Tag: students

UConn Med now lets students opt out of DEI pledge of allegiance

Great news: UConn School of Medicine administrators are going scalpels down on the school’s attempt to forcibly transplant politics and ideology into its incoming student body.

In 2022, UConn finalized its own version of the Hippocratic Oath, which includes a promise to “actively support policies that promote social justice and specifically work to dismantle policies that perpetuate inequities, exclusion, discrimination and racism.” Most recently, UConn required the incoming class of 2028 to pledge allegiance not simply to patient care, but to support diversity, equity, and inclusion.

In January, an admissions staff member at the medical school told FIRE that the oath is mandatory for students. That’s a problem because, as a public university, UConn is strictly bound by the First Amendment and cannot compel students to voice beliefs they do not hold.

Concerned about this and similar cases, FIRE wrote the UConn School of Medicine on Jan. 31, calling on the school to make clear that students have every right to refuse to pledge allegiance to DEI.

We got back radio silence.

After following up via email, we finally got some good news from UConn. The school’s communications director clarified, “UConn’s medical school does not mandate nor monitor a student’s reciting of all or part of our Hippocratic Oath, nor do we discipline any student for choosing to not recite the oath or any part of it.”

Public institutions have every right to try to address any bias that might impact medical education. But forcing med students to pledge themselves to DEI — or any other political ideology — is First Amendment malpractice. They have no more right to do so than they do to force students to pledge allegiance to a political figure, or to the American flag.

In the landmark 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, the Supreme Court held that students could not be forced to salute the American flag, saying, “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.”

In the medical context it gets even worse, as these nebulous commitments could become de facto professionalism standards, with students facing punishment for failing to uphold them. (After all, they took an oath!) What, exactly, must a medical student do to “support policies that promote social justice?” Presumably, that would be for UConn to determine. And if a student disagrees with UConn’s definition of “social justice” or chooses not to promote it in the prescribed way, could she be dismissed for violating her oath?

FIRE has repeatedly seen administrators of professional programs — including medicine, dentistry, law, and mortuary science — deploy ambiguous and arbitrarily defined “professionalism” standards to punish students for otherwise protected speech. It’s no stretch to imagine it happening here as well.

UConn isn’t alone in making changes to its version of the Hippocratic Oath. Other prestigious medical schools, including those at Harvard, Columbia, Washington University, Pitt Med, and the Icahn School of Medicine have adopted similarly updated oaths in recent years. However, not all schools compel students to recite such oaths.

When we raised concerns in 2022 about the University of Minnesota Medical School’s oath, which includes an affirmation that the school is on indigenous land and a vow to fight “white supremacy,” the university confirmed that students are not obligated to recite it.

We’re glad that UConn has now done the same. FIRE celebrates this surgical success, and we won’t stand by while schools try to graft ideology onto student minds.

Source link

April 7, 2025
It’s students that suffer when those supposed to protect them fail

24 hours after it published its (“summary”) report into the sudden closure of the Applied Business Academy (ABA), the Office for Students (OfS) published an insight brief on protecting the interests of students when universities and colleges close.

When the regulator works with a closing provider, it says that it works with that provider and other bodies to try to reduce the impact on students.

OfS’ report on ABA is notably quiet on the extent to which it has been successful there – we’ve no idea how many students were real, how many of those that were have successfully switched provider, how much (if any compensation) any of the impacted students have had, and so on.

Nor has it talked about its success or otherwise in reducing the impact on students from the closure of ALRA drama school in 2022 or Schumacher College last Autumn.

A number of campuses have closed in recent years – no idea on that, and if your course closes (or is cut or merged in a material way) OfS doesn’t even require providers to report that in, so it would neither know nor feature it on its “current closures” webpage (that plenty of students caught up in a closure will nevertheless find if they google “closed course office for students”).

The other gap in knowledge thus far is the sorts of things that you might assume the regulator has noticed or done or considered in the run up to a closure. The learning is valuable – and so the new brief shares both its experience of closures and “near misses”, and the experiences of some of those directly involved.

There’s helpful material on the impact on students, communication and record management, and how providers may be affected by the closure of subcontracted or validated delivery partners – and features anonymised quotes shared by senior managers and “a student” involved in institutional closures.

Unexpected hits you between the eyes

The note suggests that providers consistently underestimate the challenges and “resource-intensive nature” of closure processes – one contributor says:

The challenge is underestimating the level of work and planning that are needed in different areas. Planning prior to a crisis developing can help the situation hugely.

