Tag: removing

  • Removing the rent guarantor barrier to safe and stable accommodation

    Removing the rent guarantor barrier to safe and stable accommodation

    Universities talk about widening participation – but how many ensure every student has a home to go to, so they really can participate?

    Rent guarantor requirements are a routine part of student housing, yet they exclude those without family support. It’s time for the sector to take responsibility for removing this barrier.

    Most students will need a rent guarantor to secure university halls or private housing.

    Imagine how much harder that is if you can’t turn to family members for that support – often the case for young people that have experience of the care system or are estranged from their parents.

    Young people in this position can face sofa surfing, dangerous housing situations and dropping out of university. According to NUS research in 2024, 14 per cent of low-income students are reconsidering university due to accommodation costs – with guarantor requirements cited as a major barrier.

    Lack of information is a compounding issue. Students without easy access to a guarantor might not even know they need one until the moment they go to sign a new contract with peers – often with whom they have not shared their status and only known for a matter of weeks.

    Getting things clear

    At the Unite Foundation, we encourage all universities to include clear information about rent guarantors on their housing webpages and on any other pages specifically for students like care leavers, estranged, or international students. It’s vital that any student without UK family to rely on knows what a rent guarantor is before having to suddenly find one or miss out on a home at university.

    In Summer 2025, we commissioned a student-led audit of over 180 university websites. 60% included clear information about rent guarantors. This is positive progress, up from 45% in 2024 and 36% in 2022 when we started this work. But that’s still 40% of university websites that don’t provide clear information about this key element of the university accommodation journey.

    Impact of Renters Rights Act

    When the Renters Rights Act comes into force in 2026, it will shift the challenge faced by students unable to secure a guarantor.

    Despite lobbying by NUS for the abolition of guarantor requirements entirely, the Act will not stop landlords from requiring a guarantor, but it will limit upfront rent payments to a maximum of one month’s rent.

    Whilst a positive step for the majority of students, the unintended consequence may be to prevent students who are unable to source a guarantor from making a large advance rent payment instead. Paying large advances causes its own set of issues for students, but is often seen as the lesser of two evils compared to homelessness.

    It’s anticipated that the legislation may stimulate an increased market for commercial guarantor providers. Commercial providers – companies which act as guarantor for a fee – can be a valuable service, but it is a varied market that sits outside Financial Conduct Authority regulation.

    Emerging fees can be between 4 and 15 per cent of annual rent if paying upfront, and up to 20 per cent if paying monthly. Disadvantaged students paying an unregulated premium to access a routine tenancy would be a perverse outcome of measures intended to strengthen tenant rights.

    What are the alternatives?

    The Unite Foundation has launched our Blueprint for a #HomeAtUniversity – a guide to support universities in ensuring a safe and stable home for care experienced and estranged students. We set out six areas through which universities and PBSA providers can use housing as a widening participation tool. And removing the rent guarantor barrier is one of these.

    We know that the context of each university is different, and there are different ways to approach removing the rent guarantor barrier.

    Universities like Imperial and Cardiff offer their own guarantor schemes. Some university halls don’t require a guarantor at all. Other universities cover the cost of a commercial guarantor provider, through a negotiated partnership between provider and university.

    And it’s great to see Unite Students, our founder and long-term champion, pilot an approach enabling their university partners to step into the role of guarantor for care-experienced and estranged students, at zero cost or risk.

    Availability of safe, affordable accommodation is at the heart of many current social policy debates and like wise is fundamental to the sustainability and accessibility of higher education.

    There are significant structural issues at a national level in ensuring a home at university for all students – including lack of coordination between universities and local authorities and the level of student maintenance loan. At the Unite Foundation, we do not believe that practice in universities and PBSA providers should replace systemic change. But we also believe that whilst we wait for that change, there is more impact that accommodation providers at university can make.

    At the Unite Foundation we are here to help with case studies and peer support webinars sharing what is happening on the ground in the sector. If you deliver an intervention evidenced to support a safe and stable home at university for care experienced and estranged students, or if you want to learn more about what your university could be doing, please get in touch.

    A safe and stable #HomeAtUniversity isn’t a luxury — it’s a prerequisite for participation, success, and equity in higher education.

    Source link

  • Education Department proposes removing trans, nonbinary student categories from mandated data collection

    Education Department proposes removing trans, nonbinary student categories from mandated data collection

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

    The U.S. Department of Education is proposing to abandon data collection on transgender and nonbinary students, including on whether they are victims of harassment and bullying and whether school districts have policies prohibiting those incidents, according to a Federal Register notice published this month. 

