Tag: students

  • Embracing complexity in writing instruction

    Embracing complexity in writing instruction

    Key points:

    Early in our careers, when we were fresh-faced and idealistic (we still are!) the prepackaged curriculum and the advice of more experienced colleagues was the go-to resource. Largely, we were advised that teaching writing was a simple matter of having students walk through and complete organizers, spending about one day for each “stage” of the writing process. At the end of the writing unit, students had finished their compositions–the standardized, boring, recreated ideas that we taught them to write.

    As we matured and grew as teachers of writing, we learned that teaching writing in such simplistic ways may be easier, but it was not actually teaching students to be writers. We learned with time and experience that writing instruction is a complex task within a complex system.

    Complex systems and wicked problems

    Complexity as it is applied to composition instruction recognizes that there is more than just a linear relationship between the student, the teacher, and the composition. It juggles the experiences of individual composers, characteristics of genre, availability of resources, assignment and individual goals, and constraints of composing environments. As with other complex systems and processes, it is non-linear, self-organizing, and unpredictable (Waltuck, 2012).

    Complex systems are wicked in their complexity; therefore, wicked problems cannot be solved by simple solutions. Wicked problems are emergent and generative; they are nonlinear as they do not follow a straight path or necessarily have a clear cause-and-effect relationship. They are self-organizing, evolving and changing over time through the interactions of various elements. They are unpredictable and therefore difficult to anticipate how they will unfold or what the consequences of any intervention might be. Finally, they are often interconnected, as they are symptoms of other problems. In essence, a wicked problem is a complex issue embedded in a dynamic system (Rittel & Webber, 1973).

    Writing formulas are wicked

    As formulaic writing has become and remains prevalent in instruction and classroom writing activity, graphic organizers and structural guides, which were introduced as a tool to support acts of writing, have become a wicked problem of formula; the resource facilitating process has become the focus of product. High-stakes standardized assessment has led to a focus on compliance, production, and quality control, which has encouraged the use of formulas to simplify and standardize writing instruction, the student writing produced, and the process of evaluation of student work. Standardization may improve test scores in certain situations, but does not necessarily improve learning. Teachers resort to short, formulaic writing to help students get through material more quickly as well as data and assessment compliance. This serves to not only create product-oriented instruction, but a false dichotomy between process and product, ignoring the complex thinking and design that goes into writing.

    As a result of such a narrow view of and limited focus on writing process and purpose, formulas have been shown to constrain thinking and limit creativity by prioritizing product over the composing process. The five-paragraph essay, specifically, is a structure that hinders authentic composing because it doesn’t allow for the “associative leaps” between ideas that come about in less constrained writing. Formulas undermine student agency by limiting writers’ abilities to express their unique voices because of over-reliance on rigid structures (Campbell, 2014; Lannin & Fox, 2010; Rico, 1988).

    An objective process lens: A wicked solution

    The use of writing formulas grew from a well-intentioned desire to improve student writing, but ultimately creates a system that is out of balance, lacking the flexibility to respond to a system that is constantly evolving. To address this, we advocate for shifting away from rigid formulas and towards a design framework that emphasizes the individual needs and strategies of student composers, which allows for a more differentiated approach to teaching acts of writing.

    The proposed framework is an objective process lens that is informed by design principles. It focuses on the needs and strategies that drive the composing process (Sharples, 1999). This approach includes two types of needs and two types of strategies:

    • Formal needs: The assigned task itself
    • Informal needs: How a composer wishes to execute the task
    • “What” strategies: The concrete resources and available tools
    • “How” strategies: The ability to use the tools

    An objective process lens acknowledges that composing is influenced by the unique experiences composers bring to the task. It allows teachers to view the funds of knowledge composers bring to a task and create entry points for support.

    The objective process lens encourages teachers to ask key questions when designing instruction:

    • Do students have a clear idea of how to execute the formal need?
    • Do they have access to the tools necessary to be successful?
    • What instruction and/or supports do they need to make shifts in ideas when strategies are not available?
    • What instruction in strategies is necessary to help students communicate their desired message effectively?

    Now how do we do that?

    Working within a design framework that balances needs and strategies starts with understanding the type of composers you are working with. Composers bring different needs and strategies to each new composing task, and it is important for instructors to be aware of those differences. While individual composers are, of course, individuals with individual proclivities and approaches, we propose that there are (at least) four common types of student composers who bring certain combinations of strategies and needs to the composition process: the experience-limited, the irresolute, the flexible, and the perfectionist composers. By recognizing these common composer types, composition instructors can develop a flexible design for their instruction.

    An experience-limited composer lacks experience in applying both needs and strategies to a composition, so they are entirely reliant on the formal needs of the assigned task and any what-strategies that are assigned by the instructor. These students gravitate towards formulaic writing because of their lack of experience with other types of writing. Relatedly, an irresolute composer may have a better understanding of the formal and informal needs, but they struggle with the application of what and how strategies for the composition. They can become overwhelmed with options of what without a clear how and become stalled during the composing process. Where the irresolute composer becomes stalled, the flexible composer is more comfortable adapting their composition. This type of composer has a solid grasp on both the formal and informal needs and is willing to adapt the informal needs as necessary to meet the formal needs of the task. As with the flexible composer, the perfectionist composer is also needs-driven, with clear expectations for the formal task and their own goals for the informal tasks. Rather than adjusting the informal needs as the composition develops, a perfectionist composer will focus intensely on ensuring that their final product exactly meets their formal and informal needs.

    Teaching writing requires embracing its complexity and moving beyond formulaic approaches prioritizing product over process. Writing is a dynamic and individualized task that takes place within a complex system, where composers bring diverse needs, strategies, and experiences. By adopting a design framework, teachers of writing and composing can support students in navigating this complexity, fostering creativity, agency, and authentic expression. It is an approach that values funds of knowledge students bring to the writing process, recognizing the interplay of formal and informal needs, as well as their “what” and “how” strategies; those they have and those that need growth via instruction and experience. Through thoughtful design, we can grow flexible, reflective, and skilled communicators who are prepared to navigate the wicked challenges of composing in all its various forms.

    These ideas and more can be found in When Teaching Writing Gets Tough: Challenges and Possibilities in Secondary Writing Instruction.

    References

    Campbell, K. H. (2014). Beyond the five-paragraph essay. Educational Leadership, 71(7), 60-65.

    Lannin, A. A., & Fox, R. F. (2010). Chained and confused: Teacher perceptions of formulaic writing. Writing & Pedagogy, 2(1), 39-64.

    Rico, G. L. (1988). Against formulaic writing. The English Journal, 77(6), 57-58.

    Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Sharples, M. (1999). How we write : writing as creative design (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203019900

    Waltuck, B. A. (2012). Characteristics of complex systems. The Journal for Quality & Participation, 34(4), 13–15.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • High school speech and debate allows students to find common ground

    High school speech and debate allows students to find common ground

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

    DES MOINES, Iowa — Macon Smith stood in front of a nearly empty classroom 1,000 miles from home. He asked his opponent and the two judges in the room if they were ready to start, then he set a six-minute timer and took a deep breath.

