Tag: Report

  • New HEPI and the University of Central Lancashire Report: Student Working Lives

    New HEPI and the University of Central Lancashire Report: Student Working Lives

    Author:
    Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding, Mary Lawler and Martin Lowe

    Published:

    A new major report from HEPI and the University of Central Lancashire reveals the realities of UK student life and highlights how paid work is increasingly an everyday part of the student experience.

    Student Working Lives (HEPI Report 195), written by Professor Adrian Wright, Dr Mark Wilding, Mary Lawler, Martin Lowe, draws on extensive research to show how students are juggling study, employment and caring responsibilities in the midst of a deepening cost-of-living crisis. The findings paint a striking picture of students for whom paid work has become a necessity, not a choice. Findings suggest two-thirds of students work to cover their basic living costs, and 26% of students work to support their families.

    The report looks at the type of work students are employed in, as well as the impact this has on their study. It calls for systemic reform across the higher education sector to design a higher education that moves away from assuming a full-time residential model, and supports student realities.

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

    Source link

  • Higher Education Labor United ("HELU") November 2025 Report

    Higher Education Labor United ("HELU") November 2025 Report

     

    November 2025 HELU Chair’s Message

    Billionaires and the ultra-wealthy have no place in setting the future agenda for higher ed. We – the students, community members, workers that actually make the campus work – do. 
     

    Upcoming Events:
     
     

    From the Blog:

    In Michigan, the MI HELU coalition decided that we wanted to get ahead of the curve by providing candidates with a forum that focused exclusively on Higher Education and the challenges we are facing.

    Together, we’re fighting back against the demonization of higher ed and we won’t cave to governmental bullying to water down our education system with the goal of elimination. Our students deserve better, and so do we.

    Founded in 2020 during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, Scholars for a New Deal for Higher Education (SNDHE) is a group of teachers and researchers committed to rebuilding our colleges and universities so that they can be a true public resource for everyone.

    And now [New York is] being punished by a federal government that sees organized labor, public education, and social investment as threats instead of strengths.

    Public protest and influencing public opinion is keeping UCW (CWA Local 3821) busy. Members have been fighting fiercely to Defend Remote Work at their state institutions.
     

    Want to support our work? Make a contribution.

    We invite you to support HELU’s work by making a direct financial contribution. While HELU’s main source of income is solidarity pledges from member organizations, these funds from individuals help us to grow capacity as we work to align the higher ed labor movement.

    Source link

  • Open-Admission Colleges Won’t Have to Report Disaggregated Data

    Open-Admission Colleges Won’t Have to Report Disaggregated Data

    In August, the Trump administration issued an executive action ordering colleges and universities to submit disaggregated data about their applicants and prove they are following the letter of the law when it comes to race in admissions. But a new notice, published to the Federal Register Wednesday, clarifies that the mandate only applies to four-year institutions.

    “We posed a directed question to the public to seek their feedback … [and] based both upon our initial thinking and public comment, we propose limit[ing] eligibility of [the new IPEDS Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement] to the four-year sector,” the notice stated.

    Colleges that are obligated to comply must still submit six years’ worth of application and admissions data, disaggregated by student race and sex, during the next survey cycle, it said. But any college that admits 100 percent of its applicants and does not award merit or identity-based aid will be exempt.

    Since the action was first published, institutions across the sector have warned the Trump administration that collecting and reporting such data would be a difficult task and place an undue burden on admissions offices. But with smaller staff sizes and limited resources, community colleges were particularly adamant about the challenge the requirement posed. 

    “It’s not just as easy as collecting data,” Paul Schroeder, the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, told Inside Higher Ed in August. “It’s not just asking a couple questions about the race and ethnicity of those who were admitted versus those who applied. It’s a lot of work. It’s a lot of hours. It’s not going to be fast.”