Financial complexities often catch institutions unprepared, with many discovering too late how their legal structure significantly impacts rescue options. OfS says that providers need to thoroughly understand their financial position, contractual obligations, and legal options well before any crisis occurs.

Student data management are also a problem – incomplete or inadequate student records prove nearly useless when transfers become necessary, and data sharing agreements essential for transferring information to other institutions are often neglected until closure is imminent.

The human impact on students is underestimated. Students face difficulties processing their options without timely information, and providers fail to recognise how closure disproportionately affects those with caring responsibilities, part-time employment, disabilities, or those on placements – all groups who cannot easily relocate. Accommodation arrangements create more complications, with some students locked into tenancy contracts.

Communication challenges see providers struggling to balance early transparency against having finalised options – it says that many fail to develop clear, student-focused comms plans, resulting in confusion and poor decision-making among those affected.

Validated and subcontractual partnerships demand special attention – with one leader admitting:

Our mechanisms were too slow to identify the risks for those students.

Many have failed to identify and plan for contingencies despite retaining significant responsibility for these students. And refunds and compensation frameworks are neglected too – the one student observes:

We were told we could claim compensation for reasonable interim costs from our institution, but without clear or prompt guidance on what this could cover, it was hard to feel confident in making decisions.

It also says that early stakeholder engagement with agencies like UCAS or the OIA (as well as proactive communication with OfS and any other relevant regulators) is critical – delays in those its seen until crisis is imminent miss valuable opportunities for support in protecting student interests.

The benefits of hindsight

Despite focusing on risks to study continuation of study and provider response planning and execution, astonishingly the brief never mentions Condition C3 – the core regulation governing these areas.

Condition C4 (an enhanced version of C3) appears occasionally, but we learn nothing about its application in the cited cases, preventing assessment of the regulatory framework’s effectiveness.

This all matters because OfS’s fundamental purpose is to assure those enrolling into the provision it regulates of a level baseline student interest protection – not merely offering advice.

And the reality is that the evidence it presents reveals systematic failures across C3’s key requirements. Providers here demonstrated profound gaps in risk assessment and awareness. They “were not fully aware of the risks” from delivery partner failures, with early warning mechanisms that “should have kicked in earlier”, and seem to have failed to conduct the comprehensive risk assessments across all provision types that C3 explicitly requires.

Mitigation planning fell similarly short of regulatory expectations. Institutions underestimated “the level of work and planning needed” while failing to properly identify alternative study options. Practical considerations like accommodation concerns with “third-party landlords” were overlooked entirely. And plans weren’t “produced in collaboration with students” as both C3 and pages like this promise:

…we expect providers to collaborate with students to review and refresh the plan on a regular basis.

Implementation and communication failures undermined student protection. When crises occurred, protection measures weren’t activated promptly, with students reporting “it was difficult to decide what to do next without having all the information in a timely manner.”

Compensation processes generated confusion rather than clarity. Delivery partners neglected to inform lead institutions of closure risks, while information sharing was often restricted to “a smaller group of staff,” reducing planning capacity precisely when broad engagement was needed.

And C3’s requirements regarding diverse student needs seem to have been unaddressed too. Support for students with additional needs proved inadequate in practice, while international students faced visa vulnerabilities that should have been anticipated.

C3 also requires plans to be “published in a clear and accessible way” and “revised regularly” – requirements evidently unmet here, with evidence suggesting some providers maintained static protection measures that proved ineffective when actually needed.

Has anyone been held to account for those failings? And for its own part, if OfS knew that ABA was in trouble (partly via Ofsted and partly via the DfE switching off the loans tap), even if C4 wasn’t applied, was C3 compliance scrutinised? Will other providers be held to account if they fail in similar ways? We are never told.

The more the world is changing

The questions pile up the further into the document you get. Given the changed financial circumstances in the sector and the filing cabinet that must be full of “at enhanced risk” of financial problems, why hasn’t OfS issued revised C3 guidance? If anyone’s reading inside the regulator, based on report I’ve had a go at the redraft that former OfS chair Michael Barber promised back in 2018 (and then never delivered) here – providers wishing to sleep at night should take a look too.

You also have to wonder if OfS has demanded C3 rewrites of providers who have featured on the front of the Sunday Times, or who have announced redundancies. If it has, there’s not much evidence – there’s clearly a wild mismatch between the often years old, “very low risks here” statements in “live” SPPs that I always look for when a redundancy round is threatened, and I have a live list of those featured on Queen Mary UCU’s “HE Shrinking” webpage whose SPPs paint a picture of financial stability and infinitesimally small course closure risk despite many now teaching them out.