    “When tyranny becomes law, rebellion becomes duty,” he began. 

    In front of Macon, a 17-year-old high school junior, was a daunting task: to outline and defend the argument that violent revolution is a just response to political oppression.

    In a few hours, Macon would stand in another classroom with new judges and a different opponent. He would break apart his entire argument and undo everything he had just said.

    “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind,” Macon started.

    It doesn’t really matter what opinion Macon holds on violence or political oppression. In this moment in front of the judges, he believes what he’s saying. His job is to get the judges to believe with him.

    Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

    Macon was one of more than 7,000 middle and high school students to compete in the National Speech and Debate Tournament this summer in Iowa, run by an organization that is celebrating a century in existence.

    In that time, the National Speech and Debate Association has persevered through economic and social upheaval. It is entering its next era, one in which the very notion of engaging in informed and respectful debate seems impossible. The organizers of this event see the activity as even more important in a fracturing society.

    “I don’t think there’s an activity in the world that develops empathy and listening skills like speech and debate,” said Scott Wunn, the organization’s president. “We’re continuing to create better citizens.” 

    Macon Smith, a rising senior from Bob Jones Academy in South Carolina, competes in the third round of the Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the National Speech and Debate Tournament in Iowa this summer. Credit: Meenakshi Van Zee for The Hechinger Report

    Though the tournament is held in different cities around the country, for the 100th anniversary, the organizers chose to host it in Des Moines, where the association’s headquarters is based.

    Preparing for this competition was a year in the making for Macon, who will be a senior at Bob Jones Academy, a Christian school in Greenville, South Carolina, this fall. Students here compete in more than two dozen categories, such as Original Oratory, in which they write and recite their own 10-minute speeches, or Big Questions, where they attempt to argue broad, philosophical ideas. 

    Macon’s specialty, the Lincoln-Douglas Debate, is modeled after a series of public, three-hour debates between Abraham Lincoln and Sen. Stephen Douglas in 1858. In this event, two students have just 40 minutes to set up their arguments, cross-examine each other and sway the judges.

    “Even if I don’t personally believe it, I can still look at the facts and determine, OK, this is a good fact, or it’s true, and argue for that side,” Macon said.

    Debaters often have to tackle topics that are difficult, controversial and timely: Students in 1927 debated whether there was a need for a federal Department of Education. In 1987, they argued about mandatory AIDS testing. In 2004, they debated whether the United States was losing the war on terror. This year, in the Public Forum division, students debated whether the benefits of presidential executive orders outweigh the harms. 

    Related: Teaching social studies in a polarized world

    While the speech and debate students practiced for their national event, adults running the country screamed over each other during a congressional hearing on state sanctuary policies. A senator was thrown to the floor and handcuffed during a press conference on sending the National Guard to immigration enforcement protests in Los Angeles. Most Americans feel political discourse is moving in the wrong direction — both conservatives and progressives say talking politics with someone they disagree with has become increasingly stressful and frustrating. 

    Speech and debate club, though, is different.

    “First of all, it gives a kid a place to speak out and have a voice,” said Gail Nicholas, who for 40 years has coached speech and debate at Bob Jones Academy alongside her husband, Chuck Nicholas, who is Macon’s coach. “But then also learn to talk to other people civilly, and I think that’s not what’s being modeled out there in the real world right now.” 

    Macon Smith, a rising senior from Bob Jones Academy in South Carolina, shows off the notes that he took during debates at the National Speech and Debate Tournament in Iowa. Credit: Meenakshi Van Zee for The Hechinger Report

    On the second day of the competition in a school cafeteria in West Des Moines, Macon was anxiously refreshing the webpage that would show the results of his rounds to learn whether he would advance to semifinals.  

    For most of the school year, Macon spent two days a week practicing after school, researching and writing out his arguments. Like many competitors, he has found that it’s easy to make snap judgments when you don’t know much about an issue. Decisively defending that view, to yourself and to others, is much harder.  

    “I tend to go in with an opinion and lose my opinion as the topic goes on,” said Daphne DiFrancesco, a rising senior from Cary Academy in Cary, North Carolina.

    Traveling for regional events throughout the school year means Macon has become friends with students who don’t always share his conservative views. He knows this because in debate, discussing politics and religion is almost unavoidable.

    “It doesn’t make me uncomfortable at all,” Macon said. “You don’t want to burn down a bridge before you make it with other people. If you stop your connection with a person right at their political beliefs, you’re already cutting off half of the country. That’s not a good way to conduct yourself.”

    Macon, and other students in the clubs, said participating has made them think more deeply about their own beliefs. Last year, Macon debated a bill that would defund Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency he supports. After listening to other students, he developed a more nuanced view of the organization. 

    “When you look at the principle of enforcing illegal immigration, that can still be upheld, but the agency that does so itself is flawed,” he said.

    Related: ‘I can tell you don’t agree with me’:’ Colleges teach kids how to hear differing opinions

    Henry Dieringer, a senior from L.C. Anderson High School in Austin, Texas, went into one competition thinking he would argue in favor of a bill that would provide work permits for immigrants, which he agrees with. Further research led him to oppose the idea of creating a federal database on immigrants.

    “It made me think more about the way that public policy is so much more nuanced than what we believe,” Henry said. 

    On the afternoon of the second day of the national tournament, Macon learned he didn’t advance to the next round. What’s sad, he said, is he probably won’t have to think this hard about the justness of violent revolution ever again. 

    “There’s always next year,” Macon said.

    Callista Martin, 16, a rising senior from Bainbridge High School in Washington state, also didn’t make the semifinals. Callista and Macon met online this year through speech and debate so they could scrimmage with someone they hadn’t practiced with before. It gave them the chance to debate someone with differing political views and argument styles.

    Macon Smith, a rising senior from Bob Jones Academy in South Carolina, takes notes during a round of the Lincoln-Douglas Debate at the National Speech and Debate Tournament in Iowa. Credit: Meenakshi Van Zee for The Hechinger Report

    “In the rounds, I’m an entirely different person. I’m pretty aggressive, my voice turns kind of mean,” Callista said. “But outside of the rounds, I always make sure to say hi to them before and after and say things I liked about their case, ask them about their school.”

    Talking to her peers outside of rounds is perhaps the most important part of being in the club, Callista said. This summer, she will travel to meet with some of her closest friends, people she met at debate camps and tournaments in Washington.  

    Since Callista fell in love with speech and debate as a freshman, she has devoted herself to keeping it alive at her school. No teacher has volunteered to be a coach for the debate club, so the 16-year-old is coaching both her classmates and herself.

    A lack of coaches is a common problem. Just under 3,800 public and private high schools and middle schools were members of the National Speech and Debate Association at the end of this past school year, just a fraction of the tens of thousands of secondary schools in the country. The organization would like to double its membership in the next five years.

    That would mean recruiting more teachers to lead clubs, but neither educators nor schools are lining up to take on the responsibility, said David Yastremski, an English teacher at Ridge High School in New Jersey who has coached teams for about 30 years.

