Tag: Skills

  • Podcast: Reform UK, local skills, students at work

    Podcast: Reform UK, local skills, students at work

    This week on the podcast we examine what the rise of Reform UK – and new insight into its prospective voters – might mean for universities, international education, and the wider public legitimacy of higher education.

    Plus we discuss Skills England’s new guidance on local skills improvement plans – and the move to place higher education, up to postgraduate level, at the heart of local skills ecosystems – and a new study of student working lives that reveals how paid employment alongside full-time study is reshaping participation, wellbeing, and outcomes.

    With Sam Roseveare, Director of Regional and National Policy at University of Warwick, Alex Favier, Director at Favier Ltd, Jen Summerton, Operations Director at Wonkhe and presented by Jim Dickinson, Associate Editor at Wonkhe.

    Labour takes steps to bring higher education and local skills closer together

    Long hours and poor working conditions hit students’ outcomes hard

    The surprising pragmatism of Reform UK voters towards international education

    Higher education’s civic role has never been more important to get right

    You can subscribe to the podcast on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, Spotify, Acast, Amazon Music, Deezer, RadioPublic, Podchaser, Castbox, Player FM, Stitcher, TuneIn, Luminary or via your favourite app with the RSS feed.

    Source link

  • Three hot takes you may have missed from the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper.

    Three hot takes you may have missed from the Post-16 Education and Skills White Paper.

    This blog was kindly authored by Rose Stephenson, Director of Policy and Strategy at HEPI.

    It is the ninth blog in HEPI’s series responding to the post-16 education and skills white paper. You can find the others in the series here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here.

    There have been oodles of column inches already published about the Post-16 White Paper, and many have rightly focused on the headlines: increased tuition fees, a return of targeted maintenance grants funded by an international students levy and a move towards more specialist institutions.

    In this blog, I want to dive beyond these headlines, as the paper contains a number of further bold policy proposals, some of which could be transformational for the sector.

    Break points

    The White Paper places a strong focus on flexible learning, including a greater number of Level 4 and 5 qualifications. There is a specific target of at least 10% of young people going into Level 4 or 5 study, including apprenticeships, by 2040. Clearly, the Government wants to see more movement in this direction from the sector, adding:

    We need to build clear and well-understood pathways at these levels [4 and 5], underpinned by qualifications that are easier to study close to home, which are both modular and flexible.

    In terms of higher education providers, the Government sets out:

    We will expect providers to offer more flexible, modular provision and strengthen progression routes from further education into higher education, supported by transferable credits. We will consult on making student support for level 6 degrees conditional on the inclusion of break points in degree programmes. This marks a significant shift towards a more inclusive and adaptable model of learning, empowering individuals to tailor their educational journey.

    There is little detail, but it reads to me that the Government will consult on a proposal that students will only be able to access student loan funding for institutions that offer ‘break points’ at Level 4 and 5 of a full three-year degree.

    This was also a recommendation from the Augar report, which outlined:

    … providers with degree-awarding powers will be required to offer them [level 4 and 5 qualifications] as ‘exit’ qualifications if learners choose to leave a course early.

    In my experience, most institutions now do this. If a student wants or needs to finish their studies at the end of their first year, for example, (providing they have passed the required modules), the institution would offer to award them with the Level 4 qualification that recognises their learning to date – most likely a certificate of higher education. However, ‘CertHEs’ are only routinely awarded ‘mid-degree’ if a student withdraws, and many students don’t know that there is an option to take a qualification at the end of their first year. One might wonder if providers could maintain this ‘consolation prize’ status quo. However, the paper goes further, stating:

    The introduction of break points will ensure that learners are acquiring vital, usable skills in every year of higher education. It will give them the option to break down their learning, achieving a qualification at level 4 after the first year and level 5 after their second year of studies, while also ensuring institutions are incentivised to support those who wish to continue their studies. This will enable young people to ‘stay local and go further’ by connecting local provision at level 4 and 5 with internationally recognised degree-level providers, unlocking opportunity and ambition across every region.

    I am reading between the lines here, but it looks as though providers may be expected to award students at the end of each year of learning, increasing awareness of stackable, flexible learning, and potentially a knock-on increase in student mobility between institutions. As with much of this White Paper, we await the details.

    Accommodation

    The white paper outlines:

    We will work with the sector and others so that the supply of student accommodation meets demand, including increasing the supply of affordable accommodation where that is needed. We will work with the sector, drafting a statement of expectations on accommodation which will call upon providers to work strategically with their local authorities to ensure there is adequate accommodation for the individuals they recruit.

    Firstly, this statement is a little ironic given that the Renters Reform Act that has just passed through parliament is likely to reduce small (generally one to two bedroom) off-street student housing provision – as outlined by Martin Blakey in his blog.

    This feels woolly to me. What levers does the Government have to pull to increase the supply of affordable accommodation for students? If it does have any, why have these not been pulled already? The main driver of expensive student accommodation is that there are not enough houses (for the general population as well as students), allowing rents to be driven ever higher. Providers working strategically with local authorities won’t deliver more housing stock. (Unless the magic house bush grows alongside the magic money tree?)

    We’ve seen a ‘Statement of Expectations’ previously, delivered by the OfS in relation to sexual harassment prevention and response on campus. This was an evaluated stepping stone on the way to regulation. Could there be an increased expectation on institutions to provide affordable accommodation as part of future regulation? A sensible ideology, perhaps. After all, we know students want and need cheap places to live. But given the financial position of many institutions, the resulting pause in capital building projects, the increase in commuter students and the impending decline in 18-year-old population numbers, I can’t see many subsidised student flats being built anytime soon.