I’ve posted before about the ways in which things like “teach out” sound great in practice, but almost always go wrong – with no attempt by OfS to evaluate, partly because it usually doesn’t know about them. I’m also, to be fair, aware that in multiple cases providers have submitted revised student protection plans to the regulator, only to hear nothing back for months on end.

Of course in theory the need for a specific and dedicated SPP may disappear in the future – OfS is consulting on replacing them with related comprehensive information. But when that might apply to existing providers is unknown – and so for the time being, OfS’ own protection promises on its own website appear to be going unmet with impunity for those not meeting them:

Student protection plans set out what students can expect to happen should a course, campus, or institution close. The purpose of a plan is to ensure that students can continue and complete their studies, or can be compensated if this is not possible.

As such the brief reads like a mixture between a set of case studies and “best practice”, with even less regulatory force than a set of summaries from the OIA. The difference here – as the OIA regularly itself identifies – is that the upholding of a complaint against its “Good Practice Framework” won’t be much use if the provider is in administration.

So whether it’s holes in the wording of C3, problems in predicting what C3’s requirements might mean, a lack of enforcement over what students are being promised now, a need for C3 to be revised and updated, a need for better guidance in light of cases surrounding it, or a need for all of these lessons to be built into its new proposed C5 (and then implemented across the existing regulated sector), what OfS has done is pretty much reveal that students should have no trust in the protection arrangements currently on offer.

And for future students, wider lessons – on the nature of what is and isn’t being funded, and whether the risks can ever be meaningfully mitigated – are entirely absent here too.

Amidst cuts that OfS itself is encouraging, from a course or campus closure point of view, a mixture of OfS consistently failing to define “material component” in the SPP guidance, and a breath of providers either having clauses that give them too much power to vary from what was promised, or pretending their clauses allow them to merge courses or slash options when they don’t, is bad enough – as is the tactic of telling students of changes a couple of weeks before the term starts when the “offer” of “you can always break the contract on your side” is a pretty pointless one.

But from a provider collapse perspective, it’s unforgivable. Whatever is done in the future on franchising, you’d have to assume that many of the providers already look pretty precarious now – and will be even more so if investigations (either by the government or newspapers) reveal more issues, or if OfS makes them all register (where the fit and proper person test looks interesting), or if the government bans domestic agents.

And anyone that thinks that it’s only franchised providers that look precarious right now really ought to get their head across the risk statements in this year’s crop of annual accounts.

Back in 2017 when DfE consulted on the Regulatory Framework on behalf of the emerging OfS back, it promised that were there to be economic changes that dramatically affected the sustainability of many providers, the regulator would work with providers to improve their student protection plans so that they remained “strong” and “deliverable” in service of the student interest.

So far they’ve proved to be weak and undeliverable. Whether that’s DfE’s fault for not getting the powers right, OfS’ for not using them, or ministers’ fault for freezing fees, taking the cap off recruitment and letting cowboys in to trouser wads of tuition fee loan money is an issue for another day. For now, someone either needs to warn students that promises on protection are nonsense, or providers, DfE and OfS need to act now to make good on the promises of protection that they’ve made.

Source link

April 7, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations. Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
Mid-Semester Course Corrections: Using the MSF Model to Engage Students and Improve Courses – Faculty Focus
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).

In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).

How It Works

The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
1. They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
1. They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
1. They must be anonymous;
1. They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)

The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.

Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective: 
1. What in this course has helped to improve your learning? 
1. What in this course has hindered your learning? 
1. Is there anything you would like the instructor to change? 
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions. 

Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses. 

After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).

Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)

The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.

In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).

What It Does

The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.

For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).

Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.

Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition. 

References

Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journal of Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.

Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.

George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.

Gooblar, David. “The Midsemester Course Correction.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 31, 2017) https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-midsemester-course-correction/

Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.

Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook

Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.

Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.

McGrath, Laura B. “Mid-Semester Evaluations: How to Do Some Spring Cleaning in Your Classrooms.” Inside Higher Ed (March 11, 2014). https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/gradhacker/mid-semester-evaluations

Medina, Brenda. “As Emphasis on Student Evaluations Grows, Professors Increasingly Seek Midcourse Feedback.” The Chronicle of Higher Education (October 30, 2011). https://www.chronicle.com/article/as-emphasis-on-student-evaluations-grows-professors-increasingly-seek-midcourse-feedback/

Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4^th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.

