Tag: Return

  • Only innovation can return higher education to growth

    Only innovation can return higher education to growth

    The economic impact of UK higher education is a source of great pride, but universities are under financial duress. There are many reasons for this, but one reason stands out above the others. It demands energetic innovation to avoid long-term decline.

    Not that long-ago optimism about the future of higher education was at its height. Sustained growth in participation (even in the face of the hike in undergraduate fees to £9000) saw unparalleled growth in home student enrolments, widening of access to the less advantaged, booming international enrolments, with UCAS talking about the Journey to a Million. The mood in the sector was upbeat and optimistic.

    Even then, there were worrying indicators that all was not well. The decline in student numbers in the US since 2012 carried a huge warning, and we could see shifting employer attitudes to degrees. There were clear signs that the optimism and hubris was overdone.

    Jim Collins, author of Good to Great described a conversation with James Stockdale, a US Navy pilot shot down and taken prisoner in the Vietnam war. When Collins asked which prisoners didn’t make it out of Vietnam, Stockdale replied:

    Oh, that’s easy, the optimists. Oh, they were the ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart.

    Collins called this the Stockdale Paradox, and it offers a very important lesson. You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end – which you can never afford to lose – with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be.

    A few years on, things have changed. Half of universities are already in deficit and much has been written about the challenges of rising costs, falling real income, growing immigration controls, weakening political support, growing competition, and growing regulation. To make matters even worse, demographic forecasts show a steady decline in the number of 18-year-olds from the end of this decade. Unbridled optimism has been followed by cost-cutting with momentum building behind mergers and consolidation.

    The elephant in the room

    All this begs the question of whether this is a transient coincidence of unfortunate events or a much deeper problem. Some university leaders argue the problem is not with the perceived value of higher education, but with a media conspiracy and lack of government support. While that view has some merit it misses the elephant in the room.

    Over the last 30 years the increasing popularity of going to university has driven sustained growth in the proportion of 18 year olds making this choice. However, growth in participation at age 18 has stalled and started to decline just as we saw in the US in the last decade. It is hard to overstate the singular importance of growing evidence that demand for higher education is starting to reduce. We must respond energetically or accept its inevitability.

    Why is higher education becoming less popular than it was? Students in England have the highest debt in the English speaking world, despite most students now working their way through university. The graduate earnings premium has declined and a significant minority of students would be better off financially if they had not gone to university.

    More people now think more carefully about the economic return on their investment in higher education. These concerns about cost versus return must now unleash a much bigger conversation about how to make higher knowledge and skills more accessible and rewarding, not only at age 18 but over people’s lives.

    Lifelong learning is the future

    The global skills gap is structural and growing. People without a degree (most of us) will now need access to higher skills throughout their lives. Graduates too must acquire the higher skills needed to meet the changing needs of the economy. Higher education can provide the solutions. These needs can only be met through innovation in delivery, content, and partnership. Investment in innovation may be counter-intuitive at a time of retrenchment, but cost-cutting does not fix the underlying problem.

    We must find different models of delivery to support the changing needs of learners and reach more people with an ever-sharper focus on employer need. The evidence for demand is all around us. Millions of people (mainly adults) globally now enrol on online degree courses and tens of millions on Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). There is a growing consensus that meeting learners where they are through lifelong learning is the future direction of higher education.

    More universities are putting their toe in the water and setting up innovative hubs and institutes. But few embrace this idea at an enterprise level, built explicitly into strategy. Doing so requires strong leadership but also great care.

    Care to avoid the false dichotomies between knowledge and skills, teaching and research, utilitarian models of employability versus education for intrinsic good, radical change versus evolutionary adaptation. We must fiercely control quality to avoid the pitfalls we see today, particularly in franchised provision. We must build on our strengths. We need to be commercially astute as well as educationally aware.

    The US experience

    The impressive wave of innovation and growth in several universities in the United States shows what is possible. American universities expanded access to higher education well before the UK did so there are important lessons to be learned from their experience. I’m fortunate to have worked with some of them.

    Innovation in education is relatively easy. Taking it to scale is very hard but several American universities have achieved that.

    While each of the examples below is different, they have things in common

    1. They are bold, imaginative, and embrace innovation across the entire institution
    2. They embrace technology to widen lifelong learner access
    3. They are not afraid to invest in building their brand and widening their reach
    4. They stand for something distinctive that is different to elitism
    5. They put students first

    Arizona State University under the leadership of Michael Crow measures itself not through whom they exclude but whom they include and how they succeed. They have significantly increased the size of the university by investing in new faculty, innovative curricula, and immersive learning technologies.

    Online delivery is a key element in their strategy, and they reach all ages from K-12 (having established an online school) to retirement. ASU uses partnerships to great effect and has been ranked the number one “most innovative university” for 11 consecutive years by U.S. News & World Report. They co-created the PLuS Alliance which established The Engineering Design Institute in London and have just announced ASU London which will combine a three-year U.K. bachelor’s degree from ASU London with an accelerated, one-year master’s degree from Arizona State University. They have done a remarkable job in setting out a vision for the New American University combining great research with great teaching.

    Northeastern University under the leadership of Joseph Aoun built employer relationships and used them to develop a distinctive pedagogical approach built around experiential learning. They have widened access through expanding their campus footprint and through online learning using partnerships as a part of the strategy. Online access features less strongly than some but is an important element. They now have a campus in the UK and offer a “double degree” accredited both by an American and an English university. This is highly distinctive for many international students who want the option to work in the US or the UK. They clearly define themselves as a research university.

