Tag: solve

  • A more focused research system does not by itself solve structural deficits

    A more focused research system does not by itself solve structural deficits

    Financial pressures across the higher education sector have necessitated a closer look at the various incomes and associated costs of the research, teaching and operational streams. For years, larger institutions have relied upon the cross-subsidy of their research, primarily from overseas student fees – a subsidy that is under threat from changes in geopolitics and indeed our own UK policies on immigration and visa controls.

    The UK is now between a rock and a hard place: how can it support the volume and focus of research needed to grow the knowledge-based economy of our UK industrial strategy, while also addressing the financial deficits that even the existing levels of research create?

    Several research leaders have recently been suggesting that a more efficient research system is one where higher education institutions focus on their strengths and collaborate more. But while acknowledging that efficiency savings are required and the relentless growth of bureaucracy – partly imposed by government but also self-inflicted within the HEIs – can be addressed, the funding gulf is far wider than these savings could possibly deliver.

    Efficiency savings alone will not solve the scale of structural deficits in the system. Furthermore, given that grant application success rates are systemically below 20 per cent and frequently below ten or even five per cent, the sector is already only funding its strongest applications. Fundamentally, currently demand far outstrips supply, leading to inefficiency and poor prioritisation decisions.

    Since most of the research costs are those supporting the salaries and student stipends of the researchers themselves, significant cost-cutting necessitates a reduction in the size of the research workforce – a reduction that would fly in the face of our future workforce requirement. We could leave this inevitable reduction to market forces, but the resulting disinvestment will likely impact the resource intensive subjects upon which much of our future economic growth depends.

    We recognise also that solutions cannot solely rely upon the public purse. So, what could we do now to improve both the efficiency of our state research spend and third-party investment into the system?

    What gets spent

    First of all, the chronic underfunding of the teaching of UK domestic students cannot continue, as it puts even further pressure on institutional resources. The recent index-linking of fees in England was a brave step to address this, but to maintain a viable UK research and innovation system, the other UK nations will also urgently need to address the underfunding of teaching. And in doing so we must remain mindful of the potential unintended consequences that increased fees might have on socio-economic exclusion.

    Second, paying a fair price for the research we do. Much has been made of the seemingly unrestricted “quality-related” funding (QR, or REG in Scotland) driven by the REF process. The reality is that QR simply makes good the missing component of research funding which through TRAC analysis is now estimated to cover less than 70 per cent of the true costs of the research.

    It ought to be noted that this missing component exists over all the recently announced research buckets extending across curiosity-driven, government-priority, and scale-up support. The government must recognise that QR is not purely the funding of discovery research, but rather it is the dual funding of research in general – and that the purpose of dual funding is to tension delivery models to ensure HEI efficiency of delivery.

    Next, there is pressing a need for UKRI to focus resource on the research most likely to lead to economic or societal benefit. This research spans all disciplines from the hardest of sciences to the most creative of the arts.

    Although these claims are widely made within every grant proposal, perhaps the best evidence of their validity lies in the co-investment these applications attract. We note the schemes such as EPSRC’s prosperity partnerships and their quantum technology hubs show that when packaged to encompass a range of technology readiness levels (TRL), industry is willing to support both low and high TRL research.

    We would propose that across UKRI more weighting is given to those applications supported by matching funds from industry or, in the case of societal impact, by government departments or charities. The next wave of matched co-funding of local industry-linked innovation should also privilege schemes which elicit genuine new industry investment, as opposed to in-kind funding, as envisaged in Local Innovation Partnership Funds. This avoids increasing research volume which is already not sustainable.

    The research workforce

    In recent times, the UKRI budgets and funding schemes for research and training (largely support for doctoral students) have been separated from each other. This can mean that the work of doctoral students is separated from the cutting-edge research that they were once the enginehouse of delivering. This decoupling means that the research projects themselves now require allocated, and far more expensive, post-doctoral staff to deliver. We see nothing in the recent re-branding of doctoral support to “landscape” and “focal” awards that is set to change this disconnect.