    It’s a major time commitment for teachers to dedicate their evenings and weekends to the events with little supplemental pay or recognition. Also, it may seem like a risk to some teachers at a time when states such as Virginia and Louisiana have banned teachers from talking about what some call “divisive concepts,” to oversee a school activity where engaging with controversial topics is the point.

    “I primarily teach and coach in a space where kids can still have those conversations,” Yastremski said. “I fear that in other parts of the country, that’s not the case.” 

    Related: A school district singled out by Trump says it teaches ‘whole truth history’ 

    Dennis Philbert, a coach from Central High School in Newark, New Jersey, who had two students become finalists in the tournament’s Dramatic Interpretation category, said he fears for his profession because of the scrutiny educators are under. It takes the fun out of teaching, he said, but this club can reignite that passion.

    “All of my assistant coaches are former members of my team,” Philbert said. “They love this activity [so much] that they came back to help younger students … to show that this is an activity that is needed.”

    On the other side of Des Moines, Gagnado Diedhiou was competing in the Congressional Debate, a division of the tournament that mimics Congress and requires students to argue for or against bills modeled after current events. During one round, Gagnado spoke in favor of a bill to shift the country to use more nuclear energy, for a bill that would grant Puerto Rico statehood, and against legislation requiring hospitals to publicly post prices.

    Gagnado Diedhiou, a senior from Eastside High School in South Carolina, competing in the first round of the Congressional Debate at the National Speech and Debate Tournament in Iowa in June. Credit: Meenakshi Van Zee for The Hechinger Report

    Just like in Congress, boys outnumbered girls in this classroom. Gagnado was the only Black teenager and the only student wearing a hijab. The senior, who just graduated from Eastside High School in Greenville, South Carolina, is accustomed to being in rooms where nobody looks like her — it’s part of the reason she joined Equality in Forensics, a national student-led debate organization that provides free resources to schools and students across the country.

    “It kind of makes you have to walk on eggshells a little bit. Especially because when you’re the only person in that room who looks like you, it makes you a lot more obvious to the judges,” said Gagnado, who won regional Student of the Year for speech and debate in her South Carolina district this year. “You stand out, and not always in a good way.”

    Camille Fernandez, a rising junior at West Broward High School in Florida, said the competitions she has participated in have been dominated by male students. One opponent called her a vulgar and sexist slur after their round was over. Camille is a member of a student-led group — called Outreach Debate — trying to bridge inequities in the clubs. 

    “A lot of people think that debate should stay the same way that it’s always been, where it’s kind of just — and this is my personal bias — a lot of white men winning,” Camille said. “A lot of people think that should be changed, me included.” 

    Despite the challenges, Gagnado said her time in debate club has made her realize she could have an influence in the world.

    “With my three-minute speech, I can convince a whole chamber, I can convince a judge to vote for this bill. I can advocate and make a difference with some legislation,” said Gagnado, who is bound for Yale. 

    About 10,000 people attended the National Speech and Debate Tournament in Iowa this June during the organization’s centennial anniversary. Credit: Meenakshi Van Zee for The Hechinger Report

    A day before the national tournament’s concluding ceremony, a 22-year-old attendee rushed the stage at the Iowa Event Center in Des Moines during the final round of the Humorous Interpretation speech competition, scaring everyone in the audience. After he bent down to open his backpack, 3,000 people in the auditorium fled for the exits. The man was later charged with possession of a controlled substance and disorderly conduct. For a brief moment, it seemed like the angry discourse and extreme politics from outside of the competition had become a part of it. 

    In response, the speech and debate organization shifted the time of some events, limited entrances into the building and brought in metal detectors, police officers and counselors. Some students, Gagnado among them, chose not to return to the event. 

    Still, thousands of attendees stayed until the end to celebrate the national champions. During the awards ceremony, where therapy dogs roamed the grounds, Angad Singh, a student from Bellarmine College Preparatory in California competing in Original Oratory, took the national prize for his speech on his Sikh identity and the phrase “thoughts and prayers” commonly repeated by American leaders after a tragedy, titled “Living on a Prayer.”

    “I’ve prayed for change,” Singh told the audience. “Then I joined speech and debate to use my voice and fight for it.”

    This story about high school speech and debate 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

  • Trump Team Weakens Bipartisan Law That Protects Students and Veterans From Predatory Colleges (David Halperin)

    Trump Team Weakens Bipartisan Law That Protects Students and Veterans From Predatory Colleges (David Halperin)

    On the eve of the 4th of July holiday, when they probably hoped no one was paying attention, the Trump Department of Education issued an Interpretive Rule that will make it easier for for-profit colleges to evade regulations aimed at protecting students, and especially student veterans and military service members, from low-quality schools.

    The Department’s 90-10 rule, created by Congress, requires for-profit colleges to obtain at least ten percent of their revenue from sources other than taxpayer-funded federal student grants and loans, or else — if they flunk two years in a row — lose eligibility for federal aid. The purpose is to remove from federal aid those schools of such poor quality that few students, employers, or scholarship programs would put their own money into them.

    For decades, low quality schools have been able to avoid accountability through a giant loophole: only Department of Education funding counted on the federal side of the 90-10 ledger, while other government funding, including GI Bill money from the VA, and tuition assistance for active duty troops and their families from the Pentagon, counted as non-federal. That situation was particularly bad because it motivated low-quality predatory schools, worried about their 90-10 ratios, to aggressively target U.S. veterans and service members for recruitment.

    After years of efforts by veterans organizations and other advocates to close the loophole, Congress in 2021 passed, on a bipartisan basis, and President Biden signed, legislation that appropriately put all federal education aid, including VA and Defense Department money, on the federal side of the ledger.

    The Department was required by the new law to issue regulations specifying in detail how this realignment would work, and the Department under the Biden administration did so in 2022, after engaging in a legally-mandated negotiated rulemaking that brought together representatives of relevant stakeholders. In an unusual development, that rulemaking actually achieved consensus among the groups at the table, from veterans organizations to the for-profit schools themselves, on what the final revised 90-10 rule should be.

    The new rule took effect in 2023, and when the Department released the latest 90-10 calculations, for the 2023-24 academic year, sixteen for-profit colleges had flunked, compared with just five the previous year. These were mostly smaller schools, led by West Virginia’s Martinsburg College, which got 98.73 percent of its revenue from federal taxpayer dollars, and Washington DC’s Career Technical Institute, which reported 98.68 percent. Another 36 schools, including major institutions such as DeVry University, Strayer University, and American Public University, came perilously close to the line, at 89 percent or higher.

    The education department last week altered the calculation by effectively restoring an old loophole that allowed for-profit colleges to use revenue from programs that are ineligible for federal aid to count on the non-federal side. That loophole was expressly addressed, via a compromise agreement, after Department officials discussed the details with representatives of for-profit colleges, during the 2022 negotiated rulemaking meetings.

    All the flunking or near-flunking schools can now get a new, potentially more favorable, calculation of their 90-10 ratio under the Trump administration’s re-interpretation of the rule.

    In the lawless fashion of the Trump regime, the Department has now undermined a provision of its own regulation without going through the required negotiated rulemaking process. (The Department’s notice last week included a labored argument about why its action was lawful.)