    Southern New Hampshire University, led by Paul LeBlanc from 2003–2024, has had a remarkable journey of student growth, from a relatively unknown campus with a small number of students to one of America’s largest with more than 200,000 students today. They focused first on online delivery during the 1990s and then on their distinctive Competency Model of learning and access delivered through their “College for America.” They are primarily an online university today although the campus continues to be an important part of the proposition. Unlike some other universities they achieved remarkable growth without significant partnering with so-called OPM providers. They have positioned themselves distinctively as career focused, affordable and transfer friendly which is of great importance to adult learners.

    A generational opportunity

    These universities have shown an appetite for innovation and risk, perhaps knowing the risk of inaction to be greater, but primarily being confident what they stand for and why it is distinctive. They have widened access to serve lifelong learners and they offer flexibility to traditional students too – the majority of traditional US students now do at least one class online.

    Growth in the lifelong learning of advanced knowledge and skills is perhaps the biggest opportunity in education since the GI Bill made higher education accessible to millions of people in the United States after the Second World War. In England, the Lifelong Learning Entitlement provides a welcome catalyst, but only if the ideas behind it are firmly embraced and taken to scale by innovative leaders, will the potential be realised.

    James Stockman used a combination of realism and faith to sustain himself as a prisoner. Universities will need this too, but they also hold a key to the door.

    Source link

  • As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment

    As more question the value of a degree, colleges fight to prove their return on investment

    This story was produced by the Associated Press and reprinted with permission. 

    WASHINGTON – For a generation of young Americans, choosing where to go to college — or whether to go at all — has become a complex calculation of costs and benefits that often revolves around a single question: Is the degree worth its price?

    Public confidence in higher education has plummeted in recent years amid high tuition prices, skyrocketing student loans and a dismal job market — plus ideological concerns from conservatives. Now, colleges are scrambling to prove their value to students.

    Borrowed from the business world, the term “return on investment” has been plastered on college advertisements across the U.S. A battery of new rankings grade campuses on the financial benefits they deliver. States such as Colorado have started publishing yearly reports on the monetary payoff of college, and Texas now factors it into calculations for how much taxpayer money goes to community colleges.

    “Students are becoming more aware of the times when college doesn’t pay off,” said Preston Cooper, who has studied college ROI at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank. “It’s front of mind for universities today in a way that it was not necessarily 15, 20 years ago.”

    Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter. 

    A wide body of research indicates a bachelor’s degree still pays off, at least on average and in the long run. Yet there’s growing recognition that not all degrees lead to a good salary, and even some that seem like a good bet are becoming riskier as graduates face one of the toughest job markets in years. 

    A new analysis released Thursday by the Strada Education Foundation finds 70 percent of recent public university graduates can expect a positive return within 10 years — meaning their earnings over a decade will exceed that of a typical high school graduate by an amount greater than the cost of their degree. Yet it varies by state, from 53 percent in North Dakota to 82 percent in Washington, D.C. States where college is more affordable have fared better, the report says.

    It’s a critical issue for families who wonder how college tuition prices could ever pay off, said Emilia Mattucci, a high school counselor at East Allegheny schools, near Pittsburgh. More than two-thirds of her school’s students come from low-income families, and many aren’t willing to take on the level of debt that past generations accepted.

    Instead, more are heading to technical schools or the trades and passing on four-year universities, she said.

    “A lot of families are just saying they can’t afford it, or they don’t want to go into debt for years and years and years,” she said.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon has been among those questioning the need for a four-year degree. Speaking at the Reagan Institute think tank in September, McMahon praised programs that prepare students for careers right out of high school.

    “I’m not saying kids shouldn’t go to college,” she said. “I’m just saying all kids don’t have to go in order to be successful.”

    Related: OPINION: College is worth it for most students, but its benefits are not equitable

    American higher education has been grappling with both sides of the ROI equation — tuition costs and graduate earnings. It’s becoming even more important as colleges compete for decreasing numbers of college-age students as a result of falling birth rates.

    Tuition rates have stayed flat on many campuses in recent years to address affordability concerns, and many private colleges have lowered their sticker prices in an effort to better reflect the cost most students actually pay after factoring in financial aid.

    The other part of the equation — making sure graduates land good jobs — is more complicated.

    A group of college presidents recently met at Gallup’s Washington headquarters to study public polling on higher education. One of the chief reasons for flagging confidence is a perception that colleges aren’t giving graduates the skills employers need, said Kevin Guskiewicz, president of Michigan State University, one of the leaders at the meeting.

    “We’re trying to get out in front of that,” he said.

    The issue has been a priority for Guskiewicz since he arrived on campus last year. He gathered a council of Michigan business leaders to identify skills that graduates will need for jobs, from agriculture to banking. The goal is to mold degree programs to the job market’s needs and to get students internships and work experience that can lead to a job.

    Related: What’s a college degree worth? States start to demand colleges share the data

    Bridging the gap to the job market has been a persistent struggle for U.S. colleges, said Matt Sigelman, president of the Burning Glass Institute, a think tank that studies the workforce. Last year the institute, partnering with Strada researchers, found 52 percent of recent college graduates were in jobs that didn’t require a degree. Even higher-demand fields, such as education and nursing, had large numbers of graduates in that situation.

    “No programs are immune, and no schools are immune,” Sigelman said. 

    The federal government has been trying to fix the problem for decades, going back to President Barack Obama’s administration. A federal rule first established in 2011 aimed to cut federal money to college programs that leave graduates with low earnings, though it primarily targeted for-profit colleges.

