Tag: social

  • Social mobility needs a whole-university rethink

    Social mobility needs a whole-university rethink

    For more than two decades, widening access has been the sector’s flagship social mobility project. But what if that narrow focus is holding us back?

    A new report from the Social Market Foundation, Leave to Achieve?, urges us to think more expansively. Sponsored by the University of Warwick and the University of Southampton, the project was commissioned to recognise and champion the significant work that universities already do to improve social mobility. This report presents a positive picture with some excellent case studies of good practice. Yet we wanted to challenge the status quo by posing a new question of how this role could be further strengthened in an evolving political, economic and demographic landscape.

    It’s a timely intervention. In November 2024, the Secretary of State for Education wrote to university leaders setting out five clear priorities: improved access and outcomes for disadvantaged students, stronger civic engagement, enhanced contributions to economic growth, higher teaching standards, and greater financial efficiency. Leave to Achieve? presents a compelling blueprint for how institutions might meet that challenge – not by doing more of the same, but by doing things differently.

    Getting in isn’t the same as getting on

    Yes, disadvantaged students are more likely to go to university than they were 20 years ago. But gaps remain – especially at high-tariff providers, where the life-changing graduate premium is highest. And even when disadvantaged students do get in, they’re less likely to complete, more likely to graduate with lower-class degrees, and face a persistent class pay gap.

    These access gains have also been geographically uneven. In parts of the country, a student’s chances of going to university – let alone a selective one – remain depressingly slim.

    This aligns with long-standing evidence from the Sutton Trust and the Social Mobility Commission, both of which have consistently highlighted the enduring impact of regional inequality and the limits of “national” mobility narratives. The Social Mobility Commission’s “State of the Nation” reports, for example, show that young people from some post-industrial regions are still far less likely to progress to higher education than their peers elsewhere – despite similar levels of talent and ambition.

    The takeaway? Real social mobility is not just about “getting in” – it’s about outcomes, belonging, and fair access to local opportunity.

    What about staff?

    If universities want to be credible agents of social mobility, we also need to look inward.

    The socioeconomic makeup of the university workforce remains largely invisible. Few institutions collect data on the class background of their staff. The 2010 Equality Act doesn’t treat social class as a protected characteristic, so there’s no legal driver to act, and no institutional accountability.

    This gap has been highlighted in HEPI’s recent work on equity in academic careers, which shows that the absence of robust data on social class in recruitment and promotion processes limits our ability to understand – and address – barriers to entry and progression in the sector.

    But this blind spot matters. Academia as a career is often inaccessible to those without a financial safety net. Structural inequalities in postgraduate progression and insecure early-career contracts compound the problem. If our own workforce doesn’t reflect the diversity we champion in student access, what message does that send?

    A civic role still waiting to be realised

    We often describe universities as anchor institutions. But Leave to Achieve? finds that civic engagement is still too often a patchwork of well-meaning projects rather than a systemic strategy.

    Too few universities are meaningfully embedded in local education and skills ecosystems. Too few are co-producing knowledge with communities. And too many are still seen – particularly in more deprived regions – as distant, elite, and not “for people like us.”

    This is not just a moral imperative. It’s a political one. The Secretary of State’s 2024 letter was clear: universities must be more visible and valuable in their localities. Delivering on that expectation will require more than community outreach – it will require rethinking institutional purpose.

    The Civic University Network and UPP Foundation’s Civic University Agreements have laid important groundwork here. But Leave to Achieve? argues for more consistent policy incentives and accountability mechanisms that can embed civic engagement as a core strategic function across the sector.

    Rethinking research impact

    Research and innovation are often positioned as universities’ contribution to economic growth. But what if we rethought them as tools for regional social mobility?

    The report argues that embedding social equity in research priorities – not just in outputs, but in who defines the questions and who benefits – can help ensure that innovation serves local communities, not just national agendas.

    That also means investing in more diverse academic pipelines, better knowledge exchange structures, and partnerships that extend beyond the usual suspects. The Research England-funded Participatory Research Fund is an example of how the research ecosystem can be better aligned with inclusive growth goals.

    So what’s next?

    The SMF’s recommendations are pragmatic and targeted: a national strategy for social mobility, delivered through regional structures. Legal recognition of social class in equality legislation. Better socioeconomic workforce data. And, crucially, incentives for local recruitment and regional collaboration.

    In short, they point to a version of the future that aligns closely with the government’s own vision – if policymakers are willing to resource it. A recent HEPI blog from the Social Market Foundation’s Dani Payne poses some important questions for universities to consider.

    This project wasn’t commissioned to critique, but to catalyse. It’s also about recognising what the sector already does well. From transformative widening participation work and contextual admissions schemes to place-based partnerships and pioneering civic strategies, many universities are already expanding opportunity within their regions and communities.

    Collaboration is central to this mission. A renewed social mobility agenda must galvanise universities, colleges, employers, charities, and public sector partners to work together to address local and regional need – creating a coherent, joined-up ecosystem of opportunity that supports people to thrive in the places they call home.