    It should be acknowledged that centres for doctoral training were correctly introduced nearly 20 years ago to ensure our students were better trained and better supported – but we would argue that the sector has now moved on and graduate schools within our leading HEIs address these needs without need for duplication by doctoral centres.

    Our proposal would be that, except for a small number of specific areas and initiatives supported by centres of doctoral training (focal awards) and central to the UK’s skills need, the normal funding of UKRI-supported doctoral students should be associated with projects funded by UKRI or other sources external to higher education institutions. This may require the reassignment of recently pooled training resources back to the individual research councils, rebalanced to meet national needs.

    This last point leads to the question of what the right shape of the HEI-based research-focused workforce is. We would suggest that emphasis should be placed on increasing the number of graduate students – many of whom aspire to move on from the higher education sector after their graduation to join the wider workforce – rather than post-doctoral researchers who (regrettably) mistakenly see their appointment as a first step to a permanent role in a sector which is unlikely to grow.

    Post-doctoral researchers are of course vital to the delivery of some research projects and comprise the academic researchers of the future. Emerging research leaders should continue to be supported through, for example, future research leader fellowships, empowered to pursue their own research ambitions. This rebalancing of the research workforce will go some way to rebalancing supply and demand.

    Organisational change

    Higher education institutions are hotbeds of creativity and empowerment. However, typical departments have an imbalanced distribution of research resources where appointment and promotion criteria are linked to individual grant income. While not underestimating the important leadership roles this implies, we feel that research outcomes would be better delivered through internal collaborations of experienced researchers where team science brings complementary skills together in partnership rather than subservience.

    This change in emphasis requires institutions to consider their team structures and HR processes. It also requires funders to reflect these changes in their assessment criteria and selection panel working methods. Again, this rebalancing of the research workforce would go some way to addressing supply and demand while improving the delivery of the research we fund.

    None of these suggestions represent a quick fix for our financial pressures, which need to be addressed. But taken together we believe them to be a supportive step, helping stabilise the financial position of the sector, while ensuring its continuing contribution to the UK economy and society. If we fail to act, the UK risks a disorderly reduction of its research capability at precisely the moment our global competitors are accelerating.

    Source link

  • Why new math problems won’t solve our nation’s math problem

    Why new math problems won’t solve our nation’s math problem

    eSchool News is counting down the 10 most-read stories of 2025. Story #4 focuses on making math instruction more relevant to students.

    Key points:

    How much longer will we keep trying to solve our nation’s dismal math proficiency problem by writing new math problems? Clearly, if that was the answer, it would have worked by now–but it hasn’t, as evidenced by decades of low proficiencies, historic declines post-COVID, and the widest outcome gaps in the world.

    The real question students are asking is, “When am I ever going to use this?” As a former math teacher, I learned that addressing this question head-on made all the difference. Students’ success in math wasn’t found in a book–it was found in how math applied to them, in its relevance to their future career plans. When math concepts were connected to real-world scenarios, they transformed from distant and abstract ideas into meaningful, tangible skills.

    My first-hand experience proved the premise of education innovator Dr. Bill Daggett’s “rigor-relevance-relationship” framework. If students know what they’re learning has real-life implications, meaning and purpose will ensure that they become more motivated and actively engaged in their learning.

    Years later, I founded the nonprofit Pathway2Careers with a commitment to use education research to inform good policy and effective practice. From that foundation, we set out on a path to develop a first-of-its-kind approach to math instruction that led with relevance through career-connected learning (CCL).

    In our initial pilot study in 2021, students overwhelmingly responded positively to the curriculum. After using our career-connected math lessons, 100 percent of students reported increased interest in learning math this way. Additionally, they expressed heightened curiosity about various career pathways–a significant shift in engagement.