    A Republican reconciliation bill passed this year takes a wider view, requiring most colleges to hit earnings standards to be eligible for federal funding. The goal is to make sure college graduates end up earning more than those without a degree. 

    Others see transparency as a key solution.

    For decades, students had little way to know whether graduates of specific degree programs were landing good jobs after college. That started to change with the College Scorecard in 2015, a federal website that shares broad earnings outcomes for college programs. More recently, bipartisan legislation in Congress has sought to give the public even more detailed data.

    Lawmakers in North Carolina ordered a 2023 study on the financial return for degrees across the state’s public universities. It found that 93 percent produced a positive return, meaning graduates were expected to earn more over their lives than someone without a similar degree.

    The data is available to the public, showing, for example, that undergraduate degrees in applied math and business tend to have high returns at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, while graduate degrees in psychology and foreign languages often don’t.

    Colleges are belatedly realizing how important that kind of data is to students and their families, said Lee Roberts, chancellor of UNC-Chapel Hill, in an interview.

    “In uncertain times, students are even more focused — I would say rightly so — on what their job prospects are going to be,” he added. “So I think colleges and universities really owe students and their families this data.”

    The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

    The Strada Education Foundation, whose research is mentioned in this story, is one of the many funders of The Hechinger Report.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Week In Review: Mental health grants return and FCC rolls back E-rate expansion

    Week In Review: Mental health grants return and FCC rolls back E-rate expansion

    We’re rounding up last week’s news, from the government shutdown’s impact on schools to differentiated teacher compensation.

    Source link

  • Grants return, the levy stays

    Grants return, the levy stays

    Speaking at the Labour Party conference, Secretary of State for Education Bridget Phillipson announced the (limited) return of student maintenance grants by the end of this Parliament:

    I am announcing that this Labour government will introduce new targeted maintenance grants for students who need them most. Their time at college or university should be spent learning or training, not working every hour god sends.

    As further details emerged, it became clear that these would be specifically targeted to students from low-income households who were studying courses within the same list of “government priority” subject areas mentioned in plans for the lifelong learning entitlement. As a reminder these are:

    • computing
    • engineering
    • architecture, building & planning (excluding landscape gardening)
    • physics & astronomy
    • mathematical sciences
    • nursing & midwifery
    • allied health
    • chemistry
    • economics
    • health & social care

    These additional grants will be funded with income from the proposed levy on international student fees, of which little is known outside of the fact that the immigration white paper’s annex contained modelling of its effects were it to be set at six per cent of international student fee income. The international student levy will apply to England only.

    There will be further details on the way the new grants will work, and on the detail of the levy, in the Autumn Statement on 26 November. This is what we know so far – everything else is based on speculation.

    Eligibility

    A whole range of questions surround the announcement.

    How disadvantaged will a student have to be – and will it be based on family income in the same way that the current system is? Imagine if entitlement was set at below the current threshold for the maximum loan – disadvantaged enough to get the full loan, not enough for a grant.

    If it’s set anywhere near the current threshold – £25,000 residual family income since 2007 – there’s a lot of “disadvantage” going on above that figure. If it’s set above that figure, that will beg the question – why assume a parental contribution in the main loan part of the scheme?

    Will it be on top of, or simply displace some of the existing loan? If it’s the latter, that won’t help with day to day costs, and as the Augar review noted – those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are least likely to pay back in full anyway, which would make the “grant” more of a debt-relief scam.

    The distribution in the apparent hypothecation will be fascinating. It does mean that international students studying at English universities will be funding grants for English domiciled students wherever they are studying. Will devolved nations now follow suit?

    If international student recruitment falls, will that mean that the amount of money available for disadvantaged student grants falls too or is the Treasury willing to agree a fixed amount for the grants that doesn’t change?

    Restricting grants to those on the lowest incomes does mean that the government intends to relieve student poverty for some but not others, based on course choice. Will that shift behaviour – on the part of students and universities – in problematic ways?

    With the LLE on the way, will grants be chunked up and down by credit? See Jim’s piece from the weekend on the problematic incentives that this would create.

    The hypothecation also raises real moral questions about international student hardship being exacerbated to fund home student hardship relief – if, as many will do, universities put fees up to cover the cost of the levy. The possibility of real resentment from international students, who already know they’re propping up the costs of lower and subsidised fees, is significant.

    For LLE modular tuition fee funding, under OfS quality proposals Bronze/Requires improvement universities will have to apply for their students to access it – they will need to demonstrate that there is a rationale for them doing IS-8 courses. Will that apply for these grants too?

    Phillipson’s speech also referenced work– students’ time at college or university should be “spent learning or training, not working every hour god sends”. By coincidence, Jim worked up some numbers on how much “work” the current loan scheme funds earlier. Whether we’ll get numbers from Phillipson on what she thinks “every hour god sends” means in practice, and how many hours she thinks students should be learning or training for, remains to be seen.

    We might also assume that the grant won’t be increased for those in London, and reduced for studying at home in the way that the maintenance loan is now. And if this is all we’re going to get in the way of student finance reform, all of the other myriad problems with the system may not get touched either.

    The levy

    There’s a certain redistributive logic in using tuition fee income from very prestigious universities to support learners at FE colleges or local providers, though it is unlikely that university senior managers will see it in quite those terms.

