Tag: Standards

  • A review of student suicides suggests that standards are now necessary

    A review of student suicides suggests that standards are now necessary

    For years, bereaved families have fought for answers – and change – after losing their children to suicide at university.

    When life is difficult, Samaritans are here – day or night, 365 days a year. You can call them for free on 116 123, email them at jo@samaritans.org, or visit http://www.samaritans.org to find your nearest branch.

    Arguably the most high-profile have been Bob and Margaret Abrahart, who led this charge after their daughter Natasha died in April 2018 at the University of Bristol.

    Despite her severe social anxiety, Natasha was required to give oral presentations that filled her with dread, and in 2022, a judge ruled that Bristol had discriminated against Natasha under the Equality Act by not making reasonable adjustments.

    But he did not find the university owed a general duty of care to avoid causing psychiatric harm – noting that:

    …if a relevant duty of care did exist… there can be no doubt that the university would have been in breach.

    That distinction prompted the Abraharts and other bereaved families to launch the “#ForThe100” campaign, named after the estimated annual student suicide toll. Their petition for a statutory duty of care gathered over 128,000 signatures and triggered a Westminster Hall debate in 2023, where MPs across parties voiced support.

    The skills minister at the time, Robert Halfon, rejected the call for statutory change. Instead, as part of a higher education mental health implementation taskforce, he announced an independent review of student suicide deaths – a “watching brief” approach that effectively deferred the question of legal responsibility while monitoring the sector.

    The review has now been published – and it reveals a catalogue of missed opportunities, systematic failures, and inadequate protections for vulnerable students.

    It also evidences the patterns identified by campaigners for years – poor monitoring of disengagement, communication silos between academic and support services, inadequate training for staff, and safety concerns in university accommodation.

    The big question now is whether the evidence will drive the legal and cultural shifts needed to protect students and prevent future deaths – or whether it will become yet another well-intentioned PDF on the ever-growing pile of guidance that relies on voluntary implementation.

    A review of student suicides

    The National Confidential Inquiry into Suicide and Safety in Mental Health (NCISH) team from the University of Manchester was commissioned to conduct the review. Their approach was methodical – all higher education institutions in England were asked to submit redacted serious incident reports for suspected suicides and serious self-harm incidents occurring during the 2023-2024 academic year.

    The response was robust. Of the 115 Universities UK members, 113 (98 per cent) provided a nominated contact, and 110 (96 per cent) responded with information about serious incidents during the academic year. That does at least suggest that universities recognise the importance of addressing student suicide, even if some remain hesitant about legal frameworks for doing so.

    In total, universities reported 107 suspected suicide deaths and 62 incidents of non-fatal self-harm during the 2023-2024 academic year. Of these, 104 serious incident reports (79 for suspected suicides and 25 for self-harm) were submitted to NCISH for analysis. As such, it is the largest collection of detailed individual-level data on student suicide ever compiled in the UK.

    The team then analyzed those reports against established standards, including both the Universities UK/PAPYRUS/Samaritans guidance for conducting serious incident reviews, and NCISH’s own 10 standards for investigating serious incidents. They examined student characteristics, identified risk factors, evaluated the quality of investigations, and assessed the recommendations and action plans arising from these reviews.

    Pressure and disengagement

    In 38 per cent of cases, students were experiencing academic problems or pressures. These ranged from exam-related stress (10 per cent) to anxiety about falling behind or meeting deadlines (19 per cent).

    Nearly a third (32 per cent) of reports identified evidence of non-attendance – a critical warning sign that was often met with inadequate response, if it was noticed at all. The most common intervention was an automated email from administrators, rather than proactive personal outreach.

    The report argues that that represents a significant missed opportunity for intervention – calling for students who are struggling academically to be recognised as potentially at risk, with an enhanced focus on providing a supportive response, as well as increased awareness of support at key pressure points in the academic calendar, especially during exam periods.

    The review also found that while 21 per cent of students were or had been part of “support to study” procedures or equivalent, there were clear instances where a cause for concern had not been appropriately escalated.

    The report identifies a need for additional or more robust processes for monitoring student engagement and non-attendance, including recommendations to review attendance triggers, the development of consistent approaches to responding to non-attendance, and the implementation of earlier interventions when disengagement is identified.

    The timing of incidents reinforces the connection to academic pressure, with peaks occurring in March and May – coinciding with assessment and exam periods – and notably fewer incidents during holiday periods, suggesting that academic stressors play a significant role in student distress.

    One thing I’d add here is that it really shouldn’t be a given that students in the UK all progress and complete at the same pace – that we are the country in the OECD whose students complete the fastest and drop out the least has some obvious downsides that the LLE, and a large dose of culture change, really ought to tackle.

    The other thing worth considering is culture. In our work on student health last month, academic culture popped up a significant but often overlooked determinant of student health in survey responses, with students describing patterns of overwork, presenteeism, and a “meritocracy of difficulty” that rewards suffering over learning outcomes.

    Students’ comments revealed how unhealthy work patterns are normalized within academic environments, with concerns about overwhelming assessment deadlines, high-stakes exams disadvantaging students with health conditions, and the glorification of struggle across disciplines. Students also highlighted the disconnect between wellbeing messaging and impossible workloads, articulating a desire for intellectually challenging environments that don’t lead to burnout – as well as both personal and systems empathy.

    Their solutions included workload mapping, identifying assessment bottlenecks, flexible assessment strategies offering multiple ways to demonstrate learning, staff training on setting healthy work boundaries, health impact assessments for curriculum design, accessibility-focused policies, clear distinctions between challenging content and unnecessary stress, student workload panels with authority to flag unsustainable demands, and revised attendance policies to discourage presenteeism during illness. They are all worth considering – as are projects like the one referenced here.

    Mental health, neurodiversity and support services

    Nearly half (47 per cent) of reports identified mental health difficulties as a factor prior to the incident, with 31 per cent noting diagnosed mental health conditions. Most commonly, these were depression and anxiety disorders (20 per cent).

    Significantly, 30 per cent of reports described a diagnosis or suspected diagnosis of neurodiversity, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism spectrum disorder, or dyslexia. Of these neurodivergent students, only 14 described reasonable adjustments or support/inclusion plans tailored to their needs, and 12 per cent also had a mental health diagnosis. That suggests big gaps in support for students with overlapping mental health and neurodevelopmental needs.

    Especially concerning is that 70 per cent of students were known to university support services before their death, most often wellbeing services. These weren’t cases where students were suffering in silence – they had actively reached out for help within the university system. In many cases, students had multiple touchpoints with support services, but there were often gaps in follow-up, inadequate assessment of risk severity, and insufficient intensity or continuity of support.

    It’s partly the silo problem again. The report identified plenty of problems with information sharing in 24 per cent of cases, where critical details about a student’s mental health were not communicated between clinical, pastoral, and academic staff. Communication breakdowns meant that while a student might disclose suicidal thoughts to a counselor, personal/academic tutors remained unaware of the severity of their situation, continuing to apply normal academic pressures.

    Similarly, when academic staff noticed concerning changes in attendance or performance, this information wasn’t consistently shared with mental health professionals who could have intervened.

    The review specifically recommends improving information sharing internally and externally but notes that (often unfounded) concerns about confidentiality prevent effective coordination – leaving vulnerable students to navigate fragmented support systems and tell their story repeatedly to different university staff. What I’d note is that recommendations and guidance on this have been around for years now – universities clearly need to go further, and faster.

    And the realities of the funding system, the state of the sector’s finances and the resultant staff-student ratios in plenty of departments also need an honest conversation. If it’s noticing that matters, other students also need to be in the mix as well as academic staff.

