Tag: support

  • The higher education sector needs an honest broker to support structural change

    The higher education sector needs an honest broker to support structural change

    Of all the current headwinds faced by the higher education sector, one of the most challenging is a lack of expertise and experience in the area of structural change.

    In an environment where radical collaboration and merger are increasingly seen – rightly or wrongly – as a solution to the sector’s financial challenges, the expertise needed to broker and execute a successful merger or other collaboration seems to be patchy.

    As, arguably, are the somewhat different competences required to steward the longer term strategic integration of two or more distinct institutions, each with their own teaching and research portfolios and cultures. The answer to the question “who has done this before?” can only be answered in the affirmative by a handful of people.

    This issue was acknowledged in Mills & Reeve’s joint report with Wonkhe Connect More with the following insight from a one of the heads of institution we interviewed:

    We all have a skills matrix for boards and for courts and for councils. I think, increasingly, that needs to reflect people who’ve got some expertise and some background in this space…I don’t think there are many vice chancellors who would necessarily have the skills, the knowledge, and the background. Really, this is new territory, potentially, for us, it’s new turf.

    Of course, it wasn’t always thus. One of the ironies of the current dearth of experience is that large numbers of providers are themselves the product of historic mergers and collaborations. Taking the long view, the history of many providers is a complex genealogy, a narrative of mergers past and more recent.

    In part, the steady decline in institutional experience of these things was the natural result of a relatively benign financial environment. It’s easy to forget in the current climate but the period of low inflation and cheap borrowing meant that, at an institutional level, there was little impetus to challenge the operating model and, of course, the introduction of a marketised funding model meant that competition, rather than collaboration, was very much the order of the day.

    That marketised model was also accompanied by a marked shift in approach from the regulator. While HEFCE adopted a relatively low-key approach to mergers and collaboration – generally leaving the impetus to come together to institutions themselves – it did publish guidance on mergers and had a collaboration and restructuring fund to assist institutions to explore and implement structural change.

    Crucially, HEFCE was widely accepted to be a neutral broker who would help facilitate institutions coming together – and it had the funding to help smooth the path. By contrast, OfS, in its response to a question from the House of Lords Industry and Regulators Committee, made it clear that it does not consider itself to have “the remit, powers or funding to intervene to prevent closure or to facilitate mergers or acquisitions.”

    Skills gap

    Where, then, does that leave providers? Typically, there is a reliance on the institution’s executive team, in particular, the vice chancellor, to steer the merger. But most higher education executives are not from the business world with experience in mergers and to a significant degree they have a conflict of interest. There is also a need to continue with their day jobs and manage business as usual in case the merger doesn’t happen.

    The next most obvious port of call is to look for expertise among their own governing bodies, and, specifically, their external members. After all, one of the main motivations of having lay external members is to draw upon their expertise and to fill gaps which (understandably enough) exist within the skill sets of senior management teams and the institution more widely.

    The problem, however, is that merger and radical collaboration require a very particular set of skills. It’s very easy for universities to get starry-eyed about a governor just because they happen to be an investment banker, an accountant, or have experience of public sector mergers in the NHS, for example. But the skills required in a university merger or a complex debt restructuring are very specific and even a governing body which is well-stocked with members from across different professional services and backgrounds cannot assume that its trustees have the requisite expertise to drive forward a merger of two institutions.

    Of course, an institution can buy in a certain level of expertise. But what perhaps can’t always be replicated by professional advice are the experience and war stories of those who have lived and breathed mergers and collaborations from the inside – particularly from the education and adjacent sectors. In Mills & Reeve’s joint report with KPMG UK – Radical collaboration: a playbook – we drew out some of those lived experiences in the form of case studies. However, written case studies need to be seasoned with real-life personal experience. What is really needed when scoping a potential merger or other kind of radical collaboration is access to a “hive mind” of critical friends.

    An HE Commissioner model

    Other sectors have taken a strategic approach to developing this expertise. The Further Education Commissioner is the most obvious parallel. Between 2015 and 2019 the FE sector saw 57 mergers, three federations, three joint FE and HE institutions and 23 academy conversions. If most of UK higher education no longer has institutional memory of mergers, FE has it in bucket loads.

    The FE Commissioner and their team offer a range of services to FE colleges – ranging from informal chats and financial health checks, through to more formal invention assessments. Their team – a mix of former leaders and finance professionals from within the sector – have genuinely seen and done it all before. Higher education deserves the same deep pool of knowledge to draw on, especially if the worst case scenario of institutional insolvency and/or disorderly market exit is to be avoided.

    For this to work successfully in HE there would need to be some level of funding and a decision as to whether a commissioner’s role might sit within DfE or OfS. Our sense – particularly given the size and complexity of universities and the involvement of key stakeholders such as banks and private placement bondholders – is that there will still be a large role played by private sector consultants, lawyers, and accountants. However, there is room for a more collegiate level of engagement from DfE and OfS than arguably exists at present.

    As well as pooling expertise on how to collaborate, placing an HE commissioner role on a formal footing might also allow it to broker conversations between providers seeking to work together more closely – something which, in our experience, is done very hesitantly at present, both because of the fear of breaching competition rules and, more generally, because every potential collaboration partner is, in a very real sense, also a competitor.

    What can’t be underestimated is how urgently this function is needed. Providers are capable of doing this alone, as recent examples such as the Anglia Ruskin/Writtle and St George’s/City mergers testify. However, how much better for the long-term future of the sector it would surely be if providers had ready access to some critical friends and some “protected” spaces to have conversations about how best to achieve and implement forms of radical collaboration.

    This article is published in association with Mills & Reeve. 