    The broader message is this: we need a whole-university approach to social mobility. That means moving beyond access targets to consider our roles as employers, civic actors, and knowledge producers. It means recognising that social mobility is about place as much as potential. And it means being honest about what we haven’t yet achieved.

    Our goal now is to ensure this debate doesn’t get lost in the long grass, but to extend an arm to the sector and other key actors to develop a long-term shared mission for social mobility.

    Source link

  • State Department Unveils Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Social Media Vetting Guidance – CUPA-HR

    State Department Unveils Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Social Media Vetting Guidance – CUPA-HR

    by CUPA-HR | June 24, 2025

    On June 18, the Department of State issued a cable to all U.S. diplomatic and consular posts formally expanding the screening and vetting process for applicants of F, M and J (FMJ) nonimmigrant visas. The State Department guidance resumes FMJ appointment scheduling after a previous announcement from the agency paused all student visa interviews as they prepared for the new social media screening and vetting guidance.

    Background

    At the end of May, the State Department announced that U.S. embassies and consular sections were pausing new student visa interviews as they awaited further guidance on new social media screening and vetting requirements. CUPA-HR joined the American Council on Education and other higher education associations on a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio requesting the agency quickly implement the new vetting measures to ensure new student visas could be efficiently processed before the 2025-2026 academic year. No further guidance was publicly announced between the announced pausing of student visa interviews and the cable sent out to all diplomatic and consular posts.

    New Screening and Vetting Guidance

    The cable directs consular sections to resume scheduling FMJ appointments after implementing the new vetting procedures. The guidance requires officers to conduct “a comprehensive and thorough vetting of all FMJ applicants, including online presence, to identify applicants who bear hostile attitudes toward our citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles; who advocate for, aid, or support designated foreign terrorists and other threats to U.S. national security; or who perpetrate unlawful antisemitic harassment or violence.” The posts are directed to implement the new guidance within five business days.

    As explained in the cable, consular officers are directed to conduct intake and interviews in accordance with standard procedures, but once an FMJ applicant is otherwise eligible for the requested nonimmigrant status, officers must temporarily refuse the case under Section 221(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). After refusing the case, officers must request the applicant set all social media accounts to “public,” after which the officer must examine “the applicant’s entire online presence — not just social media activity — using any appropriate search engines or other online resources.”

    The new vetting procedures could limit the consular officers’ ability to process student visa applications quickly and efficiently as the cable also mentions that consular sections should “consider the effect of this guidance on workload” when resuming the scheduling of FMJ appointments. Even with these concerns, the cable does request expedited appointments for certain FMJs, including J-1 physicians and F-1 students seeking to study at U.S. institutions where the international student body constitutes 15 percent or less of the total student population.

    While much of the advocacy from interested stakeholders on this issue revolves around students, individuals seeking J-1 visas to participate in cultural and educational exchange programs to conduct research or teach at institutions could be subject to an enhanced level of scrutiny. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for updates related to the FMJ vetting processes.



    Source link

  • US study visa applicants told to make social media accounts ‘public’ amid vetting crackdown

    US study visa applicants told to make social media accounts ‘public’ amid vetting crackdown

    • New social media privacy requirements come just as US government lifts four week-long study visa interview freeze, leading to fears of a backlog.
    • Concerns of added complications where consular officers responsible for social media vetting do not speak the applicant’s language.
    • Policy extends even to those who have been issued US visas in the past.

    In an update sent to consulates last week, the US government has advised that all those applying for F, M or J nonimmigrant visas are “requested” to make their social media accounts available to view by anybody so that their identity can be verified and they can be thoroughly vetted before entering the country.

    Immigration experts have criticised the move because of the huge additional workload it will place on immigration officers, meaning that visa issuance is likely to slow down considerably.

    US immigration lawyer James Hollis said he “almost [felt] bad” for consular officers.

    “It’s going to grind processing to a halt and will likely result in increased wait times for all nonimmigrant visas, let alone the student and exchange visitor applicants,” the business immigration specialist at the McEntee Law Group warned – noting that there are added complications where applicants were posting on social media in their own local language if officers do not understand what they have written.

    It appears that the new policy will be mandatory from June 25 onwards, and all applicants will be vetted in this way even if they have been issued a US visa in the past.

    It’s going to grind processing to a halt and will likely result in increased wait times for all nonimmigrant visas, let alone the student and exchange visitor applicants
    James Hollis, McEntee Law Group

    Consulates are advised that they should consider whether active social media privacy settings “reflect evasiveness or otherwise call into question the applicant’s credibility”.

    Officers have been told to reject a visa application in cases where the applicant has:

    • expressed “hostile attitudes” toward the US in terms of its citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles;
    • advocated for or supported “designated foreign terrorists and other threats to US national security”;
    • shown or supported anti-semitism;
    • even if they have otherwise proven they are not an immigration risk;
    • and are not already ineligible for a visa (ie does not post a risk to US national security).

