Tag: services

  • Breaking barriers: advancing ethnic diversity in higher education professional services

    Breaking barriers: advancing ethnic diversity in higher education professional services

    This blog was kindly authored by Dr Louise Oldridge, Senior Lecturer at Nottingham Trent University (with research team Dr Maranda Ridgway, Dr David Dahill, Dr Ricky Gee, Dr Stefanos Nachmias, Dr Loyin Olotu-Umoren, Dr Jessie Pswarayi, Dr Sarah Smith, Natalie Selby-Shaw and Dr Rhianna Garrett).

    Despite decades of progress in widening participation and diversifying student bodies, UK higher education still faces a stark reality: senior professional services roles remain overwhelmingly white.

    Indeed, when the professional body for senior professional services staff (Association of Heads of University Administration – AHUA) embarked on work to ‘shift the dial’ on race, membership had less than 5% global majority colleagues.

    While universities champion equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), and the sector has developed levers such as the Race Equality Charter (REC), the lived experiences of ethnically minoritised staff highlight systemic barriers that hinder career progression and perpetuate inequality.

    A recent research project funded by AHUA and conducted by the Centre for People, Work & Organizational Practice at Nottingham Business School explored these challenges. Drawing on interviews, focus groups, and institutional data, the project studied the career barriers and enablers for ethnically minoritised professionals in senior roles.

    The diversity gap in professional services leadership

    University leadership teams have diversified in some areas, for instance among governors, students, and even vice-chancellors, but senior professional services remain largely homogenous.

    Recruitment practices, opaque progression pathways, and institutional norms continue to privilege whiteness and middle-class values, leaving talented individuals from minoritised backgrounds sidelined.

    With limited institutional data available for the study, it revealed that while representation among lower-grade professional services roles has improved, senior positions tell a different story.

    Unlike academic colleagues, there is a stark shift in career management for professional services staff, with our research finding that many institutions are unequipped to track the career trajectories of professional service staff.

    Lived experiences: authenticity, masking, and emotional labour

    The qualitative insights from interviews and focus groups paint a vivid picture of what it means to navigate professional services as a person of colour. Participants spoke candidly about the emotional labour involved in “code-switching” (altering language, appearance, or behaviour to fit dominant norms) and “masking” aspects of identity to avoid judgment or exclusion.

    One participant reflected: “I felt I had to disappear… to succeed, I needed to be someone else.” Others described being labelled as “diversity hires” or facing regular microaggressions that impacted confidence and wellbeing.

    Intersectionality compounds these challenges. Participant responses indicated that race intersected with gender, class, disability, and caring responsibilities, creating layered barriers that are often invisible to policy-makers. Women of colour, for instance, reported being undermined due to both race and gender, while those with disabilities faced inflexibility and a lack of empathy.

    Performative EDI and the need for structural change

    In a blog on the REC for Advance HE, Patrick Johnson calls for institutions to make an authentic commitment to dismantling racial barriers for staff. Institutions can use data to expose disparities and perceptions of the operating culture and environment.

    As Patrick notes, it is important that challenges are acknowledged openly and specific actions put in place in response.

    That said, participants in this research questioned the depth of their organisation’s commitments. EDI initiatives were described as performative and focused on optics rather than outcomes. As one interviewee put it:

    We talk about EDI when we’re going for awards, but it’s not part of our everyday practice.

    This disconnect between rhetoric and reality highlights a critical gap: policies alone cannot dismantle systemic inequities.

    Ultimately, what is needed is leadership from those in roles which can challenge the structural issue, redefine what it means to be ‘professional’, develop clear career pathways, transparent promotion processes, and accountability mechanisms that move beyond tick-box exercises. REC is a starting point for supporting this process, but cannot be seen either as a panacea or an end in itself.

    Five pathways to change

    The report offers a roadmap for transformation, organised into five thematic areas:

    1. Structural reform and policy change
      Clarify career pathways for professional services staff, audit recruitment practices, embed accountability into EDI policies and ensure progression routes are transparent – such as providing an understanding of ‘typical’ career histories for leadership roles.
    2. Representation and inclusion
      Increase diversity at senior levels through targeted development and sponsorship. Avoid tokenism by ensuring ethnically minoritised staff have meaningful influence, not just visibility. This could include clearer succession planning.
    3. Development, support, and research
      Invest in mentoring, coaching, and executive development programmes tailored to professional services. This reflects both formal support staff networks and more informal collectives, alongside committing to longitudinal research to track progress. For example, creating an informal network of colleagues across the sector.
    4. Cultural change and co-creation
      Move beyond compliance-driven EDI to authentic engagement. Challenge assumptions about professionalism and leadership, and co-create inclusive cultures with staff. This could mean redefining what institutions view as ‘professional(ism)’.
    5. Sector-level collaboration and accountability
      Coordinate efforts across professional bodies, share best practice, and ensure transparent reporting. Diversity must be a collective responsibility, and could include sector-wide knowledge exchange, clear metrics and outcomes.

    From awareness to action

    The report calls for dismantling what research team member Rhianna Garrett describes as ‘the architecture of whiteness’, which underpins institutional norms. This means rethinking recruitment, valuing professional services as integral to university success, and creating spaces where ethnically minoritised staff can thrive without compromising their identity.

    As one focus group participant put it:

    We recognise there is an issue, but I don’t think we really understand what to do about it – and a big part of that is because things are so white.

    For AHUA, and other sector professional service organisations, this report is a call for the sector to deliver systemic, sustained change. The question is not whether higher education can afford to prioritise diversity in professional services leadership; it is whether it can afford not to. It informs our next steps in a Theory of Change workshop to identify meaningful actions moving forward.

    As Dr Andrew Young, Chief Operating Office, The London School of Economics and Political Science, and AHUA project sponsor states:

    The evidence in this report should make all of us in higher education uncomfortable.  Change will only happen when we stop celebrating statements of intent and start measuring outcomes.

    Source link

  • How generative AI could re-shape professional services and graduate careers

    How generative AI could re-shape professional services and graduate careers

    Join HEPI and the University of Southampton for a webinar on Monday 10 November 2025 from 11am to 12pm to mark the launch of a new collection of essays, AI and the Future of Universities. Sign up now to hear our speakers explore the collection’s key themes and the urgent questions surrounding AI’s impact on higher education.

    This blog was kindly authored by Richard Brown, Associate Fellow at the University of London’s School of Advanced Study.

    Universities are on the front line of a new technological revolution. Generative AI (genAI) use (mainly large language mode-based chatbots like ChaptGPT and Claude) is almost universal among students. Plagiarism and accuracy are continuing challenges, and universities are considering how learning and assessment can respond positively to the daunting but uneven capabilities of these new technologies.