    Apprenticeship ‘units’

    We have known since before the 2024 General Election that Labour wanted to expand the Apprenticeship Levy to become the Growth and Skills Levy. We see some more detail about this in the paper:

    We want employers to be able to use the levy on short, flexible training courses.

    Currently, apprenticeships are funded by the apprenticeship levy. Businesses with a pay bill of over £3 million pay 0.5% of this into the levy ‘pot’. Businesses can then use the levy fund to cover the cost of training apprenticeships. Since the introduction of the levy, the number of apprenticeship starts has fallen, and the age profile of apprenticeships has changed. Since 2015, proportionately more apprenticeships have been started by those aged 25 or over.

    Source: Department for Education, Apprenticeships and traineeships data

    So – the apprenticeship levy was, unintentionally, a good policy for lifelong learning; businesses wanted to reinvest their levy costs into their business and found that an effective way to do this was to upskill colleagues already employed in their organisation, often on higher or degree apprenticeships. The flip side of this meant that the intended outcomes of the policy, supporting school and college-leavers into apprenticeships, were stymied.

    To tackle this, most Level 7 Apprenticeships were defunded, with the aim of pushing funding back towards younger learners and lower-level apprenticeships. So the move to ‘apprenticeship units’ feels undermining of this aim. Again, this is likely to be great for lifelong learning. Employers will be able to upskill their workforce, initially in ‘priority areas’ such as artificial intelligence, digital and engineering.

    There is a limited pot of growth and skills levy funding, which has been fully or overspent for the last two academic years. So if the Government wants to increase apprenticeships for younger learners, it will need to expand this pot, and potentially ring-fence some of this. The potential for a bigger pot is hinted at:

    We will work with businesses and employers over the coming months to ensure that the growth in skills levy author is developed to help meet their needs and incentivise further employer investment in training.

    However, ring-fencing is not mentioned. The Government will need to put some guardrails in place here if they want to meet their target of two-thirds of young people going to university, further education or a ‘gold standard apprenticeship’ by the age of 25.  

    Conclusion

    So, while some of these statements are bold, remember that White Papers set out proposals for future legislation; there is a long way to go before legislation is in place. Further, there are several places in the white paper where the Government doesn’t specifically propose legislation; instead, there’s a sense of just asking the sector nicely. This is all well and good, but in times of severe financial constraint, asking institutions nicely to take steps that will cost them money is unlikely to yield results.

    Source link

  • Labour takes steps to bring higher education and local skills closer together

    Labour takes steps to bring higher education and local skills closer together

    The post-16 white paper promised to strengthen statutory guidance on local skills improvement plans (LSIPs), including “clearer expectations on higher education providers to engage” and a move to make the plans cover skills all the way up to level 8.

    This greater roles for universities in LSIPs was gestured at in Skills England’s ministerial guidance, and even announced by Labour in opposition.

    Now, the revised guidance has been published – and the push for higher education providers to play a more central role has indeed materialised.

    This is a local shop

    LSIPs were introduced in the Skills and Post-16 Education Act under the last government as employer-owned priorities and actions around skills needs and the provision of technical education in a designated local area of England. Some 38 different plans were approved by the Secretary of State in summer 2023, with annual progress reports following – you can find them all on this page if you don’t mind navigating through some confusingly designed websites.

    That legislation also introduced mechanisms to assess how well education providers were contributing to the plans – for example, accountability agreements for further education colleges. For higher education institutions, the only mention of accountability in the old guidance was an enjoinder to make a note of activity related to LSIP priorities in strategic plans. The previous government framing around LSIPs was notably quiet on the role of higher education, as we’ve noted before – which is not to say that many HE institutions didn’t get involved, to greater or lesser extents (the progress reports linked above demonstrate this, though in a non-systematic way).

    LSIPs cover a three-year period, so a new round in summer 2026 is Labour’s big chance to reshape them in its preferred fashion. Today’s guidance is to be used for an LSIP draft submitted by the end of March, and – pending government approval – the new plans will be published in or around June next year.

    The areas covered by LSIPs, and the corresponding employer representative bodies (ERBs), have also been shifting – today we get the latest areas confirmed, now sensibly contiguous with local authority areas. An additional wrinkle that Labour announced in last year’s devolution white paper is for so-called strategic authorities (“mayoral and non-mayoral combined authorities, combined county authorities, and the Greater London Authority”) to take joint ownership of LSIPs, along with ERBs. Eventually everywhere will be in a strategic authority – one day – but today’s guidance is in many places split depending on whether the LSIP is or is not in a more devolved part of England.

    Best laid plans

    LSIPs are a complicated undertaking at the best of times – as the government puts it, they “unite employers, strategic authorities, higher education, further education and independent training providers and wider stakeholders in solving skills challenges together.” Their effectiveness in really driving change remains unproven but – in theory – they respond to calls for a skills system that is planned at a local rather than central government level (or one that is not planned at all).

    The new guidance confirms just quite how complex an endeavour putting a plan together has become. New LSIPs will need to join up with the industrial strategy and its sector plans, “as far as they relate to industries within the local area.” This will also create synergies (or cross-purposes) with the new local growth plans for mayoral authorities announced at the spending review, which focus on economic development, and the Local Get Britain Working Plans (GBWPs) which are supposed to be looking at “broader causes of economic inactivity.”

    The guidance references a need for a read-across to the clean energy jobs plan (the LSIPs legislation placed a requirement on the plans to consider the environment), but this presumably will equally apply all the other forthcoming workforce strategies – now renamed as jobs plans, keep up – that different sectors are being obliged to come up with for purposes of linking migration and skills.