    Source link

  • Next gen learning spaces: UDL in action

    Next gen learning spaces: UDL in action

    Key points:

    By embracing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles in purchasing decisions, school leaders can create learning spaces that not only accommodate students with disabilities but enhance the educational experience for all learners while delivering exceptional returns on investment (ROI).

    Strangely enough, the concept of UDL all started with curb cuts. Disability activists in the 1960s were advocating for adding curb cuts at intersections so that users of wheelchairs could cross streets independently. Once curb cuts became commonplace, there was a surprising secondary effect: Curb cuts did not just benefit the lives of those in wheelchairs, they benefited parents with strollers, kids on bikes, older adults using canes, delivery workers with carts, and travelers using rolling suitcases. What had been designed for one specific group ended up accidentally benefiting many others.

    UDL is founded on this idea of the “curb-cut effect.” UDL focuses on designing classrooms and schools to provide multiple ways for students to learn. While the original focus was making the curriculum accessible to multiple types of learners, UDL also informs the physical design of classrooms and schools. Procurement professionals are focusing on furniture and technology purchases that provide flexible, accessible, and supportive environments so that all learners can benefit. Today entire conferences, such as EDspaces, focus on classroom and school design to improve learning outcomes.

    There is now a solid research base indicating that the design of learning spaces is a critical factor in educational success: Learning space design changes can significantly influence student engagement, well-being, and academic achievement. While we focus on obvious benefits for specific types of learners, we often find unexpected ways that all students benefit. Adjustable desks designed for wheelchair users can improve focus and reduce fatigue in many students, especially those with ADHD. Providing captions on videos, first made available for deaf students, benefit ELL and other students struggling to learn to read.

    Applying UDL to school purchasing decisions

    UDL represents a paradigm shift from retrofitting solutions for individual students to proactively designing inclusive environments from the ground up. Strategic purchasing focuses on choosing furniture and tech tools that provide multiple means of engagement that can motivate and support all types of learners.

    Furniture that works for everyone

    Modern classroom furniture has evolved far beyond the traditional one-size-fits-all model. Flexible seating options such as stability balls, wobble cushions, and standing desks can transform classroom dynamics. While these options support students with ADHD or sensory processing needs, they also provide choice and movement opportunities that enhance engagement for neurotypical students. Research consistently shows that physical comfort directly correlates with cognitive performance and attention span.

    Modular furniture systems offer exceptional value by adapting to changing needs throughout the school year. Tables and desks that can be easily reconfigured support collaborative learning, individual work, and various teaching methodologies. Storage solutions with clear labeling systems and accessible heights benefit students with visual impairments and executive functioning challenges while helping all students maintain organization and independence.

    Technology that opens doors for all learners

    Assistive technology has evolved from specialized, expensive solutions to mainstream tools that benefit diverse learners. Screen readers like NVDA and JAWS remain essential for students with visual impairments, but their availability also supports students with dyslexia who benefit from auditory reinforcement of text. When procuring software licenses, prioritize platforms with built-in accessibility features rather than purchasing separate assistive tools.

    Voice-to-text technology exemplifies the UDL principle perfectly. While crucial for students with fine motor challenges or dysgraphia, these tools also benefit students who process information verbally, ELL learners practicing pronunciation, and any student working through complex ideas more efficiently through speech than typing.

    Adaptive keyboards and alternative input devices address various physical needs while offering all students options for comfortable, efficient interaction with technology. Consider keyboards with larger keys, customizable layouts, or touchscreen interfaces that can serve multiple purposes across your student population.

    Interactive displays and tablets with built-in accessibility features provide multiple means of engagement and expression. Touch interfaces support students with motor difficulties while offering kinesthetic learning opportunities for all students. When evaluating these technologies, prioritize devices with robust accessibility settings including font size adjustment, color contrast options, and alternative navigation methods.

    Maximizing your procurement impact

    Strategic procurement for UDL requires thinking beyond individual products to consider system-wide compatibility and scalability. Prioritize vendors who demonstrate commitment to accessibility standards and provide comprehensive training on using accessibility features. The most advanced assistive technology becomes worthless without proper implementation and support.

    Conduct needs assessments that go beyond compliance requirements to understand your learning community’s diverse needs. Engage with special education teams, occupational therapists, and technology specialists during the procurement process. Their insights can prevent costly mistakes and identify opportunities for solutions that serve multiple populations.

    Consider total cost of ownership when evaluating options. Adjustable-height desks may cost more initially but can eliminate the need for specialized furniture for individual students. Similarly, mainstream technology with robust accessibility features often costs less than specialized assistive devices while serving broader populations.

    Pilot programs prove invaluable for testing solutions before large-scale implementation. Start with small purchases to evaluate effectiveness, durability, and user satisfaction across diverse learners. Document outcomes to build compelling cases for broader adoption.

    The business case for UDL

    Procurement decisions guided by UDL principles deliver measurable returns on investment. Reduced need for individualized accommodations decreases administrative overhead while improving response times for student needs. Universal solutions eliminate the stigma associated with specialized equipment, promoting inclusive classroom cultures that benefit all learners.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Celebrating heritage means honoring students’ languages

    Celebrating heritage means honoring students’ languages

    Key points:

    Every year, Hispanic Heritage Month offers the United States a chance to honor the profound and varied contributions of Latino communities. We celebrate scientists like Ellen Ochoa, the first Latina woman in space, and activists like Dolores Huerta, who fought tirelessly for workers’ rights. We use this month to recognize the cultural richness that Spanish-speaking families bring to our communities, including everything from vibrant festivals to innovative businesses that strengthen our local economies.