    How genAI is transforming professional services

    The world of work that students face after graduation is also being transformed. While it is unclear how much of the current slowdown in graduate recruitment can be attributed to current AI use, or uncertainty about its long-term impacts, it is likely that graduate careers will see great change as the technology develops. Surveys by McKinsey indicate that adoption of AI spread fastest between 2023/24 in media, communications, business, legal and professional services – the sectors with the highest proportions of graduates in their workforce (around 80 per cent in London and 60 per cent in the rest of the UK).

    ‘Human-centric’, a new report from the University of London looks at how AI is being adopted by professional service firms, and at what this might mean for the future shape and delivery of higher education.

    The report identifies how AI is being adopted both through grassroots initiatives and corporate action. In some firms, genAI is still the preserve of ‘secret cyborgs’ –  individual workers using chatbots under the radar. In others, task forces of younger workers have been deployed to find new uses for the tech to tackle chronic workflow problems or develop new services. Lawyers and accountants are codifying expertise into proprietary knowledge bases. These are private chatbots that minimise the risks of falsehood that still plague open systems, and offer potential to extend cheap professional-grade advice to many more people.

    Graduate careers re-thought

    What does this mean for graduate employment and skills? Many of the routine tasks frequently allocated to graduates can be automated through AI. This could be a doubled-edged sword. On the one hand, genAI may open up more varied and engaging ways for graduates to develop their skills, including the applied client-facing and problem-solving capabilities that  underpin professional practice.

    On the other hand, employers may question whether they need to employ as many graduates. Some of our interviewees talked of the potential for the ‘triangle’ structure of mass graduate recruitment being replaced by a ‘diamond-shaped’ refocus on mid-career hires. The obvious problem with this approach – of where mid-career hires will come from if there is no graduate recruitment – means that graduate recruitment is unlikely to dry up in the short term, but graduate careers may look very different as the knowledge economy is transformed.

    The agile university in an age of career turbulence

    This will have an impact on universities as well as employers. AI literacy, and the ability to use AI responsibly and authentically, are likely to become baseline expectations – suggesting that this should be core to university teaching and learning. Intriguingly, this is less about traditional computing skills and more about setting AI in context: research shows that software engineers were less in demand in early 2025 than AI ethicists and compliance specialists.

    Broader ‘soft’ skills (what a previous University of London / Demos report called GRASP skills – general, relational, analytic, social and personal) will remain in demand, particularly as critical judgement, empathy and the ability to work as a team remain human-centric specialities. Employers also said that, while deep domain knowledge was still needed to assess and interrogate AI outputs, they were also looking for employees with a broader understanding of issues such as cybersecurity, climate regulation and ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance), who could work across diverse disciplines and perspectives to create new knowledge and applications.

    The shape of higher education may also need to change. Given the speed of advances in AI, it is likely that most propositions about which skills will be needed in the future may quickly become outdated (including this one). This will call for a more responsive and agile system, which can experiment with new course content and innovative teaching methods, while sustaining the rigour that underpins the value of their degrees and other qualifications.

    As the Lifelong Learning Entitlement is implemented, the relationship between students and universities may also need to become more long-term, rather than an intense three-year affair. Exposure to the world of work will be important too, but this needs to be open to all, not just to those with contacts and social capital.

    Longer term – beyond workplace skills?

    In the longer term, all bets are off, or at least pretty risky. Public concerns (over everything from privacy, to corporate control, to disinformation, to environmental impact) and regulatory pressures may slow the adoption of AI. Or AI may so radically transform our world that workplace skills are no longer such a central concern. Previous predictions of technology unlocking a more leisured world have not been realised, but maybe this time it will be different. If so, universities will not just be preparing students for the workplace, but also helping students to prepare for, shape and flourish in a radically transformed world.

    Source link

  • From talk to action: collaboration and shared services in higher education

    From talk to action: collaboration and shared services in higher education

    This guest blog was kindly authored by Heidi Fraser-Krauss, Chief Executive Officer at Jisc.

    The power of collaboration and shared services is now widely recognised in the higher education sector as an effective way for institutions to continue delivering outstanding student experiences, world-class teaching, and research and innovation, all against a backdrop of financial pressures. Jisc has played a leading role in driving these conversations, in partnership with UUK, KPMG and university leaders. However, it is now time to put our words into action and make collaboration the norm.

    Achieving better outcomes collectively

    Recent sector-wide initiatives, including the Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce commissioned by Universities UK, have explored opportunities for efficiency and innovation through shared services. Jisc contributed to practical strands of this work, focusing on collaboration utilising digital, data and technology. A UK-wide questionnaire inviting insights from the sector on which actions should be taken was distributed. More than 30 ideas were submitted, and three were explored in depth.

    Shared services is the first of these three. The premise is simple: through sharing, collaboration and working together (whether by pooling knowledge, sharing risk or combining scarce skills) universities can achieve better outcomes together than they could alone.

    Tools for collaboration already exist – so let’s put them to work

    The sector already has examples of institutional collaboration – demonstrating the benefits of collective effort. However, not all services lend themselves well to being shared. For example, ambitious but complex projects such as a shared student record system for the sector is not an ideal place to begin.

    We must also be careful not to assume that shared services are automatically more efficient simply by virtue of their being shared. Despite this, there are many that can be. Good examples of collaboration, involving sharing back-office functions (for example a joint out-of-hours IT service, or forming a consortium to strengthen research bids) already exist. In fact, both of these examples were highlighted by the then Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, Peter Kyle during his speech at the recent Universities UK conference.

    One of the key findings of the report, was that, although there are many shared services across the sector already, very few are used by large numbers of institutions. Many have been running for years and could achieve far greater impact if more institutions engaged with them. The lesson is clear: make better use of what already exists. An example of this is UMAL, the non-profit mutual insurer for universities and colleges across the UK.

    Plenty of questions still to be answered

    As collaboration gains momentum, important questions remain. Can processes be standardised? Can AI-enabled tools be developed jointly to avoid duplication, and could collaboration extend to industry and public sector partnerships, such as health? Examples like Cardiff’s Mental Health University Liaison Service and the Greater Manchester Universities Mental Health Service – both university–NHS collaborations –  could be replicated elsewhere. Science Parks across the UK also show how universities and industry can work successfully together.

    These are all important questions, and although we may not yet have all the answers, we shouldn’t let this get in the way of change.

    What should happen now?

    There are a number of practical steps we can take together in the very short term to make shared services a genuine force for positive change across higher education. For example, the creation of a central catalogue of existing shared services would raise awareness and uptake.

    The sector must adopt a ‘shared services first’ mindset. Leaders should consider whether proven, collaborative solutions are already available – and use them. Where duplication exists, regional mergers or the strategic transfer of services into national bodies could strengthen sustainability and reduce wasted effort.

    Government has an important role to play. Adopting the British Universities Finance Directors Group (BUFDG) proposa[CA1] ls for improving VAT treatment of cost-sharing groups could unlock further progress.