    In these cases, the US can deny entry on national security or foreign policy grounds.

    The US has asked visa applicants to provide social media information on their application forms for the past five years – including all social media names or handles of every platform they have used over the past five years. Failing to include this information could lead to an applicant’s visa being denied and being ineligible for future visas.

    It comes after a tumultuous few weeks for prospective international students eyeing a place at US institutions. After stretching a study visa interview freeze into its fourth week – despite assurances that the pause would be quick – officials last week resumed interviews with additional social media vetting for applicants.

    US stakeholders have repeatedly expressed concerns that the Trump administration’s extreme social media crackdown could inflict untold damage upon the country’s international education sector.

    Source link

  • State Department Screening Visa Applicants’ Social Media

    State Department Screening Visa Applicants’ Social Media

    Rubio paused visa interviews last month while the State Department created rules for the social media screenings.

    John McDonnell/Getty Images

    The U.S. State Department is rolling out sweeping new rules for vetting student visa applicants using their social media presence, according to Politico.

    The new process will include screening for “any indications of hostility towards the citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles of the United States,” according to an internal State Department cable. 

    Department officials will also look for posts that signal “advocacy for, aid or support for foreign terrorists and other threats to national security” and “support for antisemitic harassment or violence,” specifically citing support for Hamas—a charge commonly levied against student protesters advocating for Palestinian rights—as grounds for rejection. The cable also directs officials to cull applicants who “demonstrate a history of political activism.”

    The news comes a few weeks after Secretary of State Marco Rubio paused all student visa interviews in order to implement a new screening policy focusing on students’ online activity. The Associated Press reported that the department rescinded the pause, but applicants who don’t allow the government to review their social media accounts could be rejected.

    The cable is the Trump administration’s latest effort to curtail the flow of international students to the U.S., as tens of thousands of foreign students await approval of their visas after months of delays and with only weeks until the start of the fall semester. 

    State Department spokespeople did not respond to a list of questions from Inside Higher Ed in time for publication. 

    Source link

  • Wearable tech helps students overcome central vision challenges

    Wearable tech helps students overcome central vision challenges

    Central vision loss–a condition that impairs the ability to see objects directly in front of the eyes–can have profound academic and social impacts on K-12 students. Because this type of vision loss affects tasks that require detailed focus, such as reading, writing, and recognizing faces, students with central vision impairment often face unique challenges that can affect their overall school experience.

    In the classroom, students with central vision loss may struggle with reading printed text on paper or on the board, despite having otherwise healthy peripheral vision. Standard classroom materials are often inaccessible without accommodations such as large print, magnification devices, or digital tools with text-to-speech capabilities. These students might take longer to complete assignments or may miss visual cues from teachers, making it difficult to follow along with lessons. Without appropriate support, such as assistive technology, students may fall behind academically, which can affect their confidence and motivation to participate.

    As a result, they may be perceived as aloof or unfriendly, leading to social isolation or misunderstanding. Group activities, games, and unstructured time like lunch or recess can become sources of anxiety if students feel excluded or unsafe. Moreover, children with vision loss may become overly dependent on peers or adults, which can further affect their social development and sense of independence.

    While this may seem daunting, there are assistive technologies to help students navigate central vision loss and have fulfilling academic and social experiences.

    One such technology, eSight Go from Gentex Corporation’s eSight, uses an advanced high-speed, high-definition camera to capture continuous video footage of what a user is looking at. Algorithms optimize and enhance the footage and share it on two HD OLED screens, providing sharp, crystal-clear viewing. The user’s brain then synthesizes the images to fill any gaps in their vision, helping them to see more clearly, in real time.

    “The ability to have central perception brought back into your set of tools for education is critically important,” said Roland Mattern, eSight’s director of sales and marketing. “Ease of reading, ease of seeing the board, using tablets or computers–all of these things [lead to] the ability to complete an academic task with greater ease.”

    One key feature, Freeze Frame, lets the user capture a temporary photograph with the device’s camera, such as an image on an interactive whiteboard, a textbook page, or a graphic. The student can magnify the image, scan and study it, and take what they need from it.

    “This eases the ability to absorb information and move on, at a regular pace, with the rest of the class,” Mattern noted.

    Socially, central vision loss can create additional barriers. A major part of social interaction at school involves recognizing faces, interpreting facial expressions, and making eye contact–all tasks that rely heavily on central vision. Students with this impairment might have difficulty identifying peers or teachers unless they are spoken to directly. The glasses can help with these social challenges.

    “There’s a huge social aspect to education, as well–seeing expressions on teachers’ and fellow students’ faces is a major part of communication,” Mattern said.

    What’s more, the glasses also help students maintain social connections inside and outside of the classroom.

    “Think of how much peer-to-peer communication is digital now, and if you have central vision loss, you can’t see your phone or screen,” Mattern said. “The educational part is not just academic–it’s about the student experience that you want to enhance and optimize.”