    A six per cent levy on international fee income in England for the 2023–24 financial year would have yielded around £620m, with half of that coming from the 20 English providers in the Russell Group. Of course, this doesn’t mean that half of all international students are at the Russell Group – it means that they are able to charge higher tuition fees to the international students they do recruit.

    [Full screen]

    Of course, the levy applies to all providers – and, as we saw back when the idea was first floated there are some outside of the Russell Group that see significant parts of their income come from international fees, and would see their overall financial sustainability adversely affected by the levy. In the main these tend to be smaller specialist providers, but there are some larger modern universities too. Some universities don’t even have undergraduate students, but will still see their fees top-sliced to fund undergraduate-level grants elsewhere.

    [Full screen]

    There has been a concerted lobbying effort by various university groups aimed at getting the government to abandon the levy plan – as it appears that this effort has failed you would expect the conversations to turn to ensuring the levy is not introduced at six per cent as the Home Office previously modelled, or mitigating its impact for some or all providers. Certainly, as Phillipson chose the same speech to remind us she had taken “the decisive steps we needed on university finances” it would feel like it is not her intention to add to the woes of higher education providers that are genuinely struggling.

    DfE has said that the new grants will be “fully funded” by an international student levy. It’s worth noting that this is not the same as saying that all the levy money will go towards the grants.The tie between the grants and the levy is politically rather astute – it will be very difficult for Labour backbenchers to argue against grants for students on low income, even if they are committed to making arguments in the interests of their local university. But legislatively, establishing a ring fence that ensures the levy only pays for these grants will be very difficult – other parts of government will have their eye on this new income, and the Treasury is famously very resistant to ringfencing money that comes in.

    It also opens up the idea of the government specifically taxing higher education with targeted levies. It is notable that there has been no indication that the levy will be charged on private school fees, or fees paid to English language colleges, where these are paid by non-resident students. DfE itself suggests that £980m of international fees go to schools, and a further £850m goes to English language training – why leave a certain percentage of that on the table when it can be used to support disadvantaged young people in skills training?

    What would it achieve?

    In the end, even grants at the maximum level of £3,000 a year that were recommended by the Augar review wouldn’t have made much difference to student poverty, and there’s been a lot of inflation since.

    And a part of the idea of the levy was to reduce (albeit slightly) the number of study visas granted – if you recall, the Home Office report emerged in a month that everyone became concerned about students claiming asylum. If that part of the plan works (if that was ever really the plan, rather than a fortunate coincidence) then surely there would be less money to play with for maintenance – and any future government that attempts to reduce international higher education recruitment would be accused of taking the grants away from working class students on priority courses?

    The real value in the reintroduction of the grant is that it is politically totemic for Labour. But if it encourages more disadvantaged students to go into HE because of a perception of better affordability when they will still struggle, there will be both a financial and political cost in the long term.

    Source link

  • Return of the expert – HEPI

    Return of the expert – HEPI

    • Professor Nishan Canagarajah, President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Leicester, argues it is time for universities to engage their political muscles and shift the narrative.
    • Professor Canagarajah will join a panel at the Labour Party Conference on ‘What can universities do for you? How “civic universities” are supporting their communities’ on Monday, 29 September 2025 – further details are at https://www.tickettailor.com/events/universityofleicesterpublicaffairs.

    An ideological challenge

    ‘Universities are part of a “crumbling public realm”’.  Keir Starmer’s declaration in Brighton last year provided a clarion call for the need to invest in the sector which he argued, like other public services such as the NHS and prisons, had suffered a legacy of chronic underinvestment.

    But what is also intrinsic in Starmer’s observation is that universities are losing their place in society. We have lost our voice – drowned out by arguments over the value of a degree, immigration and foreign students, tuition fees and ‘wokeness’. Universities are not seen as being relevant and their wider societal value is often misunderstood. In all the noise around earning a degree – often reduced to a transaction where costs and benefits are weighed – the deeper purpose is frequently lost. 

    It was famously said by Michael Gove that ‘the people of this country have had enough of experts’ – but perhaps now the time has come for experts in universities to re-enter the stage.

    UK universities have always been a cornerstone of national progress. From pioneering life-changing research to nurturing the next generation of leaders, our institutions are woven into the fabric of our society and communities. Now more than ever, we have an opportunity to step forward with confidence to help tackle the pressing, economic, social and health challenges we are facing.

    It is time for a new narrative as we engage our political muscles and demonstrate universities are vital to shaping a brighter future for Britain. 

    From wokeness to winner – how to change the narrative

    Four years ago, the Daily Mail headline screamed ‘The University of Woke’ in describing Leicester’s efforts to widen its curriculum. In 2025, Leicester became the Daily Mail University of the Year, described as ‘a model university for the 21st century’ and was shortlisted for both Times Higher Education University of the Year and The Times and Sunday Times University of the Year. 

    There are lessons to be learnt from Leicester’s journey from pariah to exemplar:

    1. Do not be afraid to do the right thing: Despite the media onslaught, Leicester persevered with its agenda to break down barriers and develop a non-elitist curriculum. Now the University is heralded as a model of inclusivity.
    2. Be bold-stand above the parapet: Universities do not need to shout louder – they need to be heard more. We must regain the ground we have lost historically under attack of being too politically liberal, lacking ideological diversity and over free speech.
    3. Show relevance to society: The disconnect between universities and the public must be tackled. Leicester has joined forces with others to become a part of communities, to engage with them and open its facilities. Our impacts are being brought to the attention not only of the public, but to key stakeholders and to politicians.  It is about regaining political and public trust. It is why we are here in Liverpool for the Labour Party Conference.
    4. Rediscover our confidence: From IVF to DNA profiling, the World Wide Web to AI, UK universities have shaped the modern world. At Leicester, we proudly celebrate Sir Alec Jeffreys’s discovery of genetic fingerprinting—not just for its scientific brilliance, but for its enduring inspiration. These discoveries connect with the public. But beyond the headlines are thousands of quieter innovations – new research and policy insights, business support, school outreach, and community partnerships – that improve lives every day. It’s time to shine a light on these contributions and celebrate the sector’s role in building a better Britain.