    As it has done multiple times over its first six months, the Trump Department of Education, under Secretary Linda McMahon, has again taken a step that allows poor-quality predatory for-profit colleges to rip off students and taxpayers.

    Source link

  • America’s future depends on more first-generation students from underestimated communities earning an affordable bachelor’s degree

    America’s future depends on more first-generation students from underestimated communities earning an affordable bachelor’s degree

    I recently stood before hundreds of young people in California’s Central Valley; more than 60 percent were on that day becoming the first in their family to earn a bachelor’s degree.

    Their very presence at University of California, Merced’s spring commencement ceremony disrupted a major narrative in our nation about who college is for — and the value of a degree.

    Many of these young people arrived already balancing jobs, caregiving responsibilities and family obligations. Many were Pell Grant-eligible and came from communities that are constantly underestimated and where a higher education experience is a rarity.

    These students graduated college at a critical moment in American history: a time when the value of a bachelor’s degree is being called into question, when public trust in higher education is vulnerable and when supports for first-generation college students are eroding. Yet an affordable bachelor’s degree remains the No. 1 lever for financial, professional and social mobility in this country.

    Related: Interested in innovations in higher education? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.

    A recent Gallup poll showed that the number of Americans who have a great deal of confidence in higher education is dwindling, with a nearly equal amount responding that they have little to none. In 2015, when Gallup first asked this question, those expressing confidence outnumbered those without by nearly six to one.

    There is no doubt that higher education must continue to evolve — to be more accessible, more relevant and more affordable — but the impact of a bachelor’s degree remains undeniable.

    And the bigger truth is this: America’s long-term strength — its economic competitiveness, its innovation pipeline, its social fabric — depends on whether we invest in the education of the young people who reflect the future of this country.

    There are many challenges for today’s workforce, from a shrinking talent pipeline to growing demands in STEM, healthcare and the public sector. These challenges can’t be solved unless we ensure that more first-generation students and those from underserved communities earn their degrees in affordable ways and leverage their strengths in ways they feel have purpose.

    Those of us in education must create conditions in which students’ talent is met with opportunity and higher education institutions demonstrate that they believe in the potential of every student who comes to their campuses to learn.

    UC Merced is a fantastic example of what this can look like. The youngest institution in the University of California system, it was recently designated a top-tier “R1” research university. At the same time, it earned a spot on Carnegie’s list of “Opportunity Colleges and Universities,” a new classification that recognizes institutions based on the success of their students and alumni. It is one of only 21 institutions in the country to be nationally ranked for both elite research and student success and is proving that excellence and equity can — and must — go hand in hand.

    In too many cases, students who make it to college campuses are asked to navigate an educational experience that wasn’t built with their lived experiences and dreams in mind. In fact, only 24 percent of first-generation college students earn a bachelor’s degree in six years, compared to nearly 59 percent of students who have a parent with a bachelor’s. This results in not just a missed opportunity for individual first-generation students — it’s a collective loss for our country.

    Related: To better serve first-generation students, expand the definition

    The graduates I spoke to in the Central Valley that day will become future engineers, climate scientists, public health leaders, artists and educators. Their bachelor’s degrees equip them with critical thinking skills, confidence and the emotional intelligence needed to lead in an increasingly complex world.

    Their future success will be an equal reflection of their education and the qualities they already possess as first-generation college graduates: persistence, focus and unwavering drive. Because of this combination, they will be the greatest contributors to the future of work in our nation.

    This is a reality I know well. As the Brooklyn-born daughter of Dominican immigrants, I never planned to go away from home to a four-year college. My father drove a taxi, and my mother worked in a factory. I was the first in my family to earn a bachelor’s degree. I attended college as part of an experimental program to get kids from neighborhoods like mine into “top” schools. When it was time for me to leave for college, my mother and I boarded a bus with five other students and their moms for a 26-hour ride to Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.

    Like so many first-generation college students, I carried with me the dreams and sacrifices of my family and community. I had one suitcase, a box of belongings and no idea what to expect at a place I’d never been to before. That trip — and the bachelor’s degree I earned — changed the course of my life.

    First-generation college students from underserved communities reflect the future of America. Their success is proof that the American Dream is not only alive but thriving. And right now, the stakes are national, and they are high.

    That is why we must collectively remove the obstacles to first-generation students’ individual success and our collective success as a nation. That’s the narrative that we need to keep writing — together.

    Shirley M. Collado is president emerita at Ithaca College and the president and CEO of College Track, a college completion program dedicated to democratizing potential among first-generation college students from underserved communities.

    Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

    This story about first-generation students was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly 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

  • What students complain about: Ombudsman – Campus Review

    What students complain about: Ombudsman – Campus Review

    The National Student Ombudsman (NSO) has shared the themes and types of the 1,500 student complaints made to the watchdog in its first five months.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • 10 (and counting…) Google goodies for your classroom

    10 (and counting…) Google goodies for your classroom

    Key points:

    Google enthusiasts, unite.

    During an ISTELive 25 session, Dr. Wanda Terral, chief of technology for Tennessee’s Lakeland School System, took attendees through a growing list of Google tools, along with some non-Google resources, to boost classroom creativity, productivity, and collaboration.

    Here are just 10 of the resources Terral covered–explore the full list for more ideas and resources to increase your Google knowledge.

  • Harvard “Indifference” to Jewish Students Violates Law

    Harvard “Indifference” to Jewish Students Violates Law

    The Health and Human Services Department announced Monday that Harvard University’s “deliberate indifference” regarding discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students violates federal law.

    The HHS Office for Civil Rights said Harvard is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on shared ancestry, including antisemitism.

    The finding, similar to one HHS announced against Columbia University in May, adds to the Trump administration’s pressure on both Ivy League institutions to comply with its demands. It has already cut off billions in federal funding.

    HHS’s Notice of Violation says that a report from Harvard’s own Presidential Task Force on Combating Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias, combined with other sources, “present a grim reality of on-campus discrimination that is pervasive, persistent, and effectively unpunished.”

    “Reports of Jewish and Israeli students being spit on in the face for wearing a yarmulke, stalked on campus, and jeered by peers with calls of ‘Heil Hitler’ while waiting for campus transportation went unheeded by Harvard administration,” the Notice of Violation says.

    In a statement, Harvard said it is “far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government’s findings.”

    “In responding to the government’s investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue,” the statement said.

    In April, the federal government ordered Harvard to audit academic “programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture” and report faculty “who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules” after the Oct. 7, 2023, start of the ongoing Israel-Hamas war. The government also ordered Harvard to, among other things, stop admitting international students “hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism.”

    “HHS stands ready to reengage in productive discussions with Harvard to reach resolution on the corrective action that Harvard can take,” HHS Office for Civil Rights director Paula M. Stannard said in a news release.

    Source link

  • Should students’ unions reach for the stars?

    Should students’ unions reach for the stars?

    Ahead of heading out for the summer to deliver training to new students’ union officers, as well as booking trains and hotels and placing an unfeasibly large order of (unfeasibly large) post-it notes, every year we have a run at reading and analysing all of the pledges made in their election manifestos.