    In a more comprehensive survey of 537 students spanning grades 7–11 (with the majority in grades 8 and 9) in 2023, the results reinforced this transformation. Students reported a measurable increase in motivation, with:

    • 48 percent expressing “much more” or “slightly more” interest in learning math
    • 52 percent showing greater curiosity about how math skills are applied in careers
    • 55 percent indicating newfound interest in specific career fields
    • 60 percent wanting to explore different career options
    • 54 percent expressing a stronger desire to learn how other skills translate to careers

    Educators also noted significant benefits. Teachers using the curriculum regularly–daily or weekly–overwhelmingly rated it as effective. Specifically, 86 percent indicated it was “very effective” or “somewhat effective” in increasing student engagement, and 73 percent highlighted improved understanding of math’s relevance to career applications. Other reported benefits included students’ increased interest in pursuing higher education and gaining awareness of various postsecondary options like certificates, associate degrees, and bachelor’s degrees.

    Building on these promising indicators of engagement, we analyzed students’ growth in learning as measured by Quantile assessments administered at the start and end of the academic year. The results exceeded expectations:

    • In Pre-Algebra, students surpassed the national average gain by 101 Quantiles (141Q vs. 40Q)
    • Algebra I students achieved more than triple the expected gains (110Q vs. 35Q)
    • Geometry learners outpaced the average by 90 Quantiles (125Q vs. 35Q)
    • Algebra II showed the most significant growth, with students outperforming the norm by 168 Quantiles (198Q vs. 30Q)

    These outcomes are a testament to the power of relevance in education. By embedding math concepts within real-world career contexts, we transformed abstract concepts into meaningful, tangible skills. Students not only mastered math content at unprecedented levels but also began to see the subject as a critical tool for their futures.

    What we found astounded even us, though we shouldn’t have been surprised, based on decades of research that indicated what would happen. Once we answered the question of when students would use this, their mastery of the math content took on purpose and meaning. Contextualizing math is the path forward for math instruction across the country.

    And there’s no time to waste. As a recent Urban Institute study indicated, students’ math proficiencies were even more significant than reading in positively impacting their later earning power. If we can change students’ attitudes about math, not just their math problems, the economic benefits to students, families, communities, and states will be profound.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Lunchtime Reading: Will having more male teachers as role models solve ‘the boy question’?

    Lunchtime Reading: Will having more male teachers as role models solve ‘the boy question’?

    • Mark Roberts is an English teacher and Director of Research at Carrickfergus Grammar School. He is the author of several books, including Boys Don’t Try? and The Boy Question, both published by Routledge.

    Spurred on by the huge response to the TV series ‘Adolescence’, Bridget Phillipson MP, Secretary of State for Education, has this week called for more male teachers to act as role models for disaffected boys.

    As a teacher who has been writing about issues with boys and education for many years, I’m delighted to see an increased focus on the debate about how best to support boys in school.

    Yet, while the idea of male teachers as role models is an alluring one, the plan is deeply flawed. Even if we can persuade lots of men to take up the call to arms to rescue our boys, there’s little evidence to suggest that the plan will work.

    The case for more male teachers

    Just as we have pushed more girls into STEM professions, we should be pushing more boys into HEAL (Health, Education, Admin and Literacy) professions. As I wrote in my book The Boy Question (2021):

    Seeing more men in teaching roles, and especially in primary settings, would help change attitudes towards both education and society at large. It would probably encourage more boys to consider teaching as a possible future career  option for themselves.

    But, in the rush to save boys from Tate and his ilk, we need to ask a key question: Will more men in teaching actually make a difference? In the age of the manosphere, would more male teachers help shift boys’ attitudes? And, from the perspective of participation in higher education, would these new recruits help improve their academic outcomes?