    Educators, parents, and school staff play a crucial role in fostering inclusive environments–by educating classmates about visual impairments, encouraging empathy, and ensuring that students with central vision loss are supported both academically and socially. With the right accommodations and social-emotional support, these students can thrive in school and build strong connections with their peers.

    “If we can make daily living, hobbies, and education easier and facilitate participation, that’s a win for everybody,” Mattern said.

    For more spotlights on innovative edtech, visit eSN’s Profiles in Innovation hub.

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • Leave to Achieve?: A new framework for universities to drive local social mobility

    Leave to Achieve?: A new framework for universities to drive local social mobility

    • By Dani Payne, Senior Researcher and Education Lead at the Social Market Foundation.

    University remains the most effective pathway for disadvantaged individuals to achieve upward social mobility. Graduates earn more, are less likely to be unemployed, and report higher levels of health, happiness and civic engagement. Yet, despite this individual impact, higher education’s benefits often fail to translate into positive outcomes for local communities.

    Recent research from the Sutton Trust ranked constituencies by social mobility. Most interesting is the bottom 20. More than half have at least one university within their immediate locality, and some have as many as 18 in their wider region. Essentially, having a university – or, indeed, many universities – in your region doesn’t guarantee improved local social mobility.

    The need for a new social mobility framework

    The government’s ‘opportunity mission’ is built on the principle that every child, in every community, should have a fair chance to succeed.

    But rising costs, frozen maintenance support, demographic shifts and widening attainment gaps threaten progress made on access. Moreover, targets tend to be institution-specific, creating duplications and silos, and encouraging competition between providers. Selective universities continue to meet access targets by disproportionately recruiting disadvantaged pupils from high-attaining London boroughs, leaving local disadvantaged learners behind – even when world-class institutions are right on their doorstep.

    We must broaden how we assess universities’ social mobility impact. To be able to understand when, why and how the benefits of an institution do or don’t reach into local communities, we must also consider their roles as major employers, civic actors and research hubs.  

    In our new report, Leave to Achieve?, we set out a new framework for how universities can conceptualise and measure their local social mobility contribution. The framework consists of four key pillars, underpinned by the need for regional collaboration and long-term planning.

    1. Educational opportunities for local people

    Access to higher education varies starkly by region: 27% of disadvantaged pupils in London hold an undergraduate degree by age 22, compared to just 10% in the South West.

    Universities must work with local schools and colleges to raise attainment and create alternative entry pathways. They should be considering the extent to which they nurture and recruit talent locally, supporting pupils to progress and succeed. A place-based approach to widening participation, developed collaboratively with other regional providers, ensures local talent is not just nurtured but retained.

    Some existing initiatives show promise. Durham Inspired North East Scholarships, Middlesex’s guaranteed offer scheme for local applicants, and the Warwick Scholar’s program providing financial, academic and practical support to local disadvantaged pupils, all show how targeted programs can work at a local level. However, articulation agreements with local further education providers are underutilised in England, and inconsistent contextual admissions policies limit impact.  

    2. Good jobs for local people

    Universities are often the largest, or among the largest, employers in the local region. This is often cited to give the impression that they are ‘too big to fail’, particularly in the current financial context. But little has been done to look at the extent to which universities are providing good jobs to local people, and whether these are open to people from different socioeconomic backgrounds.

    Academic roles provide an opportunity for social mobility – for those who can secure one. For someone from a lower socioeconomic background to become a lecturer, for example, they have almost certainly experienced upwards occupational social mobility, if not also absolute (income) social mobility, too. Similarly, professional service roles are often well paid and secure, with a reasonable pension, and working within a university comes with a certain amount of cultural and social prestige, too.

    A university performing strongly in this area would be spearheading initiatives to support local people from disadvantaged backgrounds into some of these roles and supporting staff from lower socioeconomic backgrounds whilst they are there. Southampton’s staff social mobility network stands out here, specifically recognising and seeking to tackle barriers in recruitment, retention and career progress for those from working-class backgrounds.  

    3. Using research to address local needs

    Research within institutions should address local needs and tackle inequalities, with outputs shared with local communities. Local residents should have opportunities to be involved in research and should understand why research carried out in their region is valuable.

    There are excellent examples in this area, such as UWE Bristol’s ‘Engagement with Education‘ programme and London Metropolitan’s participatory knowledge exchange projects. But these remain examples of best – not yet standard – practice.

    4. Civic actors: Lead locally, collaborate regionally  

    As civic institutions, universities must be more deeply integrated within their localities. Despite growing attention to civic engagement, activity is often fragmented and lacking an overarching strategy. Participation in local skills planning is inconsistent, and incentives to foster collaboration across providers are weak.

    Great Manchester’s Civic Agreement is a great example of universities coming together with local leaders to work towards shared goals, recognising that collaboration is far more effective than competition, duplication, or silos. The South West Social Mobility Commission takes this a step further, bringing together all education providers (not just higher education), businesses, local leaders and third-sector organisations to promote better social mobility in the region.