    But there’s a paradox at play.

    While we spotlight Hispanic heritage in public spaces, many classrooms across the country require Spanish-speaking students to set aside the very heart of their cultural identity: their language.

    This contradiction is especially personal for me. I moved from Puerto Rico to the mainland United States as an adult in hopes of building a better future for myself and my family. The transition was far from easy. My accent often became a challenge in ways I never expected, because people judged my intelligence or questioned my education based solely on how I spoke. I could communicate effectively, yet my words were filtered through stereotypes.

    Over time, I found deep fulfillment working in a state that recognizes the value of bilingual education. Texas, where I now live, continues to expand biliteracy pathways for students. This commitment honors both home languages and English, opening global opportunities for children while preserving ties to their history, family, and identity.

    That commitment to expanding pathways for English Learners (EL) is urgently needed. Texas is home to more than 1.3 million ELs, which is nearly a quarter of all students in the state, the highest share in the nation. Nationwide, there are more than 5 million ELs comprising nearly 11 percent of the U.S. public school students; about 76 percent of ELs are Spanish speakers. Those figures represent millions of children who walk into classrooms every day carrying the gift of another language. If we are serious about celebrating Hispanic Heritage Month, we must be serious about honoring and cultivating that gift.

    A true celebration of Hispanic heritage requires more than flags and food. It requires acknowledging that students’ home languages are essential to their academic success, not obstacles to overcome. Research consistently shows that bilingualism is a cognitive asset. Those who are exposed to two languages at an early age outperform their monolingual peers on tests of cognitive function in adolescence and adulthood. Students who maintain and develop their native language while learning English perform better academically, not worse. Yet too often, our educational systems operate as if English is the only language that matters.

    One powerful way to shift this mindset is rethinking the materials students encounter every day. High-quality instructional materials should act as both mirrors and windows–mirrors in which students see themselves reflected, and windows through which they explore new perspectives and possibilities. Meeting state academic standards is only part of the equation: Materials must also align with language development standards and reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of our communities.

    So, what should instructional materials look like if we truly want to honor language as culture?

    • Instructional materials should meet students at varying levels of language proficiency while never lowering expectations for academic rigor.
    • Effective materials include strategies for vocabulary development, visuals that scaffold comprehension, bilingual glossaries, and structured opportunities for academic discourse.
    • Literature and history selections should incorporate and reflect Latino voices and perspectives, not as “add-ons” during heritage month, but as integral elements of the curriculum throughout the year.

    But materials alone are not enough. The process by which schools and districts choose them matters just as much. Curriculum teams and administrators must center EL experiences in every adoption decision. That means intentionally including the voices of bilingual educators, EL specialists, and, especially, parents and families. Their life experiences offer insights into the most effective ways to support students.

    Everyone has a role to play. Teachers should feel empowered to advocate for materials that support bilingual learners; policymakers must ensure funding and policies that prioritize high-quality, linguistically supportive instructional resources; and communities should demand that investments in education align with the linguistic realities of our students.

    Because here is the truth: When we honor students’ languages, we are not only affirming their culture; we are investing in their future. A child who is able to read, write, and think in two languages has an advantage that will serve them for life. They will be better prepared to navigate an interconnected world, and they carry with them the ability to bridge communities.

    This year, let’s move beyond celebrating what Latino communities have already contributed to America and start investing in what they can become when we truly support and honor them year-round. That begins with valuing language as culture–and making sure our classrooms do the same.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Rural Americans support more government spending on child care

    Rural Americans support more government spending on child care

    Hello! This is Christina Samuels, the early education editor here at Hechinger.

    By now, I hope you’ve had a chance to read my colleague Jackie Mader’s story about the important role that Head Start plays in rural communities. While Jackie set her story in western Ohio, she also interviewed Head Start parents and leaders in other parts of the country and collected their views for a follow-up article.

    In a fortunate bit of timing, the advocacy group First Five Years Fund published the results of a survey it commissioned on rural Americans and their feelings on child care access and affordability. Like the people Jackie interviewed, the survey respondents, more than half of whom identified as supporters of President Donald Trump, said they had very positive views of Head Start. The federally funded free child care program received positive marks from 71 percent of rural Republicans, 73 percent of rural independents and 92 percent of rural Democrats.

    The survey also found that 4 out of 5 respondents felt that finding quality child care is a major or critical problem in their part of the country. Two-thirds of those surveyed felt that spending on child care and early education programs is a good use of taxpayer dollars, and a little more than half said they’d like to see more federal dollars going to such programs.

    First Five Years Fund was particularly interested in getting respondents to share their thoughts on Head Start, said Sarah Rubinfield, the managing director of government affairs for First Five Years Fund. The program has been buffeted by regional office closures and cuts driven by the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency. 

    “We recognize that these are communities that often have few options for early learning and care,” Rubinfield said.

    In the survey, rural residents said they strongly supported not just the child care offered by Head Start, but the wraparound services such as healthy meals and snacks and the program’s support for children with developmental disabilities. Though Head Start programs are federally funded, community organizations are the ones in charge of spending priorities.

    “Rural voters want action. They support funding for Head Start and for child care. They want Congress to do more,” Rubinfield said. Though the “big beautiful bill” signed into law in July expands the child care tax credit for low-income families, survey respondents “recognized that things were not solved,” she added.

    The First Five Years Fund survey was released just a few days before a congressional standoff led to a government shutdown. The shutdown is not expected to touch Head Start immediately, said Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, in an interview with The New York Times. The 1,600 Head Start programs across the country receive money at different points throughout the calendar year; eight programs serving about 7,500 children were slated to receive their federal funding on Oct. 1, Sheridan told the Times. All should be able to continue operating, as long as the shutdown doesn’t last more than a few weeks, he said. 