    Source link

  • New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    New HEPI and University of London Report: Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future

    Author:
    Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson

    Published:

    The NHS faces a growing clinical placement crisis that threatens the future of its workforce. A new HEPI and University of London report calls for bold, system-wide reform to ensure students get the real-world experience they need to deliver safe, high-quality care.

    HEPI and the University of London’s new report, Rethinking Placement: Increasing Clinical Placement Efficacy for a Sustainable NHS Future, which has been published with the support of the Council for Deans of Health, warns that the NHS cannot meet its ambitious workforce goals without bold reform of how students gain real-world experience. Co-authored by Professor Amanda Broderick and Robert Waterson of the University of East London, the report calls for a shift from simply creating more placements to delivering better ones—equitable, flexible, digitally enabled and aligned with the future of healthcare.

    Drawing on innovation across London and beyond, the authors propose practical steps including simulation-based learning, new supervision frameworks and community-based models that can expand capacity without compromising quality. With over 106,000 vacancies across secondary care, the report urges policymakers, universities and NHS providers to act now to secure a sustainable, skilled and compassionate workforce for the next decade and beyond.

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

    Source link

  • Report: Sticker Prices Inch Up

    Report: Sticker Prices Inch Up

    Full-time students at community colleges have been receiving enough grant aid to cover their tuition and fees since fall 2009.

    Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Rawpixel

    College sticker prices rose slightly across all sectors for the 2025–26 academic year, according to the College Board’s Trends in College Pricing and Student Aid report, released Wednesday.

    For the 2025–26 academic year, the average published price for tuition and fees at public four-year institutions for in-state students is $11,950, a 2.9 percent increase before inflation over 2024–25 prices. For out-of-state students, public four-year institutions are charging an average of $31,880, up 3.4 percent from 2024–25. Public two-year colleges charge in-district students an average of $4,150, up 2.7 percent from the previous year—though notably, full-time students at community colleges have been receiving enough grant aid to cover their tuition and fees since the 2009–10 academic year. The average published price at private four-year colleges is $45,000, up 4 percent from 2024–25.

    Inflation-adjusted prices at public institutions have been on the decline for a while. Between the 2015–16 and 2025–26 academic years, the average inflation-adjusted tuition and fees at public four-year colleges fell 7 percent, and at public two-year institutions, the average fell 10 percent. At private nonprofit four-year colleges, average inflation-adjusted tuition and fees rose by 2 percent during the same ten-year timeframe.

    Net prices are also down as average student aid packages rise. The average net tuition and fees paid by first-time, full-time students at private nonprofit four-year institutions declined from $19,810 (in 2025 dollars) in 2006–07 to $16,910 in 2025–26. At public four-year institutions, the average net price fell from a high of $4,450 in the 2012–13 academic year to $2,300 for the 2025–26 academic year.

    When the maximum Pell grant award increased from $6,895 in 2022–23 to $7,395 in 2023–24, so too did the number of Pell Grant recipients. Between 2022–23 and 2024–25, the total number of Pell Grant recipients increased by 22 percent to 7.3 million, and total Pell Grant expenditures increased by 32 percent to $38.6 billion after adjusting for inflation.

    Other notable findings include:

    • Total annual student and parent borrowing is up slightly in 2024–25, to $102.6 billion, following a 38 percent decline between 2010–11 ($163.9 billion) and 2023–24 ($101.4 billion).
    • Institutional grant aid for undergraduates increased by 22 percent between the 2014–15 and 2024–25 academic years.
    • As of June 2025, 32 percent of borrowers owed less than $10,000 in federal loan debt. Another 21 percent of borrowers owed between $10,000 and $20,000 in federal loan debt. These groups held 4 percent and 8 percent of the total outstanding federal loan debt, respectively.

    Source link

  • States Must Step Up as Federal College Aid Crumbles, New Report Warns

    States Must Step Up as Federal College Aid Crumbles, New Report Warns

    File photoAs the Trump administration moves to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and gut federal financial aid programs, a new analysis released Thursday warns that college is becoming increasingly unaffordable for low-income families — and states may be the last line of defense.