    The changes come as part of the Civil Rights Data Collection for the 2025-26 and 2027-28 school years, a mandated survey of all public school districts that has been administered for almost six decades. The department noted on its website that the CRDC has “captured data on students’ equal access to educational opportunities to understand and inform schools’ compliance with the civil rights laws enforced by the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights.” 

    The proposed changes to the upcoming collections also struck transgender students from the department’s definition of “rape” and “sexual assault.”

    Whereas previous collections defined rape as something that could be done to “all students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation, or gender identity,” the proposed collection says, “All students, regardless of sex, or sexual orientation can be victims of rape” — explicitly striking “gender identity” from the older definition.

    The change “really sends a frankly terrible message to how schools should be responding to allegations of sexual assault and how they should be documenting that and bringing that data forward,” said Brian Dittmeier, director of LGBTQI+ equality at the National Women’s Law Center.

    The department, however, maintained in an email to K-12 Dive that “the definition of rape and sexual assault remains virtually unchanged.”

    “All students means all students, period,” said an Education Department spokesperson on Thursday.

    The department submitted the proposed changes to the Office of Management and Budget for review on Aug. 7 and is accepting comments on the notice until Sept. 8.

    The changes are being proposed to comply with the 2020 Title IX rule, which excludes LGBTQ+ students from sex-based discrimination protections. President Donald Trump’s Education Department told districts in January to follow that rule — published during his first term — as opposed to the 2024 rule finalized under the Biden administration, which protected LGBTQ+ students under the sex discrimination civil rights statute.

    The Education Department is also proposing a change in its Civil Rights Data Collection to exclude transgender and nonbinary students in light of Trump’s January 2025 executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” That executive order directed federal agencies to only recognize two sexes, male and female, and said, “These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

    The Education Department has since adopted that stance, and it has attempted to include the definitions “male” and “female” in state policies through its resolution agreements and to exclude transgender students from teams and facilities aligning with their gender identities.

    The decision to now strike those students from the CRDC means the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — under the current administration and future ones — would have less data on how transgender and nonbinary students fared in the 2025-26 and 2027-28 school years.

    “OCR uses CRDC data as OCR investigates complaints alleging discrimination to determine whether the federal civil rights laws it enforces have been violated, initiates proactive compliance reviews to identify particularly acute or nationwide civil rights compliance problems, and provides policy guidance and technical assistance to educational institutions, parents/guardians, students, and others,” a July 22 statement from the U.S. Department of Education to the Office of Budget and Management said. Other federal agencies, researchers and policymakers also use CRDC data, the department said.

    Transgender and students questioning their gender identity showed higher rates of bullying and poor mental health, as well as the lowest rates of school connectedness, when compared to their cisgender peers, according to the first nationally representative survey data on transgender students released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention last year.

    Source link

  • Removing Credit Transfer Barriers Key to Improving Higher Ed Completion Rates

    Removing Credit Transfer Barriers Key to Improving Higher Ed Completion Rates

    Dr. Andrew J. SeligsohnHigher education in the United States has come under increasing scrutiny — but not always for the right reasons. Critics claim that colleges and universities award degrees with little economic value, limit ideological expression on campus, and operate primarily for their own financial interests, rather than as institutions of shared public value. While much in this narrative is false, it nonetheless affects the public’s attitude toward higher education and individuals’ decisions about pursuing a postsecondary degree, which may be detrimental to their economic interest.

    When these critiques are made in bad faith, we should counter them with facts about the value of college attainment. It remains true for example, that a college degree is likely to yield a significant boost in earnings. Nonetheless, anyone who cares about higher education must also ask why these arguments resonate so deeply with the public. Where real frustrations are fueling legitimate skepticism, addressing those concerns can both improve higher education’s reputation and enhance its value for students, families, and society. Since the experiences that give rise to frustration and receptivity to attacks on higher education are personal experiences, it pays to drill down into the particulars to figure out what’s going on.

    In that spirit, Public Agenda, in partnership with Sova and the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, set out to deepen our collective understanding of learner experiences with the credit transfer process. We knew from research on enrolled students that transfer was a source of pain for many learners. But we didn’t know how many people were affected, how much it mattered to them, and how it shaped their views of higher education more broadly. With support from ECMC Foundation, we fielded a national survey of adult Americans that interrogates transfer experience and outcomes. 