    “We’re watching with careful concern but trying not to panic,” Rubinfield said. “We know the impacts may not be immediate, but the longer this goes on, the harder the impacts may be for families and programs.”

    This story about rural Americans 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

  • What educators need to know

    What educators need to know

    Key points:

    Literacy has always been the foundation of learning, but for middle school students, the stakes are especially high. These years mark the critical shift from learning to read to reading to learn.

    When students enter sixth, seventh, or eighth grade still struggling with foundational skills, every subject becomes harder–science labs, social studies texts, even math word problems require reading proficiency. For educators, the challenge is not just addressing gaps but also building the confidence that helps adolescents believe they can succeed.

    The confidence gap

    By middle school, many students are keenly aware when they’re behind their peers in reading. Interventions that feel too elementary can undermine motivation. As Dr. Michelle D. Barrett, Senior Vice President of Research, Policy, and Impact at Edmentum, explained:

    “If you have a student who’s in the middle grades and still has gaps in foundational reading skills, they need to be provided with age-appropriate curriculum and instruction. You can’t give them something that feels babyish–that only discourages them.”

    Designing for engagement

    Research shows that engagement is just as important as instruction, particularly for adolescents. “If students aren’t engaged, if they’re not showing up to school, then you have a real problem,” Barrett said. “It’s about making sure that even if students have gaps, they’re still being supported with curriculum that feels relevant and engaging.”

    To meet that need, digital programs like Edmentum’s Exact Path tailor both design and content to the learner’s age. “A middle schooler doesn’t want the cartoony things our first graders get,” Barrett noted. “That kind of thing really does matter–not just for engagement, but also for their confidence and willingness to keep going.”

    Measuring what works

    Educators also need strong data to target interventions. “It’s all about how you’re differentiating for those students,” Barrett said. “You’ve got to have great assessments, engaging content that’s evidence-based, and a way for students to feel and understand success.”

    Exact Path begins with universal screening, then builds personalized learning paths grounded in research-based reading progressions. More than 60 studies in the past two years have shown consistent results. “When students complete eight skills per semester, we see significant growth across grade levels–whether measured by NWEA MAP, STAR, or state assessments,” Barrett added.

    That growth extends across diverse groups. “In one large urban district, we found the effect sizes for students receiving special education services were twice that of their peers,” Barrett said. “That tells us the program can be a really effective literacy intervention for students most at risk.”

    Layering supports for greater impact

    Barrett emphasized that literacy progress is strongest when multiple supports are combined. “With digital curriculum, students do better. But with a teacher on top of that digital curriculum, they do even better. Add intensive tutoring, and outcomes improve again,” she said.

    Progress monitoring and recognition also help build confidence. “Students are going to persist when they can experience success,” Barrett added. “Celebrating growth, even in small increments, matters for motivation.”

    A shared mission

    While tools like Exact Path provide research-backed support, Barrett stressed that literacy improvement is ultimately a shared responsibility. “District leaders should be asking: How is this program serving students across different backgrounds? Is it working for multilingual learners, students with IEPs, students who are at risk?” she said.

    The broader goal, she emphasized, is preparing students for lifelong learning. “Middle school is such an important time. If we can help students build literacy and confidence there, we’re not just improving test scores–we’re giving them the skills to succeed in every subject, and in life.”

    Laura Ascione
    Latest posts by Laura Ascione (see all)

    Source link

  • How can universities win back public support?

    How can universities win back public support?

    This blog outlines a speech given by Professor Sasha Roseneil, Vice-Chancellor and President of the University of Sussex at a HEPI panel at the Labour Party Conference on the 29 September 2025

    ‘How can universities win back public support?’ was the question set for a panel discussion of Vice-Chancellors at the 2025 Labour Party Conference yesterday. But, with all due respect to HEPI’s Director, Nick Hillman, who posed this question, I do not accept its premise.

    There is compelling evidence from multiple sources to suggest that key stakeholders – students, prospective students, parents, and grandparents – are strongly supportive of higher education.

    First and foremost, students are very positive about their experience at university. The overall positivity score in the 2025 National Student Survey, which gathers the opinions of all final year students, was 86%, with 87% of students positive about teaching on their course, and 88% reporting that they felt able to express their ideas, beliefs and opinions at university. All over 85%. And HEPI and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Academic Experience Survey found that, whilst tuition fees are clearly not popular, more students consider that they receive good value for their fees than not – 37% versus 29% feeling that they receive poor value for money.

    Second, young people continue to want to go to university: the number of people applying to university was 1.3% higher for 2025 entry than the year before, with a record number of 18-year-old applicants, and 2% increase on 2024, and a 4.7% increase in the number of 19-year-olds (and only mature student applicants declining).

    And, according to a recent YouGov survey sponsored by University Alliance, members of the public across the political spectrum overwhelmingly want university for their loved ones: 84% of parents and grandparents want their children to go to university, and only 8% are against. Amongst Conservative voters, 90% want their children or grandchildren to go to university, the same as Green voters, slightly higher than the 89% of Labour voters, and slightly lower than the 93% of Liberal Democrat voters, with 72% of Reform voters also wanting their young family members to go to university.

    The YouGov survey didn’t ask why – but I would suggest that it is implicitly understood by members of the public that higher education opens up worlds and improves lives for individuals, and that graduates are generally wealthier over their lifetimes, healthier, and happier than non-graduates. People might not have read David Willetts’ report for the Resolution Foundation but they seem to have tacit knowledge of its findings.

    So where does the idea that universities have lost public support come from?