Payette, Patricia R., and Marie Kendall Brown. “Gathering Mid-Semester Feedback: Three Variations to Improve Instruction.” IDEA Paper No. 67, IDEA Center, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588349

Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.

Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.

Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.

Weimer, Maryellen. “Benefits of Talking with Students about Course Evaluations.” Faculty Focus, June 15, 2016. https://www.facultyfocus.com/articles/faculty-development/benefits-talking-students-mid-course-evaluations/
Source link
April 7, 2025
The Net Price of College Is Falling for Most Students

Title: College Prices Are Falling for Everyone (Almost)

Source: Brookings Institution

Author: Phillip Levine

New research from the Brookings Institution reveals a surprising truth: inflation-adjusted college prices have fallen for most students over the past five years. Phillip Levine’s analysis examines what students actually pay—the net price after financial aid—rather than the sticker prices that dominate media coverage.

Using data from net price calculators at 200 institutions and proprietary financial aid records from 14 highly endowed colleges, his findings challenge the common narrative:

Widespread price decreases: Between 2019-20 and 2024-25, inflation-adjusted net prices declined across institution types. Public flagship universities saw reductions of 7.1-17.3 percent, depending on family income level, while other public institutions experienced decreases of 8.5-13.2 percent. Private colleges with very large endowments had substantial declines, ranging from 7.0-43.4 percent, and tuition-dependent private colleges saw net prices drop by 16.8-23.3 percent.

Lower-income students benefit most: Families earning $40,000 annually, representing the 25th percentile of the income distribution, experienced the largest reductions, with net prices dropping by 13.2-40.9 percent depending on institution type.

Wide price variation by income: At private institutions with very large endowments, students from families earning $40,000 pay approximately $4,400 annually, while those from families earning $240,000 pay $82,800 annually.

At many institutions, families earning $40,000 are still expected to contribute $15,000-$20,000 annually. Only the most heavily endowed institutions typically offer aid packages that lower-income families can reasonably manage. This raises important policy implications: proposed increases to endowment taxes may undermine institutions’ ability to provide generous financial aid, potentially harming the very students who benefit most from their pricing models. Private colleges and universities rely heavily on endowments to fund scholarships, research, and education—often more than they rely on tuition revenue. Treating endowments like business profits could shift the financial burden onto students and weaken U.S. innovation.

The complexity of college pricing creates uncertainty for families, policymakers, and media. Greater transparency about the true cost of attendance is essential. By focusing on actual prices rather than headline-grabbing sticker prices, we can help reshape the national conversation on college affordability and ensure that misconceptions don’t deter qualified students from pursuing higher education.

To read the full Brookings research analysis, click here.

—Alex Zhao

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

April 4, 2025
$6 ways to make math more accessible for multilingual learners$

6 ways to make math more accessible for multilingual learners
Key points:
- All students are math language learners, regardless of their home language
- Fostering metacognition and AI integration for ELLs
- How to support multilingual learners in STEM
- For more news on language learners, visit eSN’s Innovative Teaching hub
Math isn’t just about numbers. It’s about language, too.

Many math tasks involve reading, writing, speaking, and listening. These language demands can be particularly challenging for students whose primary language is not English.

There are many ways teachers can bridge language barriers for multilingual learners (MLs) while also making math more accessible and engaging for all learners. Here are a few:

1. Introduce and reinforce academic language

Like many disciplines, math has its own language. It has specialized terms–such as numerator, divisor, polynomial, and coefficient–that students may not encounter outside of class. Math also includes everyday words with multiple meanings, such as product, plane, odd, even, square, degree, and mean.

One way to help students build the vocabulary needed for each lesson is to identify and highlight key terms that might be new to them. Write the terms on a whiteboard. Post the terms on math walls. Ask students to record them in math vocabulary notebooks they can reference throughout the year. Conduct a hands-on activity that provides a context for the vocabulary students are learning. Reinforce the terms by asking students to draw pictures of them in their notebooks or use them in conversations during group work.

Helping students learn to speak math proficiently today will pay dividends (another word with multiple meanings!) for years to come.

2. Incorporate visual aids

Visuals and multimedia improve MLs’ English language acquisition and engagement. Picture cards, for example, are a helpful tool for building students’ vocabulary skills in group, paired, or independent work. Many digital platforms include ready-made online cards as well as resources for creating picture cards and worksheets.