    Location and transition

    Where location was known, 23 per cent of incidents occurred in university-managed accommodation – suggesting serious safety concerns in spaces directly controlled by institutions. The review specifically recommends reviewing the safety of university-managed accommodation, including physical safety, high-risk locations, the criteria for welfare checks, and signposting for support, particularly out-of-hours.

    I’d suggest that that should probably reflect, via the codes of practice the firms will be required to join to escape the regulation in the Renter’s Rights Act, standards in private halls too – although that would, of course require a modicum of coordination between DfE and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.

    Almost three-quarters (73 per cent) of students were undergraduates, with over a quarter (27 per cent) in their first year of undergraduate studies, backing up previous research that has indicated that the first year represents a particularly vulnerable transition period – often leaving home, managing independent living, forming new relationships, and adapting to university-level academic demands.

    The review suggests these changes create a perfect storm of risk factors – first-year students often lack established campus support networks while losing daily contact with home support systems, may struggle with imposter syndrome or academic uncertainty, and frequently hesitate to seek help, believing their struggles are just “normal” adjustment issues.

    The problem is then compounded by institutional factors – with no prior academic record to contextualise changes in engagement and larger first-year class sizes, warning signs frequently go unnoticed by staff. The review specifically calls for enhanced induction processes and early intervention systems for first-years, recognising that proactive support during this critical transition period could significantly reduce suicide risk.

    I remain convinced that near-universal systems of group social mentoring found on the continent could have a major role to play here – they’re even in the legislation in Finland – but I also wonder whether the other notable OECD comparison, that (together with Belgium) we have pretty much the youngest bachelor’s entrants in the world, could also do with some significant thought.

    DfE has, of course, had a previous run at coordinating a national piece of work on transition support and standards – but the less said about that the better. We almost certainly need something more consistent, substantial and credit-bearing – I sketched out what that could look like here.

    International students

    International students accounted for nearly a quarter (24 per cent) of all submitted reports – a disproportionately high percentage given their representation in the overall student population. The overrepresentation could suggest additional challenges, including potential cultural and language barriers, social isolation, and distance from established support networks.

    In many ways, they face much of what home students face, with unfamiliar academic and cultural expectations, (often) studying in a second language, managing complex visa requirements, and coping with significant financial pressures due to higher fees and limited work rights piled on top. Many also experience intense pressure to succeed from family members who may have made substantial sacrifices to fund their education.

    The review found that cultural differences significantly impacted how international students experienced and expressed mental health difficulties. In some cases, cultural stigma around mental illness prevented students from seeking help, while in others, language barriers made it difficult to effectively communicate distress to university staff. The report also noted particular difficulties with international students who were isolated within their own cultural groups, making it harder for wider university systems to identify warning signs.

    Despite the overrepresentation of international students in suicide cases, the review found minimal evidence of culturally sensitive support services or targeted outreach. Many just applied a one-size-fits-all approach to wellbeing support that failed to account for diverse cultural understandings of mental health.

    The review specifically recommends that universities develop more culturally competent services and proactive engagement strategies for international students – particularly those from countries with significant cultural differences from the UK.

    There’s a reason why new Office for Students Condition E6 on harassment and sexual misconduct specifically requires approaches that are tailored to a provider’s specific student population, and that systems and processes to help prevent and respond to harassment and sexual misconduct are accessible to international students. It’s true on this issue too.

    Investigation quality and university response

    Following a death by suicide, the review found significant gaps in postvention support – the care provided to those affected. While 41 per cent of reports showed evidence of support for peers following a suicide, there was significantly less support for affected staff (18 per cent) and bereaved families (9 per cent).

    The review recommends that anyone affected by a student’s death by suicide should be offered or signposted to appropriate support – acknowledging that effective postvention is itself a critical component of preventing further deaths.

    The review then found wide variation in how universities investigate student deaths and respond to them. In three-quarters (76 per cent) of all reviewed cases, families were not involved in any aspect of the suicide investigation process. While 72 per cent of reports indicated that the family was contacted after the death to offer condolences, only 11 per cent of families contributed to or were offered involvement in the investigation process. And just 6 per cent of reports had been shared with the families.

    As the report notes, families provided:

    …moving accounts of feeling excluded from the process of finding out what happened to their loved ones, and some had a perception that the university was evasive and reluctant to answer important and painful questions.

    The exclusion of those who knew the student best not only denies families closure but also prevents universities from gaining valuable insights about circumstances outside the institution.

    It also raised significant questions about who conducts these investigations and their qualifications to do so. In 35 per cent of reports, information on the lead reviewer was not available. Only 13 per cent explicitly stated that the lead reviewer had no prior involvement with the student – a fundamental principle of independent investigation.

    There was also little evidence that those conducting the reviews had specific training or expertise in suicide prevention or investigation. As the report notes:

    …completing a serious incident review is an additional strategic-level responsibility, with no status of its own within someone’s job role.

    Most reviews focused narrowly on the university’s own processes and records, rarely seeking information from external sources. Despite 60 per cent of reports indicating the student had contact with other agencies (such as healthcare providers), only 6 per cent of these included contributions from those organizations in the review process.

    The gathering of information “did not generally extend to records and contributions from other agencies” such as primary care, secondary mental health care, and the criminal justice system. This was true even where the university was aware that those agencies had played a critical role in the student’s care. This inward-looking approach created significant knowledge gaps that could have been filled with input from families, health providers, and other external sources.

    The report also notes that there were examples of gaps in the chronology with little or no information between the student’s last contact with the HE provider and the incident. Without a comprehensive understanding of the student’s circumstances, universities can’t effectively identify all factors contributing to suicide risk.

    This won’t come as a surprise to anyone working in HE, but while 79 per cent of reports identified learning to help prevent future incidents (generating almost 300 recommendations in total), the implementation process was often weak. Over half (53 per cent) identified specific actions, but 18 per cent of these lacked clear owners and 40 per cent had no timescales for delivery.

    That raises questions about whether these recommendations are ever fully implemented or simply filed away. Learning points were “inconsistently assigned or scheduled,” with a lack of institutional commitment to following through on identified improvements. Without accountability mechanisms and clear follow-up processes, there’s little assurance that these recommendations will lead to meaningful change.

    Learning from tragedy

    The review makes 19 specific recommendations across four categories – safety concerns, suicide prevention within university systems, amendments to guidance, and wider system messages. They are comprehensive – but they largely represent guidance rather than enforceable standards.

    The first recommendation, for example, calls for “mental health awareness and suicide prevention training” to be available for all student-facing staff, with consideration for making such training mandatory – acknowledging the critical role staff play in identifying and responding to students in distress.

    But the report stops short of recommending that training be required – using the softer language of “consideration” for mandatory training. It’s a recommendation I’ve read hundreds of times over the years, and in the financial and redundancies state the sector is in, it would be hard to believe that it’s going to happen without a requirement that it does.

    That’ll be why OfS is now requiring it in E6 for harassment and sexual misconduct, and why that includes a line on “no saying you can’t afford it – if you can’t afford it, don’t provide HE”. Something similar should surely apply here.

    Meanwhile recommendations 3 and 4 address academic pressures, calling for students struggling academically to be “recognised as potentially at risk” and for increased support at key academic calendar points. They are a shift toward viewing academic processes not just as educational tools but as potential risk factors for mental health – a perspective that aligns with campaigners’ arguments for a duty of care that encompasses the whole student experience.

    Although as I said above, some system-structural issues relating to age and pace ought be on the list inside DfE’s reform plans for proper consideration.