    More than degrees 

    Universities are not just places of learning – they are engines of innovation, inclusion, and economic growth. Consider the impact: 

    • We contribute over £115 billion to the UK economy annually and support 815,000 jobs. 
    • International students bring a net benefit of £37.4 billion to the UK, enriching our campuses and communities. 
    • Every £1 of public investment in universities yields £14 in economic return. 
    • We train the doctors, nurses, teachers, and public servants who keep our country running. 
    • Our research leads to cleaner energy, smarter cities, and healthier lives. 

    These contributions are felt in every region, every sector, and every household.  

    A paradox 

    Yet today, we face a paradox: a nation that benefits immensely from its universities but often questions their value. The sector is buffeted by direct and indirect policy headwinds – from immigration restrictions and post-study visa curbs to fragmented regional R&D funding and the prospect of an international levy – which according to a new report from the Centre for Cities, Town and gown: The role of universities in city economies will have a greater impact in Leicester than anywhere else in the UK. 

    The result of this paradox? An untapped potential that we must address head-on. 

    With the Labour Government more than a year into its term, we have an opportunity to put universities back at the heart of our national conversation – as a positive force for change. But we can’t expect others to make the case for us while we sit back silently and nod sagely. We must roll up our sleeves and demonstrate how we can serve Government priorities.

    A solution

    With Labour’s five missions – economic growth, opportunity, NHS renewal, clean energy, and safer streets – universities are uniquely placed to help deliver real change. We are not a cost to be managed, but a partner to empower the country. 

    At Leicester, for example, our Space Park Leicester significantly contributes to the UK government’s priorities for economic growth and clean energy by fostering a collaborative hub for the space sector and leveraging satellite data for environmental solutions. The £100m facility is an innovation hotbed for driving job creation, inward investment and working with industry to develop new technologies which support clean energy transition.

    With respect to NHS renewal, we partner with the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust to deliver world-class clinical innovations in areas such as diabetes, ethnic health and respiratory diseases, and secure real change in the city and beyond. We are also diversifying the medical workforce through a ground-breaking Medicine with Foundation Year programme designed as a widening-participation route to attract students from underrepresented backgrounds who have the potential to succeed in medicine.

    We are creating opportunities for school-aged children from disadvantaged backgrounds through our IntoUniversity Centre, which supports young people to improve academic attainment, raise aspirations and progress into higher education or other career paths. While helping to ensure safer streets through a strong partnership with police, community engagement and research projects, including the creation of the Policing Academic Centre of Excellence which uses the latest advances in science and technology to solve strategic and operational policing challenges.

    Every university in the UK has a similar story to tell with their own impactful examples that help shape a brighter future.

    That’s why the University of Leicester, along with university colleagues from across the sector, will be attending this year’s party conferences, to engage constructively with policymakers, share ideas, and build alliances. We believe in collaboration, not confrontation – and in the power of shared purpose.

    In a future that is increasingly knowledge intensive and in which our global success will be predicated on our use of technology, AI and big data, universities are central to the UK’s ambitions and future success. It is time for the return of the expert – time for universities to step forward, shape the debate, participate in the national conversation and ensure that universities can continue to drive progress in the way that we have for many centuries. 

    Source link

  • Education Department plans return of laid-off OCR employees

    Education Department plans return of laid-off OCR employees

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education said it plans to bring back more than 260 Office for Civil Rights staff that it cut as part of its March reduction in force, returning groups of employees to the civil rights enforcement arm in waves every two weeks Sept. 8 through Nov. 3. 
    • The department’s Aug. 19 update was filed as required by a federal judge’s order in Victim Rights Law Center v. U.S. Department of Education directing that the Education Department be restored to “the status quo” so it can “carry out its statutory functions.” 
    • Since March, the Education Department has been paying the OCR employees about $1 million per week to sit idle on administrative leave, according to the update.

    Dive Insight:

    The update, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, comes as a U.S. Supreme Court emergency order in a separate but similar case allowed the agency to move forward with mass layoffs across the entire department, rather than just OCR.

    That case — New York v. McMahon— was overseen by the same judge who ordered on June 18 that OCR be restored to its former capacity.

    Last week, Judge Myong Joun said he stood by his OCR order regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York v. McMahon because the students who brought the Victim Rights Law Center case have “unique harms that they have suffered due to the closure of the OCR.”

    In March, the Education Department closed seven of its 12 regional offices as part of the layoffs that impacted 1,300 staffers across the entire department.

    Civil rights and public education advocates, as well as lawmakers and education policy experts warned that such a significant slash to OCR would compromise students’ civil rights and compromise their equal access to education that OCR is meant to protect.

    In April, the Victim Rights Law Center case was brought by two students who “faced severe discrimination and harassment in school and were depending on the OCR to resolve their complaints so that they could attend public school,” said Joun in his Aug. 13 decision.

    The Education Department’s update this week that it is returning OCR employees to work is in compliance with Joun’s decision.