    A call to action

    This framework is not a checklist, but a tool for reflection. We do not expect every institution to be a star performer in every pillar, but we do see value in measuring impact more holistically, across the full range of university activity.

    Universities should ask themselves:

    • Are we reaching local disadvantaged students?
    • Are we getting local people into good jobs, and are these jobs available to those from all social class backgrounds?
    • Is our research making a tangible difference to local challenges?
    • Are we truly embedded as civic leaders in our region?

    Only by addressing these questions can we begin to understand how – and when – the presence of a university does improve social mobility in its immediate communities. And only then can we ensure that local people no longer feel that they must leave in order to achieve.

    Source link

  • It’s the little moments that power social mobility

    It’s the little moments that power social mobility

    Anyone who has gone into higher education from a “non-traditional” background knows that widening participation is a double-edged sword. It is there to promote social mobility – but for individual students this journey, once taken, tends to be irreversible.

    In return for out-earning your family of origin, you are likely to endure a long period of feeling like an outsider. Whether it’s your accent, the words you use, the house you lived in, what you eat, the school you went to, or where (and indeed, if) you go on holiday, there are thousands of ways that you can feel different – and lesser. For some students, this feeling of being an imposter is further compounded by differences in culture, religion and ethnicity. As time goes on you can either continue standing out like a sore thumb or you can start to assimilate and, in doing so, lose little pieces of yourself forever.

    This is the story I heard many times over while carrying out research for a report published today. A Different World explores socioeconomic disadvantage in the transition to university and first year experience. In a partnership between Unite Students, University of Leeds and Manchester Metropolitan University, students took part in interviews, focus groups and co-creation, with most of them contributing directly to the report’s 33 recommendations.

    If this many recommendations seems excessive (even though they are helpfully grouped into six themes) it’s because most of them are about small but meaningful actions. I’ve spent the best part of 25 years advocating for a more inclusive higher education sector, but it’s only since working in student accommodation that I’ve come to see the value of these day-to-day moments as a force for change.

    University visits for schools are good, tutoring projects even better, and the return of grants would be lovely – but wherever the student experience is built on middle-class norms we will continue to see lower enrolment, continuation, completion, attainment and graduate outcomes among students from a different background.

    The change that is needed – and attainable – involves small, local actions in addition to system-level change.

    In their own words

    A Different World enables students to tell their own stories in their own words, which brings a richness of nuance to the topic and reveals opportunities for change.

    For example, there are many ways to cope with alienation, but opportunities to meet others from similar backgrounds really helps. As well as other students, this could also include staff members, and not just academic staff. Student accommodation maintenance teams made a difference for one student, and outside of this research I’ve heard many stories of students whose experience has been transformed by housekeepers or the reception team. Do we recognise and encourage this enough? Students were also reassured by services specifically aimed at them. We British don’t like to talk about social class, but maybe it would be helpful if we did.

    Students also shared the challenges of working and balancing a budget, and financial matters certainly did limit opportunities for socialising and extra-curriculars. However, they talked at least as much about their budgeting skills and ability to find the best bargains, skills usually learned from family. They were so impressive in this respect that they would have been helpful peer coaches for students in financial difficulty.

    A less obvious impact of socioeconomic background is gaps in fundamental knowledge about higher education. If you are the first person in your family to go to university, and especially if your school or college isn’t geared up to preparing you for it, there will be a lot you don’t know, including “unknown unknowns”, which put you at a disadvantage. For some students, unspoken assumptions tripped them up several times in the first year leading to missed opportunities and academic disadvantage.

    A different world

    The good news is that there’s a lot that can be done that would benefit students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and much of it would benefit a wider range of students too. You are probably doing some of these already, or in pockets within the organisation.

    All academics, and especially personal tutors, could explain expectations, terms and how to interact with them. For example, what are “office hours”, how do students get a meeting with you, and what are they allowed to talk about in those meetings? Module leaders could include ice-breakers at the start of every module, which also helps to promote belonging. Campus services staff could be encouraged and trained to develop more meaningful relationships with students, within appropriate boundaries. You could employ more students, especially those on a low income, and encourage your partners and suppliers to do the same. You could work with student-led societies to develop more inclusive practices and clearer communication. Maybe offer targeted bursaries for extra-curricular activities, via a clear and efficient process. For further inspiration I’d recommend reading the case studies from Manchester Metropolitan University and the University of Leeds that are included in the report.

    Widening access has been a success story over the last three decades – but if we’re serious about delivering social mobility as a sector, and as a society, individual students will benefit from better awareness and support while they are undertaking that difficult journey.

    Source link

  • Universities should be architects of economic and social transformation

    Universities should be architects of economic and social transformation

    Britain’s universities stand at a critical juncture.

    The traditional funding model faces unprecedented pressure as costs spiral and resources dwindle, while successive government policy reversals on international students and graduate visas have created a destabilising environment.