    And in perhaps the most notable shift of all, the new Labour version of the LSIP is instructed to pay heed to the post-16 white paper, and specifically the new prime ministerial targets for participation in higher-level learning. This is even presented as the first bullet point in the list of what the Secretary of State will take into account in the approval process. Reading between the lines, it looks like the government will be wanting plans which are relatively bullish on the growth of provision, including – but not only – at levels 4 and 5.

    Skills England is tasked with monitoring and oversight, as well as providing copious data to inform the plans’ development.

    Get HE in

    As set out in the new guidance at least, each LSIP will function as a little microcosm of the more coherent and cooperative education and skills landscape that Labour is swinging for in its white paper vision. Whether the plans can really drive these reforms, or simply reflect their framing, is another question – but there’s similar language about asking both further and higher education providers to lean in and

    work together in support of the ambitions set out in their respective LSIP, creating a more coherent post-16 education system with better pathways and opportunities to progress from entry up to higher level skills, enabled by the Lifelong Learning Entitlement.

    As mentioned, LSIPs will now be required to run the full gamut of technical education from entry level up to level 8, having previously been limited to level 6 provision as a cut-off. Asking employers and local areas to think about postgraduate-level skills needs is a bit of a watershed moment, even if the government itself seems to have only limited appetite for much policy change, and it will be fascinating to see what comes of it.

    Perhaps it’s the paucity of much proper government support for the higher education sector in recent years which leads me to celebrate this, but the language in the guidance around higher education’s fit within local systems feels spot on, in terms of how the sector would like itself to be understood:

    Higher education providers (HEPs) are focal points for higher level technical skills, research and innovation. The differences in mission, specialisms and strategic objectives between different types of institutions mean that HEPs can add unique value to local skill systems in a variety of ways, including through industry partnerships, research-led innovation, and national and international development initiatives; as well as feeding in higher education specific intelligence, such as graduate outcomes or skills pipeline data, to complement and add to further education and employer data.

    What getting stuck in looks like

    Both HE and FE providers will be expected to play a role in LSIP governance. Core elements of the new plans will need to include details of how both types of providers have been engaged in shaping the priorities and actions, as well as identifying challenges, and set out how they will support implementation and review progress.

    The potential actions included within LSIPs are varied, but it’s anticipated that they will speak to both improving the local skills “offer” – including changes that higher and further education providers can make to better align provision with the skills needs of the area and to simplify access – and to raise awareness of existing provision, helping both employers and learners to better understand what’s available.

    On the latter, there’s a nice moment where the guidance makes a genuinely sensible suggestion:

    Where engagement between higher education providers and LSIPs has not previously taken place, ERBs (and Strategic Authorities) may find engaging with the heads of careers and employability (who tend to work on skills development and measuring skills impact) a useful starting point.

    Higher education institutions will be “expected” (more on that later) to help ERBs and local government structures help map higher technical skills needs, share information about what they currently offer, and reflect on how their provision can be more responsive. And help with evaluation, and use their subject expertise and industry links to help develop the technical skills of staff elsewhere. And employ their national and international reach to gather best practice. It’s almost as if universities are teeming hives of resource and capable people, rather than ivory towers intent on remaining aloof from their local areas.

    Plus there’s an expectation for collaboration with further education and with other higher education providers to, “where appropriate”,

    create a more strategically planned response to skills needs, leading to improved local and regional coverage and coordination.

    It all sounds very nice if it works – and it all helps to flesh out the how of the white paper’s grand but largely un-operationalised ideas.

    Who’s accountable then?

    In its promises to give universities a “seat at the table” in LSIPs, it sounded like there was the possibility of Labour introducing a degree of accountability for higher education institutions, in the same way that applies to further education colleges (both through accountability agreements with DfE, and in a growing emphasis on local skills in Ofsted inspections). Research from the Association of Colleges has previously highlighted universities’ lack of formal accountability within the LSIP system as a mild bone of contention among stakeholders.

    This hasn’t happened – as far as accountability applies to higher education institutions’ role in the plans, it will remain limited to an expectation that activity is recorded in strategic or business plans, as was previously the case. There is now also encouragement for HEIs to “publicly communicate their role in the LSIP in other ways.” What we do get much more of is an emphasis on those responsible for the plans to seek out and involve the higher education sector.

    We therefore run up against the same issues that dog Labour’s HE agenda elsewhere – there might be an attractive vision of collaboration and coherence, which all things being equal the sector would be well-disposed towards, but at a time of maximum turmoil and with incentives pointing in other directions, can it really gel? Otherwise put: is dedicating enormous resource, goodwill and strategic direction to local needs a prudent choice for institutions battling to survive, or would they be better off focusing on recruiting every single last international student they can get their hands on for the rest of the Parliament? To which we might also add that the retrenchment in higher education civic work that seems to be taking place in some areas has likely already damaged some of the required structures and led to the loss of needed expertise.

    It’s a similar story elsewhere in the system: local government structures have never been more stretched, devolution-related reforms are still in their infancy, and while employer groupings may be well-placed to say what skills they would like more of, are they really effective stewards of fiendishly complicated local projects involving multiple actors and spotty data?

    A set of 39 well thought through and carefully monitored LSIPs at the heart of a responsive ecosystem of employers, HE and FE, and local government – each with one eye on the industrial strategy, and another on an area’s own specific character – would do wonders for Labour’s education and skills agenda. But the conditions need to be in place for it to emerge, and right now it feels like quite the reach.

    Source link

  • Tech Transformation: Why skills matter

    Tech Transformation: Why skills matter

    I’ve just returned from a school evaluation visit.  One of the things I most enjoy about these visits is having time with schools to discuss their programme development plans.  In the case of my recent visit, the plan was about the ATL skills.