    The report from The Education Trust examines state financial aid programs in Illinois, Indiana, and Minnesota, revealing that while some states are making progress, critical gaps remain in helping students who need assistance most.

    “The role of states in ensuring postsecondary access and affordability is essential now,” the report states, citing the Trump administration’s July Supreme Court victory allowing it to proceed with layoffs that cut the Department of Education’s staff in half.

    The staffing cuts, which disproportionately targeted financial aid personnel, come as congressional Republicans passed legislation in July 2025 that restricted Pell Grant eligibility, limited parent borrowing, and made student loan repayment more expensive.

    The report documents a stark affordability crisis. For recent high school graduates in Illinois, the average cost of attending a public four-year college represents 63.2% of annual family income for Black students, compared to 25.8% for white students.

    In Indiana, the gap is similarly wide: 58.8% for Black families versus 22.1% for white families. Minnesota shows comparable disparities at 57.1% and 22.9%, respectively.

    “Despite the benefits of a college degree, most families cannot cover the costs,” according to the report, which notes that the average cost of tuition, room, and board at public four-year colleges rose from $8,984 in 1980 to $22,389 in 2023, adjusted for inflation.

    Meanwhile, the Pell Grant — the nation’s primary need-based aid — has lost purchasing power dramatically. In 1975, it covered more than 75% of college costs; today it covers only about one-third.

    The Education Trust analysis found significant problems with how states allocate financial aid:

    Illinois dedicates 98.8% of its undergraduate aid to need-based programs, primarily through its Monetary Award Program. However, the grant functions as “first dollar” aid, meaning other assistance must be applied to tuition before MAP funds, potentially leaving low-income students with little support for non-tuition costs.

    Indiana splits funding more evenly: 40% goes to its need-based Frank O’Bannon Grant, while 44% supports combination need-and-merit programs like the 21st Century Scholars Program. The O’Bannon Grant provides larger awards to students at private colleges than public institutions — a policy that researchers say “privileges students from higher-income and higher-asset families.”

    Minnesota allocates 72% of aid to its need-based State Grant program. The state recently launched the North Star Promise Scholarship, which provides tuition-free education to families earning under $80,000, though as a “last-dollar” program, it may provide minimal assistance to the lowest-income students already receiving Pell Grants.

    The report identifies numerous eligibility requirements that exclude vulnerable students:

    • Neither Indiana nor Minnesota provides aid to undocumented students, despite those residents paying state and local taxes
    • None of the three states allow currently incarcerated students to receive aid, even though Congress restored Pell Grant eligibility for this population in 2023
    • Minnesota excludes students in default on federal loans, making it harder for those experiencing financial hardship to complete degrees
    • Part-time students — often working parents or adult learners — face reduced aid or exclusion in many programs

    The Education Trust urges states to redesign financial aid systems with ten key features:

    1. Prioritize need-based aid over merit-based programs
    2. Cover costs beyond tuition, including housing, food, transportation, and childcare
    3. Serve part-time students, adult learners, and returning students
    4. Include undocumented and justice-impacted individuals
    5. Never convert grants to loans
    6. Serve students at all public colleges equally
    7. Allow access for those in loan default
    8. Consolidate programs into streamlined, need-based grants
    9. Use negative Student Aid Index numbers to direct more aid to the neediest
    10. Implement college access policies like direct admissions and FAFSA completion requirements

    “What’s more, policies that promote college attendance are crucial for reducing barriers to higher education,” the report states, highlighting that both Illinois and Indiana have FAFSA completion requirements and direct admission programs, while all three states offer dual enrollment opportunities.

    The report highlights the economic benefits of state investment in higher education. Each college graduate in Illinois increases the state’s annual GDP by approximately $155,566 and generates 6.8 jobs. The state recoups its education investment in just 4.1 years of the graduate’s working life.