    For their part, institutions sharing data on spend and contract reviews would help to provide an evidence base for smarter sector-wide decisions. In some cases, institutions should also consider mergers or broader consolidation of services across the sector, where combining resources offers long-term efficiencies and sustainability.

    Supporting universities to collaborate

    Collaboration isn’t idealism – it’s a rational response to cost pressures, and the means to make it happen is already in our hands. We can adopt a ‘shared services first’ approach – it just needs a firm commitment from institutional leaderships to make it happen.

    At Jisc, our role remains to convene senior stakeholders, define shared negotiation objectives, and support universities to move from strategy to implementation – after all, everyone knows that actions speak louder than words.

    Recommendations

    To support a shift towards collaborative models, here are practical recommendations for institutions, sector networks, shared service operators and government.

    Individual Institutions

    • Adopt a ‘shared services first’ mindset for new requirements
      • Evaluate existing shared services before creating an in-house service or procuring a commercial solution, prioritising long term value over short term cost savings
    • Collaborate with neighbouring institutions to replicate successful models
      • Explore regional opportunities to address shared needs and challenges where shared models have proved successful
    • Reassess internal operations and consider where there are opportunities to share services
      • Evaluate any area that could benefit from a shared service, except in student recruitment

    Sector Networks and Membership Organisations

    (e.g. Universities UK, BUFDG, UCISA, regional consortia)

    • Increase awareness of existing shared services through a central shared service catalogue
      • Create and promote a catalogue of shared services structured for direct contract awards or competitive tendering.
    • Convene groups of institutions, to consider potential joint commitments to subscribe to existing shared services, increasing their scale
      • Use sector networks to bring universities together for collective commitments to shared services, leveraging procurement rules that permit direct contracting with sector-owned organisations (known as the Teckal exemption) where appropriate.

    Shared Service Operators

    (e.g. UMAL, sector-owned IT or procurement services)

    • Shared service operators should meet regularly to increase coordination
      • Establish regular meetings between sector-owned shared services to improve collaboration and avoid duplication.
      • Consider forming a UK Shared Services Council to unify efforts, similar to UK Universities Procurement Consortia (UKUPC).
    • Regional shared services should consider merging, where online working has removed the original advantage of a regional operation
      • Non-profit operators in the same niche should merge to avoid unnecessary competition and improve service delivery. Merging can create more efficient, focused providers.
    • Individual universities operating shared services should consider transferring ownership of their shared service to other organisations, but only when natural opportunities arise
      • Universities should transfer shared services to sector agencies when it aligns naturally, allowing focus on core missions.

    Government

    • Government should implement one of BUFDG’s proposed improvements to VAT Cost Sharing Groups. This would create new opportunities for shared services in areas currently considered unworkable due to an additional 20% VAT charge.

    Source link

  • Philadelphia Kids Face Delays Accessing Early Intervention Services – The 74

    Philadelphia Kids Face Delays Accessing Early Intervention Services – The 74


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

    When Kimberly Halevy’s son Joshua was 3, she started hearing from his preschool that he was acting out. He rarely participated in circle time and had trouble playing with other kids.

    Halevy’s friend had recently opened the preschool, and she liked that someone she knew took care of her son. But eventually, the preschool said it would only allow him back if he had a 1-to-1 aide to address his “disruptive” behavior, Halevy said.

    At first, Halevy thought getting him that aide would be straightforward. But she now describes the effort to get her kid support through Philadelphia’s federally mandated, publicly funded early intervention system as exhausting.

    Though state evaluators found Joshua should receive multiple forms of therapy each week, it took months for any services to begin, Halevy said. Then, once providers contacted her, she said it became a “guessing game” whether her son would receive the home-based occupational therapy and specialized instruction he qualified for every week.

    “I kept being mad at myself for not pushing,” Halevy said. “But now I realize that it’s just the program.”

    Across Philadelphia, young kids like Joshua are waiting months and sometimes years for early intervention services that they are legally entitled to, according to families, therapy providers, and advocates Chalkbeat spoke with.

    Federal law states a child must receive services as soon as possible after an evaluation team completes their Individualized Education Program, or IEP. Pennsylvania has interpreted that to mean 14 days. But one provider said the list she can access of children waiting for speech therapy — one of several early intervention services — is sometimes more than 2,000 families long.

    Early intervention providers are under strain nationwide, with not enough funding or staffing to meet the need. But in Philadelphia — home to 16% of the state’s early intervention population — one player is largely responsible for the system: a 170-year-old nonprofit called Elwyn that the state pays to manage the publicly funded program.

    As Philly’s early intervention system struggles to meet the needs of all kids, some providers and advocates say neither Elwyn nor the state officials who oversee the program are doing enough to ensure kids get services on time.

    In response to Chalkbeat’s questions, Elwyn President and CEO Charles McLister said Elwyn does not comment on specific cases, but the organization works quickly to assess children and provide them with services. “For the vast majority of cases, services are provided within the defined window,” said McLister.

    But McLister acknowledged that there can be delays due to family communication, transportation, scheduling, provider availability, and severe staffing shortages across the sector.

    Erin James, press secretary at the Pennsylvania Department of Education, said in a statement that the department stays in close contact with Elwyn throughout the year “to remind them of their legal obligations.”

    James did not respond to questions about service delays for Philadelphia families. But she said that early intervention programs often lack resources. “Current funding levels for EI [early intervention] services are not sufficient because the population of students who qualify for EI services has been increasing for years,” James said.

    In Philadelphia, the program’s delays are a key reason many of the city’s most vulnerable kids fall behind before they even start kindergarten, advocates say. Data from early intervention program reports the state publishes shows Philly children in early intervention programs lag behind their peers elsewhere in key growth areas, like developing social emotional skills.

    “The whole idea of having to wait more than the required time is really putting kids at a disadvantage,” said Inella Ray, director of parent advocacy and engagement at the advocacy organization Children First. “Because when kids don’t have the support that they need, in today’s current education or environment, they get pushed out.”

    Parents face delays accessing early intervention services

    Early intervention is part of the landmark Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which dictates that all children with disabilities must have access to a free and appropriate public education. Though each state creates and manages its own program, all kids through age 5 who are identified as having a developmental delay or disability are eligible.

    In Pennsylvania, the Department of Education oversees local early intervention programs for preschool-age kids. In almost every county, families get connected with services through an intermediary unit, a kind of regional education service agency.

    But in Philadelphia, things work differently. The state pays Elwyn a combination of state and federal dollars to administer the city’s preschool early intervention program, along with a much smaller program in Chester. Last fiscal year, its contract was worth around $90 million. Elwyn is in charge of assessing children, developing their IEPs, and subcontracting with a network of providers for services they qualify for.