Visual aids also help MLs comprehend and remember content. Aids such as photographs, videos, animations, drawings, diagrams, charts, and graphs help make abstract ideas concrete. They connect concepts to the everyday world and students’ experiences and prior knowledge, which helps foster understanding.

Even physical actions such as hand gestures, modeling the use of a tool, or displaying work samples alongside verbal explanations and instructions can give students the clarity needed to tackle math tasks.

3. Utilize digital tools

A key benefit of digital math tools is that they make math feel approachable. Many MLs may feel more comfortable with digital math platforms because they can practice independently without worrying about taking extra time or giving the wrong answer in front of their peers.

Digital platforms also offer embedded language supports and accessibility features for diverse learners. Features like text-to-speech, adjustable speaking rates, digital glossaries, and closed captioning improve math comprehension and strengthen literacy skills.

4. Encourage hands-on learning

Hands-on learning makes math come alive. Math manipulatives allow MLs to “touch” math, deepening their understanding. Both physical and digital manipulatives–such as pattern blocks, dice, spinners, base ten blocks, and algebra tiles–enable students to explore and interact with mathematical ideas and discover the wonders of math in the world around them.

Many lesson models, inquiry-based investigations, hands-on explorations and activities, and simulations also help students connect abstract concepts and real-life scenarios.

PhET sims, for example, create a game-like environment where students learn math through exploration and discovery. In addition to addressing math concepts and applications, these free simulations offer language translations and inclusive features such as voicing and interactive descriptions.

Whether students do math by manipulating materials in their hands or on their devices, hands-on explorations encourage students to experiment, make predictions, and find solutions through trial and error. This not only fosters critical thinking but also helps build confidence and perseverance.

5. Use students’ home language as a support

Research suggests that students’ home languages can also be educational resources.

In U.S. public schools, Spanish is the most commonly reported home language of students learning English. More than 75 percent of English learners speak Spanish at home. To help schools incorporate students’ home language in the classroom, some digital platforms offer curriculum content and supports in both English and Spanish. Some even provide the option to toggle from English to Spanish with the click of a button.

In addition, artificial intelligence and online translation tools can translate lesson materials into multiple languages.

6. Create verbal scaffolds

To respond to math questions, MLs have to figure out the answers and how to phrase their responses in English. Verbal scaffolds such as sentence frames and sentence stems can lighten the cognitive load by giving students a starting point for answering questions or expressing their ideas. This way, students can focus on the lesson content rather than having to spend extra mental energy figuring out how to word their answers.

Sentence frames are often helpful for students with a beginning level of English proficiency.
- A square has sides.
- An isosceles triangle has at least equal angles.
Sentence stems (a.k.a. sentence starters) help students get their thoughts going so they can give an answer or participate in a discussion.
- The pattern I noticed was .
- My answer is . I figured it out by .
Whether online or on paper, these fill-in-the-blank phrases and sentences help students explain their thinking orally or in writing. These scaffolds also support academic language development by showing key terms in context and providing opportunities to use new vocabulary words.

Making math welcoming for all

All students are math language learners. Regardless of their home language, every student should feel like their math classroom is a place to learn, participate, contribute, and grow. With the right strategies and tools, teachers can effectively support MLs while maintaining the rigor of grade-level content and making math more accessible and engaging for all.

Source link
April 4, 2025
Building a public transport agenda for commuter students

If you have been to Greater Manchester in the last few years, you will have noticed that more and more yellow buses have started to appear.

The Bee Network fully launched across the region on the 5^th January 2025 – the yellow bus takeover is now complete.

When all buses in the region became a part of the Bee Network – the integrated transport network for Greater Manchester – this was a significant moment for the city’s devolution journey. It became the first place in England, outside of London, to have buses back under public control.

One of the Greater Manchester Student Partnership’s (GMSP) priorities is to improve students’ experience of transport across the region, the launch of the Bee Network is a key opportunity to make that happen.

Institutions often define commuters differently and in Greater Manchester we already have a large proportion of students “traditionally” commuting. However traditional residential students are living further away from campus due to rising costs and are more reliant on public transport to get to classes.

The GMSP has been thinking about how we can use the Greater Manchester Combined Authorities’ powers to support commuter students in their widest of definitions.

A backdrop of devolution

Since the coalition government of the early 2010s, devolution has been growing and Greater Manchester and the West Midlands have been the guinea pigs of the plan.

Putting buses back under public control was a large part of the devolution deals and settlements, with the Bus Service Act 2017 being introduced so regions can take back control of buses.