    These converging forces threaten the very foundations of our higher education system.

    Simultaneously, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson is challenging universities to deliver more with less – driving economic growth and enhancing student outcomes amidst severe financial constraints. The message is unambiguous – transformation is no longer optional.

    The uncomfortable reality is that with public funding constraints tightening and international income streams becoming increasingly unpredictable, universities can no longer sustain outdated operational models.

    To survive and thrive in this challenging landscape, institutions must fundamentally reimagine their approach – aligning their educational offerings with national priorities and market needs, adopting innovative commercial service models, and leveraging emerging technologies at scale.

    Pioneering a new paradigm

    Aston University’s recent report, Pathways to Success, provides a compelling blueprint for institutional evolution in response to these pressures. By transforming into a more agile, resilient, and globally connected institution, Aston has prioritised both student success and tangible socio-economic impact.

    This strategic pivot beyond traditional funding sources toward a partnership-driven approach has already generated over £1 billion for the regional and national economy, with ambitious plans to double this impact by 2030.

    Today’s most effective universities function as anchor institutions within vibrant innovation ecosystems. The Birmingham Innovation Precinct exemplifies this approach, seamlessly integrating innovative research, commercial ventures, and community development.

    Aston has expanded this concept with its “city within a city” model — a dynamic urban environment featuring public spaces, start-up accelerators, business incubators, community maker spaces, and comprehensive residential, health and recreational facilities.

    This integrated ecosystem drives placemaking and productivity through collaborative place-based innovation.

    Across Britain’s post-industrial cities, such innovation districts are becoming powerful engines of regional economic renewal. Aston’s focus on talent retention has resulted in approximately 70 per cent of graduates remaining in the West Midlands, providing essential high-level skills to local industries for the long run.

    This retention significantly enhances economic resilience, while the university’s three-year support scheme after graduation ensures sustained impact through graduate success.

    The university has constructed a comprehensive innovation ecosystem that accelerates research commercialisation, featuring the Aston Knowledge Transfer Partnership Unit, Aston Business Hub, Enterprise Hub, and Aston University Ventures, as well as a portfolio of partnered accelerators such as SPARK The Midlands Accelerator.

    Collaborative efforts with other institutions through the Midlands Innovation consortium and its investment arm Midlands Mindforge, alongside large-scale research commercialisation projects funded by Research England and Innovate UK, further amplify this impact.

    The results speak for themselves – KTP projects are projected to generate £266 million in pre-tax profit for partner companies and create 541 new jobs within three years, with participating companies achieving an average 1,107% return on investment.

    The quadruple helix: A new framework for innovation

    Forward-thinking institutions are increasingly adopting the “quadruple helix” model — an innovation framework that integrates academia, industry, government, and society.

    This approach has transformed our stakeholder engagement, focusing efforts on health technology, net zero initiatives, digital and engineering technologies, and biological sciences — areas aligned with national priorities and offering substantial employment opportunities.

    We demonstrate leadership in sustainability, on track to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2028, becoming the first university in the region to achieve this milestone, supported by a £35.5 million investment through the UK Public Sector Decarbonisation Scheme.

    We have also secured funding to establish the first national Transdisciplinary Research Hub and Doctoral Training Centre, enabling and supporting decarbonisation projects across vast networks of businesses and healthcare providers throughout the West Midlands.

    Those who fear that commercialisation threatens academic independence misinterpret this model. Robust governance frameworks protect intellectual integrity while facilitating meaningful partnerships that enhance rather than compromise research excellence through measurable impact.

    However, widespread adoption of this approach faces significant obstacles, particularly outdated performance metrics that continue to prioritise publication counts and academic citations over student outcomes and real-world impact.

    The forthcoming sector reforms must address these antiquated incentive structures if Britain is to maintain global economic competitiveness.

    Building a sustainable innovation pipeline

    The project-based funding model that dominates British research support creates chronic uncertainty, undermining long-term planning and investment.

    What we urgently need are strategic, decade-long commitments that provide the stability necessary for substantial infrastructure development and deep industry collaboration.

    The government’s forthcoming 10-year R&D budget must prioritise strengthening university-business collaboration. Only through such sustained investment can Britain cultivate the robust innovation pipeline essential for economic revitalisation.

    Universities must simultaneously align their educational offerings with evolving market needs for advanced skills.

    While the government’s focus on skill levels 1-5 is important, it remains insufficient. High-value sectors — artificial intelligence, advanced digital technologies, advanced manufacturing, and medical technology — require sophisticated capabilities that can only be effectively developed at scale through university-industry collaboration.

    University-led programmes, co-designed with industry partners, can deliver intensive training in these critical domains through more agile, flexible, digitally enabled learning approaches.

    The corporate challenge

    We must confront an uncomfortable truth: the firewall between industry and education is rapidly vanishing. Global technology giants, such as Google, Amazon, Microsoft, IBM, and Siemens, are already among the world’s largest training providers.