    When Halevy’s kids’ preschool said her son needed an aide, the preschool owner gave Halevy advice: phone Elwyn. So she did, and she was relieved when the organization told her they could fit Joshua in to begin his evaluation later that week.

    That was July 2024. She hoped Joshua would have services in time to be back at preschool by the following September. But soon, Halevy said she began hitting roadblocks.

    In August, she said she didn’t hear much from Elwyn. Like other early intervention programs statewide, Elwyn often takes a two-week service break at the end of summer — one of many scheduled break periods during the year.

    But then when she did hear back that September, she learned Elwyn wouldn’t consider providing a 1-to-1 aide without observing Joshua in his educational environment. But the preschool said he couldn’t return to class unless he had someone there to specifically support him.

    At the end of September, when evaluators wrote Joshua’s initial IEP, they documented that they discussed adding an aide to assist Joshua at preschool. But they wrote that because they could not observe Joshua in his educational environment, they did not have enough information to support that recommendation. “[T]he family is in a difficult position,” the team wrote on the IEP, which Chalkbeat has reviewed.

    Joshua’s IEP states that he should receive occupational therapy and specialized instruction each week. The law requires services to begin within 14 days. But more than a month after, Joshua still wasn’t receiving services, Halevy said.

    At the time, Halevy was stretched thin. She was also working to get services for her 2-year-old daughter, who struggled with speech, through the separate early intervention program that serves children up to age 3 run by the city.

    For Halevy, sorting out her daughter’s services in the birth to 3 program was simple. Service providers quickly began contacting her and therapists started showing up for sessions. But for her son, nothing.

    “One day, I’m like, ‘Oh my gosh, what’s going on with Josh?’ and I start calling every number I had at Elwyn,” said Halevy.

    It wasn’t until two more months later, in November, when he finally began to receive occupational therapy, she said recently after reviewing text messages. In December, she said his special instruction began.

    Early intervention IEPs not always followed

    Elwyn’s Philadelphia program is the largest in the state, serving around 11,000 preschool-age children, according to the most recent data from the 2023-24 school year. The organization first won its contract for early intervention services in Philadelphia in 1998.

    But its outcomes for kids are behind the rest of Pennsylvania.

    The state requires early intervention programs to report data on how kids progress in certain areas, like social emotional learning and acquiring new skills. State program reports show that for the last five years of data, children in Elwyn’s Philadelphia program have been less likely to progress in all three growth categories compared with the state average.

    Margie Wakelin, a senior attorney at the Pennsylvania-based Education Law Center, said her team has assisted more than 80 Philadelphia families in the last year whose kids’ education was disrupted at least in part because they couldn’t access appropriate services from Elwyn. The vast majority of those children, she said, were Black and Brown kids affected by poverty.

    Some families hire attorneys to help them access the services they’re entitled to, or get pro bono representation from organizations like the Education Law Center. Many who win their cases get compensatory education, often in the form of money the family can use to pay for services after the case is over.

    But that doesn’t make up for lost time as children quickly age out of early intervention. Research shows that children’s brains develop more rapidly between birth to 5 than any other time of their life. Many families, Wakelin said, have also had their children suspended from preschool or made to only attend partial days because of their disabilities.

    “It’s such a critical period for kids to have access to high quality education,” said Wakelin. A system that identifies children as needing services but doesn’t follow through, she added, is “really failing our kids.”’

    McLister, Elwyn’s CEO, said the organization has learned that, in some cases, children are suspended from their preschool programs because of learning or behavioral needs. “Elwyn is not part of this decision making and often learns about it after the fact,” he said. He added that the organization is developing tools “that will help us understand the frequency in which this happens” and is creating additional resource materials for families.

    State reports show that Elwyn’s program is successful in some areas, like evaluating 97% of kids within 60 days, the state-required timeline. But that’s just the first step in what advocates say often becomes a month-long process to get services.

    Though the law is clear that kids should receive services within 14 days of their IEP being written, the state does not publish information on how long kids wait for services after an evaluation, or how many service interruptions they’ll experience when providers are no longer available.

    When it comes to Elwyn’s performance, CEO McLister said that students’ growth data does not account for the unique challenges of providing services in Philadelphia. The children Elwyn serves have higher needs than the state average, he said, with higher incidences of developmental delays and a greater prevalence of multiple other challenges, such as limited English proficiency, economic disadvantages, and other social risk factors.

    “For younger children, these factors produce more modest gains,” said McLister.

    McLister emphasized that Elwyn has been successful in evaluating the vast majority of children on-time, and said the most common reason an evaluation falls outside the 60-day window is a parent cancelling an initial evaluation appointment and needing it to be rescheduled.

    He said delays in getting kids services are often the result of scheduling challenges and staffing shortages — 95% of service issues related to speech and language services, he said, are due to a lack of staff. He said other delays occur when families move or change their child’s preschool enrollment, and when providers return kids to the “needs list,” meaning they stop service for that child, which happens “for a variety of reasons.”

    For Joshua, getting a consistent special instructor, a position meant to support Joshua’s learning, has been impossible, Halevy said. Her text history, which she reviewed recently, documents the challenges: The first special instructor who contacted her never visited and stopped responding to texts, she said. The next person was more helpful and saw Joshua a few times, but then abruptly quit. Now, after more than a month of no special instruction, a new provider comes mostly regularly, Halevy said.

    Access to occupational therapy has been slightly better, Halevy said. For the first several months of service, Joshua’s occupational therapist showed up inconsistently and seemed rushed, Halevy said. Now, after working out a schedule, she consistently comes around once a week.

    Early childhood intervention needs more funding, some say

    These and other challenges aren’t unique to Philadelphia families. But preschool operators and early intervention providers say there are particular and longstanding problems in Philly.

    Two years ago, Sharon Neilson, former director of the Woodland Academy Child Development Center in West Philadelphia, was part of a group pushing to bring attention to problems in the city’s early intervention program. Council members held a hearing about parents’ challenges accessing services, and Neilson and other providers met with Elwyn.

    At the time, Neilson said, she was hopeful that things would improve. But since then, she said, “we’ve actually seen it get worse.”

    Neilson, who now works as support staff at Woodland Academy, said of the 22 children enrolled at the preschool, about four currently receive services from Elwyn, and three more are going through the process of getting evaluated.

    The preschool helps families navigate the process, in part because submitting required paperwork and scheduling evaluations can create additional barriers, she said. But even with additional help, in her experience it still usually takes months for kids to be evaluated and services to begin, she said.

    “I think that’s the saddest thing for me,” Neilson said. “The families are very frustrated because they don’t know what to do — they just know that they need help for their child, but it’s just very hard to navigate.”

    Officials say a lack of resources is largely to blame. Over the past decade, the number of preschool-age children in Pennsylvania receiving early intervention services has grown by a third, and funding hasn’t kept up.