For context, in the 1980s bus travel in the UK was deregulated – anyone with a licence and a bus could run any bus service they wanted. The act allows Metro Mayors and in the future local authorities to franchise bus services. In doing so they can set up routes, tickets and costs for bus operators to bid for.

Andy Burnham, the mayor of Greater Manchester, got the ball rolling on this quickly.

In the 2024 general election, Labour had promised more devolved powers for regional mayors that have already been elected. In December, the government announced the Better Buses Bill which will give more powers to local authorities to own their own bus companies.

Students use buses to get around their city but commuter students are not just reliant on buses, they are also reliant on trams and trains and other forms of transport.

Building a student city

The new bus fare cap rising will be a further strain on student cost of living and inevitably impact on student engagement on campus – for traditional commuters and residential students. The benefits of a mayor and devolved transport powers mean that isn’t the case here, fares are staying put at £2.

As of last month, if you “tap in” on the tram and the bus with your contactless card, it all falls under the same ticket.

This again is welcomed by GMSP, but this does not reduce the price of students who have to travel on both modes of public transport.

This improves accessibility but not necessarily affordability.

If they take multiple journeys a week on both a tram and a bus, it will cost £41. There is currently no student rate on trams or on the “tap in” system that is about to be introduced.

From December 2026 until December 2028, the Bee Network will gain control of eight major commuter train lines. Greater Manchester could then become the best city for student public transport in the country, but only if Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), universities and student unions work together.

Busy making promises

The GMSP has been advocating for cheaper, more reliable transport with the mayor and TfGM.

In 2022, officers from GMSP wrote to the mayor asking for a £1.50 bus single for all students. The mayor responded by saying that although he wanted to do something like this, until he had full control on the Bee Network, that would not be possible.

In the mayor’s 2024 mayoral election manifesto, he announced at a mayoral hustings for students that he was to introduce a 18-21 monthly half price bus pass, bringing down the cost from £80 to £40.

This was welcomed by GMSP to an extent, but we recognised that a lot of students, especially commuter students, do not fall into this category. And termly student tickets that are already on offer would work out cheaper for most students anyway.

Since the Bee Network fully launched, we have seen no sign of this offer appearing.

Student transport agenda

The big question is, how can the universities, student unions and transport authorities work together to make life better for commuter students?

Whilst we’re lucky in Greater Manchester to have a forum to meet with and discuss things like patronage, pricing and safety, getting all partners into the room is not as easy.

We have big plans to make Greater Manchester the best place to be a student, and to do that we need to think big with things like creating a student living and staying strategy for the city region.

This would bring together all these partners to create a long-term strategy for students in the city region, with one of themes being transport. Having these three partners working together is key for the success of any long-term transport strategy in the region.

TfGM holds a lot of the power, including data on patronage and which routes students are using the most. Universities hold influence and potential financial influence, which could be beneficial for introducing new routes and discounting prices for students.

Universities have a lot of data about students, especially on where they live, and that information could be used to target key routes for commuter students. And student unions are important as the voice of students.

One of the mayor’s key aims for students in Greater Manchester is retaining talent. An element of this is making the Greater Manchester universities more attractive for potential students from Greater Manchester. If you want to make local universities more desirable for commuter students, improving the reliability, access and price of transport would go a very long way.

Whilst Greater Manchester has a unique opportunity to improve the commuter student experience, more devolution is on its way. In the meantime, the more connections and collaborations that exist between local authorities, universities, student unions and transport providers, the better.

Collaboration is key to making these ideas a reality and in building transport strategies in university towns and cities, commuter students need to be at the heart of decision making.

This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

Source link

April 4, 2025
The Tools Helping University Students Succeed After Graduation (Post College Journey)

Seattle, Wash.– As thousands of university students graduate each year, many find themselves
facing an unexpected challenge: career uncertainty. Despite earning degrees, a large portion of
graduates report feeling unprepared to enter the workforce. Post-college career expert Laurie
Nilo-Klug is tackling this issue head-on, providing students with the tools they need to build
confidence and thrive in their careers.

Ms. Nilo-Klug, an Adjunct Professor at Seattle University and the founder of Post College
Journey, has dedicated her work to helping students transition from college to the professional
world. Through her programs, Laurie has empowered students to take control of their career
paths, addressing common issues such as imposter syndrome, skill uncertainty, and job market
navigation.