    Bachelor’s degree holders earn $1.2 million more over their lifetimes than those with only high school diplomas, are 24% more likely to be employed, and are nearly five times less likely to be incarcerated.

    “State policymakers have a vested interest in ensuring that recent high school graduates pursue higher education and stay in state to complete their education,” the report concludes.

    The analysis comes as education advocates warn that the federal retreat from college affordability could reverse decades of progress in expanding access to higher education, particularly for students of color and those from low-income backgrounds.

    Source link

  • Thousands of Qualified Community College Students Failing to Transfer to CSU, New Report Finds

    Thousands of Qualified Community College Students Failing to Transfer to CSU, New Report Finds

    More than 32,000 California community college students who earned transfer degrees never applied to California State University despite guaranteed admission, according to a new report that highlights critical gaps in the state’s higher education pipeline.

    Marisol Cuellar MejiaThe Public Policy Institute of California study reveals that 21 percent of Associate Degree for Transfer recipients between 2018-19 and 2022-23 failed to apply to CSU. Most concerning, more than half of these students — 32,500 individuals — appear to have abandoned their pursuit of a bachelor’s degree altogether.

    The findings come as California races to meet an ambitious goal of 40 percent baccalaureate completion among working-age residents by 2030, a target that depends heavily on improving transfer rates from community colleges. 

    “When the transfer pathway works, it works,” said Marisol Cuellar Mejia, co-author of the report. “The challenge lies in ensuring that more California community college students are able to get to the point of applying.”

    The report identifies another significant loss point: nearly 63,000 students who were admitted to CSU but chose not to enroll never appeared at any four-year institution. This group represents what researchers call “the most immediate opportunity for enrollment gains” at the state university system.

    Despite these gaps, the study found high success rates for students who complete the transfer process. Among community college applicants to CSU, 92 percent are eventually admitted to at least one campus, and 76 percent of fall 2020 transfer students graduated by spring 2024. Transfer applications and enrollment remain below pre-pandemic levels.  Fall 2024 saw 50,259 new transfer students enroll at CSU, a 6 percent increase from the prior year but still 17 percent below the 2020 peak of 60,529 students. Applications are down 16.4 percent from 2020 levels.

    The decline has not affected campuses equally. San Diego State, Cal State Los Angeles, and San Francisco State continued enrollment drops through fall 2024, with the latter two campuses seeing transfer enrollment more than 30 percent below 2020 peaks. 

    Meanwhile, five campuses — Fresno State, Fullerton, Sonoma State, Monterey Bay, and Chico State — have surpassed their 2020 transfer enrollment numbers. The report notes that CSU is the leading destination for California community college transfers, receiving about 58 percent of students who successfully transfer to four-year institutions. Another 17 percent transfer to University of California campuses, while 25 percent go to private or out-of-state schools.

    The study found that the typical CSU applicant spends nine terms enrolled in the community college system before applying. However, students who reach key academic milestones during their first year can apply sooner. Three in ten applicants apply in more than one term, and almost half of these students had all applications denied initially but were admitted later. Among admitted students, 69 percent chose to enroll at CSU.

    The California Community Colleges system serves more than 2.1 million students, with most expressing intent to transfer. However, only one in five actually transfers within four years of initial enrollment, meaning even modest improvements could substantially boost four-year college enrollment statewide.

    CSU recently committed to increasing transfer enrollment by 15 percent over the next three years as part of its systemwide strategic plan. The move comes as high school graduate numbers are expected to plateau or decline, limiting the pool of first-time freshmen and making community college transfers increasingly important for maintaining enrollment.

    Source link

  • Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds

    Six States Lead Nation in Anti-DEI Legislative Push, New Report Finds

    A new policy brief from the University of Southern California reveals that six states—Texas, Missouri, Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana—have emerged as national leaders in efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in higher education, with significant consequences for students and faculty of color.