    Pennsylvania Department of Education spokesperson Erin James said that is why Gov. Josh Shapiro proposed increasing funding for preschool early intervention by $14.5 million in the state budget. However, months past the budget deadline, lawmakers remain at an impasse over the budget and early education providers are further strained.

    One provider who contracts with Elwyn said concerning inequities exist in Elwyn’s program. (Chalkbeat is not naming the provider due to her fears of retaliation from Elwyn.) It’s an accepted norm, the provider said, that kids in nicer neighborhoods get picked up for service much faster than those in poorer neighborhoods.

    “There’s an access and equity issue across the board,” said the provider. “And that’s exacerbated by the shortage of providers.”

    Asked about those access and equity concerns, McLister said that to address some related challenges, this year Elwyn is implementing more targeted training for staff and plans to develop a family resource center. He said the organization has also employed internal speech language pathologists to assign to high-priority cases.

    When families reach out to Elwyn, McLister said staff provide them with documentation and verbal explanations of how the process works to ensure families understand their rights, next steps, and how to give consent for evaluations.

    The organization also periodically notifies providers of historically underserved ZIP codes to encourage providers to serve kids equitably across the city, and includes provisions in its contracts meant to “promote fairness and accountability.” McLister said Elwyn places subcontractors on corrective action plans if the organization “detects patterns of non-acceptance that disproportionately impacts underserved areas.”

    As for Halevy, she says her family has gotten relatively lucky. They were able to get Joshua started on an evaluation quickly. And she’s been able to get new therapists when others stop showing up.

    But her family’s biggest piece of luck, she said, is that her husband recently got a new job with better health insurance. She plans to use that to get some of the services her kids need. That means she no longer will completely rely on Elwyn.

    She just wishes she could erase the months of waiting and worrying about why Joshua’s services took so long to start.

    “Basically, what happened is we fell through the cracks,” she said.

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


    Did you use this article in your work?

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

    Source link

  • Kirk shooter appeared to fire from roof of university student services building

    Kirk shooter appeared to fire from roof of university student services building

    The shooter who killed Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk Wednesday on the Utah Valley University campus appeared to fire from the roof of a university building that houses administrative offices and student advisement services.  

    The Losee Center for Student Success is a 90,000-square-foot building with a mix of campus offices and student services that underwent a $4.5 million renovation in 2009. The building is fewer than 200 yards from the outdoor amphitheater where Kirk was speaking. A video taken by an attendee captures images of what appears to be the shooter standing on the roof of the building after the shooting and running away. 

    “The rooftop to the Losee building is pretty easy to access,” a CNN reporter said in a video analysis of the shooting. “It’s connected to another building by an elevated walkway, which … is only separated from the roof by a railing.” 

    Because of the distance and accuracy of the shot, it was likely fired from a large-caliber rifle, Jim Cavanaugh, a former officer of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, said on MSNBC show The Beat with Ari Melber. “It does appear to be a large rifle round,” Cavanaugh said. “I would call it a .308 or a .30-06, like a deer rifle. One shot. That’s all.”

    Cavanaugh explained that “Snipers use that attack method for two reasons. One, they can’t get close … and secondly, because you want to get away. That gives you the distance to get away. You can fire the round and then egress from the scene.” 

    “Two hundred yards is not a difficult rifle shot,” Christopher O’Leary, former director of hostage recovery for the federal government, told Melber. “Most people have optics on their weapon. … With a true optic on it, 200 yards is very easy to do.”

    The university, in Orem, Utah, prohibits guns on campus to the extent allowed by state law. Utah’s Concealed Weapons Law allows people with a state concealed carry permit to be on campus with a concealed firearm, according to the campus police website.

    An estimated 3,000 people were attending the Kirk event, the first of a series of campus talks the conservative activist was scheduled to hold around the country. Kirk was shot while answering a question about mass shootings. “Do you know how many mass shootings in America there have been over the last 10 years?” an attendee asked, the CNN video analysis shows. “Counting or not counting gang violence?” Kirk responded before he was hit.   

    Local police and half a dozen campus police officers provided security at the event, but there was no screening, the CNN analysis said.  

    “Let’s be realistic,” O’Leary said on The Beat. “We’re not going to lock down a college campus for every speaker outdoors. Maybe you want to take it indoors. I think that’s all going to be assessed moving forward.”  

    Phil Lyman, a former Utah state legislator who was at the event, said on The Beat that he saw what he believed were “a lot of undercover police officers running around” after the shooting, which surprised him. “I would not have thought that [those were officers].”

    The campus is closed for the week while law enforcement officials conduct their forensic work. 

    Source link

  • Careers services can help students avoid making decisions based on AI fears

    Careers services can help students avoid making decisions based on AI fears

    How students use AI tools to improve their chances of landing a job has been central to the debate around AI and career advice and guidance. But there has been little discussion about AI’s impact on students’ decision making about which jobs and sectors they might enter.

    Jisc has recently published two studies that shine light on this area. Prospects at Jisc’s Early Careers Survey is an annual report that charts the career aspirations and experiences of more than 4,000 students and graduates over the previous 12 months. For the first time, the survey’s dominant theme was the normalisation of the use of AI tools and the influence that discourse around AI is having on career decision making. And the impact of AI on employability was also a major concern of Jisc’s Student Perceptions of AI Report 2025, based on in-depth discussions with over 170 students across FE and HE.

    Nerves jangling

    The rapid advancements in AI raise concerns about its long-term impact, the jobs it might affect, and the skills needed to compete in a jobs market shaped by AI. These uncertainties can leave students and graduates feeling anxious and unsure about their future career prospects.

    Important career decisions are already being made based on perceptions of how AI may change work. The Early Careers Survey found that one in ten students had already changed their career path because of AI.

    Plans were mainly altered because students feared that their chosen career was at risk of automation, anticipating fewer roles in certain areas and some jobs becoming phased out entirely. Areas such as coding, graphic design, legal, data science, film and art were frequently mentioned, with creative jobs seen as more likely to become obsolete.

    However, it is important not to carried away on a wave of pessimism. Respondents were also pivoting to future-proof their careers. Many students see huge potential in AI, opting for careers that make use of the new technology or those that AI has helped create.

    But whether students see AI as an opportunity or a threat, the role of university careers and employability teams is the same in both cases. How do we support students in making informed decisions that are right for them?

    From static to electricity

    In today’s AI-driven landscape, careers services must evolve to meet a new kind of uncertainty. Unlike previous transitions, students now face automation anxiety, career paralysis, and fears of job displacement. This demands a shift away from static, one-size-fits-all advice toward more personalised, future-focused guidance.

    What’s different is the speed and complexity of change. Students are not only reacting to perceived risks but also actively exploring AI-enhanced roles. Careers practitioners should respond by embedding AI literacy, encouraging critical evaluation of AI-generated advice, and collaborating with employers to help students understand the evolving world of work.