    After Joun ordered the Education Department in the New York case to restore the department more broadly, the administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to push the RIF through.

    The department did not respond by press time to K-12 Dive’s inquiry as to whether it intends to likewise appeal the Victim Rights Law Center decision to the Supreme Court.

    Source link

  • Education Department plans return of laid-off OCR staffers

    Education Department plans return of laid-off OCR staffers

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

    Dive Brief:

    • The U.S. Department of Education said it plans to bring back more than 260 Office for Civil Rights staff that it cut as part of its March reduction in force, returning groups of employees to the civil rights enforcement arm in waves every two weeks Sept. 8 through Nov. 3. 
    • The department’s Aug. 19 update was filed as required by a federal judge’s order in Victim Rights Law Center v. U.S. Department of Education directing that the Education Department be restored to “the status quo” so it can “carry out its statutory functions.” 
    • Since March, the Education Department has been paying the OCR employees about $1 million per week to sit idle on administrative leave, according to the update.

    Dive Insight:

    The update, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, comes as a U.S. Supreme Court emergency order in a separate but similar case allowed the agency to move forward with mass layoffs across the entire department, rather than just OCR.

    That case — New York v. McMahon— was overseen by the same judge who ordered on June 18 that OCR be restored to its former capacity.

    Last week, Judge Myong Joun said he stood by his OCR order regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision in New York v. McMahon because the students who brought the Victim Rights Law Center case have “unique harms that they have suffered due to the closure of the OCR.”

    In March, the Education Department closed seven of its 12 regional offices as part of the layoffs that impacted 1,300 staffers across the entire department.

    Civil rights and public education advocates, as well as lawmakers and education policy experts warned that such a significant slash to OCR would compromise students’ civil rights and compromise their equal access to education that OCR is meant to protect.

    In April, the Victim Rights Law Center case was brought by two students who “faced severe discrimination and harassment in school and were depending on the OCR to resolve their complaints so that they could attend public school,” said Joun in his Aug. 13 decision.

    The Education Department’s update this week that it is returning OCR employees to work is in compliance with Joun’s decision.

    After Joun ordered the Education Department in the New York case to restore the department more broadly, the administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to push the RIF through.

    The department did not respond by press time to K-12 Dive’s inquiry as to whether it intends to likewise appeal the Victim Rights Law Center decision to the Supreme Court.

    Source link

  • American Sororities: Class, Race, Gender, and the Return of "Tradition"

    American Sororities: Class, Race, Gender, and the Return of "Tradition"

    At flagship universities across the United States, predominantly white sororities remain popular institutions. They offer young women a ready-made community, social capital, and access to alumni networks. But behind this appeal lies a system that reinforces race, class, and gender hierarchies—at a time when women’s rights are being rolled back nationally.
    Race and Class Tradition: Who Belongs, Who Does Not
    Sororities are not only racially homogeneous but also heavily skewed by class. Recruitment practices, legacy ties, and financial obligations ensure that sorority life remains a domain for the affluent.
    At Princeton University, 77% of sorority members are white, compared with 47% of the student body overall.
    Socioeconomic trends are even starker. In 1999, 31% of Greek-affiliated students at Princeton identified as middle-class, but by 2024 that number had dropped to 14%. Over the same period, those identifying as upper-class doubled from 14% to 28%.
    At the University of Mississippi, 48% of high school graduates in the state were Black in 2021, but only 8% of first-year students at Ole Miss were Black. White-dominated Greek life continues to thrive in this climate of underrepresentation.
    A multi-campus study found 72% of Greek members identified as middle- or upper-middle class, compared with just 6% from low-income families.
    These figures reveal how sororities work to reproduce the advantages of affluent white families. Membership offers exclusive networking, internships, and social connections—often denied to working-class students, students of color, and first-generation college students.
    Gender Tradition

    Sororities also sustain a vision of femininity rooted in conformity, beauty standards, and heteronormativity. Social events are structured around fraternities, placing men as hosts and leaders, while sorority women serve as companions or supporters.
    While some sororities claim empowerment through philanthropy and sisterhood, the cultural framework continues to emphasize women’s value through appearance and deference, not leadership. This pattern reflects broader societal pressures to restore traditional gender roles.
    The Broader Context: The Right to Choose Lost
    The Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of Roe v. Wade has had profound consequences for women in the U.S.
    More than 25 million women of reproductive age now live in states with abortion bans or severe restrictions.
    States with the most restrictive abortion laws show a 7% increase in maternal mortality overall, and 51% higher rates where laws require procedures only from licensed physicians.
    The loss of Roe’s protections especially harms women of color and low-income women, who already face barriers to healthcare and mobility.
    Against this backdrop, sororities’ popularity at flagship universities is revealing. These organizations celebrate conformity to class privilege and traditional gender expectations, while millions of women outside those circles see their reproductive freedoms curtailed. The alignment of sorority culture with conservative visions of femininity makes them more than relics of tradition—they become cultural reinforcers of the very inequalities deepening in U.S. society.
    Why Class Matters
    Social class is at the heart of the issue. Sororities provide access to powerful networks that translate into internships, job placements, and lifelong advantages. These networks overwhelmingly serve the wealthy and exclude those already disadvantaged by race, class, and gender.
    At a time when women’s bodily autonomy is under political attack, the popularity of predominantly white sororities signals how elite spaces continue to consolidate privilege for a narrow group of women—while the majority face shrinking freedoms and growing precarity.
    Sources
    Princeton Greek life demographics (tcf.org)
    Princeton Class of 2024 socioeconomic trends (dailyprincetonian.com)
    University of Mississippi racial disparities (hechingerreport.org)
    National Greek life class survey (vox.com)
    Women under abortion bans: 25 million affected (americanprogress.org)
    Abortion bans and maternal mortality (sph.tulane.edu

    Source link

  • Wide-ranging coalition of ‘friends of the court’ continue to support citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal in her return to the Supreme Court

    Wide-ranging coalition of ‘friends of the court’ continue to support citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal in her return to the Supreme Court

    The government can’t jail a journalist for asking a question. And when it does, it can’t get away with it scot-free. But that’s what happened to the police and prosecutors who arrested citizen journalist Priscilla Villarreal when she asked an officer questions in the course of reporting the news. 