    Many schools recognise that learning skills is essential – but the question remains WHAT skills – in a recent article I read that 35% of current key skills are projected to change.  This implies to me that the most important skills are those that transfer to what is needed outside of school – in life and work.

    The Future of Jobs Report 2025 considers skills that will be needed by 2030 given projected changes in global employment, rapid technological advances, and economic instability.  The forecast is that 170 million new jobs will be created, but 92 million will disappear – as a result almost 60% of workers will require reskilling over the next 5 years – and this of course has a huge impact on what schools need to teach.

    Jobs that require routine skills are declining, whereas jobs that involve digital, analytical and design thinking skills are on the increase.  A lot of this is being driven by technology such as automation and AI.  Another area of rapid expansion is the “green economy” with a focus on sustainability.  These jobs are linked to environmental science, clean energy and sustainable design, requiring skills of systems thinking and ethical reasoning.  And in this world of shifting economics and geopolitics, collaboration, strategic thinking and resilience are all called for.

    There are demographic shifts driving these changes too – as the world’s population is aging there are more demands for healthcare and caregiving – these require more interpersonal skills such as empathy.  

    In IB schools we have long recognised that it is not enough to master content – skills need to be explicitly taught and practiced, and woven into learning experiences.  Pedagogical approaches such as project-based learning and teaching through transdisciplinary and interdisciplinary units will help students develop transferable skills.  And perhaps most important of all, teachers also need to engage in continuous professional learning to keep pace with all these changes.

    Image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

    Source link

  • How CTE inspires long and fulfilling careers

    How CTE inspires long and fulfilling careers

    This post originally published on iCEV’s blog, and is republished here with permission.

    A career-centered education built on real experience

    One of the most transformative aspects of Career and Technical Education is how it connects learning to real life. When students understand that what they’re learning is preparing them for long and fulfilling careers, they engage more deeply. They build confidence, competence, and the practical skills employers seek in today’s competitive economy.

    I’ve seen that transformation firsthand, both as a teacher and someone who spent two decades outside the classroom as a financial analyst working with entrepreneurs. I began teaching Agricultural Science in 1987, but stepped away for 20 years to gain real-world experience in banking and finance. When I returned to teaching, I brought those experiences with me, and they changed the way I taught.

    Financial literacy in my Ag classes was not just another chapter in the curriculum–it became a bridge between the classroom and the real world. Students were not just completing assignments; they were developing skills that would serve them for life. And they were thriving. At Rio Rico High School in Arizona, we embed financial education directly into our Ag III and Ag IV courses. Students not only gain technical knowledge but also earn the Arizona Department of Education’s Personal Finance Diploma seal. I set a clear goal: students must complete their certifications by March of their senior year. Last year, 22 students achieved a 100% pass rate.

    Those aren’t just numbers. They’re students walking into the world with credentials, confidence, and direction. That’s the kind of outcome only CTE can deliver at scale.

    This is where curriculum systems designed around authentic, career-focused content make all the difference. With the right structure and tools, educators can consistently deliver high-impact instruction that leads to meaningful, measurable outcomes.

    CTE tools that work

    Like many teachers, I had to adapt quickly when the COVID-19 pandemic hit. I transitioned to remote instruction with document cameras, media screens, and Google Classroom. That’s when I found iCEV. I started with a 30-day free trial, and thanks to the support of their team, I was up and running fast. 

    iCEV became the adjustable wrench in my toolbox: versatile, reliable, and used every single day. It gave me structure without sacrificing flexibility. Students could access content independently, track their progress, and clearly see how their learning connected to real-world careers.

    But the most powerful lesson I have learned in CTE has nothing to do with tech or platforms. It is about trust. My advice to any educator getting started with CTE? Don’t start small. Set the bar high. Trust your students. They will rise. And when they do, you’ll see how capable they truly are.

    From classroom to career: The CTE trajectory

    CTE offers something few other educational pathways can match: a direct, skills-based progression from classroom learning to career readiness. The bridge is built through internships, industry partnerships, and work-based learning: components that do more than check a box. They shape students into adaptable, resilient professionals.

    In my program, students leave with more than knowledge. They leave with confidence, credentials, and a clear vision for their future. That’s what makes CTE different. We’re not preparing students for the next test. We’re preparing them for the next chapter of their lives.

    These opportunities give students a competitive edge. They introduce them to workplace dynamics, reinforce classroom instruction, and open doors to mentorship and advancement. They make learning feel relevant and empowering.

    As explored in the broader discussion on why the world needs CTE, the long-term impact of CTE extends far beyond individual outcomes. It supports economic mobility, fills critical workforce gaps, and ensures that learners are equipped not only for their first job, but for the evolution of work across their lifetimes.

    CTE educators as champions of opportunity

    Behind every successful student story is an educator or counselor who believed in their potential and provided the right support at the right time. As CTE educators, we’re not just instructors; we are workforce architects, building pipelines from education to employment with skill and heart.

    We guide students through certifications, licenses, career clusters, and postsecondary options. We introduce students to nontraditional career opportunities that might otherwise go unnoticed, and we ensure each learner is on a path that fits their strengths and aspirations.

    To sustain this level of mentorship and innovation, educators need access to tools that align with both classroom needs and evolving industry trends. High-quality guides provide frameworks for instruction, career planning, and student engagement, allowing us to focus on what matters most: helping every student achieve their full potential.

    Local roots, national impact

    When we talk about long and fulfilling careers, we’re also talking about the bigger picture:  stronger local economies, thriving communities, and a workforce that’s built to last.

