. “This data highlights how districts can continue to build on momentum in this new school year by offering scalable, multilingual, and flexible family engagement strategies that align with the science of reading.”

    Teachers also called for:

    • Better technology tools for consistent school-to-home communication
    • Greater multilingual support to serve diverse communities
    • Professional learning that includes family engagement training

    Gaehde concluded, “Lexia’s survey reflects the continued national emphasis on Structured Literacy and shows that equipping families is essential to driving lasting student outcomes. At Lexia we’re committed to partnering with districts and teachers to strengthen the school-to-home connection. By giving educators practical tools and data-driven insights, we help teachers and families work together–ensuring every child has the literacy support they need to thrive.”

    The complete findings are available in a new report, From Classroom to Living Room: Exploring Parental Involvement in K–12 Literacy. District leaders can also download the accompanying infographic, “What District Leaders Need To Know: 5 Key Findings About Family Engagement and Literacy,” which highlights the most pressing data points and strategic opportunities for improving school-to-home literacy connections.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link