    It was unconstitutional enough that these Laredo, Texas, officials arrested Priscilla for routine journalism — something freedom-loving Americans know the First Amendment protects. Even worse, they did so because she criticized them. And to further their plan to arrest Priscilla, they deployed a Texas penal statute aimed at curbing abuses of office —and one that Laredo officials had never before tried to enforce in its 23-year history. 

    After the Fifth Circuit denied Priscilla relief for her constitutional injury, the Supreme Court granted her petition and tossed out the Fifth Circuit’s decision. The Court ordered the Fifth Circuit to reconsider her case in light of an earlier ruling. But after the Fifth Circuit mostly reinstated its previous ruling, Priscilla and FIRE once again asked the Supreme Court to intervene. 

    Supporting Priscilla in front of the high court is an impressive and diverse coalition of media organizations, journalists, and defenders of civil liberties. These 11 amicus curiae briefs urge the Supreme Court to reverse the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in order to protect Americans’ First Amendment right to investigate and report the news and to ensure that officials can be held accountable when they infringe on that obvious right. 

    These reporters and media organizations wrote about how this important First Amendment case will impact the rights of all journalists:

    • The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 24 news organizations including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and Dow Jones & Company (owner of The Wall Street Journal) demonstrate how history shows that “no technique has been more routine or central to newsgathering — from the Founding through the present day — than pursuing information about government affairs simply by asking for it.” In addition to attorneys from the Reporters Committee, the media coalition is also represented by Jackson Walker LLP.
    • The MuckRock Foundation, an organization that drives public records requests across the country, is a nonprofit that assists the public in filing governmental requests for public records and then publishes the returned information on its website for public access. Journalists routinely use records MuckRock publishes to expose government corruption, misuse of government funds, and other matters of public concern. MuckRock’s brief warns that if upheld, “the Fifth Circuit’s decision will encourage other government officials, both high and petty, to harass, threaten, and arrest people for requesting information that the government would prefer not to release — even if the government may lawfully release the information under state law.” MuckRock is represented by Prince Lobel Tye LLP.
    • A group of five current and former journalists — David Barstow, Kathleen McElroy, Walter Robinson, John Schwartz, and Jacob Sullum — emphasizes that no reasonable official would have thought Priscilla’s basic reporting practice was criminal. They also use real-life examples to demonstrate that “journalists cannot do their jobs if they must fear that any interaction with the government — even a simple request for truthful, factual information — may be used as a pretext for an arrest and criminal prosecution.” The journalists are represented by counsel at Covington & Burling LLP.
    • The Dallas Free Press submitted a brief with Avi Adelman and Steven Monacelli, two independent journalists who, like Priscilla, have been arrested or detained while reporting on law enforcement. The brief details how when faced with “closed doors and empty mailboxes … journalists must develop alternative sources to perform their job — a public service indispensable to our democracy.” And if communicating with these sources could result in arrest, independent journalists “are especially vulnerable … given that they may lack the resources and institutional backing of a larger news outlet in the event that they are prosecuted.” The Dallas Free Press, Adelman, and Monacelli are represented by the SMU Dedman School of Law First Amendment Clinic, Thomas Leatherbury, and Vinson & Elkins LLP.

    This impressive group of organizations across the ideological spectrum wrote to emphasize the problems with applying qualified immunity in cases like Priscilla’s:

    • First Liberty Institute explains that “the government arresting a journalist for asking questions so obviously violates the First Amendment that no reasonable official would sanction such an action.” And FLI points out that “it comes as no surprise that there is no case directly on point with the facts here” because “these sorts of outrageous fact patterns are more frequently found in law school exams than in real life.” FLI is represented by Dentons Bingham Greenbaum LLP.
    • The Americans for Prosperity Foundation articulates that qualified immunity is inappropriate when it shields government officials from liability for “intentional and slow-moving” infringements of First Amendment rights. Moreover, AFPF argues, qualified immunity especially threatens constitutional rights when officials enforce rarely-used statues, because “the more obscure the state law, the less likely it is that a prior case was decided on a similar set of facts.”
    • The Law Enforcement Action Partnership — whose members include police, prosecutors, and other law-enforcement officials — stress that the Supreme Court “has consistently held that qualified immunity does not shield obvious violations of bedrock constitutional guarantees.” The brief observes that “the dramatic expansion of criminal codes across the country has made it easier than ever” for law enforcement to pretextually arrest someone as punishment for exercising their First Amendment rights. LEAP is represented by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
    • Young America’s Foundation and the Manhattan Institute highlight that “the First Amendment’s guarantees limit state law, not the other way around.” Their brief also explains how the Fifth Circuit’s failure to recognize decades of Supreme Court precedent protecting “routine news-gathering activities under the First Amendment … erodes essential free-speech and free-press rights.” YAF and the Manhattan Institute are represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom and The Dhillon Law Group.
    • The Institute for Justice urges reversal of the Fifth Circuit’s decision because “it undermines the text and original meaning of Section 1983,” which protects constitutional rights when violated “under color of” state laws and “notwithstanding” state laws that purport to limit those rights. IJ also stresses that the Fifth Circuit’s application of qualified immunity in the context of an obvious constitutional violation “is inconsistent with the prudential rationale underlying qualified immunity: the carefully calibrated balancing of government and individual interests.”  
    • The Constitutional Accountability Center details the history of Section 1983 and cautions that because “qualified immunity is at odds with Section 1983’s text and history, courts should be especially careful to respect the limits on the doctrine.” CAC points out that this is an especially inapt case for qualified immunity because Section 1983 was adopted precisely to combat things like the criminalization of speech by pre-war slave codes and retaliatory prosecutions against critics of slavery.
    • The Cato Institute underlines that in the context of qualified immunity, “clearly established law is an objective inquiry of reasonableness, not a blind reliance on a lack of judicial precedent.” Cato also warns that “freedom of the press cannot meaningfully exist if journalists are not allowed to seek information from government officials.”