    Jim recalls a time when the key challenge emerging from the exercise was convincing the incoming crop that £1 a pint might need to be an occasional offer rather than a permanent price drop – a time when “student stress” was a precursor to mental health, and a time when “grants not fees” was a viable option rather than a lost era.

    A time when promises to improve the awareness of, or to extend the range of goods on offer in the campus food bank would have been unimaginable.

    Over the years, the pledges adorning the leaflets that litter the campus every spring have become less markedly less political and increasingly parochial. Oftentimes the key challenge has been to help new officers understand where their pledges meet policy – to help them locate what they want to achieve with the right committee or the appropriate PVC.

    So there’s something quite bleak about a year in which the demands are so historically comparatively modest, yet also so simultaneously ambitious given the resource constraints facing the sector they’re about to be immersed in.

    And as we dust down the exercises and update the slide decks, we’re left wondering whether the right message isn’t how to advocate for “more and better”, but instead should be picking which things shouldn’t join the growing group of aspects of the student experience that are becoming “less and worse”.

    They are not, in and of themselves, a collection of PDFs that are fully representative of the student body’s needs and aspirations. Many tell us more about a particular university’s culture and structure, or that students’ unions’s local funding settlement, than they do the realities of the contemporary student condition.

    But taken together, they tell us quite a bit about how students see their education and the aspects of it they’d like to see change. We’ve read, coded and analysed over 1,000 of them this year – from both winners and many of the losers – and our main conclusion is that the parochialism on offer belies something more than a lack of ambition or understanding of politics.

    They suggest a generation struggling to believe in possibility – one for whom the world looks like it will never get better, and where making little tweaks to help students cope is the wisest way to avoid being yet another politician whose promises will be broken. The question we’re struggling with is whether to amp up their ambitions, or temper their expectations with a dose of reality.

    Back to basics

    The first thing you notice when taking a step back from this year’s crop is that universities seem to be systematically failing to deliver fundamental aspects of the educational experience. The manifestos reveal students demanding things that ought to be standard – lecture materials uploaded in advance, breaks in long teaching sessions, consistent feedback. It’s not even about demanding extras or enhancements – it’s often about institutions not delivering the basics:

    Right now, some departments give detailed comments, while others leave students guessing…feedback should help students improve, not just justify a grade.

    Helen Slater, Education Officer, SU University of Bath

    Multi hour lectures should have a short break, make this enforced. Rebecca Schofield, Loughborough Students’ Union

    When, like us, you know what’s in the Quality Code or the B Conditions of the regulatory framework like the back of your hand, the sheer volume of pledges about improvements to simple things is dispiriting. Students shouldn’t need to campaign for things like accessible learning materials, or for the VLE to work:

    …resolving issues with timetabling. This will mean you receive your timetables earlier than 1-2 teaching weeks.

    Amrit Dhillon, University of Manchester SU

    End Deadline Clumping: Two deadlines shouldn’t fall on the same day, students perform best when they can focus on one piece of work at a time.

    Aliasgar Gandhi, Birmingham Guild, Postgraduate Officer

    What also emerges is a picture of institutions that have failed to adapt to students managing multiple responsibilities – work, commuting, caring duties – whilst trying to engage with their education. The assumption that getting into university means being ready for it, and that they’ll be able to benefit from what’s there, is coming apart:

    Have timetables that work for you! No more waiting around for lectures!

    Lily Watson, President, University of Chester

    Improve assessment timetabling by involving departments, preventing deadline clashes, and ensuring deadlines are released earlier.

    Aya Haidar, Academic Officer, York University SU

    It all suggests a generation that has lost faith in institutional competence and is demanding explicit guarantees that basic teaching and learning processes function in a way that allows them to experience them. We’re left wondering whether to explain what it is that students are entitled to – even if it seems that on the resource available, many universities are struggling to deliver it.

    Time won’t give me time

    It’s long been clear that student disengagement tends to reflect time scarcity rather than apathy. Manifestos reveal students stretched impossibly thin between work, commuting, and study, making traditional university schedules completely unworkable:

    Flexible Timetables & Online Learning: University should fit around your life, not the other way around. This isn’t just about convenience—it’s about reducing stress and creating a study environment that fits your needs, whether balancing work, personal life or study preferences.

    Forum Yadav, Education Officer, Manchester Metropolitan SU

    … implement a hybrid learning system that encourages people to come into the classroom in person, without disadvantaging those who cannot make it to lectures in person. This system would allow disabled students to keep up without putting their health at risk, and allow students to actually stay home when they’re ill… or have other commitments.

    Lyds Knowles, Diversity, Access and Participation Officer, University of Sussex

    Every set of manifestos contains pledges about scheduling that acknowledge students no longer have full-time availability for academic life. Universities persist with timetables designed for a student body that could prioritise education over economic survival:

    Concurrent lectures, especially around lunch time cause students to not be able to have lunch. We will work with Vice Deans and programme officers to sort out the timetables to make sure there is an hour free at noon for students to be able to eat.

    Baiyu Liu, President, King’s College London SU

    The grouping of deadlines, it is unfair to expect students who also have to work part time jobs to submit their deadlines all in the same week. Often leading to burnout, stress and further complications. I would like to see the deadlines spread throughout a student’s academic journey allowing them the time and freedom to explore them in full.

    Joshua Frost, President Faculty of Arts, Humanities and Business

    The depth of these time management proposals reveals institutions fundamentally out of step with student reality. When students need explicit campaigns for reduced commute times, condensed timetabling, and online options, it suggests universities are designing education around institutional convenience rather than student availability:

    Timetabling that will be student-friendly

    Francis Ani. President for Student Communities, Hull SU

    Make NECs more easily accessible for students, and more confidential; you shouldn’t have to disclose personal circumstances to attain a needed extension!

    Ryan Turner, VP Postgraduate Candidate, Nottingham Trent Students’ Union

    It all represents a fundamental challenge to the traditional university model, which assumed students could treat education as their primary occupation rather than one competing demand amongst many. We’re torn between encouraging SU officers to challenge that – or whether they should find ways to help students meet the demands.

    The earn-and-learn economy

    The traditional full-time student model seems to have completely collapsed as financial necessity forces students into near full-time work alongside study. The manifestos treat work not as supplementary income but as a survival strategy that universities must actively support:

    Students are left with no option other than work excessive hours in their part time jobs to be able to afford basic necessities, having a negative impact on both their academic as well as their university experience.

    Aisha Lord, Vice President Falmouth, Falmouth and Exeter SU

    Almost all students commute to university… This can be very costly and stressful, and force students to work extra hours, which takes away from their study, and their overall energy.

    Komal Ashfaq, President, Manchester Metropolitan University

    Rather than treating work and education as competing demands, the manifestos demand integration – paid internships, work experience built into courses, and academic arrangements that accommodate employment. It reflects students who can’t afford to see work and study as separate:

    Lobby for part-time work experience that matches course content and enhances learning.

    Ismail Patel, Candidate for Education Officer, University of Bradford Students’ Union.

    Advocate for more internship and part-time work opportunities for postgraduate students.