    Above all, it comes from the media – from a cacophony of newspapers that feed a daily diet of anti-university stories, circulating and recirculating the same ideas. It is my contention that these stories are grounded in one key thing – a more or less explicit rejection of the democratisation and expansion of access to higher education that has taken place over the past twenty years, and that has been part of the wider processes of cultural and social liberalisation and equalisation that have been in train since the late 1960s.

    Steeped in nostalgia for the days when higher education was the preserve of a privately and grammar school educated elite, some newspapers hark back to a time when university guaranteed access to the upper echelons of society. Their view is often based on an implicit understanding of university education as being about the reproduction and transmission of established bodies of knowledge, and thus the wider status quo. From this standpoint, they have waged a long and relentless campaign against universities. Universities are presented as one of the biggest social problems of our time, as the propagators of ‘woke ideologies’, as the source of blame for the reduction in the graduate premium, and for the failure of some graduates to rapidly realise their career or income aspirations.

    Such stories are written by journalists who almost all went to university themselves (although to a limited range of universities) and have children whom they expect to go to a similarly limited range of universities. It is other people’s children going to university that is the problem, taking places away from those who should naturally enter their preferred universities. And it’s the ideas and identities that those young people might encounter, and that they might develop for themselves, at university that  concerns them.

    There were, of course, similar concerns several decades ago about what went on in the new universities that were established in the 1960s – but far fewer young people were exposed to the university experience in those days and it cost the public purse much less to educate them. But perhaps most importantly, the middle class was rapidly expanding and the middle class parents’ ‘fear of falling’ – that their children will not achieve the social and economic status that they have been born into –  was not at all prevalent in the way that it is today.[1]

    Those earlier generations of students were, of course, also much more generously supported in their studies, and therefore much more able to take full advantage of all that higher education had to offer, and much less likely to have to undertake the very significant amount of paid work that today’s students are doing – at very real cost to the time they have for independent study. And they didn’t have to pay the fees that lead to questions about student attitudes to value for money.

    And so there is now a discourse that suffuses public culture that going to university is a waste of time and money, that only some universities are worth going to, and only some courses are worth studying. And, by implication, only some students are worth educating to a higher level. The more young people go to university and the more widespread across society the expectation and desire to go to university, the louder and more vociferous the attacks on higher education.

    The idea that universities lack public support also provides ‘look over here’ distraction from the real problem that faces higher education – an unprecedented funding crisis. Across the country, universities are engaging in repeated rounds of ever deeper cuts, losing thousands – tens of thousands – of highly skilled jobs, and closing courses and departments. There is no national oversight of the impact of this on subject provision across the country, on students’ ability to access higher education in the full range of subjects locally (which impacts disproportionately on students from lower socio-economic backgrounds and from marginalised groups, who are much more likely to study close to home), on regional economies, and on our sovereign capability in critical industries and priority growth areas.

    Last week’s report from the Institute of Physics sounded the alarm bell in relation to the health of this vital, foundational STEM discipline, and the British Academy has done the same for the humanities and the social sciences – particularly modern foreign languages, linguistics, anthropology and classics, with English, history and drama likely to follow soon.

    If this were any other sector in which the UK was an undisputed world leader, and the rapid helter-skelter unplanned contraction which will cause enormous harm to the economies and civic life of cities and regions around the country, there would be stories in the news every day about the crisis. And there would be urgent government action to intervene.

    Instead, universities are lambasted every day in the press and then told by government that we are independent autonomous bodies that need to solve our financial problems ourselves. This is despite the fact that universities are increasingly heavily regulated, and despite our main sources of income being home student fees, which are determined by government, and international student fees, the source of which has been under attack because international students are an easy target in the context of commitments to reduce net migration, and which is further threatened by the imposition of an international student levy.

    The reality is that universities cannot solve our problems ourselves, either individually or collectively. We are all seeking greater efficiencies. We are all looking at how we can cut back on everything that is not absolutely essential to the student experience in the here and now.We are all considering carefully how we might collaborate with others to do more with less. Research is being radically squeezed, and labs and equipment are not being repaired and renewed, in order to try to ensure our financial survival.

    But what now really must be called out is the failure of the competitive quasi-market model under which higher education operates. It is this that is source of our problems, and we need government to act.

    The question then really should be: how can universities win government support to enable us to fulfil our primary purpose of education and research for the common good?

    And the answer to that has to be by means of careful, rational, evidenced argument – with a flourish of rhetoric – of the sort that universities were established to propagate and which is so vital to the future of liberal democracy. We need to articulate and demonstrate our value, our vital importance, and our need for calm, considered and creative policy attention.

    The global excellence of UK universities rests on decades, and in some cases, several centuries, of public investment in knowledge creation and learning for the public good. But that quality is in imminent danger. We urgently need government action to support our universities to continue conducting the world-leading research, catalysing the growth-producing innovation, and providing the transformative education and advanced skills that we are capable of doing – before it is too late.

     There is active, deliberate government-led destruction of higher education and research taking place elsewhere. Don’t let’s do that here too by falling for the idea that the public doesn’t care about universities, and by failing to act in time.

    [1] Ehrenreich, Barbara. Fear of falling: The inner life of the middle class. Twelve, 2020

    Source link

  • The Hidden Struggle of Healthcare Support Workers

    The Hidden Struggle of Healthcare Support Workers







    Higher Education Inquirer : Undervalued, Overworked, Underpaid: The Hidden Struggle of Healthcare Support Workers




    Source link

  • Kean U to receive $10M in state funding to support merger

    Kean U to receive $10M in state funding to support merger

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Kean University is set to receive an additional $10 million to support its acquisition of New Jersey City University, as part of New Jersey’s fiscal 2026 budget. 
    • Kean would have to return the money to the state if the merger is not completed as detailed in the two public universities’ May letter of intent. Kean and NJCU are expected to finalize their merger by June 2026, pending regulatory and accreditor approvals.
    • Further reshaping Kean finances, its board on Monday approved in-state tuition rates for all students beginning in 2026-27 — the first academic year the university is set to fully control NJCU post-merger.