    While it stops short of recommending a duty of care, it does call for “a duty of candour” to be introduced to the HE sector, setting out organisational responsibilities to be open and transparent with families after a suspected suicide. That would include a duty to provide information on what happened, at the earliest point.

    As it stands, Keir Starmer promised that such a duty, to apply to public authorities including universities, would appear by 15 April – the anniversary of the Hillsborough disaster. But it’s a deadline that was missed – with rumours that officials have been attempting to water it down and questions over whether it would apply in internal investigations as well as statutory inquiries. A decision will need to come soon.

    Mark Shanahan, on behalf of the LEARN Network, argues that universities are learning communities, but it is unclear from the research whether the learning leads to change. If nothing else, they’re supporting the idea that the exercise becomes annual:

    In some ways, it’s a vindication to see the concerns of bereaved families confirmed, when many feel so excluded when they try to find out what happened to their sons and daughters. Without families’ strength and persistence this report would not have been commissioned. We need to see it repeated annually if lessons are to be learned over the longer term.

    Given that so few University Mental Health Charter Awards have been achieved (just two in 2025), the network also argues that a legal duty of care by universities towards students, delivered by statute and/or regulation is the only way to accelerate the changes advocated in this report.

    Duty of care?

    The review comes, of course, amid ongoing confusion about what a “duty of care” would actually mean in a university context. The current government position, articulated by DfE minister Janet Daby, is that “a duty of care in HE may arise in certain circumstances” which “would be a matter for the courts to decide.”

    On BBC News, asked why a legal duty of care had not been introduced, skills minister Jacqui Smith says that “we do think that universities have a general duty of care to their students”, but that there were “some legal challenges”:

    We’ll be absolutely clear with universities that this is their responsibility. We’ve made resource available and we will continue to challenge them to deliver that.

    Being “absolutely clear” means establishing a legal duty and then asking your regulator to proactively monitor compliance with it – not a combo of endless finger wagging and a charter whose evaluation report found universities where mental health and wellbeing efforts were ad hoc, siloed, had limited proactive outreach, featured inconsistent and sometimes contradictory responses across departments, and lacked a strategic approach to mental health in curriculum design, community building and risk management.

    And “resource” probably doesn’t mean the paltry £5 per student in the grant letter.

    The position on duty of care contrasts sharply with the certainty provided in other contexts – like as the duty of care employers owe to their employees or that schools owe to their pupils – and means students enter university without clarity on what protections they can expect, while universities operate without clear standards for their responsibilities.

    As Bob Abrahart argues:

    …students and universities need instead to know where they stand.

    The review signals pretty clearly that the ambiguity has real consequences – inconsistent practices, missed warning signs, and preventable tragedies. Valuable recommendations will mean nothing if their implementation remains voluntary without a statutory framework.

    And as I’ve argued before on the site, when students have rights and know their rights, they’re better able to contribute to decent conversations about how they might be implemented practically. The rest is all “in an ideal world”, and we’re very much not in an ideal world right now.

    A more comprehensive statutory duty of care would establish clear standards for prevention, requiring universities to take reasonable steps to avoid foreseeable harm. It would not, as opponents suggest, treat students as children or make universities responsible for all aspects of student wellbeing. It would provide clarity on the reasonable expectations students can have of their institutions, and ensure consistency across the sector.

    The review has shown where the problems lie – now ministerial courage is needed to implement solutions that are universally applied. The 107 students whose deaths formed the basis of this review deserved better. Future students deserve the protection of clear, enforceable standards that their staff get.

    Source link

  • States try to tackle child care shortages — by lowering standards

    States try to tackle child care shortages — by lowering standards

    When this year’s legislative session launched in Idaho, early childhood experts and advocates were hopeful that the state, which has a shortage of child care, would invest more in early learning programs. Instead, lawmakers proposed what may be the most extreme effort yet to deregulate child care in America: The bill called for eliminating state required staff-to-child ratios altogether, instead allowing child care providers to set their own.

    While the effort was met with fierce opposition in the state, it represents a trend gaining momentum in the country. Rather than investing in the struggling child care industry, more than a dozen states have proposed lowering the minimum age to work with children, easing education and training requirements, and raising group sizes and ratios. (Read my December story on this growing deregulation movement. I investigated such efforts in states including Kansas and Iowa.)

    The deregulation measures come at a time when many early childhood programs face federal funding and staffing cuts. Head Start programs were hit by a federal funding freeze and struggled to draw down payments even after the Trump administration announced Head Start was exempt from the freeze. Then, earlier this month, the Trump administration closed five of the Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) regional offices and placed staff from those offices on leave, threatening support for Head Start, which is overseen by ACF, as well as programs that receive federal child care subsidies. Last week, USA Today reported that President Donald Trump is considering a budget proposal that would eliminate funding for Head Start altogether.

    At the state level, Idaho lawmakers are not the only ones to propose child care deregulation legislation this year. Minnesota lawmakers also issued similar proposals, including increasing family child care capacity limits and relaxing ratios in rural areas. Another bill in the state proposes lowering the age requirement of assistant teachers from 18 to 16. In Kansas, where a lawmaker proposed hiring 14-year-olds to help in child care classrooms in 2023, a new bill aims to reduce training requirements. An Indiana measure would loosen staff-to-child ratios based on the ratios set in neighboring states, and one in North Carolina would increase maximum group sizes for young children. And in Florida, lawmakers have called for an abbreviated inspection plan for some child care programs.

    While deregulation is more common in red states, there have also been some recent efforts to invest in early learning programs that transcend the red-blue divide. In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp proposed an additional $14 million aimed at reducing preschool class sizes and $5.5 million to address issues with the state’s child care subsidy program for lower-income families. Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called for more spending to eliminate the state’s waitlist for child care subsidies. And South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster proposed $20 million to continue a program that provides wage supplements to child care workers.

    In Idaho, the deregulation legislation was eventually amended to loosen the state-mandated ratios — without eliminating them altogether. It also forbids municipalities from setting more stringent child care regulations than the state, something that was allowed in the past and allowed cities to set a “higher standard” for programs, said Martin Balben, director of strategic initiatives for the Idaho Association for the Education of Young Children.

    “I think municipalities are still kind of reeling with how to confront that reality,” he said. “It remains to be seen how [they] are going to handle their lack of local control in this area moving forward.”

    Experts say while deregulation is nothing new, the recent momentum is troubling. “We absolutely want to make sure that states are not rolling back their health and safety measures,” said Diane Girouard, state policy senior analyst at Child Care Aware of America. “We want to make sure that they’re not compromising children. … There are no quick fixes.”

    Contact staff writer Jackie Mader at 212-678-3562 or mader@hechingerreport.org.

    This story about child care services was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

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

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Thirty ways for DfE to deliver the manifesto and raise the standards of teaching

    Thirty ways for DfE to deliver the manifesto and raise the standards of teaching

    At some point we might get some actual higher education policy out of the Department for Education (DfE), rather then endless crackdowns on the “long tail” of the market.

    There’s rumours of a (next) TEF delay which we might assume ministers will take an interest in, and a signature manifesto commitment on “raising the standards of teaching” to deliver.

    It all raises the question – what should Labour’s agenda on teaching be? How might it realise it? What levers will it pull?

    Of course it’s the case that whatever the agenda, there’s a need for the right funding systems (for both students and providers) and regulatory architecture – and those will always dominate the discussion.

    But you’d like to think there were other things, too.

    Reinstate the QAA as the Designated Quality Body for England

    A nice and easy start – DfE should issue ministerial guidance directing the Office for Students (OfS) to re-designate the QAA as the primary quality assurance body. The QAA has long maintained international credibility and alignment with European standards – something England has steadily drifted away from since Brexit.