    The report, “DEI Under Fire: Policy, Politics, and the Future of Campus Diversity,” released by USC’s Black Critical Policy Collective, analyzed legislative trends across all 50 states between August 2024 and July 2025. Researchers developed a composite scoring system based on bills introduced and laws passed, identifying states with the most aggressive anti-DEI activity.

    Texas topped the rankings with a composite score of 16, having introduced 10 bills and passed three laws restricting DEI efforts. Missouri followed with 15 bills introduced, though none passed into law. Tennessee, Iowa, Oklahoma, and Indiana rounded out the top six states, all scoring between 9 and 14 on the composite scale.

    As of July 2025, 14 states have passed a total of 20 anti-DEI laws, up from 12 states with 14 laws when data collection began in December 2024. These laws typically target four main areas: elimination of DEI offices and staff, bans on mandatory diversity training, prohibitions on diversity statements in hiring, and restrictions on identity-based preferences in admissions and employment.

    “Diversity, equity, and inclusion are not peripheral ideals. They are institutional functions—woven into the operational, cultural, and legal architecture of colleges and universities,” wrote Dr. Kendrick B. Davis, series editor for the Critical Policy Collective, in the report’s introduction. “When those functions are restricted or removed, the effects are material.”

    The institutional responses have been swift and substantial. At the University of Texas System, at least 49 DEI-related employees were terminated following the passage of three bills in 2023. The system shut down its Multicultural Engagement Center and Gender & Sexuality Center at UT-Austin and eliminated funding for student identity-based organizations and scholarships for undocumented students.

    In Iowa, following Senate File 2435’s passage in May 2024, the University of Iowa eliminated its Office of Inclusive Education and Strategic Initiatives and laid off 11 DEI-related staff members. The university also removed scholarships specifically aimed at racially minoritized students, redirecting funds to support low-income students more broadly. By October 2024, Iowa’s state universities had reallocated more than $2.1 million from DEI programs.

    Indiana University announced one of the most sweeping academic restructurings in its history, planning to suspend, eliminate, or consolidate at least 43 undergraduate programs, including African American and African Diaspora Studies, Gender Studies, and multiple language programs. The changes follow passage of Senate Bills 202 and 289, which banned DEI offices and prohibited diversity statements in hiring.

    Preliminary enrollment data following the 2023 Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard—which effectively ended race-conscious admissions—shows declining representation of students of color at several elite institutions. At Harvard Law School, Black student enrollment in 2024 dropped to 19 first-year students, down from 43 the previous year. MIT reported a 1% decrease in the proportion of Hispanic and Black students, while UNC-Chapel Hill experienced a 5% decrease in Black, Indigenous, and people of color students overall.

    “The ongoing attacks on DEI, manifested in policy restrictions forcing institutions to comply with race-evasive policies, have significant implications for racial and ethnic diversity, student access and success, and workforce development,” the report states.

    Research shows faculty diversity benefits all students by fostering critical thinking and better preparing graduates for diverse workforces. However, DEI rollbacks make it significantly more difficult to recruit faculty of color, as institutions are now restricted from considering race in hiring decisions—a limitation reinforced by the Harvard ruling.

    The report’s authors—Mya Haynes, Glenda Palacios Quejada, Shawntae Mitchum, and Alexia Oduro—note that even private institutions like Vanderbilt University have implemented similar changes despite not being subject to state laws, “reflecting broader anxieties within the private sector about maintaining—or being seen to maintain—equity-oriented infrastructure under political scrutiny.”

    Student activism has emerged in response to the restrictions. Iowa State University students organized rallies and petitions opposing the elimination of the DEI office and restructuring of the LGBTQIA+ Center. In Alabama, university professors and students filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s DEI ban, arguing it violates First Amendment rights.