    Dive Insight:

    Following years of financial challenges, NJCU found a lifeline in Kean after a state-appointed monitor ordered the university to find a financial partner.

    The $10 million state allocation — a small fraction of the $3.1 billion New Jersey is set to spend on higher education in fiscal 2026 — will go toward “feasibility studies, planning and legal work tied to the merger” between NJCU and Kean. But it’s unlikely to cover the full cost of the process.

    In 2020, a University System of Georgia regent estimated that just changing the name of an institution — updating everything from signage to stationery — cost over $3 million.

    Under Kean and NJCU’s letter of intent, the former would assume the latter’s assets and liabilities and NJCU’s campus would be renamed Kean Jersey City.

    As the two universities go through the merger process, Kean is also to receive state funding for over 1,100 NJCU jobs in the form of a loan, per the state’s budget. If the merger falls through, the funded positions will return to NJCU.

    A 2019 working paper found that, on average, a merger between two nonprofit colleges raised tuition prices by students between 5% and 7%.

    But Kean appears to be poised to buck that trend with its elimination of out-of-state tuition. Under the new plan, the university will drop out-of-state tuition for current and new undergraduate and graduate students.

    “Kean’s outstanding academics, proximity to New York City and growing research programs make the University appealing to students outside of New Jersey,” Michael Salvatore, Kean’s executive vice president for academic and administrative operations, said in a Tuesday statement. “This will enable us to tap into expanded markets while bringing students into the state.”

    In the 2025-26 academic year, full-time students from New Jersey paid $7,649.80 per semester in tuition and fees, while their out-of-state counterparts paid $12,008.58. In-state and out-of-state graduate students paid $1,019.54 and $1,206.64 per credit, respectively.

    Source link

  • Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Strengthening family engagement to support the science of reading

    Key points:

    While most teachers are eager to implement the science of reading, many lack the time and tools to connect these practices to home-based support, according to a new national survey from Lexia, a Cambium Learning Group brand.

    The 2025 Back-to-School Teacher Survey, with input from more than 1,500 K–12 educators nationwide, points to an opportunity for district leaders to work in concert with teachers to provide families with the science of reading-based literacy resources they need to support student reading success.

    Key insights from the survey include:

    • 60 percent of teachers are either fully trained or interested in learning more about the science of reading
    • Only 15 percent currently provide parents with structured, evidence-based literacy activities
    • 79 percent of teachers cite time constraints and parents’ work schedules as top barriers to family engagement
    • Just 10 percent report that their schools offer comprehensive family literacy programs
    • Teachers overwhelmingly want in-person workshops and video tutorials to help parents support reading at home

    “Teachers know that parental involvement can accelerate literacy and they’re eager for ways to strengthen those connections,” said Lexia President Nick Gaehde. “This data highlights how districts can continue to build on momentum in this new school year by offering scalable, multilingual, and flexible family engagement strategies that align with the science of reading.”

    Teachers also called for:

    • Better technology tools for consistent school-to-home communication
    • Greater multilingual support to serve diverse communities
    • Professional learning that includes family engagement training

    Gaehde concluded, “Lexia’s survey reflects the continued national emphasis on Structured Literacy and shows that equipping families is essential to driving lasting student outcomes. At Lexia we’re committed to partnering with districts and teachers to strengthen the school-to-home connection. By giving educators practical tools and data-driven insights, we help teachers and families work together–ensuring every child has the literacy support they need to thrive.”

    The complete findings are available in a new report, From Classroom to Living Room: Exploring Parental Involvement in K–12 Literacy. District leaders can also download the accompanying infographic, “What District Leaders Need To Know: 5 Key Findings About Family Engagement and Literacy,” which highlights the most pressing data points and strategic opportunities for improving school-to-home literacy connections.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • AI Chatbot Provides Resources for Student Support

    AI Chatbot Provides Resources for Student Support

    As generative AI tools become more common, a growing number of young people turn first to chatbots when they have questions. A survey by the Associated Press found that among AI users, 70 percent of young Americans use the tools to search for information.

    For colleges and universities, this presents a new opportunity to reach students with curated, institution-specific resources via chatbots.

    In the most recent episode of Voices of Student Success, Jeanette Powers, executive director of the student hub at Western New England University, discusses the university’s chatbot, Spirit, powered by EdSights, and how the technology helps staff intervene when students are in distress.

    An edited version of the podcast appears below.

    Q: Can you give us the backstory—how Spirit got to campus and what need you all were looking to fulfill?

    A: Sure, Western New England, we are the Golden Bears, and our mascot’s name is Spirit. So, Spirit is behind the scenes of our chatbot.

    In the year 2023–24, we were trying to look at ways that we could get student voices at the center of what we’re doing. The Western New England philosophy and kind of core values really is about student-centered learning and support. We wanted to try to find a way to engage students earlier than our typical reporting systems come out, and we really wanted to hear the student voice.

    Over the course of the year, we did some research and [looked] at different AI platforms that would provide some resources for us. And we landed on EdSights, which is an amazing company that has helped us really bring Spirit to life, where students are using the chatbot on a regular basis to get questions answered, to get resources to know where to go on campus and to also give us information so that we can better support them. We really wanted our chatbot to be reflective of our community, which is why we use our mascot as kind of behind the scenes to reach out to students.