    It’s not just a technical concern – it threatens the international recognition of English qualifications at precisely the moment when global educational mobility is increasing. OfS has tried to go it alone on quality – the experiment has failed. No shame in admitting it.

    Re-establish periodic review and enhancement expectations

    DfE should direct OfS to develop requirements for periodic review through regulatory guidance, with funding for QAA to develop a new enhancement framework appropriate for England’s context.

    One of the quietest casualties of England’s regulatory experiment has been the loss of enhancement culture. Where periodic review encouraged reflection and improvement, the pendulum has swung decisively toward compliance and risk-management. England now lags behind Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, where enhancement remains central to quality regimes. We now have a sector where teaching innovation happens despite, not because of, the regulatory framework. It could be different.

    Scrap the current TEF and implement subject-level TEF based solely on metrics

    First, abolish continuation as a metric that somehow represents “teaching quality”. We’re so good at it internationally that it’s starting to look like kidnapping, and seriously harms the sort of flexibility envisaged in the LLE or required from our breathtaking levels of decision regret.

    Then DfE should issue guidance to OfS to develop a revised, metrics-based TEF framework operating at subject level. As currently constituted, the TEF neither drives genuine improvement nor provides meaningful information to prospective students. A subject-level TEF grounded in robust metrics would offer more granular insights while slashing the cost and reducing the burden of institutional storytelling that has become the hallmark of the current approach.

    And it would prevent what is likely to be a key “misleading practice” issue under the DMCC act – a “TEF Gold” banner appearing over the door of a faculty whose metrics would suggest a requires improvement rating.

    Regulation for the struggling, enhancement for the thriving

    A simple distinction should be made in the approach to quality. For provision failing to meet minimum standards (below B3 thresholds), robust regulatory intervention through OfS remains appropriate. More boots on the ground if anything. However, for provision meeting or exceeding these standards, we need to shift from compliance-checking to enhancement-driven approaches led by the QAA.

    In other words, let OfS carry on its inspections against minimums when its thresholds aren’t met at subject, provider or subcontractual status level, and let quality assurance and enhancement via the QAA sit alongside it for everyone and everything else. Neat.

    Require publication of external examiner reports

    External examining is one of the oldest, most trusted mechanisms for maintaining academic standards in the UK and causing collaboration between universities – but it has become increasingly invisible. Reports are buried in back-office systems, rarely seen by students, and seldom discussed publicly.

    DfE should ask OfS to require the publication of external examiner reports, ideally with departmental responses. Visibility would encourage honest, critical engagement with standards, and bring students into the conversation about academic quality. After all, if someone outside the course is checking the quality, why shouldn’t those taking it see what they say?

    Establish targets and metrics for staff teaching training

    Universities are packed with subject experts, but expertise in a field doesn’t automatically translate to expertise in teaching it. The uneven distribution of pedagogical training and teaching qualifications means students experience wildly different teaching quality depending on their course, their institution, and sometimes just luck of the draw.

    OfS should be asked to introduce and publish metrics on staff development, making it clear which institutions invest in teaching capacity. Yes – an input measure! One that students actually want.

    Require compulsory module evaluations with visible results for loan-funded modules

    Every module of credit that accrues a loan charge should be accompanied by a compulsory evaluation, with results that students can see – including action taken in response to previous feedback. A “comply-or-explain” expectation would transform the granularity of information available to students making module choices under the Lifelong Loan Entitlement, and improve teaching. DfE should ask OfS to apply one.

    If students are paying for it (and increasingly borrowing for it), they deserve to know what they’re getting. Student reps can then work with the data and work with departments on problem-solving instead of being asked to supply feedback themselves.

    Reduce the number of subject benchmark statements

    The current proliferation of subject benchmark statements has created a rigid and prescriptive framework that stifles innovation and interdisciplinarity. If they were reduced and broadened, there would be more space for flexible curriculum design that responds to emerging fields and changing student needs. That’s about defining quality and standards in ways that encourage creativity and adaptation – rather than compliance and conformity. The EU is hurtling in this direction anyway – would be nice to… align at least. That should go in the ministerial direction letter too.

    Convene a partnership between NUS and SUs for national student-led teaching awards

    Student-led teaching awards have become an important feature at most universities, celebrating innovative and impactful teaching practice. But their impact remains localised, with limited opportunities to identify and share learning across the sector.

    A national event via a DfE-convened partnership would elevate the student voice in defining teaching excellence, create powerful incentives for innovation, be a good PR opportunity for the sector and the department, and offer a rich source of data on what works for students. It could even be held in 20 Great Smith St to drive down the cost.

    Direct OfS to mine NSS free text responses for insights

    The quantitative metrics of the National Student Survey tell only part of the story, and OfS is sat on a couple of decades of hidden intel – free text comments contain rich insights into student experiences that are currently underutilised.

    With appropriate anonymisation and ethical safeguards, comments could identify emerging concerns, highlight innovative practice, and provide a more nuanced understanding on good teaching that numbers alone cannot capture. Another one for the letter.

    Establish a clear definition of learning gain

    Despite extensive discussion about “learning gain,” there’s no clear consensus on how to define, measure, or evaluate it. The ambiguity undermines meaningful comparison and improvement – so establishing a clear, shared definition, focused not just on knowledge acquisition but on skill development, mindset shifts, and capability building means we’ll get a meaningful framework for universities to then further define for assessing educational value and building degree transcripts. “Dear Susan and Edward, we expect…”

    Establish a regulatory domain focused on “learning environment”

    Currently, various aspects of the learning environment – mental health support, physical spaces, digital infrastructure, library resources – are regulated through bafflingly disconnected processes. The fragmentation creates bureaucratic burden – despite this stuff being essential underpinners of good teaching and learning.

    Asking OfS to establish “learning environment” as a distinct integrated regulatory domain (like it is in most other countries in Europe) would mean a rounded approach – recognising how these elements interact to shape student experiences and outcomes, and clocking that a lot of good learning is self-directed. It would also allow for more proportionate, context-sensitive regulation while maintaining a focus on student needs and concerns.

    Establish a TASO equivalent for teaching enhancement

    England needs its own equivalent to Scotland’s Quality Enhancement Framework – a body akin to TASO (Transforming Access and Student Outcomes) that can convene national conversations, fund pilots, and broker communities of practice around teaching improvement.

    Maybe QAA gets to do it, maybe Advance HE. Maybe someone else. But it’s needed nationally, probably at subject level, and should involve students drawn from academic societies. Can’t DfE convene something? It should CETL for nothing less.

    Push for associate membership of European University Alliances

    Brexit has left UK higher education increasingly isolated from European teaching networks, particularly the European Universities Initiative. They are building the future of cross-border education – shared degrees, joint quality standards, collaborative innovation – while England watches from the sidelines. DfE should push for associate membership of these initiatives to ensure English universities (and their student leaders) are plugged into the networks where the most exciting teaching innovations are emerging.

    Implement DfE approval for franchising arrangements based on qualitative criteria

    DfE should establish a dedicated unit with oversight powers for franchising approvals, with clear guidance on acceptable quality thresholds – as friends in FE somewhere in Great Smith St do. The proliferation of “business/cities” subcontracted provision has created regulatory blind spots where quality can quietly deteriorate – so DfE should hold approval rights for these arrangements based on demonstrable need, track record and quality assurance, not just market opportunity.

    Apply the OfS fairness condition universally across the sector

    DfE should instruct OfS to implement its proposed new fairness condition without exemptions through clear ministerial guidance, requiring equal application regardless of provider type or history. If we’re not careful, we’ll focus regulatory attention on newer providers while established institutions escape scrutiny.