    CTE plays a vital role at every level. It prepares students for in-demand careers that support their families, power small businesses, and fill national workforce gaps. States that invest in high-quality CTE programs consistently see the return: lower dropout rates, higher postsecondary enrollment, and greater job placement success.

    But the impact goes beyond metrics. When one student earns a certification, that success ripples outward—it lifts families, grows businesses, and builds stronger communities.

    CTE isn’t just about preparing students for jobs. It’s about giving them purpose. And when we invest in that purpose, we invest in long-term progress.

    Empowering the next generation with the right tools

    Access matters. The best ideas and strategies won’t create impact unless they are available, affordable, and actionable for the educators who need them. That’s why it’s essential for schools to explore resources that can strengthen their existing programs and help them grow.

    A free trial offers schools a way to explore these solutions without risk—experiencing firsthand how career-centered education can fit into their unique context. For those seeking deeper insights, a live demo can walk teams through the full potential of a platform built to support student success from day one.

    When programs are equipped with the right tools, they can exceed minimum standards. They can transform the educational experience into a launchpad for lifelong achievement.

    CTE is more than a pathway. It is a movement driven by student passion, educator commitment, and a collective belief in the value of hard work and practical knowledge. Every certification earned, every skill mastered, and every student empowered brings us closer to a future built on long and fulfilling careers for everyone.

    For more news on career readiness, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • UC San Diego Sees Students’ Math Skills Plummet

    UC San Diego Sees Students’ Math Skills Plummet

    Other UCs are tracking similar trends, but UC San Diego’s problem is “significantly worse,” the report states.

    Laser1987/iStock/Getty Images

    The number of first-year students at the University of California, San Diego, whose math skills fall below a middle school level has increased nearly 30-fold over the past five years, according to a new report from the university’s Senate–Administration Working Group on Admissions. In the 2025 fall cohort, one in eight students placed into math below a middle school level, despite having a solid math GPA.

    The number of first-year students in remedial math courses at the university surged to 390 in fall 2022, up from 32 students in fall 2020. The remedial math course was designed in 2016 and only addressed missing high school math knowledge, but instructors quickly realized that many of their students had knowledge gaps that went back to middle or elementary school, the report states. For fall 2024, UC San Diego revamped its remedial math course to address middle school math gaps and introduced an additional remedial course to cover high school math. In fall 2025, 921 students enrolled in one of these two courses—11.8 percent of the incoming class.

    “This deterioration coincided with the COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on education, the elimination of standardized testing, grade inflation, and the expansion of admissions from under-resourced high schools,” the report states. “The combination of these factors has produced an incoming class increasingly unprepared for the quantitative and analytical rigor expected at UC San Diego.”

    Within the UC system, the San Diego campus isn’t alone, but its problem is “significantly worse,” the report states. This is partly because the university has, since 2022, admitted and enrolled more students from low-income schools that saw greater COVID-era learning loss than other UC campuses. Many other UC campuses are seeing similar, though smaller, declines in student preparation. About half of UC campus math chairs responded to a survey saying that the “number of first-year students that are unable to start in college-level precalculus” increased twofold between fall 2020 and fall 2025, and the other half said the number increased threefold. 

    High school grade inflation is not helping the university evaluate students’ math skills, the report states. In 2024, the average high school math GPA for students in Math 2, the middle school–level remedial math course, was 3.65—an A-minus.

    “At the same time our admit pool is slipping in math preparation, we see a slight improvement in their math grades from high school,” the report states. “The elimination of standardized testing together with COVID resulted in a mismatch between students’ course level/grades and their actual levels of preparation, with far-reaching implications for determining math readiness and course placement.”

    The working group put forward a number of recommendations for addressing these shortcomings, including using a “math index” based on historical placement data and transcript-based variables to “predict students’ likelihood of placement into remedial math.” The group also recommended establishing feedback mechanisms with high schools and requiring math placement testing by June 1 for incoming students, among other things.

    Source link

  • Preparing Students for Economic Transformation: Why Executive Function Skills Matter More Than Ever

    Preparing Students for Economic Transformation: Why Executive Function Skills Matter More Than Ever

    As we witness a fundamental shift in the American economy, the question facing parents and educators is no longer simply “Should my child go to college?” but rather “How do we prepare young people to thrive in a rapidly transforming workforce?” The answer lies in early intervention – building executive functioning skills, identifying areas of strength, and cultivating the confidence and competencies that will serve students throughout their lives, regardless of the path they choose. 

    A Manufacturing Renaissance and What It Means for Our Students

    Economist Nancy Lazar recently highlighted a transformation that’s been quietly unfolding for over a decade. As she explained, “This is transformational. It has actually been unfolding for about 15 years. It started last cycle, when capital spending started to come back to the United States… we started to get goods-producing jobs increased. 2010 through 2019.”

    This shift represents more than just economics – it’s a fundamental reimagining of what career success looks like. Lazar emphasized the multiplier effect of manufacturing jobs: “When you create factories, you need a support system around it. Other smaller factories, distribution centers, and then other services eventually, eventually unfold.”

    For our students, this means opportunity. But only if we prepare them properly.

    The Skills Gap Isn’t Insurmountable – It’s a Training Challenge

    One of the most encouraging aspects of Lazar’s analysis is her pragmatic view of the “skills gap.” When asked whether skills mismatches would create friction in this economic transformation, her response was refreshingly direct:

    “I visited a prison about 6 years ago, where they were training inmates as they got parole in skills. And they would train them, and they’d go out […] and they would get a job. So you can train people to work in factories. I grew up in a factory town. I saw it myself, and it’s training.”