    Equity must remain central. Not all students have equal access to digital tools or confidence in using them. Guidance must be inclusive, accessible, and responsive to diverse needs and aspirations.

    Calls to action should involve supporting students in developing adaptability, digital fluency, and human-centred skills like creativity and communication. Promote exploration over avoidance, and values-based decision-making over fear, helping students align career choices with what matters most to them.

    Ultimately, careers professionals are not here to predict the future, but to empower all students and early career professionals to shape it with confidence, curiosity, and resilience.

    On the balance beam

    This isn’t the first time that university employability teams have had to support students through change, anxiety, uncertainty or even decision paralysis when it comes to career planning, but the driver is certainly new. Through this uncertainty and transition, students and graduates need guidance from everyone who supports them, in education and the workplace.

    Collaborating with industry leaders and employers is key to ensuring students understand the AI-enhanced labour market, the way work is changing and that relevant skills are developed. Embedding AI literacy in the curriculum helps students develop familiarity and understand the opportunities as well as limitations. Jisc has launched an AI Literacy Curriculum for Teaching and Learning Staff to support this process.

    And promoting a balanced approach to career research and planning is important. The Early Careers Survey found almost a fifth of respondents are using generative AI tools like ChatGPT and Microsoft Copilot as a source of careers advice, and the majority (84 per cent) found them helpful.

    While careers and employability staff welcome the greater reach and impact AI enables, particularly in challenging times for the HE sector, colleagues at an AGCAS event were clear to emphasise the continued necessity for human connection, describing AI as “augmenting our service, not replacing it.”

    We need to ensure that students understand how to use AI tools effectively, spot when the information provided is outdated or incorrect, and combine them with other resources to ensure they get a balanced and fully rounded picture.

    Face-to-face interaction – with educators, employers and careers professionals – provides context and personalised feedback and discussion. A focus on developing essential human skills such as creativity, critical thinking and communication remains central to learning. After all, AI doesn’t just stand for artificial intelligence. It also means authentic interaction, the foundation upon which the employability experience is built.

    Guiding students through AI-driven change requires balanced, informed career planning. Careers services should embed AI literacy, collaborate with employers, and increase face-to-face support that builds human skills like creativity and communication. Less emphasis should be placed on one-size-fits-all advice and static labour market forecasting. Instead, the focus should be on active, student-centred approaches. Authentic interaction remains key to helping students navigate uncertainty with confidence and clarity.

    Source link

  • Helping professional services get confident with data

    Helping professional services get confident with data

    “I don’t do data.”

    It’s a phrase heard all too often across professional services in UK higher education.

    Despite the sector’s growing reliance on data to inform strategic decisions, evaluate performance, and improve services, a significant skills gap remains—particularly among non-specialist staff.

    Critical skills

    Universities increasingly regard data as a critical asset. But while institutional expectations are rising, many professional services teams feel underprepared to meet what is now expected of them. The ability to interpret, contextualise, and communicate insights from data is now an essential part of most roles. And yet, for many professionals, data remains confusing, intimidating, or simply outside their perceived remit.

    This gap isn’t just about technical skills—it’s about confidence, culture, and collaboration. Professional services staff are often expected to make sense of complex datasets without the training or tools to do so effectively. Everyone is expected to engage with data daily, but few are properly equipped to do so. The result? Missed opportunities, reliance on specialist teams, and a growing divide between “data people” and everyone else.

    That divide threatens more than just productivity. In an era of AI and self-service analytics, the risk is that subject matter expertise gets lost or overridden by automated insights or misunderstood metrics. True value comes not just from accessing data, but from interpreting it through a lens of organisational understanding and professional experience. So how can we bridge the gap between those who do and those who don’t do data?

    The options

    Often the answer seems to be recruiting external data specialists – usually at considerable expense. While this brings in the needed expertise it also creates silos rather than building capability across teams. This approach not only strains budgets—with specialist salaries commanding premium rates in today’s competitive market—but also creates dependency on individuals who may lack contextual understanding of higher education. There is also a problem of longevity. When these specialists eventually leave, they take their knowledge with them, leaving institutions vulnerable.

    By contrast, institutions that invest in developing data confidence across existing staff leverage their team’s deep sector knowledge while creating more sustainable, resilient capabilities. The return on investment becomes clear: upskilling current staff who understand institutional nuances creates more value than repeatedly recruiting external experts who require months to grasp the complexities of university operations.

    Meanwhile, higher education faces an ever-expanding regulatory and statutory data burden. From HESA returns and TEF submissions to access and participation plans and REF preparations, the volume and complexity of mandatory reporting continues to grow. Each new requirement brings not just additional work but increased scrutiny and consequences for inaccuracy or misinterpretation. This regulatory landscape demands that universities distribute data capabilities widely rather than concentrating them in specialist teams who come close to breaking point during reporting seasons.

    When professional services staff across the institution can confidently engage with data, universities can respond more nimbly to regulatory changes, identify compliance risks earlier, and transform what might otherwise be box-ticking exercises into meaningful insights that drive institutional improvement.

    Data confident

    Recognising this challenge, UHR and Strive Higher have developed the Developing Confident Data Partners programme—a practical, supportive course designed specifically for HR and People professionals in higher education. Drawing on insights from UHR’s 6,000+ members, the programme addresses the real barriers to data confidence and equips participants with the skills and language to contribute meaningfully to data-informed conversations.

    By bridging the gap between subject matter expertise and data literacy, this initiative empowers professionals to engage more fully with the data-driven culture of their institutions. As one participant put it:

    The programme boosted my confidence and has taken away some of the mystery that some pure data experts can often create. I know what to do now before I ask for data, and what to say when I do want some.

    In a sector where informed decision-making is critical, the data skills gap in professional services can no longer be ignored. The Confident Data Partners programme is one step toward a more inclusive, capable, and collaborative data culture across UK higher education.

    The journey is just beginning. The opportunities in a data-driven world are endless, but success hinges on individuals understanding how to use data to inform strategy, planning and continuous improvement, and being able to communicate and collaborate with their peers.

    This initiative has been a learning experience for us both. It’s shown how, when data aligns with real-world needs, the results are transformative. Because when data meets purpose – that’s where the magic happens.

    Source link

  • “It stays with us”: Leading change in diversity and inclusion for professional services staff

    “It stays with us”: Leading change in diversity and inclusion for professional services staff

    • Nearly five years after the 2020 Universities UK report on racial harassment, the experiences of careers services staff, who shoulder the heavy lifting of employability and inclusion from Graduate Outcomes to Access and Participation and other core metrics, remain unaddressed. Leena Dattani-Demirci, Head of Student Success & Professional Development at De Montfort University, and Claire Toogood, Research and Strategic Projects Manager at AGCAS, share reflections on recent and ongoing research and resources that can help to inform change, leading to action and impact.