    Dr. Lara CouturierDr. Lara CouturierThe findings were striking, and they should serve as a call to action for institutions of higher education. Nearly 4 in 10 respondents reported that they had tried to transfer credit toward a college degree or credential. This included credits earned at a previous college or university, as well as credits earned from nontraditional sources. In fact, more than a third attempted to transfer credits earned from workplace training, military experience, industry certification, vocational or trade school, or other prior learning. With more households feeling the cost of inflation and needing to upskill to survive in this economy, and more higher education institutions facing enrollment declines, we should be finding ways to develop more on-ramps and clear the path to a college degree.

    Unfortunately, the survey revealed that Americans who attempt to transfer encounter convoluted paths, often losing credit hours, money, and motivation along the way. One in five respondents reported having to repeat a class they had already taken because their credits didn’t transfer. Thirteen percent reported running out of financial aid as a result of having to repeat courses. And, most concerning, 16% reported that they gave up on pursuing a college degree or credential because the process of transferring was so difficult. It’s clear difficulties with transfer are not only inconveniences — they’re significant financial burdens and barriers to completion.

    We also sought to understand how these direct experiences shape individuals’ broader attitudes toward higher education. We found it profoundly troubling that 74% of respondents who had tried to transfer credit agreed with the statement that two- and four-year higher education institutions care more about making money than about educating students. In fact, respondents who had tried to transfer credit were more likely to hold this jaded view than those who had attended college but had not transferred or those who had no prior experience with higher education. So while some of the current attacks on higher education may be in bad faith, it should not be surprising that they find a receptive audience among so many Americans who recall feeling personally misled. 

    We know, then, that credit transfer needs reform — but what exactly does that look like? Public Agenda also surveyed Americans about potential interventions, and the results are promising. First, when asked what should happen to a college with a track record of not accepting many credits for transfer, Americans felt public accountability would be more helpful than heavy-handed punitive approaches. Fifty-four percent of Democrats and 47% of Republicans agreed that institutions should have to make a plan to improve credit transfer rates. Conversely, just one-third of Republicans and Democrats thought colleges should lose their funding. But what might go into a plan for improvement? Our survey found broad support among Republicans, Democrats, and independents for a variety of policies intended to make it easier for students to transfer credits. Support is notably strong for requiring that students have free and easy access to their transcripts, credentials, and degrees; requiring institutions to create public databases with transfer information; and requiring that prospective transfer students are quickly told how many credits will be accepted. 

    The benefits of a better transfer process are clear and compelling. Students would face fewer obstacles to completing their degrees, leading to higher graduation rates, better individual economic outcomes, and broader prosperity. Just as importantly, higher education would rebuild trust with the public by showing that institutions are committed to serving students—not just collecting tuition dollars. And the benefits of this renewed trust extend beyond the higher education system. The perception that public institutions don’t care about ordinary Americans is a key element of the challenge our broader democracy is facing. Since the education system is a direct way many people interact with our government, restoring confidence that higher education works for all Americans can further inspire faith in public institutions.

    If we ignore issues like the broken credit transfer system, skepticism about higher education will continue to fester. Worse, more students may give up on college altogether, missing out on opportunities for personal and professional growth—all of which ultimately erodes our democracy. Pushing back against misinformation isn’t the only way to defend higher education; we must acknowledge and address the real barriers students face. Credit transfer is an experience shared by many with cross-partisan support for reform—now is the time to act. Reforming the transfer process won’t solve every challenge facing higher education, but it’s a clear and necessary step toward improving the system for the good of both students and institutions themselves.

    Dr. Andrew J. Seligsohn is president of Public Agenda, a national research-to-action organization. Dr. Lara Couturier is a partner at Sova, a higher ed advocacy organization.

    Source link

  • Everyone can play a role in removing barriers for autistic colleagues

    Everyone can play a role in removing barriers for autistic colleagues

    The complex rhetoric around neurodivergence, ranging from the politically unhinged to persistent gas lighting, requires us to start by defining autism.

    Autism, a form of neurodivergence, is a naturally occurring neurodevelopmental variation that manifests in differences in how people experience and interact with the world.

    The focus is often on communication “deficits” and “repetitive and rigid” behaviour but, quite frankly, this focus and these words say more about how non-autistic (allistic) people interpret our behaviour and their own discomfort with the same.