    This is where executive functioning skills become critical. The ability to plan, organize, manage time, regulate emotions, and adapt to new situations – these are the foundations that make any training successful. Students who develop strong executive function early don’t just learn specific skills; they learn how to learn, how to persist through challenges, and how to present themselves as valuable contributors.

    Rethinking the College Paradigm

    Lazar’s interview included a striking moment when discussing Palantir’s hiring practices: “Palantir was in the news last week. They’re hiring high school kids. Great idea. Get a job, then see if you want to go, go to college, if you need to go, if you need to go to college.”

    Let’s be clear: this isn’t an anti-college message. It’s a pro-purpose message.

    College remains an invaluable experience for many students – particularly those pursuing fields that require specific credentials or advanced study. The college environment can foster character development, expose students to the humanities and sciences that broaden perspective, and provide the space for young adults to discover who they are and what they value. These are legitimate and important outcomes.

    However, when college costs approach $400,000-$500,000 for a four-year degree at a private institution, we must ask hard questions. If the primary goal is character building and general education, a $24,000 per year public university can accomplish that beautifully. If the goal is career preparation without a specific professional credential requirement, technical training may be more appropriate and cost-effective.

    The issue isn’t whether college has value – it does. The issue is whether the value received justifies the investment made, and whether we’re honest about what we’re purchasing.

    The Dignity and Promise of Technical Education

    Lazar put it plainly: “I do think this is transformational, is healthy for the economy, not everybody needs to go to college, wants to go to college, and there should be other job opportunities.”

    The data supports this transformation. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, median wages for skilled trades have increased significantly over the past decade. Electricians now earn a median salary of approximately $60,000 annually, with experienced professionals in specialized areas earning well over $80,000. Similarly, HVAC technicians, plumbers, and manufacturing technicians are seeing wage growth that outpaces inflation, with many positions offering comprehensive benefits and job security.

    A 2023 report from Georgetown University’s Center on Education and the Workforce found that 30% of workers with associate degrees earn more than the median bachelor’s degree holder. In fields like industrial machinery mechanics, respiratory therapy, and radiation therapy, two-year degree holders often out-earn four-year college graduates.

    These aren’t consolation prizes – they’re dignified, skilled professions that offer security, growth, and the satisfaction of tangible, meaningful work.

    Lazar emphasized the importance of community colleges and training partnerships: “Community college system, companies working with community colleges. I’m excited about it, rather than people depending upon the government, where they can actually go out and get a healthy, good job.”

    This is where we, as educators and parents, must examine our own biases. Have we unconsciously communicated that technical careers are somehow “less than”? Have we steered capable students away from hands-on work that might actually suit their strengths and interests better than a traditional academic path?

    Early Intervention: Building the Foundation for Any Path

    This is why our work at Novella Prep focuses so heavily on executive functioning skills, confidence building, and identifying individual strengths early in a student’s educational journey. Whether a student ultimately pursues:

    • A four-year university degree
    • Technical certification
    • Community college training
    • Apprenticeship programs
    • Entrepreneurship
    • Direct workforce entry

    …they will need the same core competencies:

    Organization and Planning: The ability to manage complex projects, meet deadlines, and coordinate multiple responsibilities.

    Self-Regulation: Managing frustration, persisting through difficulty, and maintaining focus in the face of distractions.

    Metacognition: Understanding how they learn best, identifying when they need help, and continuously improving their approach.

    Communication: Presenting ideas clearly, collaborating with others, and advocating for themselves appropriately.

    Adaptability: Adjusting to new environments, learning new systems, and remaining flexible as circumstances change.

    These skills aren’t taught in a single semester. They’re developed over years, through consistent practice, reflection, and coaching. The earlier we begin, the more deeply embedded these capacities become.

    Aligning Education with Purpose

    Here’s what we should be asking our middle and high school students:

    • What activities make you lose track of time because you’re so engaged?
    • What problems in the world bother you enough that you want to help solve them?
    • What skills do you already have that others find valuable?
    • What kind of work environment appeals to you – collaborative or independent, physical or sedentary, creative or systematic?

    And then, critically: What preparation path will best develop your strengths while addressing your growth areas, at a cost that makes sense for your goals?

    For some students, that will absolutely mean a selective four-year university. For others, it might mean starting at community college and transferring. For still others, it might mean a technical certification earned while working, allowing them to enter the workforce without debt while building real-world experience.

    The Role of Executive Function in Workforce Value

    Lazar noted that “80% of jobs are created in companies with less than 500 employees,” and emphasized the importance of small business growth. In smaller organizations, employees often wear multiple hats and must demonstrate initiative, problem-solving, and reliability from day one.

    These are executive function skills in action. An employee who can:

    • Anticipate needs before being asked
    • Organize their work efficiently
    • Communicate proactively about challenges
    • Adapt when priorities shift
    • Take ownership of outcomes

    …will always be valuable, regardless of their specific technical training or degree credentials.

    This is why we emphasize these skills alongside academic content. We’re not just preparing students for college admission; we’re preparing them to be the kind of people others want to work with, hire, and promote.

    Confidence Built on Competence

    Perhaps most importantly, early executive function training builds genuine confidence. Not the hollow self-esteem of participation trophies, but the real thing – confidence rooted in demonstrated competence.

    When students experience themselves as capable – when they successfully plan and execute a complex project, when they overcome a genuine challenge through persistence, when they see tangible results from their efforts – they internalize a sense of agency that serves them forever.