    It is clear that existing inequity can inhibit engagement with higher education careers support, creating a vicious cycle where the students with the greatest need for these services may not take up  valuable opportunities. Given the wider lack of diversity in professional services leadership and staffing, there is also a risk that higher education policy and practice will continue failing to incorporate the lived experience and diverse voices that can help to drive change.

    Leena Dattani-Demirci’s current doctoral studies explore the experiences of ethnically minoritised staff within university career services, an area comparatively underexplored despite extensive research on inequalities experienced by academic staff. Her research aims to address that gap, giving voice to the lived realities of those working to support students’ career aspirations. Claire is the author of What Happens Next?, the latest report in a long-running series from AGCAS that identifies and explores disabled graduates’ employment outcomes.

    Barriers and burnout

    Early findings from Leena’s research highlight persistent challenges faced by ethnically minoritised staff.  Drawing on 37 hours of interviews over eight months, this study explored the experiences of 21 ethnically minoritised career professionals in UK higher education. Participants worked in a wide variety of institutions, and most came from working-class backgrounds, with diverse ethnicities, faiths, and, in some cases, experiences of disability. These research participants reported exhaustion, career bottlenecks, and felt forced to leave their institutions to progress. The emotional labour of supporting minoritised students disproportionately fell on minoritised staff. Many staff felt immense pressure, particularly where the diversity of careers teams did not reflect the diversity of the student body. Career professionals described feelings of guilt for not being able to meet the demand for support from minoritised students.

    Microaggressions remain commonplace: Participants described mocking of accents dismissed as “jokes” and being labelled “too sensitive” when raising concerns. “People say things and don’t think about the impact on those of us from BAME families; it stays with us,” one participant noted. Others described ill-equipped managers, promoted through time served, resulting in poor trust and under-reporting of inappropriate comments.

    Performative inclusion is common: initial support for Black Lives Matter faded, and universities responded swiftly to Ukraine but remained silent on Gaza, revealing that, for many, inclusion feels conditional. One research participant highlighted how inclusion and diversity are part of the conversation around students, but not staff, “We’ve had team days where diversity and recruitment have come up for students, but if the topic moves onto our teams, it’s always shut down. People get defensive.”

    Signs of hope and the need for structural change

    Yet compassionate leaders and allies do exist. “When my manager asked me ‘Are you okay?’ during the summer riots, it meant the world to me,” shared one participant in Leena’s research. There is also excellent work happening across higher education, such as staff/student partnerships at the Open University that integrate the lived experiences of marginalised groups in curriculum design, and collaboration to ensure inclusive language across graduate attributes at Bath Spa University. However, default systems and cultures continue to shape staff progression and team structures. As one of Leena’s research participants explained, ‘I felt excluded because a lot of the candidates who did get the roles fit the mould of what managers had in their heads. I’ll never be that”.

    Addressing oversights and inequity within careers services requires accurate data on staff demographics. Gathering the data on who works inside HE careers services is a crucial first step towards meaningful change. AGCAS recently came together with other higher education sector membership bodies to highlight why professional services staff should be included in the HESA staff record; this would support better understanding at a sector level, and lead the way for institutions.

    Intersectional identity

    The AGCAS “What Happens Next?” report underscores the complexity of student identities and outcomes, revealing how intersectional disadvantage can further compound employment challenges for many individuals. This year, the report included outcome evaluations incorporating ethnic background and gender alongside disability status and type. The report showed that while disabled graduates have lower rates of full-time employment than graduates with no known disability across all ethnic backgrounds, White disabled graduates are more likely to be in full-time employment than disabled graduates from any other ethnic background.

    The need for joined-up approaches to careers and employability delivered by a diverse staff team is clear. We need to recognise that each individual’s identity is complex and multi-faceted, and to model equity and inclusion for students.

    Looking forward

    AGCAS has been working with careers professionals in their Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Working Party, Disability Task Group, and Social Mobility, Widening Participation and Regional Inequality Working Party to develop provision that supports genuine sector-wide action in this space. A recent positive action toolkit for members offers clear insights into relevant legislation across the UK and Ireland, including practical examples of how universities and careers services can apply positive action principles. Upcoming drop-in networking sessions support AGCAS members who identify as having Black, Asian and Ethnic heritage to build contacts and develop their network. AGCAS are keen to encourage members and wider higher education stakeholders to be part of our work towards much-needed change, whilst also championing and supporting individual projects like Leena’s that move the conversation forward.

    Source link

  • Which Universities Spend the Most on Student Services

    Which Universities Spend the Most on Student Services

    More colleges and universities are investing in support service offerings to increase student retention and graduation outcomes, but these interventions and offices come at a cost—one that is often subsidized by students.

    A recently published analysis from Studocu of data from the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System finds that among four-year colleges and universities, most spent nearly $2,933 on academic supports and $4,828 on student services during the 2022–23 academic year. Across all institutions, the average expense per full-time equivalent student was $3,334 for student services and $4,198 for academic supports.

    The group analyzed over 1,000 degree-granting institutions across the U.S. that enroll at least 101 undergraduates. Institutions ranged from large, primarily online institutions to small liberal arts colleges. Community colleges and technical colleges were not included in the study.

    Academic support offerings were categorized as classroom-focused interventions, including tutoring centers, writing labs, academic advising and technology-enhanced learning tools. Student services included mental health counseling, career services, housing assistance and extracurricular programs, according to Studocu.

    The biggest spenders on academic supports were, not surprisingly, wealthy Ivy League institutions. Yale University spent the most on academic supports ($1.8 billion) in the 2023 fiscal year, followed by the University of Pennsylvania ($1.1 billion) and Harvard University ($1 billion), each of which has an undergraduate population of less than 10,000.

    Per student, Yale invested $225,000, Harvard spent $132,000 and Penn spent $105,707 on academic interventions.

    Next in line were two public institutions: the University of Washington at Seattle, which spent $844 million for 30,000 undergraduates, or $28,133 per student, and the University of California, San Diego, which spent $844 million for 32,800 undergraduates, or roughly $25,732 per student.

    Looking at student services, some of the institutions that spent the most were those with substantial online student bodies, including Grand Canyon University ($504 million), Southern New Hampshire University ($435 million), Liberty University ($289 million) and Arizona State University ($243 million).

    But Yale spent the most per capita, investing $53,000 per student in nonacademic programs, followed by the California Institute of Technology and the U.S. Naval Academy, which spent $41,000 and $36,000 per student, respectively.

    The analysis also revealed a positive correlation between dollars spent per student and graduation rates, which researchers said suggest well-funded support services provide meaningful benefits, particularly for students who might otherwise be at risk. However, the data does not capture the privileges of socioeconomic advantage that may supplement on-campus offerings, nor the likelihood of students to graduate regardless of support offerings due to selective admissions processes.