    Our own experiences of being autistic are a lot more expansive and encompass autistic joy and strengths, alongside the significant and often unnoticed challenges we experience day-to-day.

    At different points in time, we both made the conscious, and somewhat fraught, decision to share our autism diagnoses in professional contexts. For the most part we were hugely relieved to be met with compassion from colleagues and a desire to support us to make the necessary changes to level the playing field.

    Yet, in the background of these positive experiences, there is a near-constant battle with systems, processes and neuronormative expectations that undermine individual attempts to be supportive.

    We wanted to share the biggest challenges we’ve faced in sharing our diagnoses and attempting to build afresh work practices and environments that will allow us to thrive.

    Attempts to normalise

    On more than one occasion after sharing our diagnoses, we’ve both been met with responses along the lines of “we’re all a bit like that though”.

    While we assume these comments are intended to “normalise” our experiences and perhaps reassure us that we’re not that different, such comments are somewhat missing the point.

    Firstly, autistic people are human too, so our autistic traits are very much part of the human condition. For example, the struggles we face in some social contexts may be experienced by allistic people sometimes.

    And our desire to seek refuge in routines is something many people can relate to, particularly in times of great upheaval. What sets our experiences apart is the depth, duration and the degree to which these experiences impact our capacity to thrive.

    Secondly, late discovery or diagnosis often comes about after a lifetime of deeply felt misunderstandings and a perpetual sense of being somehow wrong. The challenges autistic people face have very real implications such as significant impact on mental wellbeing alongside higher risks of substance abuse, accidents and offending behaviour as well as lower levels of income and education.

    Poor employment outcomes and high rates of autistic burnout are often part and parcel of being autistic. Notably, suicide is a leading cause of early death for autistic people.

    While finally getting answers to a lifetime’s worth of questions is broadly positive, never underestimate how earth-shattering a late discovery or diagnoses can be. It can completely unmoor you from an identity you worked hard to craft and maintain, often over many decades.

    To be set adrift whilst trying to carry on “business as usual” can be incredibly disorienting and well-meaning comments intended to find common ground can feel dismissive and leave us, once again, feeling misunderstood.

    To receive a diagnosis can be confirmation (or even a revelation) that you have been leaning on masks and performativity this whole time, borrowing bits of behaviour and social styles from others, in order to keep up with fast-paced workplace dynamics.

    But if our identity is a mosaic of other people’s characteristics, who exactly are we? We therefore often find that the diagnosis we hoped would answer our questions, instead serves up a hearty existential crisis. Coupled with the need to continue functioning both in personal and professional contexts, whilst running that background process, can be exhausting.

    The adjustments minefield

    Often a motivating factor in sharing an autism diagnosis is the need to access workplace adjustments, though it should be noted you don’t need a diagnosis to do so.

    What many people won’t realise is that identifying the adjustments you need, and getting these put in place, often feels like a full-time job in and of itself. We’ve both experienced scenarios where we’ve been encouraged to share what we need to work at our best, only to find ourselves somewhat stumped.

    We’ve defaulted to so many complex and energy-consuming workarounds to overcome the barriers in our environment, that it can be hard to pick apart common workplace challenges from those which come about from being part of a neurominority.

    Plus, autistic people aren’t often comfortable around change, so if we’ve established a workaround, it can be difficult to consider an alternative, despite how much more efficient it could be!

    This is the nature of having differences that are somewhat invisible – you don’t realise that everyone isn’t quietly battling the same complexities.

    What we have both realised is that it’s essential to have the time and space for ongoing conversations around our evolving understanding of our needs. Too often the default is to use prescriptive forms and processes to put adjustments in place, whereas we have both benefitted from ongoing dialogue with managers who are committed to ensuring the barriers we experience are removed, in as much as possible.

    Our hope is that more people will start to understand that a diagnosis or discovery, and the sharing of this new understanding, should form the start of a conversation, rather than an outcome to be compensated for.

    Neuronormative expectations

    The majority of people will be blissfully unaware of what we mean by neuronormative expectations because, if you’re neurotypical, it’s likely that you subscribe to the dominant social norms without much effort.

    Most people, for example, assume good eye contact means you’re paying attention, and arriving late, particularly persistently, indicates a lack of commitment and/or interest. If you’re autistic, lack of sustained eye contact can be used to aid concentration, especially when processing auditory information, and lateness can be down to a multitude of reasons from difficulty with transitions to the need to avoid the ‘chit chat’ that often precedes the start of something.