    This confidence allows them to:

    • Try new things without fear of failure
    • Advocate for themselves in educational and work settings
    • Recover from setbacks without catastrophizing
    • Make decisions aligned with their values rather than others’ expectations

    A Practical Path Forward

    For parents and educators reading this, here are concrete steps:

    1. Start Early: Executive function skills develop most rapidly before age 25. Don’t wait until junior year of high school to address organization, time management, and self-regulation challenges.
    2. Identify Strengths: Help students discover what they’re genuinely good at and interested in. Resist the urge to push them toward paths that seem prestigious but don’t fit their actual abilities and interests.
    3. Explore All Options: Visit technical schools and community colleges with the same care you’d visit four-year universities. Talk to people working in trades and technical fields. Challenge assumptions about what constitutes “success.”
    4. Run the Numbers: If a four-year private college costs $400,000+, be explicit about the return on investment. What specific outcomes justify that expense? If the answer is primarily “experience” and “education,” consider whether those outcomes could be achieved at lower cost.
    5. Prioritize Skills Over Credentials: Focus on building competencies that transfer across contexts – executive function, communication, critical thinking, technical literacy. These matter more than the name on the diploma.
    6. Embrace Multiple Pathways: Success isn’t linear. Many people benefit from working before college, or combining work and school, or pursuing technical training first and academic credentials later. There’s no single “right” way.

    Conclusion: Preparation for Purpose

    Nancy Lazar concluded her interview by expressing excitement about the economic transformation: “I’m excited about it, rather than people depending upon the government, where they can actually go out and get a healthy, good job.”

    That should be our goal for every student: a healthy, good job – or better yet, fulfilling work that leverages their strengths, provides economic security, and contributes value to others.

    Getting there requires more than test scores and GPAs. Life requires executive functioning skills, self-awareness, confidence built on competence, and the wisdom to choose a path aligned with individual strengths and goals rather than generic prestige.

    At Novella Prep, this is the work we’re committed to – helping students develop not just the skills to get into college, but the capacities to thrive in whatever path they choose. Because in a transforming economy, the most valuable credential isn’t a diploma. It’s the ability to learn, adapt, contribute, and grow throughout a lifetime.

    Dr. Tony Di Giacomo is an educational expert specializing in executive function development and college preparation. Through Novella Prep, his company works with students and families to build the skills, confidence, and strategic thinking necessary for long-term success.

    Source link

  • connecting the IB mission, the learner profile and the ATL skills

    connecting the IB mission, the learner profile and the ATL skills

    One of the things I have always loved about the IB mission statement is that it goes beyond the academics.  The aim of all IB programmes is to develop internationally-minded people who help to create a better and more peaceful world.  IB schools realize this mission through the learner profile, which provides students and teachers with personal attributes and goals: qualities that are worth fostering and developing for both personal and intellectual growth.

    At the same time, an essential component of all IB programmes is the approaches to learning – a set of skills that help students learn how to learn.  Developing these skills (thinking, communication, social, self-management and research skills) also help develop the learner profile.  These skills also contribute to well-being.

    Skills that are necessary for social and emotional well-being can be taught and practiced.  For example, the thinking skills emphasise analysing and evaluating issues and ideas, as well as considering new perspectives, research skills help students to find and interpret information, and communication skills help students to express their ideas and views.  The ATL skills also recognise that learning is an active and social process, so collaboration and working effectively with others is important.  Self-management skills also help students to take responsibility for their own behaviour and well-being.

    Personal well-being can also be fostered through the development of character strengths.  The Positivity Project considers 24 character strengths that can also be grown.  They are connected to a person’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours.  We can make students aware of these strengths and that everyone has them.  Developing these strengths will enhance students’ self-awareness and confidence as well as their understanding and appreciation of others – which will strengthen their relationships.  See the graphic below and visit the link to find out more about these strengths.

    Focusing on character strengths as well as developing the learner profile attributes and the ATL skills, can help students to become happier, healthier and more social connected, which in turn can help them do better at school.

    Source link

  • Higher education should back a national digital skills wallet

    Higher education should back a national digital skills wallet

    Across the UK, millions of people struggle to prove what they’re capable of. From students juggling part-time work, to graduates volunteering in their communities, much of their learning sits outside formal qualifications and is effectively invisible to employers and institutions.

    That invisibility costs everyone. It holds back individuals who can’t evidence their abilities and employers who struggle to identify the right talent, and it also drags on national productivity.

    Last month the RSA and Ufi VocTech Trust published the final report of the Digital Badging Commission, From Skills to Growth: A Plan for Digital Badging in the UK. The conclusion is clear: the UK urgently needs a national digital skills wallet, linked to emerging plans for a national digital ID and built on open, interoperable standards. It would allow people to collect, store and share digital badges and credentials for their skills and capabilities that sit alongside their formal qualifications for a more holistic approach to education.

    This recommendation now aligns directly with the UK government’s post-16 education and skills white paper which commits to a digital-first, lifelong learning system and the development of a national digital identity infrastructure. The commission’s proposals are therefore timely, practical and well placed to support the government’s agenda.

    The missing infrastructure

    While individual institutions issue transcripts in pdf format, and some pioneer digital badges alongside them, there’s no shared infrastructure to make those records connected nor visible across different sectors. As education and work become increasingly digital, paper certificates should be giving way to verifiable, portable digital records, alongside digital badges and credentials.

    These are not just icons of achievement, but verified records embedded with information about who issued them, what they recognise and when they were awarded. Built on open standards, they can be issued by any organisation that follows the same open technical framework, ensuring compatibility across sectors.

    Globally, digital badges and credentials are part of richer digital profile infrastructures, including Comprehensive Learner Records (CLRs) and Learning and Employment Records (LERs). CLRs capture academic, professional and co-curricular achievements, while LERs extend this to employment history, creating a portfolio of verified experience. Both can be stored in digital wallets, secure platforms that give individuals control over how and when they share their data with employers or education providers.