    “What is one of the things that’s sometimes difficult to see is the level of coordination between states,” Davis said in an interview. “Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Indiana, Tennessee, and Missouri—they’re not just a random collection. They’re a coordinated collection of states that have made some formal, some informal decisions, but what is clear through the legislation is that they share a common goal in restricting access to anything that is culturally relevant or sensitive to racially and ethnically minoritized groups in this country.” 

    Davis noted that while federal actions have dominated recent headlines, states initiated the anti-DEI movement shortly after 2020.

    “We have to remember the states started this anti-DEI, anti-critical race theory movement shortly after 2020,” he explained. “This has been a long time in the making, and I think the current federal efforts are just complementary to what states had already been doing.” The report aims to help policymakers and practitioners “get through some of the noise” and track the escalating legislative activity across multiple states, Davis said.

    The report recommends that institutions embed DEI principles within broader student success initiatives, leverage private funding where public funding is restricted, and strengthen alliances among students, faculty, staff, and community organizations to advocate for institutional accountability.

    Missouri represents a notable exception in the analysis. Despite introducing 14 bills targeting DEI—more than any state except Texas—none have passed into law. The report attributes this to intense legislative gridlock, ideological conflicts within the Republican majority, and strong opposition from educational institutions and community organizations. However, the 2025 legislative session has seen renewed efforts to advance anti-DEI policies.

    The researchers emphasize that the policy shifts carry particular consequences for Black, Latino, and Indigenous communities, who are losing access to culturally affirming resources, mentorship opportunities, and financial aid programs specifically designed to address historical inequities in higher education access.

    “If access is conditional and inclusion retractable, higher education cannot claim to serve the public,” Davis wrote.

    The report represents the third in a series examining how equity is being withdrawn across the education pipeline.

     

    Source link

  • Report Cards, Reshuffles, and Resilience: What Ofsted’s new model could mean for higher education 

    Report Cards, Reshuffles, and Resilience: What Ofsted’s new model could mean for higher education 

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr. Ismini Vasileiou, Associate Professor at De Montfort University. 

    The UK Higher Education sector is at a crossroads. With the government’s skills agenda being reshaped, institutions under growing financial pressure, and the first-ever merger between two English universities announced, the landscape is shifting faster than many had anticipated. Into this mix comes Ofsted’s new Report Card for Further Education & Skills (September 2025), which introduces a sharper accountability framework for further education providers. 

    The report card grades institutions across areas such as Leadership & Governance, Inclusion, Safeguarding, and Contribution to Meeting Skills Needs. At programme level, it assesses Curriculum, Teaching & Training, Achievement, and Participation & Development against a tiered scale ranging from Exceptional to Urgent Improvement. 

    While this is designed for further education and skills providers, its arrival raises an uncomfortable but necessary question for universities: what if higher education were graded in the same way? 

    The case for simplicity and transparency 

    Universities are already subject to layers of oversight through the Office for Students (OfS), the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), the National Student Survey (NSS), and graduate outcomes data. Yet, as I noted in the recent Cyber Workforce of the Future white paper, these mechanisms often appear fragmented to policymakers and incomprehensible to the public. 

    By contrast, the further education report card is direct. A parent, student, or employer can understand at a glance whether a provider is exceptional, strong, or in urgent need of improvement. Were higher education to adopt a similar model, judgments might cover: 

    • Leadership & Governance: financial resilience, strategic direction, governance quality. 
    • Inclusion: widening participation, closing attainment gaps, embedding equity strategies. 
    • Safeguarding/Wellbeing: provision for student welfare, mental health, harassment and misconduct. 
    • Skills Contribution: alignment with regional economic needs, national priorities in AI and cybersecurity, and graduate employment outcomes. 

    At the programme level, Achievement and Participation could map onto retention, progression, and graduate success, offering students and employers a clear view of performance. 

    Risks and rewards for higher education 

    Of course, importing a schools-style accountability regime into higher education carries risks. Universities are not homogeneous, and reducing their diverse missions to a traffic-light system risks oversimplification. A specialist arts institution and a research-intensive university might both be rated ‘Needs Attention’ on skills contribution, despite playing very different roles in the national ecosystem. 