    If a student at Oxford experiences the same poor practice as one at a small private provider, shouldn’t they have the same protections? Fairness cannot be conditional based on institutional prestige or history – either students have rights to good teaching, or they don’t. They do.

    Establish university-level ombuds and a duty to learn from complaints

    DfE should fund a pilot programme for university-level ombuds, followed by regulatory requirements through OfS. The duty to learn from complaints would be implemented through revised regulatory conditions requiring public reporting of complaint outcomes and resulting changes. University-level ombuds – independent officers with investigatory powers and public reporting requirements – could transform how institutions respond to student concerns.

    Rather than treating complaints as irritants to be managed, they would become valuable sources of insight for improvement. OfS should also establish a duty for universities to publicly report on what they’ve learned from complaints and appeals (both uphelds and others), and how practice has changed as a result.

    Require OfS to respond to the National Student Survey each year

    DfE should issue ministerial guidance requiring OfS to produce an annual NSS response document with clear action points – identifying trends, highlighting innovative approaches, and using the data to inform regulatory priorities. Students take the time to respond to the NSS. It’s time the regulator did too. As if students score assessment and feedback badly every year and nothing is done!

    Strengthening student rights and voice

    For all the rhetoric about students as partners, their voice in institutional decision-making remains precarious. The regulatory framework mentions consultation more than it meaningfully embeds representation. Many still treat student engagement as a box-ticking exercise rather than a fundamental right.

    OfS should be told to enshrine stronger rights for students to influence decisions, the curriculum, know their rights, seek redress, and access minimum support for their representative bodies. And every provider should be required to support effective independent student organising (ie SUs) and support for students – not as an optional extra, but as a core expectation given students’ textbook vulnerability.

    Establish “access to the loan book” criteria to drive credit transfer

    England’s student finance system remains one of the major obstacles to student mobility. If you switch institutions, change course, or build credits in non-traditional settings like the workplace, transferring that credit remains difficult and under-rewarded.

    Tying access to student loan funding to a provider’s willingness to recognise credit means DfE could incentivise the sector towards a more flexible future where students have genuine mobility between institutions and learning contexts. Yeah, I know Oxford and Cambridge and a slice of the Russell Group would object. They can probably afford to go exempt.

    Task OfS with monitoring subject/module availability and facilitating collaboration

    The regulator should be asked to monitor subject and module availability – not just full course provision – and be given a duty to drive collaboration across the sector where gaps emerge. Medr has by its minister already. When competition constricts provision, regulation must enable collaboration.

    This might mean funding shared provision between institutions, brokering inter-university module access, or investing in digital platforms that let students study beyond the borders of their enrolled provider. Quality needs choice, and choice has to be protected in the architecture of the system.

    Enshrine the right to build credit across multiple institutions

    What if we enshrined the right for students to accrue credit across multiple higher education institutions? And a domestic mobility scheme – akin to Erasmus, but within the UK – could support students spending terms or modules at other universities, either physically or virtually, learning lessons about excellent teaching along the way. Jacqui would have to have a conversation with Heidi Alexander over the train fares, but it would be great – and we’ve seen it work in several European countries now.

    Allow students to accrue credit through employment and service learning

    Not all “teaching” is done by “teachers”. All students – undergraduate and postgraduate – should have the right to accrue up to 10 ECTS credits per year in recognised learning outside their main subject area, via employment or service learning. For postgraduates, this could extend to 15 ECTS. Whether working in a hospital, mentoring in a school, or delivering a community project, students should gain formal credit for skills developed through real-world application.

    That would reframe how we think about employability – not just as abstract skills development, but as validation of the meaningful, real-world work many students already juggle alongside their studies. It would also encourage universities to connect more deeply with their communities, valuing not just what students learn in the university, but what they contribute through it. The LLE should really be focussed on delivering flexibility in what’s there now, not spending hours figuring out how to stop fraud over single modules.

    Require credit-bearing student induction and transition support

    Every institution should be told to offer structured, credit-bearing induction and transition support – developing core competencies in academic integrity, independent study, and navigating support systems – to ensure that all students, regardless of their educational background, have the tools they need to succeed.

    And while graduate attributes are mapped in fine detail, the early-stage student journey is largely ignored. An embedded framework that builds progressively – with assessment points and optional modules on civic leadership, digital fluency, and self-directed learning – would connect coherently to broader goals around credit mobility and skills development.

    Introduce credit-bearing interdisciplinary “civic lab” modules

    DfE should establish a dedicated civic engagement fund with partners in DCMS to support development and implementation, alongside regulatory expectations for civic engagement through the curriculum. Credit-bearing, interdisciplinary “civic lab” modules across all degree programmes would allow students to apply their disciplinary knowledge to real-world problems while developing transferable skills.

    Develop competency-based academic transcripts

    Revisit Burgess and announce the end of the UK degree classification system. It’s harmful twaddle. A competency-based academic transcript would provide a more helpful picture of graduate capabilities, detailing specific skills, contributions, and attributes developed through their studies.

    It would offer employers and postgraduate admissions tutors a more granular view of student achievement, and would encourage universities to think more broadly about the skills and attributes they’re developing through their teaching. The degree should be about what’s interesting about that graduate, not whether they’re in one of four impossibly broad categories. Just announce it. See what happens.

    Embed inquiry-based learning into teaching quality expectations

    DfE should direct OfS and QAA to develop clear guidance on inquiry-based approaches in teaching, backed by targeted enhancement funding for curriculum development and staff training.

    At its heart, that’s about moving beyond compliance-driven education to something more transformative. We should embed inquiry-based learning into teaching quality expectations, requiring that all students, in all disciplines, experience modules built around active investigation rather than passive content delivery. Module evaluations should track the extent to which learning creates independence, reflection, and curiosity – not just satisfaction scores.

    Communicate NSS standards to students from the outset

    Currently, the National Student Survey functions primarily as a retrospective judgment tool – students reflect on their experiences only after they’ve happened. But the questions within the NSS implicitly define standards for good teaching, assessment, and support.

    If these were made explicit from the outset, students could work collaboratively with academics throughout their courses to realise these standards, rather than just offering critiques after the fact. Doing so would transform the NSS from a retrospective satisfaction measure to a developmental framework that drives ongoing improvement through partnership between students and staff, and empower students to articulate their expectations clearly and engage in constructive dialogue throughout their studies. Pop it in the letter.

    Extend the National Student Survey to postgraduate students

    The experiences of postgraduate students remain considerably less visible than those of undergraduates. Yet these students make up a significant proportion of the higher education population and face distinct challenges around supervision, research support, and career development.

    Extending the NSS to postgraduate taught and research students – with questions appropriately tailored to their contexts – would shine a light on these experiences and drive improvement in areas that are currently under-scrutinised.

    Implement an all-applicant entry survey via UCAS

    Universities currently receive minimal information about their incoming cohorts’ learning needs, preferences, and educational backgrounds – and without that, how can the teaching ever be excellent? It makes it difficult to tailor provision effectively or identify potential support needs early. A universal entry survey, administered through UCAS, would provide invaluable data on learning styles, academic concerns, skills gaps, and support requirements.

    With appropriate data protection safeguards, this information could be shared with providers to inform course planning, induction programmes, and support services. It would also allow for more personalised approaches to teaching and learning, so students receive the support they need from day one rather than waiting for problems to emerge.

    Source link

  • VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    VICTORY! 9th Circuit rules in favor of professor punished for criticizing college for lowering academic standards

    SAN FRANCISCO, March 10, 2025 — Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Lars Jensen, a math professor unconstitutionally punished for criticizing what he believed was his college’s decision to water down its math standards.