    Together, these systems represent a shift towards lifelong, learner-owned digital records, combining qualifications, skills and experience into one trusted framework. This is precisely the direction outlined in the government’s white paper, which calls for a more joined-up and data-driven post-16 education landscape.

    The Digital Badging Commission’s modelling shows that a trusted digital credentialing ecosystem could unlock billions in productivity across the wider economy through faster hiring and retention. But the gains go deeper than economics: visibility of skills drives inclusion. It means every learner, whatever their route, can have their capabilities recognised.

    Keeping up with global trends

    The use of digital skills wallets and LERs is accelerating worldwide. In the UK, the idea of a skills passport is not new – in 2022, the Council of Skills Advisers, chaired by David Blunkett, proposed a Learning and Skills Passport, a modular, assessment-based record built over a lifetime, linked to Individual Learning Accounts. More recently, under the industrial strategy, government confirmed that Skills England will work with industry to develop such passports.

    Across Europe, the EU’s Digital Identity Wallet is being piloted in several member states ahead of full rollout in 2026. It will let citizens store and share verified digital credentials, from qualifications to identity documents, through a secure mobile app integrated with Europass. The system aims to make skills and qualifications transferable across borders, supporting the EU’s vision for a flexible, skills-based digital economy.

    The Digital Badging Commission is calling for interoperable skills wallets that begins as an evolution of the Department for Education’s digital Education Record (which will be rolled out to all school pupils from August 2026). It will initially hold GCSEs for school-leavers but could expand to become a lifelong, portable record – potentially linking to whatever comes out of emerging plans for a national digital ID.

    Here the white paper is welcome but incomplete. It describes an “education record app” focused on qualifications and support information, yet it does not set out how essential, non-accredited learning (workplace skills, volunteering, micro-credentials) will be imported. To avoid a two-tier system, the government should seize the chance to ensure one integrated wallet – rather than a separate “skills app” – so a person’s full skillset is represented, not just formal assessments. Not only that, but individuals should be able to choose what they share, and with whom.

    This directly complements the white paper’s ambition for a unified skills and qualifications framework, ensuring that learning follows the individual, not the institution, across life and work.

    Crucially, it must adopt open standards so that every education provider can issue records that align with it, and can be exported into a shared national wallet or interoperable proprietary ones. Degree transcripts from universities would no longer be in pdf format, but living records exported to the same technical rules as other credentials. A learner could move a verified transcript directly into a skills and qualifications wallet, combine it with badges from professional training or volunteering, and share it securely with employers anywhere in the UK.

    That interoperability matters. Without it, the Education Record risks excluding lifelong learning altogether. With it, we can create a single, trusted architecture connecting higher education, workplace learning and civic participation. For universities, it means the qualifications they issue remain visible and valuable in a joined-up system.

    What higher education stands to gain

    There’s a strategic choice here. Universities can either wait until government or private platforms dictate the standards or help design them now.

    By engaging early, HEIs can enhance their reputation and competitiveness by being seen as innovators in trusted digital credentials. This will strengthen their global profile and appeal to learners and employers seeking transparent, skills-focused education. They can provide better learner outcomes by meaningfully capturing students’ broader skills, placements and co-curricular learning, improving employability and lifelong learning pathways – taking the former Higher Education Achievement Record to its natural digital conclusion, and making lifelong learning tangible, rather than rhetorical, to students. Moreover, early involvement will mean a smoother integration with existing systems (VLEs and student records), reducing future compliance costs and avoiding disruptive retrofitting when standards are mandated.

    The post-16 white paper’s call for a coherent digital skills framework reinforces this opportunity for universities to lead, not follow, in shaping the standards and technology that will define post-16 learning.

    The obvious concerns are trust, quality and cost. Without consistent quality assurance, digital credentials risk being untrusted markers of skill. That’s why the Commission also calls for a national registry for digital credential quality assurance – a registry that defines standards, metadata requirements and approved issuers.

    Quality is not the enemy of flexibility in this case; it is the enabler of trust. If universities lead in shaping these standards, they can ensure rigour and learner protection are built in from the start.

    Adopting open standards in education and digital skills systems will not necessarily be straightforward, particularly in environments where legacy systems have been modified incrementally over years. For many institutions, both large and small, modifying student information systems and integrating open standards to bring them into line will require significant overhaul of systems, as well as underpinning investment in staff training.

    However, the implementation of the LLE is requiring all institutions to explore the extent to which their student record systems are fit for purpose, and this represents a real opportunity to think broadly about what systems will be required in the future.

    A call to lead, not follow

    The RSA once helped invent the modern exam system. Today we need the same leap of imagination for the digital age. If we want an inclusive, high-trust and high-skill economy, recognition must catch up with reality.

    Universities are uniquely placed to lead this transition, rooted in evidence, trusted by learners and central to the national conversation about growth. The question is not whether digital credentials will become part of our landscape, but who will set the standards and values that shape them.

    By engaging with open standards for degree transcripts and flexing VLEs to deliver digital badges, higher education can ensure that the national digital skills wallet reflects academic quality, learner autonomy and social purpose. In the wake of the government’s post-16 white paper – and with clarity now needed on integrating non-accredited learning – the timing could not be better. It’s an opportunity to turn invisible learning into visible value.

    You can download the Digital Badging Commission’s final report, From Skills to Growth: A Plan for Digital Badging in the UK here.

    Source link

  • Ian Oppermann on skills passports – Campus Review

    Ian Oppermann on skills passports – Campus Review

    Ian Oppermann is in charge of digital ID for the federal government and an Associate Industry Professor of engineering and IT at the University of Technology Sydney.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link