    There is also the danger of gaming the system: universities optimising for ratings rather than long-term innovation. And autonomy, long a cornerstone of higher education, would be at stake. 

    Yet there are potential rewards. Public trust in higher education has been under strain, with questions over value for money and financial viability dominating the narrative. Transparent, comprehensible reporting could rebuild confidence and demonstrate sector-wide commitment to accountability. It could also strengthen alignment with further education at a time when government is explicitly seeking a joined-up skills system. 

    A shifting policy landscape 

    The September 2025 government reshuffle underscores why this debate matters. The resignation of Angela Rayner triggered a wide Cabinet reorganisation, with skills responsibilities moving out of the Department for Education and into a new ‘growth’ portfolio under the Department for Work and Pensions, led by Pat McFadden. This shift signals that some elements of skills policy are now seen primarily through an economic and labour market lens. 

    For Higher Education, this presents both challenges and opportunities. As argued in Bridging the Skills Divide: Higher Education’s Role in Delivering the UK’s Plan for Change, universities must demonstrate that they are not just centres of academic excellence but engines of workforce development, innovation, and regional growth. A report-card style framework could make these contributions more visible, but only if universities are part of its design. 

    Structural Change: The Kent–Greenwich merger 

    The announcement that the Universities of Kent and Greenwich will merge in autumn 2026 to form the London and South East University Group is a watershed moment for the sector. It is the first merger of its kind in England, driven by financial pressures from declining international student enrolments, static domestic fees, and mounting operational costs. 

    The merged entity will serve around 28,000 undergraduates, retain the identities of both institutions, and be led by Greenwich Vice-Chancellor Professor Jane Harrington. Yet concerns remain. The University and College Union (UCU) has warned that ‘this isn’t a merger; it is a takeover’ and called for urgent reassurance on staff jobs and student provision. 

    In a system with Ofsted-style ratings, such a merger would be scrutinised not just for its financial logic but also for its impact on governance, inclusion, and skills contribution. A transparent rating system might reassure stakeholders that the merged institution is not only viable but also delivering quality and meeting regional needs. 

    Building on skills agendas 

    National initiatives like Skills England, the Digital Skills Partnership, and programmes such as CyberLocal demonstrate how higher education can contribute to workforce resilience at scale. The Ofsted report card reinforces this agenda. Its emphasis on contribution to meeting skills needs aligns directly with the notion that higher education must play a central role in the UK’s skills ecosystem, not only through degree provision but through continuous upskilling, regional collaboration, and adaptive curricula. 

    Shaping the framework before it shapes us 

    Ofsted’s further education report card is not just an accountability mechanism; it is a signal of where education policy is heading, toward clarity, comparability, and alignment with skills needs. 

    For higher education, the choice is stark. Resist the model and risk having it imposed in ways that do not fit the sector’s diversity. Or lead the design, shaping a framework that balances accountability with autonomy, and skills with scholarship. 

    As Universities confront financial pressures, policy reshuffles, and structural change, one thing is clear: the sector cannot afford to sit this debate out. The real question is not whether Higher Education should be graded, but what kind of grading system we would design if given the chance. 

    Source link

  • ‘Right here, right now’: New report on how AI is transforming higher education

    ‘Right here, right now’: New report on how AI is transforming higher education

    Author:
    Edited by Dr Giles Carden and Josh Freeman

    Published:

    A new collection of essays, AI and the Future of Universities published by HEPI and the University of Southampton, edited by Dr Giles Carden and Josh Freeman, brings together leading voices from universities, industry and policy. The collection comes at a point when Artificial Intelligence (AI) is projected to have a profound and transformative impact on virtually every sector of society and the economy, driving changes that are both beneficial and challenging. The various pieces look at how AI is reshaping higher education – from strategy, teaching and assessment to research and professional services.

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

    Source link