    Navin Raj Ramachandran Selvaraj, Candidate for Postgraduate Students’ Officer, Oxford Brookes University.

    Their proposals go beyond simple job-finding to demand that universities take responsibility for helping students find good work that develops relevant skills. It suggests a complete rejection of the idea that student employment is peripheral to education:

    Push for More Part-Time Job Opportunities on Campus Financial stability is crucial for students, and I will advocate for more part-time roles within the university.

    Muhammad Barik Ullah, Vice President of Undergraduate Education, Westminster SU

    I will also campaign nationally for increased apprenticeship schemes that provide real-world experience beyond the lecture hall.

    Matthew Lamb, candidate for Education Officer, Lancaster University SU

    It also reflects a generation that sees no viable alternative to integrating work and education, and expects institutions to adapt accordingly rather than maintaining the fiction of full-time student focus. We can’t work out whether they should fight to reclaim the full-time student experience, or continue to try to fit too much into a tight timetable.

    The financialisation of… everything

    On that, cost-of-living concerns have invaded every aspect of university life because the student finance system has fundamentally failed to cover basic living expenses. The manifestos demand subsidised everything – meals, transport, laundry, stationery – revealing students unable to afford necessities:

    Increase the Selection and Diversify £1.50 Value Meals to ensure access to affordable, nutritious options. …Offer Free Meal Planning and Cooking Classes to help reduce grocery expenses and prevent malnutrition.

    Izzy Downer, Community Officer, SU University of Bath

    I will fight to make the university more affordable with cheaper housing and bus travel (whilst increasing frequency!)

    Lewis Wilson, Education Officer, University of Sussex

    The breadth of financial support demanded goes far beyond traditional student finance, extending to food banks, emergency funding, and discounted services. Maintenance loans are no longer functioning as intended:

    Subsidise essential supplies like period products and course materials.

    Ana Da Silva, VP Welfare & Community, Royal Holloway Students’ Union

    Lower Living Costs – Reduce food, rent, and transport expenses for students… Food on campus should be affordable for everyone. At least one cheap, healthy option should be available on every menu.

    Emma Brown, Union President, University of Southampton

    Increasing provisions of free menstrual products across campus.

    Leah Buttery, Wellbeing Officer, Lancaster University

    Students are essentially demanding that universities compensate for a broken national funding system by subsidising daily life. The manifestos treat a financial crisis as so normalised that every policy area must include cost-reduction measures.

    But with little prospect of significant relief coming from government, we’re torn between whether they should campaign into the ether for better student financial support, or find further fixes internally to provide some relief.

    Radical transparency as a default expectation

    More than ever this year, candidates are demanding real-time access to information about every aspect of institutional decision-making, reflecting a generation raised on social media expecting constant updates and complete visibility:

    I will push for minutes of all committee meetings to be published on the student portal within a week.

    Sophie Elsey, Candidate, University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union

    More transparency from the university management in decision making, including budget allocations.

    Candidate, Queen’s Students’ Union

    Manifestos go far beyond traditional accountability to demand that previously private institutional processes become completely transparent. Students want detailed financial breakdowns, accessible decision-making explanations, and immediate access to information that universities have historically kept internal:

    Provide an open-access dashboard showing real-time spending on student services and capital projects.

    William Garvey, Officer Candidate, University of the Arts London Students’ Union

    Push for module leaders to share assessment marking rubrics with students in advance.

    Hasan Chowdhury, Candidate, University of Chester Students’ Union

    Traditional consultation processes and annual reports are treated as inadequate relics. Students expect real-time feedback systems, open access to committee discussions, and quarterly updates that explain exactly how decisions are made and money is spent:

    I will advocate for livestreamed town halls where university leaders take student questions unfiltered.

    Jasmine A., Candidate, Edge Hill Students’ Union

    Push to publish all course changes on a centralised, searchable hub before implementation.

    Priya Chandra, Academic Officer candidate, University of Bedfordshire Students’ Union

    That isn’t just about accountability but about fundamental assumptions around information access. Students treat transparency as a default setting rather than something institutions graciously provide when pressed:

    Introduce opt-in alerts so students are notified whenever the university makes a policy change that affects them.

    Mohamed Khaleel, Candidate for VP Academic Affairs, Cardiff Metropolitan University SU

    The depth of the transparency demands suggest a rejection of traditional institutional opacity and a belief that students have the right to understand exactly how things work rather than trusting authority figures to act appropriately. We could encourage them to demand clarity – or we could prepare them for a year during which confidential discussions are more likely to be the norm.

    Bureaucracy as liberation technology

    Rather than seeing formal processes as obstacles, students genuinely believe that better systems and structured procedures can solve problems that previous generations addressed through personal relationships or protest:

    I’ll lobby for a standardised extension policy across departments to remove ambiguity and favouritism.

    Aisha Khan, Education Candidate, Aston Students’ Union

    The manifestos systematically replace informal advocacy with process-driven representation that offers genuine agency rather than tokenistic consultation. This reflects deep scepticism about personal relationships as reliable routes to change:

    Create template emails and appeal guides for students contesting grades or procedures.

    Liana Dsouza, Candidate, Solent Students’ Union

    Mandate response times for all university emails affecting students’ academic progress.

    Zehra Al-Khatib, Candidate, University of the Highlands and Islands SA

    Students want predictable, systematic responses that don’t depend on who happens to be in charge or what mood they’re in. The proposals assume that good design can guarantee fair treatment regardless of individual personalities or relationships:

    Create an online portal where students can see the status of any ongoing issue or query.

    Lydia Spencer, VP Education Candidate, Bucks Students’ Union

    Replace paper-based mitigating circumstances with an automated and transparent digital system.

    Jayden Moore, Candidate, University of South Wales Students’ Union

    It reads like an inversion of traditional anti-bureaucratic politics, suggesting a generation that trusts systems more than individuals and sees formal processes as tools of liberation rather than oppression. But we are left wondering whether they should advocate for more human approaches – or whether they should place faith in systems that at least appear to them more consistent and fair.

    Change is inevitable (except from the vending machines)

    Not nearly as much as we’d like, we are starting to see the wide-ranging organisational change processes and restructures come through in manifestos. But while a decade or so ago we might have seen pledges to “fight the cuts”, more often than not we see candidates keen that students are at least kept in the loop:

    One of the biggest frustrations students have is feeling like decisions are made about them, not with them. Whether it’s changes to course structures, university policies, finance or support services, students often feel out of the loop or unsure about where to raise concerns. I want to push for better transparency between students and the university, ensuring that major decisions are clearly communicated and that student voices are involved from the start.

    Humphrey Kasale, President, Manchester Metropolitan University

    “The University and its partner colleges have embarked on a process to explore new operating models including merging into a single institution to help save money and make the institution more sustainable…I will push for any savings to be made through greater efficiencies from the university and colleges working closer together on back office functions and not at the cost of the frontline student experience.