    Reversing a federal district court, the Ninth Circuit held Jensen suffered wrongful dismissal of his claims against Truckee Meadows Community College in Reno, Nevada, and that he should have his day in court to prove college administrators violated his First Amendment rights. The court also held Jensen’s right to speak out about the math standards was so clearly established that the administrators were not entitled to dismissal on qualified immunity grounds.

    “This decision is a major victory for the free speech rights of academics,” said Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression attorney Daniel Ortner, who argued the case before a Ninth Circuit panel in November 2024. “This decision will protect professors from investigation or threats of termination for their speech, and promote accountability for administrators who violate the First Amendment.”

    The dispute began in 2020, when Jensen planned to comment at a TMCC conference about what he perceived to be diminishing academic standards at the college. After administrators prohibited Jensen from sharing his views at a Q&A session, he printed out his planned comments critiquing the college for allowing for “a student graduating from college” while only being “ready for middle school math,” and handed them out to his colleagues during the break. TMCC Dean Julie Ellsworth told Jensen not to circulate his fliers during the break, but he continued to do so without interrupting the session.

    Ellsworth then accused Jensen of “disobeying” her and warned him he had “made an error” defying her. Following through on her veiled threats, Ellsworth sent Jensen an official reprimand. Over the next two performance reviews, Jensen’s department chair suggested he receive an “excellent” rating, but Ellsworth retaliated by giving him “unsatisfactory” ratings for “insubordination.” As a result, Jensen automatically had to undergo review for possible termination.

    “The college’s actions tarnished my reputation and chilled my speech,” said Jensen. “The Ninth Circuit’s decision vindicates my First Amendment rights and allows me to have my day in court.” 

    COURTESY PHOTOS OF PROFESSOR JENSEN AND HIS ATTORNEYS

    TMCC might have fired Jensen if not for the speedy intervention of FIRE, which wrote a letter objecting that the administrators were violating the First Amendment, which protects faculty at public colleges in commenting as citizens on matters of public concern. TMCC announced that Jensen would not be fired, but the damage to his First Amendment rights was already done, especially with the negative performance evaluations remaining on his file.

    Jensen sued Ellsworth and other TMCC administrators in 2022, arguing the college’s retaliatory actions violated his First Amendment rights as well as his right to due process and equal protection. A district court dismissed the case in 2023. 

    The Ninth Circuit ruled today that the district court erred in dismissing Jensen’s First Amendment claim, because his speech about the college’s academic standards involved a matter of public concern related to scholarship or teaching, and thus receives First Amendment protection. 

    The Court also held the university’s retaliatory actions were likely to chill Jensen’s speech, and that a university’s “interest in punishing a disobedient employee for speaking in violation of their supervisor’s orders cannot automatically trump the employee’s interest in speaking.” The Court warned, in fact, that if an employer could fire an employee solely for refusing to obey an order to stop speaking, a university could unconstitutionally enjoy “carte blanche to stifle legitimate speech.”

    The Court further held the district court erred when it held that claims against the college administrators were barred by qualified immunity, a doctrine that requires plaintiffs to show a government official violated their “clearly established right” before they can hold those officials accountable for damages. The Ninth Circuit held that at the time Jensen spoke out, “it was clearly established that a professor has a right to speak about a school’s curriculum without being reprimanded, given negative performance reviews, and put through an investigation and termination hearing.”

    The ruling remands the case back to the District Court of Nevada, where Jensen’s First Amendment claims can proceed. He may also choose to amend his other claims as necessary to proceed alongside them. Jensen is also represented by Nevada attorney John Nolan, who brought the lawsuit and wrote the briefs filed with the Ninth Circuit. 

     

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought — the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE educates Americans about the importance of these inalienable rights, promotes a culture of respect for these rights, and provides the means to preserve them.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; media@thefire.org

    Source link

  • Accreditors offer flexibility on DEI standards

    Accreditors offer flexibility on DEI standards

    President Donald Trump’s broadside against diversity, equity and inclusion has left colleges scrambling to determine how to comply—even as they juggle accreditation standards containing elements of DEI.

    But even with an executive order from the Trump administration targeting “illegal” DEI programs at colleges blocked by the courts, and a Dear Colleague letter from the Education Department likely unenforceable, accreditors are treading lightly on DEI, allowing colleges leeway on complying to certain standards. If the accreditors didn’t provide such flexibility, colleges would essentially have to decide between complying with the federal government or with their accreditor—a nearly impossible situation for institutions.

    Some, like the STEM accreditor ABET, have dropped DEI standards entirely. And the American Bar Association suspended enforcement of its DEI standards through August while it weighs revisions to such requirements.

    As colleges feel the squeeze, some of the largest institutional accreditors have decided not to force colleges to choose between them or the Education Department, at least for now, largely telling institutions they will not be adversely affected if they fail to comply with DEI standards due to state or federal laws.

    Accreditors Push Back

    While accreditors allow colleges to operate with flexibility on DEI standards, some are also pushing back on the Trump administration’s crackdown, particularly the Dear Colleague letter that seeks to expand a Supreme Court opinion in the Students for Fair Admissions case, which shot down affirmative action, to ban race-conscious scholarships, programming and more.

    “We would suggest that the [U.S. Department of Education’s] interpretation of SFFA is overly broad and expansive, a concern shared among legal experts,” the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions wrote in a letter to the Trump administration Monday.

    C-RAC officials added that the 14-day deadline for colleges to drop all race-conscious activities is “unreasonable” and that “the expectations for institutional actions or the methods through which institutions are expected to comply with these broad reaching requirements are unclear.”

    Numerous accreditors also signed on to a letter to the department from the American Council on Education, which raised similar concerns. That letter also noted that, “however one defines DEI—and DEI is a concept that means different things to different parties—it is worth noting that the range of activities that are commonly associated with DEI are not, in and of themselves, illegal.”

    Offering Flexibility

    As accreditors press the Department of Education for clarity, they have also provided guidance to colleges, emphasizing that their member institutions must follow state and federal laws.

    “What we have said is that they can be assured we would not take any adverse action with regard to any of our standards if the institution is attempting to follow what they believe is a legal requirement,” Larry Schall, president of the New England Commission of Higher Education, told Inside Higher Ed.

    Nicole Biever, chief of staff at the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, wrote by email that the organization has notified institutions “that the Commission would never expect any institution to violate the laws or government mandates of the jurisdictions in which they operate.”

    She added that MSCHE standards “will in no way inhibit” institutional compliance with the law.

    Barbara Gellman-Danley, president of the Higher Learning Commission, emphasized in an email to Inside Higher Ed that institutions must comply with all members of the regulatory triad, comprised of accreditors, state governments and the federal Department of Education. If “HLC’s requirements overlap with requirements from other members of the Triad, we work with the other Triad members to identify these situations and limit the burden on the institution,” she wrote.

    “HLC does not prescribe how a member institution meets HLC’s requirements,” she added. “If a requirement of another entity of the Triad may appear to limit an institution’s ability to meet HLC’s requirements in a particular manner, an institution has the flexibility within HLC’s requirements to identify other ways to demonstrate it meets HLC’s requirements.”

    In guidance sent to member institutions, Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission interim president Christopher Oberg noted that the Dear Colleague letter does not have the force of the law and encouraged institutions “to consult their own legal counsel to help navigate the Department’s guidance.” Oberg added that the organization “will continue to provide updates to member institutions as matters are clarified.”

    The Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges has also emphasized flexibility in its guidance to members.

    “It is important to note that as a federally recognized institutional accreditor, ACCJC would never require a member institution to violate state or federal laws and regulations or consumer protection clauses. As an agency, we are beholden to the federal government, state governments, and our member institutions, and work collaboratively and flexibly with those oversight partners to meet any and all regulations and communicate requirements to member institutions, as necessary,” AACJC president Mac Powell wrote by email.