After implementing her career confidence-building tools in the classroom, Laurie observed a
remarkable 60% increase in student confidence levels. “Many students leave college with
impressive degrees but lack the self-assurance to effectively launch their careers.

My goal is to bridge that gap with actionable strategies that instill confidence and competence,” says Laurie. Laurie explains, “In a recent assignment, I had students choose two career exploration activities, and their selections revealed a strong drive to connect classroom learning with their post-college goals.

Their enthusiasm for hands-on experiences, such as job applications and simulations, highlighted the critical need for practical, real-world learning opportunities. After gathering student feedback and analyzing the data, I found a 60% increase in their career confidence levels. This reinforced my belief that early and direct exposure to career exploration is essential for student success.”

In this activity, students were tasked with selecting two career exploration activities from the
following options:

● Attending a career development event;
● Having an appointment with the career center;
● Joining a student club;
● Doing a career self-assessment
● Applying to a job;
● Or completing a job simulation and then reflecting on what they have learned.

This assignment aimed to show that career development offers many paths, so it’s crucial to
understand why you choose an activity, what you hope to gain, and reflect on what you learn.
Laurie expected students to pick low-effort options like self-assessments or joining a club, given
their frequent concerns about time constraints. Instead, nearly all chose job simulations or
applied for a job, showing a strong preference for hands-on experience.

For media inquiries or to schedule an interview with Laurie Nilo-Klug, please contact:
Marisa Spano
[email protected]

Source link

April 3, 2025
Understanding why students cheat and use AI: Insights for meaningful assessments
Key points:

Educators should build a classroom culture that values learning over compliance

5 practical ways to integrate AI into high school science

A new era for teachers as AI disrupts instruction

For more news on AI and assessments, visit eSN’s Digital Learning hub

In recent years, the rise of AI technologies and the increasing pressures placed on students have made academic dishonesty a growing concern. Students, especially in the middle and high school years, have more opportunities than ever to cheat using AI tools, such as writing assistants or even text generators. While AI itself isn’t inherently problematic, its use in cheating can hinder students’ learning and development.

More News from eSchool News

Many math tasks involve reading, writing, speaking, and listening. These language demands can be particularly challenging for students whose primary language is not English.

As a career and technical education (CTE) instructor, I see firsthand how career-focused education provides students with the tools to transition smoothly from high school to college and careers.

As technology trainers, we support teachers’ and administrators’ technology platform needs, training, and support in our district. We do in-class demos and share as much as we can with them, and we also send out a weekly newsletter.

Math is a fundamental part of K-12 education, but students often face significant challenges in mastering increasingly challenging math concepts.

Throughout my education, I have always been frustrated by busy work–the kind of homework that felt like an obligatory exercise rather than a meaningful learning experience.

During the pandemic, thousands of school systems used emergency relief aid to buy laptops, Chromebooks, and other digital devices for students to use in remote learning.

Education today looks dramatically different from classrooms of just a decade ago. Interactive technologies and multimedia tools now replace traditional textbooks and lectures, creating more dynamic and engaging learning environments.

There is significant evidence of the connection between physical movement and learning. Some colleges and universities encourage using standing or treadmill desks while studying, as well as taking breaks to exercise.

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters. In recent weeks, we’ve seen federal and state governments issue stop-work orders, withdraw contracts, and terminate…

English/language arts and science teachers were almost twice as likely to say they use AI tools compared to math teachers or elementary teachers of all subjects, according to a February 2025 survey from the RAND Corporation.

Tags Assessments, cheating, classroom, culture, educators, high school, learning, school, students, teachers

Want to share a great resource? Let us know at [email protected].
Source link
April 3, 2025
Students can make a real difference to educational opportunity in their regions through tutoring

Right now, improving access to educational opportunities for young people from disadvantaged backgrounds is high on the agenda of both universities and the UK government.

While Labour draws up plans to break the link between background and success, universities continue to invest significant time and resources into creating and implementing widening participation initiatives. If these efforts are to be successful, it’s vital that more young people are given access to tailored tutoring support during their time in compulsory education.

The advantage gap in achieving GCSE English and maths at age 16 is at its widest since 2011, with over half of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds leaving school without these crucial qualifications. Missing these qualifications limits young people’s opportunities to progress in education. A 2021 study for the Nuffield Foundation primarily of the 2015 GCSE cohort found that young people who left school without GCSE English and maths are much less likely to study for a qualification higher than GCSE the following year, and even fewer pursue A levels.