    Xander McDade, Students’ Association President, UHI (University of the Highlands and Islands)

    In some cases manifesto sets seem oblivious to announced redundancy rounds or major change projects that are bound to dominate their year. In others, students see problems coming that others may have missed:

    I hope to ensure that grading and marking stay consistent with the merging of departments soon so continuing students don’t get marked down for writing essays in a specific way they’re used to when taking modules outside of their departmental subject that have different essay structures.

    Noor Abbass, candidate for Education Officer, Goldsmiths

    Ensure smooth transition during departmental mergers

    Jeevana Sandhya, Education Officer candidate, University of Leicester

    Again, we are puzzled. Should we explain just how tough the year looks set to be across many of the universities we’ll be visiting, or keep them focussed on the aspects of the experience they’d like to see improved?

    Power as something you practise

    One thing that is a constant from previous years, and very much reflects the Gen-Z preference for horizontal support, is plenty of pledges on peer support – on everything from wellbeing to study skills:

    I pledge to create an anonymized essay-bank showcasing past student work to illustrate degree classifications, helping students understand grading standards and academic expectations.

    Gina Tindale, Academic Officer, Newcastle University

    Expand Buddy Schemes and Pastoral Support for undergraduates and postgraduates.

    Joshie Christian, Vice President Education, University of Southampton

    I will launch a mentorship programme for new volunteers to gain a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of student media and its dynamics.

    Libby Griffiths, Student Media Officer, Newcastle University

    Even on this one, we can’t work out what to do. Explain how hard it’s getting to find and support student volunteers to deliver the student experience for each other, or encourage them to explore the sorts of schemes we see on the continent that offer academic credit,a payment (or both) – building students’ skills in the process?

    Climb every mountain higher

    In most universities every summer, there’s a careful little dance being played between new SU officers and the senior managers they most often meet with.

    On the SU side, pledges get converted into exploratory conversations to test the appetite for change in the year ahead. On the university side, managers will be sussing out the leaders that students have picked – are these ones who we can work with, or ones that need to be disabused of their assumptions and ambitions?

    Having discussed the choices at length, for what it’s worth, we’ll be doing what we always do – not making assumptions or carefully manipulating them towards particular actions, but laying out what’s going on and why so they can make those choices for themselves. After all, they are almost always perfectly able to.

    But as well as our usual advice to listen and be curious about the underpinning experiences that lead to their policy ideas, we do have one additional bit of advice this year.

    The “sunshine indoors” decade of promises to provide pretty much everything to do with the student experience reflects what universities have been doing too. It might have made sense when there was money around to invest – but it’s now not only proving impossible to deliver, it obscures the role that other areas of government should be playing in the student experience.

    Whether it’s the business department’s dismal failure to think about students at work, the absence of the recognition between health and successful study for health ministers, or (in England and Scotland) housing legislation seeming to be silent on struggles students face, it does feel like we’re close to the end of what universities can do to improve things – with untapped potential for the rest of the public realm to step up to support students.

    Student leaders and university managers may well come from different worlds, and may well need to respectively deepen their understanding of those worlds – but whether working in close partnership or public opposition, they ought to be able to agree to explore together how and why we got here – and the sorts of external lobbying and campaigning that can get us somewhere else.

    It’s almost certainly external to the university where the real possibilities can be found – and feels like students advocating for students while universities advocate for universities is a separation that should come to at least a temporary end.

    Source link

  • Today’s students are scrimpers, not spendthrifts

    Today’s students are scrimpers, not spendthrifts

    The popular imagination’s archetype of the student has remained remarkably consistent over the last fifty years.

    Ten minutes on TikTok will conjure up the beer-swilling frivolity and clandestine nerdiness of Starter for 10 or the chaotic house share arrangements and endless student scrapes Fresh Meat – neither so far away from those that the cast of The Young Ones enjoyed back in the eighties.

    Neither the Covid pandemic nor the ongoing pressures on cost of living has managed to shake the view that the student experience involves leaving home at eighteen in search of a little more education, and a lot more freewheeling independence.

    Prospective students’ perception of university are influenced by those stereotypes – and may find them more offputting than appealing. At one of the focus groups we conducted in Doncaster for the UPP Foundation’s inquiry into widening participation one 17 year old put it:

    I want to go to uni, to live on my own and to get drunk all the time, like the uni party lifestyle, not for the degree, right? But then, if I do it just for that, then I’m getting into debt.

    To those living in higher education cold spot areas like Doncaster, where there are few graduate-level jobs available, higher education stacks up as a bad bet. Young people can’t justify spending all that money on what looks from the outside like a three-year bender, if it won’t lead to a better job back home.

    Pay as you go

    Current students, however, have a more nuanced view. The latest report in the UPP Foundation inquiry explores the experiences of today’s students, drawing on focus groups held in the city of Nottingham, and shows that while they find the social aspect of their courses the most fulfilling in terms of enjoyment and personal development, they are having to weigh their own fun against the costs of study and the imperative to graduate into secure and well-paid graduate jobs. Unlike the living-in-the-moment hedonist student archetype, students are clear that the “point” of higher education is to gain skills and qualifications for their careers, and this focus creates pressure to make their experience “worth it.”

    Those who have maintenance loans say that they are nowhere near enough to cover living costs. The majority we spoke to have part-time jobs, or some other kind of money-making “side hustle” which impinge on their ability to take part in the socialising and extra-curricular activity they value. Even those receiving some help from parents spoke to us about stiff competition for part-time jobs and months of searching for work to finance their experiences of student life. For these students, there was a keen sense that if they wanted to have a little fun while at university, then it was their responsibility to earn the money to facilitate that, not their parents’:

    I don’t expect my parents to have to pay for me when I want to go out to eat…that’s kind of why I want to work, to be able to maintain my social life, because that’s not my parents’ job at all.

    The past few years have seen a notable increase in numbers of commuting students, and this was a clear theme in our research. Some students were living a considerable distance from campus and commuting in as needed; either living independently in locations cheaper from campus or staying at home to save on rent. With many of these students falling through the cracks in the maintenance loan system or unable to rely on family members for financial help, the commuter students we spoke to told us about enduring 5.00am drives to nursing placements and the vagaries of provincial bus schedules as they try to balance their studies with an affordable lifestyle.

    Not all of them had intended to commute, but had found on-campus residential life too expensive or too logistically complicated – and some added that they valued the skills and qualities their commuter experience had given them. But for these students, too, the social and extracurricular aspects of the student experience fall by the wayside. As one university sports club president explained to us of his commuter student friends:

    Commuting means you’ll only come into campus when you really need to be there, so you don’t really get to make friends on your course, or you don’t really get to go and do sports and stuff, because there’s no point in you coming all the way just for two hours of football.

    One hand in my pocket

    It really was not that long ago that maintenance grants were the norm and student life was cheap and cheerful. Policymakers, and possibly even some university leaders may still unconsciously think in those terms. But that model of student life is eroding, leaving too many on the wrong side of a bifurcated student experience in which some get to realise all the social fulfilment and enjoyment of traditional university life, while others cling on by their fingertips.

    There are two possible responses to sustaining this broad-based student experience that the 2019 Augar review of post-18 education and funding called “a deep-seated part of English culture”: either the core curriculum must be expanded or the cost of accessing student life must be reduced. Taking either of these paths involves difficult and costly political and economic trade-offs. It won’t be cheap, but as any undergraduate will tell you, students are experts at making a little go a long way.