    Before long, they will either embed their programmes inside universities or create rival institutions that funnel graduates directly into high-value jobs. Students will inevitably gravitate toward whichever pathway offers the strongest prospects for employability and rapid career progression.

    The response must be proactive rather than defensive. Universities should forge strategic partnerships with businesses, policymakers, and private education providers to develop flexible, omni-channel learning models that integrate traditional campus experiences with industry-embedded learning opportunities, supported by sophisticated digital delivery platforms.

    For centuries, British universities have been intellectual powerhouses shaping minds and advancing knowledge. But the future of our higher education system now depends on a fundamental mindset shift.

    Institutions must become more commercially astute and globally connected, while remaining deeply rooted in their communities where their civic mission finds its most powerful expression.

    We must embrace industry and community like never before. That means forging strategic partnerships, embracing commercial imperatives, and converting research and skills into measurable socio-economic benefits.

    We can no longer rely solely on our storied academic traditions. If British universities are to thrive in the twenty-first century, they must transform and become active architects of economic and social transformation — or risk fading into obsolescence as relics of a bygone age.

    Source link

  • Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    Empowering Mature Students through Inclusive AI Literacy: Advancing Digital Equity and Social Justice in Higher Education

    • By Assoc. Prof. Dr. Eleni Meletiadou, Guildhall School of Business and Law, London Metropolitan University, PFHEA, NTF, UTF, MCIPD, MIIE.

    As higher education embraces artificial intelligence (AI) to drive digital transformation, there is a growing risk that older, non-traditional, or mature students will be left behind. This blog post draws on insights from the QAA-funded “Using AI to promote education for sustainable development and widen access to digital skills” project I have been leading alongside findings from the EU COST Action DigiNet (WG5), where I co-lead research into media portrayals and digital inequalities impacting mature learning workers.

    Through this work, and in collaboration with international partners, we have identified what genuinely supports inclusion and what simply pays lip service to it. While AI is often heralded as a tool for levelling the educational playing field, our research shows that without intentional support structures and inclusive design, it can reinforce and even widen existing disparities.

    Supporting mature students’ AI literacy is, therefore, not just a pedagogical responsibility; it is an ethical imperative. It intersects with wider goals of equity, social justice, and sustainable digital inclusion. If higher education is to fulfil its mission in an age of intelligent technologies, it must ensure that no learner is left behind, especially those whose voices have long been marginalised.

    Why Mature Students Matter in the AI Conversation

    Mature students are one of the fastest-growing and most diverse populations in higher education. They bring a wealth of life and work experience, resilience, and motivation. Yet, they are often excluded from AI-related initiatives that presume a level of digital fluency not all possess. However, they are often left out of AI-related initiatives, which too frequently assume a baseline level of digital fluency that many do not possess. Media portrayals tend to depict older learners as technologically resistant or digitally inept, reinforcing deficit narratives that erode confidence, undermine self-efficacy, and reduce participation.

    As a result, mature students face a dual barrier: the second-order digital divide—inequity in digital skills rather than access—and the social stigma of digital incompetence. Both obstruct their academic progress and diminish their employability in a rapidly evolving, AI-driven labour market.

    Principles that Support Mature Learners

    The QAA-funded project, developed in partnership with five universities across the UK and Europe, embedded AI literacy through three key principles—each critical for mature learners:

    1. Accessibility

    Learning activities were designed for varying levels of digital experience. Resources were provided in multiple formats (text, video, audio), and sessions used plain language and culturally inclusive examples. Mature students often benefited from slower-paced, repeatable guidance and multilingual scaffolding.

    1. Collaboration

    Peer mentoring was a powerful tool for mature students, who often expressed apprehension toward younger, digitally native peers. By fostering intergenerational support networks and collaborative projects, we helped reduce isolation and build mutual respect.

    1. Personalised Learning

    Mature students frequently cited the need for AI integration that respected their goals, schedules, and learning styles. Our approach allowed learners to set their own pace, choose relevant tools, and receive tailored feedback, building ownership and confidence in their digital journeys.

    Inclusive AI Strategies That Work – Based on What Mature Learners Told Us

    Here are four practical strategies that emerged from our multi-site studies and international collaborations:

    1. Start with Purpose: Show AI’s Relevance to Career and Life

    Mature learners engage best when AI tools solve problems that matter to them. In our QAA project, students used ChatGPT to refine job applications, generate reflective statements, and translate workplace policies into plain English. These tools became career companions—not just academic add-ons.

    ‘When I saw what it could do for my CV, I felt I could finally compete again,’ shared a 58-year-old participant.

    2. Design Age-Safe Learning Spaces

    Many mature students fear embarrassment in digital settings. We created small, trust-based peer groups, offered print-friendly guides, and used asynchronous recordings to accommodate different learning paces. These scaffolds helped dismantle the shame often attached to asking for help.

    3. Make Reflection Central to AI Literacy

    AI use can be empowering or alienating. We asked students to record short video reflections on how AI shaped their thinking. This helped them develop critical awareness of what the tool does, how it aligns with academic integrity, and what learning still needs to happen beyond automation.