The 16-19 attainment gap persists in post-16 education. On average, young people facing economic disadvantage are over three grades behind their peers across their best three subjects by the time they leave compulsory education. The gap is even wider for those in long term poverty, at almost four grades behind.

Tutoring has long been recognised as one of the most effective ways to boost attainment. Research by the Education Endowment Foundation suggests targeted tutoring leads to an average of five months additional progress when delivered one-to-one and four months additional progress when delivered in a small group.

Unequal access

Parents are aware of this benefit, with private tutoring becoming increasingly popular, according to the Sutton Trust. But low-income families are often priced out of accessing this kind of support should their child fall behind.

This unequal access is something that was addressed by The National Tutoring Programme and the 16-19 Tuition Fund – both government-funded tutoring schemes that ran in state schools and colleges between 2020–24. These programmes were created in response to the pandemic, to help young people catch up on lost learning. During the lifetimes of these programmes, the Sutton Trust examination of the tutoring landscape found that the gap in access to tuition between poorer and wealthier families in England all but disappeared.

A new report published this week from Public First – Past lessons, future vision: evolving state funded tutoring for the future – finds that schools and colleges have struggled to maintain tutoring beyond the end of the dedicated funding provided by these schemes. despite the strong evidence base for tutoring, its popularity among parents and government plans for tutoring to become a “permanent feature of the system” provided by these schemes.

The report compiles lessons learned from the National Tutoring Programme and the 16-19 Tuition Fund and uses these to create a blueprint for what the future of state-funded tutoring should look like. Based on interviews and focus groups with teachers, it reveals that many school leaders see relying on Pupil Premium funding to sustain tutoring as unrealistic. Schools face competing pressures on this funding, including the need to cover gaps in their core budgets.

Funding for tutoring programmes in colleges is even more limited. Unlike younger pupils, disadvantaged students in further education receive no equivalent to the Pupil Premium, despite still being in compulsory education. As a result, there is no dedicated funding for initiatives that could help bridge the attainment gap.

This is particularly troubling when you consider that young people in this phase have the shortest time left in compulsory education, and that the majority of students who resit their GCSEs in English and maths – subjects that are crucial for accessing higher level study – do so in FE colleges.

Reaping the benefits

Tutoring programmes don’t just benefit the young people receiving much needed academic support, they also bring wider advantages to the higher education sector. By partnering with local schools and colleges to deliver tuition programmes, higher education institutions can take a leading role in advancing social mobility, delivering on their access and participation priorities, and strengthening ties with their local communities.

These programmes also create valuable job opportunities for undergraduate and postgraduate students. At Get Further – a charity that supports students from disadvantaged backgrounds to succeed in their GCSE resits through small-group tuition – 61 per cent of our tutors in 2023–24 were students: 23 per cent postgraduate and 38 per cent undergraduate.

When recruiting new tutors, we prioritise offering opportunities to students at our partner universities, providing them with comprehensive training and ongoing personal development. This enables them to build transferable skills in a paid role while making a meaningful contribution to widening participation, enriching both their own educational experience and that of the learners they support.

Similarly, the University of Exeter tutoring model has had success with its literacy programme for 12-13 year olds – a scheme delivered entirely by undergraduate tutors, who are either paid for their time or earn credits towards their degree. Programmes like these provide students with the opportunity to develop skills in communication, mentoring, adaptability, and critical thinking. This is all while taking on a flexible role that fits around their studies, supports their finances and makes a positive impact on their local communities.

Creating tutoring jobs for university students could also create a pipeline into teaching – a critically understaffed profession. In 2024, a survey of Get Further tutors revealed that 68 per cent of our tutor pool either were interested or might be interested in pursuing a career in teaching, and 67 per cent said that they were more likely to consider pursuing a career in teaching having tutored on our programme.

Investing in tutoring isn’t just about closing the attainment gap – it’s about expanding opportunity at every stage of education. By making high-quality tuition accessible to all young people, regardless of background, we can remove barriers to higher education while also creating valuable work experience for university students.

The Past lessons, future vision report sets out a clear blueprint for a sustainable, national tutoring programme. The evidence is compelling, the need is urgent, and the potential impact is transformative. The government must act to reinstate state funding so that this vital support remains available to those who need it most.

In the meantime, universities have a crucial role to play. By embedding tutoring within their widening participation efforts, they can not only support young people facing disadvantage but also strengthen ties with local colleges and schools, enhance student employability, and help shape a fairer, more ambitious education system.

Source link

April 2, 2025