    Download Fulfilment and outcomes: the student experience in 2025, the latest report of the UPP Foundation inquiry into widening participation here.

    Source link

  • Welfare reforms will hit disabled students hard

    Welfare reforms will hit disabled students hard

    As political funding decisions continue to pose threats to both the welfare of disabled people and the higher education sector as a whole, disabled students find themselves caught up in a crossfire of financial cuts.

    This was the subject of many coffee-break conversations at this year’s National Association of Disability Practitioners Conference, at which growing concerns around the financial viability of supporting disabled students effectively were shared by a number of specialist staff across the sector.

    As a practitioner, and as a disabled student myself, it’s hard to shake the feeling that current support mechanisms are stretched to their limits. Without urgent investment and reform, it’s disabled students who will continue to bear the brunt.

    Earlier in the year, Jim Dickinson flagged the potential fallout for disabled students arising from reforms to Personal Independence Payment (PIP) proposed in the government’s Pathways to Work Green Paper.

    With over 100 Labour MPs signing an amendment opposing the changes, if rumours about the government’s compromise are to be believed, new students will soon lose out on some of the support that many existing disabled students are entitled to.

    In the months since the reforms were first proposed, I’ve heard from a number of disabled students who shared serious concerns about what these cuts mean for their wellbeing, autonomy, and academic futures.

    “Without PIP, I would have to drop out.”

    That’s what Alex*, a disabled student at the University of Brighton, told me. Alex currently uses their PIP to cover a number of health related costs, from “feeding tube equipment that isn’t covered by the NHS, mobility equipment and repairs, and [support to cover] additional travel costs to get to [their] appointments.”

    Sadly, yet unsurprisingly, considerations of dropping-out of university are not uncommon. Recent data within the Advance HE Student Academic Experience Survey revealed that disabled students are almost twice as likely to have considered quitting, with 83 per cent of disabled students reporting challenges related to the cost-of-living.

    In my day-job, I often encounter the mistaken assumption that Disabled Students’ Allowance has the ability to fill all of the financial gaps that disabled students may face throughout their studies. DSA can act as a vital source of support for study-related costs, but it is not designed to replace social security.

    For many disabled students, Personal Independence Payment is a lifeline for maintaining independence whilst at university. But with persistent delays and restrictions on DSA support and the proposal to restrict PIP even further for young people, many students like Alex are at risk of starting their studies without access to either.

    “I can’t work alongside my course with my health issues…”

    In my own context, full-time students are expected to commit around 50 hours per week to their studies to meet the notional learning hours set by the SCQF. Yet, in the midst of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis, an estimated 68 per cent of undergraduates now work paid jobs alongside full-time study, exposing a continued disconnect between policy expectations and the lived reality of students today. A balancing act of work and study is unsustainable for many, and for disabled students, the pressures are even greater.

    Abi* reflected this in her conversation with me: “I can’t work alongside my course with my health issues […] as student finance is so little, I use my PIP to stay afloat every month,” she says. “I wouldn’t be able to have my car, with my carer driving me – which is the only way I can get out of the house.”

    At last check, Scope estimated that disabled households require an additional £1067 per month to meet basic living costs, as a result of the many financial barriers associated with existing as a disabled person in a society that is not constructed to compensate for a wide variety of access needs. Whilst PIP is not intended as an out-of-work benefit, many disabled students rely on it to fill the gaps left by inadequate financial support. Abi’s experience reflects the additional strain placed on disabled students by the “disability price tag”.

    Accessible accommodation is “more expensive than most private rentals…”

    Systemic barriers were emphasised by a number of the students I spoke with. For Daisy* securing accessible housing has been a particular challenge financially.

    Reflecting on her own living situation, she said: “I live in a very inaccessible city and can only live in university halls,” “it’s more expensive than most private rentals, but there’s no alternative.”

    Back in Brighton, Alex* shared similar concerns: “my only option is to live in university accommodation, which costs significantly more on average than most house shares in my city.”

    These accounts reflect a wider set of structural barriers that have a direct impact on the disabled student experience. Recent data from Disabled Students UK highlighted that affordable, accessible housing is often scarce, with 46 per cent of disabled students reporting that they’ve ended up paying more for housing that met their access needs.

    And housing can’t be considered in isolation – it’s tied to the broader context of inaccessible transport, barriers to timely healthcare, inadequate personal care support, and the high costs associated with assistive equipment.

    When these basic needs go unmet, it becomes significantly harder for disabled students to engage with university life: academically, socially, and beyond. Abi shared this concern, expressing fears that the removal of PIP would prevent her from having a wider student experience: “without my PIP, I wouldn’t be able to do anything extracurricular.”

    If disabled students can’t afford to live independently, how can they fully participate in university life, let alone thrive outside of it?

    “Why can’t they see how hard I’m trying to find work?”

    That’s the question Katie* posed to me when we spoke. Preparing to undertake a PhD in Newcastle, Katie found the transition from university into work daunting and unsupported. “There’s still an expectation that you get your degree, then get a job,” she said. “But there’s very little recognition of how much harder that is for disabled graduates.”

    A recent report from the Shaw Trust highlighted the persistence of the disability employment gap amongst graduates, emphasising that the gap is not about a lack of aspiration, it’s about structural and systemic barriers.

    Katie’s experience reflects a broader trend – while much of the discourse centres around “employability” and economic outcomes, little is said about the lack of disability-informed careers support or the inflexibility of most graduate job opportunities. “Trying to find ‘disability confident’ employers reduces the job pool even further,” she adds. “Half of the jobs which could be hybrid or online aren’t. And trying to find a flexible job that allows time for medical appointments? Nearly impossible.”

    But it isn’t just about work…

    These conversations emphasise access to equitable higher education risks being eroded by benefit restrictions, ongoing delays to DSA support, and widespread cuts to university funding.

    While higher education institutions have made important strides in recent years, through the development of Disabled Student Commitment, and an increased focus on compliance with the Equality Act, service cuts across the sector threaten to undermine that progress.

    According to our research at Disabled Students UK, only 38 per cent of disabled students currently feel that their support needs have been met by their institution. As public funding continues to shrink, many universities are being forced to reassess spending, with many opting to restructure services and streamline provision. But if disabled students are sidelined in these processes, the consequences will be stark.

    In a climate of compounding cuts, institutions must take care to ensure that the interests of disabled students are not excluded from decision-making or deprioritised in budget reviews. Otherwise, we risk further entrenching inequity within a sector that prides itself on widening participation.

    At the heart of all of this is one clear message – disabled students are not asking for luxury. They’re seeking the basic conditions needed to study, participate, and succeed. If we cannot meet even the baseline needs of disabled students, at both an institutional and state level, then we need to seriously question what kind of higher education system we are building, and who it’s truly for.

    Disabled Students UK’s Annual Disabled Student Survey, the largest survey into HE accessibility and the disabled student experience in the UK, is open for responses until the end of July.

     

    Source link