    The problem with male teachers as role models

    Unfortunately, there are numerous problems with the role model plan:

    1. Men are reluctant to go into teaching

      Given the relatively low pay, workload expectations and lack of status, attracting men into teaching is a challenging prospect. Efforts to recruit 6500 new teachers already look dubious, with only 200 more trainee teachers signing up in 2024/25. Without a plan to tackle negative perceptions of teaching as a career prospect, the idea is doomed from the start.

      2. Nobody can agree on what a male teacher role model looks like

        Cushman (2008) surveyed 250 New Zealand primary school principals to discover what qualities they were seeking in male teachers[i]. The principals had a long list of often contradictory desirable qualities, including outstanding sporting prowess. Research by Brownhill (2014) listed 65 different role model requirements[ii]. Meeting this idealised checklist is a big ask for any individual. Pupils, parents and politicians would also have their own role model requirements. Is any one man capable of being all those things, all the time, to all stakeholders? And even if these Supermen are capable of all this, are they also equally confident talking about misogyny as talking about algebra or Shakespeare?

        3. Children very rarely view teachers as role models

        Even if teachers were willing to try and adopt the position of idealised male teacher, there’s little evidence to suggest that boys would see them as father figures. Bricheno & Thornton (2007) found that between the age of 10-16, boys named relatives as their ‘most important role models’. Compared to 32% of young people who said they looked up to a parent, a mere 2.4% of students identified a teacher as a role model. [iii]

        4. There’s little evidence to suggest boys learn better with male teachers

        One key reason given for more male role model teachers is the suggestion that disaffected boys will respond better to teachers of their own gender. But the evidence doesn’t stack up. A 2010 study by Lam et al. of nearly 5,000 Grade 4 students in Hong Kong found no evidence that boys improved their reading when taught by men[iv]. In 2008, Carrington et al. found no teacher gender effect on attainment data and pupil attitudes in British primary schools[v]. In the same year, Marsh et al. found ‘little or no evidence’ to support the idea that boys will be more motivated by male than female teachers in secondary maths, science and English classes’[vi]. I could go on. While I welcome any efforts to recruit more male teachers, we shouldn’t expect this to lead to better results for boys.

        5. It judges female teachers unfairly

        Many of the calls for more male teachers come from voices bemoaning the ‘feminisation’ of schools. Such voices believe that female teachers are incapable of providing guidance for boys and helping them become productive members of society. This deficit model is frankly insulting to the many thousands of female teachers doing a wonderful job of educating boys in often challenging circumstances.

        Rather than getting distracted by the male role model debate, we should focus on fully supporting teachers to help boys succeed academically and get the grades required to, should they wish, enter higher education. Because that, above all, will make the biggest difference to boys’ lives.

        [i] Cushman, P. (2008) ‘So what exactly do you want? What principals mean when they say ‘male role model’’, Gender and Education, 20:2, pp. 123–136.

        [ii] Brownhill, S. (2014) ‘‘Build me a male role model!’ A critical exploration of the perceived qualities/characteristics of men in the early years (0–8) in England’, Gender and Education, 26:3, pp. 246–261.

        [iii] Bricheno, P., & Thornton, M. (2007) ‘Role model, hero or champion? Children’s views concerning role models’, Educational Research, 49:4, pp. 383–396.

        [iv] Lam, Y.H., Tse, S.K., Lam, J.W.I., & Loh, K.Y.E. (2010) ‘Does the gender of the teacher matter in the teaching of reading literacy? Teacher gender and pupil attainment in reading literacy in Hong Kong’, Teaching and Teacher Education, 26, pp. 754–759.

        [v] Carrington, B., Tymms, P., & Merrell, C. (2008) ‘Role models, school improvement and the ‘gender gap’ – Do men bring out the best in boys and women the best in girls?’ British Educational Research Journal, 34, pp. 315–327.

        [vi] Marsh, H., Martin, A., & Cheng, J. (2008) ‘A multilevel perspective on gender in classroom motivation and climate: potential benefits of male teachers for boys?’ Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, pp. 78–95.

    Source link