    What Are the DEI Standards?

    Policies on DEI are as varied as the accreditors themselves, with different requirements or none at all.

    For instance, NECHE’s accreditation criteria urge member institutions to address their “own goals for the achievement of diversity, equity, and inclusion” across the student body, faculty and staff.

    But MSCHE’s accreditation criteria require institutions to “reflect deeply and share results on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the context of their mission” across areas such as goals and actions, demographics, policies, processes, assessments, and resource allocation.

    “One goal of DEI reflection would be to address disparate impacts on an increasingly diverse student population if discovered,” part of MSCHE’s standards reads. Elsewhere, MSCHE indicates that candidates for accreditation should have “sufficient diversity, independence, and expertise to ensure the integrity of the institution.”

    Other accreditors, such as HLC, say that an accredited college should strive “to ensure that the overall composition of its faculty and staff reflects human diversity as appropriate within its mission and for the constituencies it serves.”

    Others, such as programmatic accreditors, may have more exacting standards. But some accreditors, like the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, have never included DEI criteria.

    Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities interim president Jeff Fox told Inside Higher Ed by email that it too has never officially had DEI standards as part of its accreditation requirements.

    “The NWCCU has no language in the standards pertaining to DEI, and it recognizes institutions are addressing the requirements of various state and federal laws in this arena. The NWCCU supports institutions in their efforts to address the DCL as appropriate for their circumstances,” Fox wrote.

    ‘Very Little Danger’

    Some critics, particularly on the conservative side, take a dim view of accreditors’ DEI standards. Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the conservative Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, wrote in a recent paper that “accreditors too often abuse their power as gatekeepers” to federal financial aid, including in areas such as pushing DEI standards.

    On paper, such standards look fine, he wrote to Inside Higher Ed by email. But he questions how such standards get enforced, arguing that “the problem is the interpretation of those standards. Accreditors can and do use vague standards to force radical changes on campus.”

    Gillen pointed to a past conflict in 2000 when—he argued—the ABA “used innocuous and vague diversity requirements to force George Mason University Law School to discriminate in favor of Black applicants by simply rejecting anything the university did short of discriminating.”

    But Gillen believes colleges face little risk if they fail to comply with accreditors’ DEI standards.

    “Colleges are in very little danger so long as they follow federal civil rights laws, which have largely reverted to their original intention of promoting colorblindness,” he wrote. “Any state or accreditor that requires violating these laws will find itself in a world of legal trouble. Accreditors that ignore civil rights laws would lose their recognition from the Department of Education, and colleges that followed such requirements would also lose access to federal aid programs.”

    Robert Shireman, a senior fellow at the progressive Century Foundation and a member of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, which advises the education secretary on accreditation, downplays the notion that accreditors’ DEI standards are burdensome.

    Typically, he told Inside Higher Ed, accreditors’ DEI requirements are minimal. Such standards tend to focus on inclusivity, but he notes that accreditors are “not enforcing any kind of quota.”

    At a recent NACIQI meeting, he said when asked about changing DEI standards, accreditors indicated they didn’t plan to do so because “they feel that there’s nothing inappropriate about the approaches that they are taking, and they are holding firm.” He added that accreditors recognize “schools have to comply with laws, whether those laws are federal laws or state laws.”

    There’s also an outstanding question on how the Trump administration is defining DEI.

    “‘DEI’ has become this undefined term that gets interpreted in certain kinds of ways,” Shireman said. “And most accreditors are quite flexible in their approach to diversity, equity and inclusion.”

    In a time of uncertainty, Shireman believes many institutions want to see accreditors hold firm on DEI while they push ED for guidance on terminating race-conscious activities and programming.

    Shireman points to “surprise and outrage” over what he calls “an absurd perversion of civil rights laws that is happening in this administration. To read civil rights laws as prohibiting a caring approach to providing opportunity is Orwellian and it’s not appropriate. I don’t think schools support the idea of accreditors caving in to a backwards interpretation of civil rights laws.”

    Source link

  • ABA suspends DEI standards for accreditation

    ABA suspends DEI standards for accreditation

    The American Bar Association is suspending diversity, equity, and inclusion standards for the law schools it accredits amid President Donald Trump’s crackdown on DEI efforts, Reuters reported.

    An ABA council reportedly voted on the change Friday, suspending DEI standards through August as the organization—which accredits nearly 200 law schools—considers permanent changes.

    ABA officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The change comes as the ABA has clashed with the Trump administration in recent weeks, accusing the president of “wide-scale affronts to the rule of law itself” in issuing rapid-fire executive orders that have targeted DEI and birthright citizenship, and sought to shrink the federal government through mass firings and other actions that some legal scholars have deemed unlawful.

    In the aftermath, the Trump administration barred political appointees to the Federal Trade Commission from holding ABA leadership posts, participating in ABA events, or renewing their memberships. FTC Chairman Andrew Ferguson accused the ABA of a “long history of leftist advocacy” and said “recent attacks” on the administration made the relationship “untenable.” 

    State officials have also pressured ABA to drop its DEI standards. In January a group of 21 attorneys general, all from red states, sent a letter to the ABA urging it to drop DEI standards.

    The ABA has reportedly been reviewing its standards on DEI since 2023, when the U.S. Supreme Court upended affirmative action with its ruling in favor of Students for Fair Admissions against Harvard and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Some Republican officials have celebrated the ABA’s move. “This is a victory for common sense! We are bringing meritocracy back to the legal system,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote on X.

    ABA’s suspension of DEI standards comes after the Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology dropped diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility from its accreditation criteria.

    Source link

  • STEM accreditor drops DEIA from its standards

    STEM accreditor drops DEIA from its standards

    The Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology has dropped diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility from its accreditation criteria and supporting documents, a move made in response to federal pushback on DEIA, according to an email obtained by Inside Higher Ed.

    “Recognizing the heightened scrutiny of higher education and accreditation—including recent directives and legislation in the United States—the ABET Board of Directors recently approved the removal of all references to diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) from our accreditation criteria and supporting documents,” officials wrote in the email.

    ABET did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

    The move comes as President Donald Trump has turned campaign trail rhetoric against DEI into policy, issuing an executive order early in his term that took aim at what the administration called “illegal” DEI initiatives without specifying what would violate federal civil rights laws.

    “These changes were made in response to the significant challenges many institutions, academic programs, and industry partners face in implementing and sustaining DEIA initiatives,” ABET officials wrote in the email announcing changes to their accreditation criteria.

    The accrediting body also appeared to delete the DEIA page on its website that was active until at least last week, according to an archived copy that is accessible via the Wayback Machine.

    ABET currently accredits programs at 930 colleges, according to its website.

    Source link

  • Meeting Accreditation Standards for Higher Education with Technology

    Meeting Accreditation Standards for Higher Education with Technology

    Tune In To Our Audio Blog

     

    Overview – Reimagining Accreditation

    Let’s get into the actual difficulties surrounding accreditation. You Directors of Accreditation are well-versed in the process and are very much aware that accreditation is not a game. It’s not enough to merely do the necessary compliance tasks, is it? Meeting accreditation criteria, establishing your institution’s value, enduring the never-ending audits, and keeping up with changing regulations are all part of it. The stakes are high and the pressure is intense. It remains constant. Traditional methods? They won’t cut it anymore.