    It’s also worth noting that these norms are culturally located and direct eye contact, for example, is considered disrespectful or invasive in some countries. It’s a wonder to both of us then that such subjective meanings and interpretations have become normalised standards that we are somewhat required to adhere to, to be accepted.

    Indeed, research indicates that even subtle deviations from these arbitrary social norms can result in autistic adults being incorrectly perceived as being deceptive and lacking credibility and that neurotypical peers are less willing to interact with autistic people based on social assessments made in a split second.

    It is also worth noting that we may well be thinking about all of the above whilst trying to judge the correct level of eye contact to be making; this is just part of the complex backroom processing and calculations we do on a daily basis!

    With all of this in mind we’d encourage colleagues to think about assumptions around what it means, and looks like, to undertake certain activities that most assume shared understanding of.

    We can certainly identify a range of areas where our interpretations diverge, such as notions around communicating effectively, networking or being professional.

    A good example is the way in which we’ve co-written this piece, which has come about through an initial text based online interaction, followed by asynchronous collaboration. At the time of finalising this piece we have still never “met” online or in person but have engaged in a rich exchange of ideas that have allowed for meaningful collaboration.

    If colleagues could be open to alternative interpretations and manifestations of social norms, higher education would be the richer for it.

    Allyship is needed

    With these challenges in mind there are things that can be done to support late-diagnosed colleagues. Essentially these centre around allyship and actively working to acknowledge discrimination and unconscious bias.

    Consider how you respond when someone shares their autism discovery or diagnosis

    Can you approach the conversation with curiosity, accepting that the experience of being autistic might, in fact, be very different from your own? Central to this is recognising the limitations of your knowledge and experience.

    It is a natural response to want to normalise your experience with the person sharing their diagnosis with you, but that may not be the comfort you expect it to be, and might accidentally undermine the identity they are still coming to terms with.

    Rather than saying “I do that too”, or “aren’t we all a little bit like that though?”, create a space where the person sharing their diagnosis with you can take time to form their own words, and be sure to centre them in the words you use with them.

    What part do you have to play in removing barriers

    For us, everyone has a role to play in removing barriers that prevent us from thriving. Whether directly as a manager supporting autistic colleagues to navigate often overly complicated HR processes, or as a peer becoming aware that your colleagues need to do things in a different way.

    You don’t need to know someone’s diagnosis to be an ally, you can simply start by identifying if there are moments you default to your preferred ways of doing things while inadvertently overlooking a colleague’s genuine need to things differently. If you come across resistance that is inexplicable to you, withhold judgement and instead become curious about alternative ways of thinking and being.

    Reflect on what norms and expectations you assume

    Assumed shared understanding and narrow interpretations of behaviour is the space where most unconscious bias sits. The reality is that the imaginary social contract we have all supposedly signed is just that – a fiction that not all of us have been granted access to.

    Can you make space to co-create shared understanding around what it means to “communicate”, for example? Can you become aware of your bias that “good communication” manifests through narrowly defined behaviours? Or can good communication also be non-spoken, asynchronous or graciously feature enthusiastic interruption, or deep dive monologues?

    Ultimately, whether you are an individual in whom an autistic colleague quietly confides, a senior manager with the agency to affect positive change, a HR professional implementing processes, or someone involved in developing policy – everyone has a part to play in making higher education a place where autistic people can thrive.

    Source link

  • How removing funding disparities for ‘disruptor institutions’ could help fulfil the ambition of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    How removing funding disparities for ‘disruptor institutions’ could help fulfil the ambition of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement

    • Professor Harriet Dunbar-Morris is Pro Vice-Chancellor Academic and Provost at The University of Buckingham.

    Whilst we are still waiting for the government to decide on the operationalisation of the future direction of the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE), it is easy to agree that providing all new learners with a tuition fee loan entitlement to the equivalent of four years of post-18 education to use up to the age of 60 is a good thing in principle.

    In recent articles, Professor Deborah Johnston and Rose Stephenson have both presented useful positions and summaries on the status quo. For the University of Buckingham, the merits of the LLE are clear, but it is the relationship between the LLE and courses of different lengths that is central to our concern.

    At Buckingham, we take pride in our unique approach to education. As a disruptor institution and the only private university in the UK with a Royal Charter, we emphasise our small and independent nature. Our distinctive positioning has enabled us to create a unique learning environment. We have successfully developed ‘accelerated degrees’, including our flagship degree models: the two-year undergraduate degree and the four-and-a-half-year undergraduate medical degree.