    Priscilla and FIRE are exceedingly grateful for the support of this diverse and formidable amicus coalition. With this support, she is hopeful the Supreme Court will hold that journalists — and all Americans — can seek information from government officials without risking arrest. 

    Source link

  • Trump Education Department Delays Return of Laid-Off Workers Over Logistics – The 74

    Trump Education Department Delays Return of Laid-Off Workers Over Logistics – The 74


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

    Parking permits. Desk space. Access cards.

    Ordered to bring back roughly 1,300 laid-off workers, the U.S. Department of Education instead has spent weeks ostensibly working on the logistics. Meanwhile, the Trump administration wants the U.S. Supreme Court to decide they don’t have to restore those jobs after all.

    The legal argument over the job status of Education Department workers is testing the extent to which President Donald Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon can reshape the federal bureaucracy without congressional approval.

    The employees, meanwhile, remain in limbo, getting paid for jobs they aren’t allowed to perform.

    An analysis done by the union representing Education Department employees estimates the government is spending about $7 million a month for workers not to work. That figure does not include supervisors who are not part of the American Federation of Government Employee Local 252.

    “It is terribly inefficient,” said Brittany Coleman, chief steward for AFGE Local 252 and an attorney in the Office for Civil Rights. “The American people are not getting what they need because we can’t do our jobs.”

    McMahon announced the layoffs in March, a week after she was confirmed by the Senate, and described them as a first step toward dismantling the Education Department. A few days later, Trump signed an executive order directing McMahon to do everything in her legal authority to shut down the department.

    The Somerville and Easthampton school districts in Massachusetts, along with the American Federation of Teachers, other education groups, and 21 Democratic attorneys general sued McMahon over the cuts. They argued the layoffs were so extensive that the Education Department would not be able to perform its duties under the law.

    The layoffs hit the Office for Civil Rights, Federal Student Aid, and the Institute of Education Sciences particularly hard. These agencies are responsible for federally mandated work within the Education Department. By law, only Congress can get rid of the Education Department.

    U.S. District Court Judge Myong Joun agreed, issuing a sweeping preliminary injunction in May that ordered the Education Department to bring laid off employees back to work and blocked any further effort to dismantle or substantively restructure the department.

    The Trump administration sought a stay of that order, and the case is on the emergency docket of the Supreme Court, where a decision could come any day.

    In the administration’s request to the Supreme Court, Solicitor General John Sauer argued that the harms the various plaintiffs had described were largely hypothetical, that they had not shown the department wasn’t fulfilling its duties, and that they didn’t have standing to sue because layoffs primarily affect department employees, not states, school districts, and education organizations.

    Sauer further argued that the injunction violates the separation of powers, putting the judicial branch in charge of employment decisions that are the purview of the executive branch.

    “The injunction rests on the untenable assumption that every terminated employee is necessary to perform the Department of Education’s statutory functions,” Sauer wrote in a court filing. “That injunction effectively appoints the district court to a Cabinet role and bars the Executive Branch from terminating anyone.”

    The Supreme Court, with a conservative 6-3 majority, has been friendlier to the administration’s arguments than lower court judges. Already the court has allowed cuts to teacher training grants to go through while a lawsuit works its way through the courts. And it has halted the reinstatement of fired probationary workers.

    The Education Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    Last week, Joun issued a separate order telling the Education Department that it must reinstate employees in the Office for Civil Rights. The Victims Rights Law Center and other groups had described thousands of cases left in limbo, with children suffering severe bullying or unable to safely return to school.

    Meanwhile, the Education Department continues to file weekly updates with Joun about the complexities of reinstating the laid-off employees. In these court filings, Chief of Staff Rachel Oglesby said an “ad hoc committee of senior leadership” is meeting weekly to figure out where employees might park and where they should report to work.

    Since the layoffs, the department has closed regional offices, consolidated offices in three Washington, D.C. buildings into one, reduced its contracts for parking space, and discontinued an interoffice shuttle.

    In the most recent filing, Oglesby said the department is working on a “reintegration plan.”

    Coleman said she finds these updates “laughable.”

    “If you are really willing to do what the court is telling you to do, then your working group would have figured out a way to get us our laptops,” she said.

    This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.


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

    Source link