    4. Use Media Critique to Break Stereotypes

    Drawing on my research into late-life workers and digital media, we used ageist headlines, adverts, and memes as classroom material. Mature learners engaged critically with how society depicts them, transforming deficit narratives into dialogue, and boosting confidence through awareness.

    How We Measured Impact (and Why It Mattered)

    We evaluated these strategies using mixed methods informed by both academic and lived-experience perspectives:

    • Self-reflective journals and confidence scales tracked growth in AI confidence and self-efficacy
    • Survey data from mature students (aged 55+) in the UK and Albania (from my older learners study) revealed the key role of peer support, professional experience, and family encouragement in shaping digital resilience
    • Narrative mapping, developed with COST DigiNet partners, was used to document shifts in learners’ digital identity—from anxious adopter to confident contributor
    • Follow-up interviews three months post-intervention showed sustained engagement with AI tools in personal and professional contexts (e.g., CPD portfolios, policy briefs)

    Policy and Practice: Repositioning Mature Learners in AI Strategy

    As highlighted in our Tirana Policy Workshop (2024), national and institutional policy often fails to differentiate between age-based needs when deploying AI in education. Mature students frequently face a “second-order digital divide,” not just in access, but in relevance, scaffolding, and self-belief.

    If UK higher education is serious about digital equity, it must:

    • Recognise mature learners as a distinct group in AI strategy and training
    • Fund co-designed AI literacy programmes that reflect lived experience
    • Embed inclusive, intergenerational pedagogy in curriculum development
    • Disrupt media and policy narratives that equate older age with technological incompetence

    Conclusion: Inclusion in AI Isn’t Optional – It’s Foundational

    Mature learners are not a marginal group to be retrofitted into digital learning. They are core to what a sustainable, equitable, and ethical higher education system should look like in an AI-driven future. Designing for them is not just good inclusion practice—it’s sound educational leadership. If we want AI to serve all learners, we must design with all learners in mind, from the very start.

    Source link

  • Virginia enacts ban on school cellphone use, limits on social media

    Virginia enacts ban on school cellphone use, limits on social media

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin recently signed legislation banning cellphone use during school hours for all students. The law makes Virginia the 21st state to ban or limit cellphones in schools, according to a legislation tracker by Ballotpedia. 
    • Starting January 2026, children in Virginia under the age of 16 will also only be allowed to use social media for an hour per day under another law signed by Youngkin in early May. That law, SB 854, mandates that social media companies verify a minor’s age and enforce a time limit of one hour per day for children and young teens.
    • In Florida, a similar — albeit stricter — law passed in 2024 that bans social media use for children under 14 years old hit a roadblock in court. On Tuesday, a federal judge temporarily barred parts of HB 3 from being enforced while the case moves forward, saying that the law’s restrictions are “likely facially unconstitutional.”

    Dive Insight:

    Pushes for bans or limits on cellphone and social media use among children are growing as lawmakers and some advocates note the harmful effects of technology on young people’s mental health and wellbeing.

    In 2024, then-U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy called for social media platforms to display warning labels similar to messages that accompany alcohol and cigarettes. Murthy said at the time that social media is an “important contributor” to the nation’s worsening teen mental health crisis.

    Teens themselves are also increasingly aware of the harmful impacts social media can have on their mental health. A recent Pew Research Center survey of U.S. teens found that 48% said social media has a mostly negative impact on their peers — up 16 percentage points from 2022.

    Laws enforcing cellphone bans in schools have also largely gained bipartisan support in both liberal and conservative-leaning states.

    Upon signing Virginia’s K-12 cellphone ban, Youngkin said in a May 30 statement that “students will learn more and be healthier and safer” under this new legislation. “School should be a place of learning and human interaction — free from the distractions and classroom disruptions of cell-phone and social media use.”

    Research from Common Sense Media finds that 1 in 4 children had their own cellphone by the age of 8 in 2024. A separate study from 2023 also revealed that 97% of teens use their phones to some extent during the school day, and that students were most likely to turn to social media, YouTube or gaming when doing so.

    However, data privacy and cybersecurity concerns are rising alongside states’ efforts to enforce broader social media bans outside of school.

    In the Florida case, Computer & Communications Industry Association and NetChoice v. James Uthmeier, challenging the state’s 2024 social media ban for children, the plaintiffs have alleged the law violates the First Amendment and puts Floridians’ online security at risk. The recent order from Chief U.S. District Judge Mark Walker temporarily prevents the law from requiring those in Florida to provide identification to access social media apps, said NetChoice in a Tuesday statement. 

    “HB 3 violates the First Amendment by forcing all Floridians to hand over their personal data just to access lawful, protected speech online,” NetChoice said of Walker’s order. “It requires websites to collect their users’ sensitive documentation, creating a cybersecurity risk by making private data more vulnerable to hackers and predators.”

    Source link