    Imagine, though, if the tables could be turned. Envision yourself to use technology to not just complete the certification process, but to turn it into an asset. Think of real-time data, seamless procedures, and openness at every level. It’s time to go beyond the minimum and leverage approval to your benefit. Automating, cloud computing, and utilizing artificial intelligence-powered analytics will not only enhance the reputation of your university but also enhance the efficiency of operations.

    To help Directors of Accreditation use technology to improve institutional standards, ease compliance, and streamline accreditation data administration, we have put together this handbook. This will empower you to make critical decisions.

     

    A Dynamic Challenge for Directors: Redefining Accreditation

    As Directors of Accreditation, you are aware of the rapidity with which accreditation standards can evolve. Meeting accreditation standards necessitates a more comprehensive examination of student outcomes, diversity metrics, and the degree to which the institution aligns with its own objectives. No longer is it sufficient to simply mark off boxes.

    One of the hardest things to do? The stress that comes from having up-to-date, correct information at your hands. For accreditation reviews to be valid, the proof must be complete and up-to-date, leaving no room for doubt. Still, getting this information can feel like a race against the clock, especially when old methods can’t keep up with how needs change. Here, technology can really make a difference if it is used in the right way.

     

    Tech-Driven Solutions: Streamlining the Accreditation Journey

    Technology is the game-changer. Think about using AI-powered data analytics to revolutionize your accreditation data management. These smart tools can turn those stacks of paperwork into clear, insightful reports, making the process of proving your credentials not just easier, but a whole lot smarter! No more searching through spreadsheets or endless emails—just clear, usable information that shows your school is following the rules.

     

     

    Furthermore, cloud-based accreditation systems are very useful. Consider them as a safe, central location for all of your compliance-related info. It’s possible to get important data from these options, so your team can work together easily whether they’re at the office or traveling. Adopting these technologies doesn’t just keep you current; it sets a new standard for how quickly and clearly the approval process can be done.

     

    Automation: The Secret to Simplifying Repetitive Accreditation Tasks

    Imagine having more time to work on big-picture projects instead of doing the same old things over and over again. That’s how powerful technology can be in the process of getting accreditation. With the right tools, you can cut down on your work and free up your team to focus on raising institutional standards instead of just checking off tasks.

     

    Accreditation Data Management and Reporting Automation

    Consider the time used in gathering information and writing up reports for accreditation. Reducing the time and effort required to compile metrics in real-time is possible with automation technologies. As a bonus, you’ll spend less time worrying about mistakes and more time presenting accurate, up-to-date information.

     

    Smart Templates and Dashboards

    Meeting certain accreditation body criteria calls for customization, which is absolutely important. Smart templates let you quickly construct evaluations, audits, and self-studies that exactly fit what is required. Imagine having customized dashboards right at hand that clearly show your measurements and progress—no more poring over spreadsheets!

     

    Additional Benefits of Accreditation Data Management Automation

     

    • Maintain accurate, consistent, and up-to-date documentation without the need for manual updates.
    • Maintaining Accountability: A transparent audit trail for all your accrediting operations may be easily created by keeping track of who made changes and revisions.
    • Faster Decision-Making: With real-time insights and easy access to data, your team can make informed decisions quickly, keeping the accreditation process moving forward.
    • Focus on Continuous Improvement: By automating routine tasks, you can spend more time analyzing data and implementing improvements that enhance your institution’s performance and outcomes.

     

    Building Transparency and Trust Through Technology

    Let’s discuss something absolutely important for modern society: openness. Directors of Accreditation have a special opportunity to use technology to establish confidence among all those engaged in the accreditation process. How can you make this happen?

    Real-time dashboards available for stakeholders

    Imagine having real-time dashboards at your fingertips. These tools let you instantly share your accreditation progress with stakeholders—no more waiting for quarterly updates! With just a glance, everyone can see where you stand, thanks to clear visuals of your metrics, timelines, and benchmarks.

    This degree of openness helps everyone to be responsible as well as promotes teamwork. Trust naturally comes when your stakeholders know you are always trying to meet and surpass accreditation criteria.

    Blockchain for Academic Integrity

    Let’s now explore something somewhat more novel—blockchain technology. Consider blockchain as your new best buddy helping to maintain the integrity of your certification records. Using this technique makes an unchangeable record of all information connected to accreditation. Your accreditation data management is thus not only safe but also transparent and easily verifiable. Imagine being able to assure other stakeholders and accrediting authorities of your absolutely perfect data. Blockchain helps you to reduce the possibility of conflicts over data accuracy and inspires confidence among all the players. This kind of confidence helps to protect the reputation and integrity of your university.

    Enhanced Reporting Capabilities

    Now, let’s be honest: reporting can get draggy unless you trigger the right gear! Imagine being able to quickly and accurately create detailed reports that show your commitment to regulatory compliance and continuous growth. You can easily show accreditation groups how much progress you’re making like you have a superpower. By doing more than just checking off boxes, you’ll be showing that your institution is ready to take on any tasks that come its way. Therefore, why not use that report writing duty as a chance to shine? Using technology can help you stay prepared and make a great impression!

    Joining the Community

    In addition to internal partners, transparency also applies to the public and the rest of the academic community. Sharing your accreditation path will help your university project more professionalism and draw professors and students. Who would not want to be a part of an open and reliable institution?

    Using technology to track your certification procedures and results helps you to identify possible problems before they become serious ones. This proactive strategy lets you act early to maintain everything in line.

     

    Enhancing the Student Experience While Meeting Standards

    Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Competency Tracking

    Using technology to track your certification procedures and results helps you to identify possible problems before they become serious ones. Being proactive keeps you on target. Improving the Student Experience While Complying with Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and Competency Monitoring.

    Here’s the stars: your pupils! The right technology will improve their experience and satisfy all needs. This is where Outcome-Based Education (OBE) really shines. Imagine a system that not only makes sure that educational results are in line with accreditation standards but also makes sure that student success is the most important thing. You definitely need to keep track of students’ skills and make sure they get the help they need to do well by using technology.

    Feedback Mechanisms & Surveys

    That’s not all, though! Real-time feedback tools and polls are your secret weapons for improving quality. These resources allow you to ask students for honest opinions, which might reveal where you’re succeeding and where you might need some improvement. Engaging with your students and listening to what they have to say goes beyond simply completing goals for continuous improvement.

    In this way, you make a place where students feel appreciated and supported, and you also show accreditation bodies that you’re dedicated to continuous improvement.

     

    Preparing for the Future: Tech Trends Directors Should Watch

     

     

    EdTech Innovations

    As the Director of Accreditation, it’s important to stay on top of things. Take a look at what next year holds! First, EdTech innovations are coming soon and will supposedly make the process of getting accredited even easier. Consider banking on cutting-edge software that makes data analysis better, streamlines reports, and automates tasks!

     

    Being Prepared to Virtual Accreditation Visits

    Next, we’ll go over the basics of preparing for accreditation visits that take place virtually. As more and more things happen online, reviews and audits done from afar are becoming routine. In what ways can you become ready for this change? By acquiring robust technology that facilitates online participation and emphasizes your organization’s achievements. Ensure that all team members are informed about the use of virtual presentation techniques, online document sharing, and video conferencing. Not only will these novel concepts facilitate the acquisition of accreditations, but they will also facilitate collaboration among partners.

     

    Turn Compliance into a Strategic Advantage with Creatrix Campus Accreditation Platform

    By incorporating the appropriate technology, such as the Creatrix Campus Accreditation platform, Directors of Accreditation can elevate compliance from a mundane obligation to a strategic advantage. This strategy will help you satisfy accreditation criteria and match the main objectives of your institution.

    This is the time to simplify your certification application. Explore the Creatrix Campus platform for a smarter, more efficient way to meet standards. Let’s team to surpass simple compliance!

    Source link