    Q: Yeah, it probably seems a little less scary to talk to your mascot than maybe an anonymous administrator.

    A: Exactly, especially for our first-year students. When they’re coming on campus, they’ve met the mascot at many open house services and orientation, so they have that connection right away.

    Q: You mentioned that this was a semirecent addition to your campus. For some people, AI can still be kind of scary. Was there a campus culture around AI? Or, how would you describe the landscape at WNE when it comes to embracing AI or having skepticism around using AI, especially in a student-facing way like this?

    A: AI is so new, and it’s changing rapidly. Western New England has really embraced it. I think one of the biggest things that we looked at was just to make sure that there’s a human side to this AI system. And that’s, I think, one of the most powerful pieces about our AI chatbot … yes, it’s a chatbot, but we also have human helpers, myself and a colleague, who are monitoring and able to reach out to students when there’s any concern.

    There’s a lot of systems in place, I think, to protect students. If there’s something going on or they share something with the chatbot, we’re here to help, and we let them know that there are humans behind the chatbot. I think that was probably one of the wider concerns before we started, was, how do we make sure we don’t miss anything that might be reported to a chatbot?

    It really also helps with managing time. Students can ask the chatbot questions about WNE 24-7. The student hub, we’re open Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., but then we’re not around on the weekends and at night. Students still have questions at that time, so they can reach out [to Spirit]. It’s an extension of the Student Hub. We’ve really been able to get students resources and information right away.

    That’s been really helpful for them to know where to go and who to connect with. A lot of our first-year students are the main users, but all of our students are using the chatbot. The system’s been really great to be able to support students and get information from them but also give them information.

    Q: I wonder if you can talk us through how you all customized it to make it campus-specific and really ensure that students know what’s available to them and how this is their community and their college experience?

    A: That’s so key, because it’s not an external chatbot—it’s not ChatGPT, where you can google how to do your homework. I’ve had students ask [Spirit], “Help me with this math problem,” and Spirit’s like, “I’m really sorry, but I can’t do that.” It’s really an internal system, and students only have access to it because they are students, and we give them information directly there.

    What we did with the program is the company sets you up with, here are the main questions that this chatbot typically gets, and then we back-feed it with all this information. Each department took a look at these questions, so we filled it all in. It’s called the knowledge base. In the knowledge base, we have all these different things, like, when are things open? Who to contact about this? All sorts of options that students can get.

    One piece is students use it almost like a Siri or Alexa, where you get that quick answer. We really wanted to meet students where they were and wanted to make sure that, you know, it was real-time information for them.

    We have really filled it with all information about Western New England that they can access and get information right away. So that’s the one piece of the chatbot that’s really powerful. It helps save time, keep students from having to wait in line or make appointments, and then it directs them in the right place.

    The other piece of the chatbot, which is really a more powerful piece that this individual chatbot has, is a proactive approach. We have a system that the company has developed, based on research, [with] certain questions we ask students throughout the year.

    Depending on the time of the year, what’s going on, we may be asking them about academics, financial, personal wellness and health, mental health, as well as engagement on campus. When we ask those questions, we’re hearing the student’s voice right away. Those questions start early; in early September we have the first questions going out. Typically, you may get a report from faculty or staff almost midsemester. We’re getting it really early so that we can intervene right away.

    Intervening is that human helper side. We have that chatbot who’s going to be there to answer your questions. But when the chatbot reaches out, make sure you respond, because now as a staff, we can say, this group of students, or these individual students, need something more, and how can we connect with them? It really enhances the relationship.

    I think sometimes there’s a fear that AI takes away from a relationship, but it truly enhances the relationship, because once a student is willing to talk to the chatbot, they’re more likely to talk to the staff who reaches out to them because of what they said to the chatbot.

    Q: When you are setting up those prompts, looking at those early alerts or things that you might want to know from students, what are you all asking and what have you found is important to identify early on?

    A: The first question that goes out is “How do you feel so far about the term?” Students respond with numbers: one, great, two, neutral, three, not so great. And then the chatbot will follow up if it’s neutral or not so great: Why? Is it finances? Is it belonging and connections, academics? Then the students respond there. If students are willing to keep chatting, Spirit will ask, why, can you give any more information?

    So last year was the first year that we really implemented it for a full year, and that first question is so powerful because myself and my colleague were able to jump in right away and connect with students, specifically first-year students who in this first two or three weeks of classes are feeling stuck and lost and not quite sure how to move forward.

    That’s been really powerful, because not only are they telling us they need help, they’re telling us why they need help and in what direction, and then our job is to reach out and say, “Thanks so much for connecting with Spirit. Now here we are. What can we do to help? Come on in and meet us in the Student Hub, and then we can help you navigate the various offices on campus.”

    Q: We’re seeing more students reach out to these third-party services online, trying to look for help and support. Now you all are providing a service for them that is safe, secure and run by staff members who are really looking for their best interests and trying to make sure that they get plugged in and that they don’t stay online.

    A: That’s really important. I think the biggest thing is putting it out there and saying, “Here’s how I’m feeling, who’s going to do anything about it?” And knowing that there’s staff that are going to get you connected if students are feeling like they are not involved on campus—we have so many different clubs and organizations, and just having that conversation with a staff member of, like, what’s your interest? We have a club for that. Or, we have a professor who is an expert in this field, and it really helps us tailor and personalize the student experience. That’s information we wouldn’t know otherwise.