    Where other institutions have a long summer holiday, at Buckingham we have a fourth term – the same amount of classroom time over a whole degree as in other universities, but a term in the summer which means that students can enter the labour market a year earlier and incur a year’s less accommodation and living expenses as well. 

    Alternatively, in three years, our students at Buckingham can undertake two qualifications: a foundation plus an undergraduate or an undergraduate plus a postgraduate degree. The year’s shape also more closely resembles the world of work and therefore ably prepares students more authentically for their future careers. We know this approach is working, and adds value. We are in the Top 10 for Graduate Prospects (outcomes) and:

    • 92% of our graduates agree their current activity is meaningful (sector 85%).
    • 88% of our graduates feel their current activity fits with their future plans (sector 78%).
    • 83% of our graduates say they are using what they learn while studying (sector 69%).
    • 97% of our graduates are in work or study (sector 89%).
    • 72% of our graduates are in full-time employment (sector 61%).

    Buckingham has been a beacon for accelerated degrees to help students achieve their degrees in a shorter period and get out into the workplace or onto further study sooner. We can also see this model allowing students to interrupt their studies and take their degrees in shorter chunks (each of our terms, for example), which would be possible with the LLE framework once it is implemented. However, there is a fundamental unfairness facing Buckingham and others that needs to be addressed.

    To understand this issue, we must first delve into the technical world of registering with the Office for Students (OfS), the regulator for higher education in England. Providers of higher education can (although not at the moment as new registrations are paused) register with the OfS under two categories:

    1) Approved (fee cap)

      Providers in the Approved (fee cap) category can only charge up to the fee cap of £9,250 (2024/25) / £9,535 (2025/26) for full-time students. Students can take out a tuition fee loan to cover their entire fee (for undergraduate courses). Approved (fee cap) providers can also access teaching and research grant funding. Most institutions are in this category.

      2) Approved

      Providers in the Approved category, which includes Buckingham, can charge tuition fees above the cap. However, students at these institutions can only access tuition fee loans up to the lower limit (£6,355 per annum for three-year programmes and £7,625 per annum for two-year programmes). Any additional fees charged need to be covered privately. Further, these institutions cannot access teaching and research grants.

      Because of our category of registration, students can only get the fee loan for the accelerated (two-year) degree programmes at the lower fee loan limit. Our students study for more of the year, and in each of their two years, yet they are entitled to less of a loan each year to support their learning, meaning that through the current category of registration they are discriminated against, even though our accelerated degrees are clearly better for getting students into the workforce and for the skills agenda being pushed by the new Labour government.

      What is also grossly unfair is that despite approved providers being unable to access direct government funding for learning and teaching, research, or capital activity, they remain subject to nearly every aspect of OfS regulation. One exception is the Access and Participation Plan (although we still produce an Access Statement). Yet, re-stating the above, students at approved category institutions cannot benefit from a full loan for the studying they do.

      So, as the government considers how to support the skills agenda and deliver on skills shortages, here at Buckingham we make a request on behalf of the sector and the potential students: implement the LLE and remove the disparities.

      We are calling for one of two developments:

      • A government review to address tuition fee loan eligibility (tied to current categorisations). Why should students be disadvantaged for the loan they can apply for by the category of their institution’s registration? In The University of Buckingham’s case, we have a TEF, we meet OfS requirements, and we even directly support the government’s desire to get students into work faster. Should it not be £9,250 (or now £9,535 from 2025/26) for all?
      • If not that, a change to loans for the credits studied will allow the students studying in that fourth term with us at Buckingham, and completing in two years, to be able to seek loans for the full amount of their two years of full-time study. The point here is that the implementation of the LLE means that the loan is for the credit instead, so this inequity is removed. All students can get a loan for the credit they study. Our students then would, as a bonus, gain the credit quicker, as they would study over two years.

      Most students, due to the cost of living and other responsibilities, should now be considered part-time students, and we need to consider ways to help them fit their lives around their studies – something we certainly pride ourselves on. To support those who also need to work during their intensive studies, we timetable differently and teach differently. Ultimately this is about helping every one of our students to study more effectively (and in a shorter timescale), and as presented in The University of Buckingham’s Strategic Plan 2023-28, supporting our students by embedding employability and entrepreneurship within the curriculum.

    Source link