    Students foot the bill: The high level of investment in student supports contrasts with the revenue the average student produces. The average public college received about $8,720 net revenue in tuition and fees per full-time-equivalent student in 2021, and the average private nonprofit received $23,900, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

    A growing number of colleges and universities are embedding student service fees into tuition costs to fund support offerings, particularly health and wellness resources.

    James Madison University, which spends around $1,620 per student on support services and $3,220 on academic resources, charges $5,662 in student fees, among the highest in the nation, according to a Sportico analysis. Nearly half ($2,362) of that fee goes directly to athletics funding, Sportico reported.

    Harvard charges $3,676 annually for student services as part of the cost of attendance, a fraction of its total spend per student ($163,000). The Massachusetts Institute of Technology bills students $420 annually for student clubs and organization funding, as well as fitness activities—about 2 percent of the total dollars invested in student supports. Caltech charges $2,586 in fees, while the Naval Academy does not charge tuition.

    The University of Pennsylvania lists $8,032 in fees in its estimated costs of attendance, but it’s unclear which expenses students are paying for with those fees.

    Yale does not differentiate student fees in tuition prices, grouping lab, library and gymnasium costs into a student’s tuition package. Similarly, UCSD and UW do not have additional fees associated with the cost of attendance.

    We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

    Source link

  • Collaborative IT Services in UK Universities: A Necessary Evolution

    Collaborative IT Services in UK Universities: A Necessary Evolution

    ***Registration is now open for the HEPI Annual Conference on Thursday 12 June, Before, During, After: The route through higher education in changing times, with speakers including Neil O’Brien MP, Jo Saxton, Susan Lapworth and a video address from The Rt Hon Baroness Jacqui Smith. Sign up for your place here.***

    • By Pete Moss, Business Development Director at Ellucian.

    As resourcing pressures grow, the need for efficiencies in the UK higher education sector is well-known. Not only is every university reviewing its costs, systems and processes, but Universities UK too has set up a new Transformation and Efficiency Taskforce under Sir Nigel Carrington to accelerate solutions through collaboration.

    The old adage, ‘don’t reinvent the wheel’ seems apt when thinking about shared services in UK higher education.  In the USA, there is already a range of shared systems in operation in the university sector. While they differ on detail, they share the objective of saving money through strategies like systematisation, which can mean joining forces in a limited way, or full systems’ integration under one oversight. Forbes’ education writer, Derek Newton, explains in a report for education technology giant Ellucian, that ‘the benefits of system coordination or more complete integration are abundant and accessible, which helps explain the national trend in the direction of larger, more cohesive systems in higher education.’

    Newton’s report, based on several weeks of interviews with US university experts and those going through change programmes, explores university systems’ consortia on the East and West coasts and everywhere in between, spanning private, non-profit and public institutions. Collaborations involve any or all of data sharing, regulation and compliance processes, course and resource management, procurement and cybersecurity. Even some competitor institutions have found ways to collaborate. The scale is eye-watering: California’s Community Colleges alone serve 2.1 million students, which is roughly the same size as the UK’s undergraduate population in its entirety.

    Back in the UK, one voice which is critical to any efficiency drive is that of the Academic Registrar (AR).  Most ARs lead teams at the coal face, delivering the best student experience that they can. Their insights are crucial to success both at an institutional and at a national level.

    Ben Rogers, an experienced UK Academic Registrar, reflects below on the concept of collaborative models.

    ‘Higher education in the UK has been undergoing significant transformation. New initiatives, such as Degree Apprenticeships and Micro-credentials, have begun to reshape how institutions deliver education, particularly in terms of the skills and flexibility that they offer to more diverse and dynamic student body students as well as to employers.

    Degree Apprenticeships combine academic study with workplace learning and require universities to collaborate closely with industry partners. Micro-credentials, on the other hand, offer short, targeted learning opportunities to individuals who want to upskill or reskill without committing to a full degree. Both models demand flexibility, responsiveness and innovation in educational delivery, all of which can be supported by a strong, unified IT infrastructure.

    However, the current state of IT services in many UK universities is often bespoke and highly esoteric. Many institutions have their own systems which can lead to inefficiencies and inconsistent user experiences. The lack of standardisation often creates additional administrative burdens and can hinder new initiatives like the deployment of AI within their infrastructure.

    This is where collaborative IT services can play a pivotal role. The concept of collaborative IT services refers to the practice of consolidating technology infrastructure, applications and support across multiple institutions.

    The potential benefits of collaborative IT services for universities are significant. Firstly, collaborative IT services can provide a streamlined, consistent experience for students and staff. A centralised IT platform could allow students enrolled in Degree Apprenticeships to access both their academic materials and workplace-related resources through a single portal. Similarly, Micro-credential learners could benefit from a unified system that offers easy access to course content, assessment tools, and progress tracking, regardless of which institution or provider is delivering the learning.

    Collaborative IT services can also enhance the flexibility and scalability of universities’ offerings. The rapidly changing nature of the job market, particularly in sectors such as technology, healthcare, and engineering, demands that universities are agile and can, for example, rapidly design and adopt new programmes. These systems can also help universities maximise their resources. By pooling their technology investments, universities can take advantage of economies of scale, leading to cost savings that can be reinvested. This is particularly important at a time of tightening budgets and has happened already in other parts of the world such as in the conglomerate universities in North America and Sweden.

    However, the transition to new ways of working is not without its challenges. For many universities, particularly those with long-established IT systems, the process of moving to a shared infrastructure can feel like a monumental undertaking. But the challenges, whether at a technical, policy or behavioural level, can be overcome by a sensible change programme.

    There are several steps that universities can take to ensure a successful transition. The first is to build strong relationships with the educational technology providers (especially providers with expertise in this area) to understand what is possible. The second is to build a strong case for change. Institutions must recognise that, to stay competitive and relevant in the face of new educational initiatives, they must embrace collaboration and innovation. Collaborative IT services offer the opportunity to enhance the student experience, streamline processes, save institutional money, and improve educational delivery. There is a strong rationale here to think about a future roadmap which brings all institutions up to speed over time.

    The adoption of collaborative IT services in UK universities is a critical step towards realising the full potential of new educational initiatives. In the long run, collaborative IT services will not only improve the delivery of education but also contribute to the development of a more agile, adaptable, and future-ready higher education sector in the UK.’

    While the US and UK higher education systems differ as outlined in HEPI’s report on the subject, they can still learn from one another when it comes to collaborative systematisation. Ultimately, they share the need to be efficient, agile, student and researcher-focused and ultimately the best that they can be.

    Lucy Haire, Director of Partnerships at HEPI, also contributed to this piece.

    Source link