    As educators, we get a ton of information about students, and we don’t always get that student voice, and that’s what this system does. It allows us to get the voice and allows us to get it early. And we do have that safeguard in place, where students may be having struggles, but they get resources right away, and there are alert systems set up on the back end, so if there are any issues, faculty and staff are able to respond.

    Q: What kind of data have you all looked at when it comes to understanding the student experience as a whole? Have there been any insights or trends that have surprised you or driven change on campus?

    A: The data is fascinating. I think the biggest thing for looking at this data is, yes, you can do the individual outreach and the individual support, but we can look across the board. We can look at first-generation students. We can look at athletes. We can look at first-year students versus seniors. So there’s a lot of data based on what we have in the system.

    Over the past 12 months, we’ve had 17,000 texts back and forth between Spirit and the students, which is phenomenal. We have a 98 percent opt-in rate. So students get a text from Spirit in the beginning of the year, and they can opt out, but 98 percent of students are using it. During the year, our engagement fluctuates between 64 and 70 percent.

    The other thing we’ve been able to see, and this is more recent … is we have a higher retention rate for students who are engaged with the chatbot than students who aren’t. So just recently, we’re getting this report from EdSights that 90.6 percent of students who actually engage in the chatbot persisted from fall 2024 to fall 2025. The difference was 75.3 percent who didn’t engage persisted. We are seeing a growth.

    I think the reason that that’s so important is because retention and persistence are all about connection and belonging and feeling like you have someone, even if it’s a chatbot, who is connecting with you and making sure that you’re feeling [like] a valued member of our campus community.

    We’ve been able to connect with hundreds of students that we may not have been able to connect with or [who we] didn’t even know were struggling because of this chatbot.

    We did a huge marketing campaign last year to really get students to use it. This fall, we have the largest freshman class we’ve ever had, and so encouraging them to use this chatbot as a resource has been amazing.

    I did a comparison to last year where the first week of classes, we didn’t ask any questions in the first week, but we make it available if students have questions. In the first week of classes last year [fall 2024], students asked 72 questions, or 72 texts to Spirit. This year, in the first year of classes, it was 849.

    Q: Wow.

    A: So students are using the chatbot. Now, it’s the second year, so we’ve got returning students who also are engaged and understand what it’s all about. It’s showing that students have those questions. Think about all the different questions they got answered that they may not have either went somewhere to get it answered or time didn’t allow them to have it answered.

    They’re not going to get perfect answers, either. They may ask a question and the chatbot may say, “I’m not sure I exactly know that answer, but here’s who on campus will,” and it gives them the website. It gives them the contact, it gives them the phone number, so if the chatbot doesn’t know the exact answer, it gives them resources right away, so that they can then follow up on their own.

    Q: When it comes to staff capacity, have you seen any impact on the amount of redundant emails students are sending?

    A: I think that’s been really helpful, because students can ask the chatbot right away. The other amazing piece about this tool that we’re using is that we can add information pretty quickly. For example, we have a student involvement fair that’s coming up tomorrow, and I had a student ask me a question. I’m like, “Well, let’s ask the chatbot.” And it wasn’t in [the information base]. So I was like, “Well, you’re probably not the only student [with this question].”

    So I went in and I added it on the back end, and then I said, “All right, let’s try it again.” Five minutes later, he got the answer for the question from the chatbot.

    The system is set up so that we can customize it. There are over 500 questions with answers in the system. We went over those this summer to make sure they’re accurate. We use some of the common language, like, instead of dining hall, you know, we said “D Hall”; we added the common language that students are using, so that the chatbot is even smarter and students are going to get responses even quicker.

    I do think it saved time, and hopefully it keeps that redundancy away, because if a student’s going to get an answer, they’re going to tell their classmate or their roommate or their peer, “Hey, just ask [Spirit]” or “Let’s ask together,” and again, save time on the end of the staff. That frees up those little questions to delve into some other things that may be meatier that they would need to deal with for students.

    Q: For a peer at a different institution who’s considering implementing a chatbot or experimenting with their own, what lessons have you learned or what advice would you give?

    A: The biggest thing I can think of is you have to put in the time and the effort to build the back end. You can add questions really easily, but if you don’t have that robust answer back in the system, it doesn’t give students what they need, or it gives them an OK answer, and they’re less likely to use the chatbot again.

    I think the time and the energy you put into the back end and the setup is really important before launching, so that you ensure that students are getting the most accurate information and the simplest. We’re trying to save them from having to google the answer or go onto the website to find it.

    I think the other thing is not every student is going to respond, and that’s OK. We have a 98 percent opt-in rate, which means that people are getting those messages from Spirit. That doesn’t mean they’re always responding when we reach out to them. Your engagement is going to be lower than your opt-in, because sometimes students are just going to ignore the text, and that’s OK.

    We hope that if they need to respond, or in that moment, that the question that’s coming to them, whether it’s about academics or if they’re struggling with finances, or are they homesick? All these questions that we ask, if they need to respond, we hope that they respond. Just being aware that not every student is going to use it as a tool. Some students will use the chatbot more than they want to come see you.

    We’ve reached out to students after they get flagged on our system, and sometimes they ignore us. And so just making sure you have another way to check in on that student or bring them up at a meeting, so that you can say, “I’ve reached out, and the student isn’t coming back and wanting to meet with me,” and that’s OK. Are they still using the chatbot? They still have resources, and they’re getting that information.

    I think the biggest thing that we’re trying to improve and move into this year, in our second year of implementation, is, how do we make this data more relevant and shareable to our institution as a whole? This past year, the data has really been sitting within Student Life … Let’s make that available to faculty and staff so that they can get a sense of what our students are feeling and how can maybe I change or implement something that’s going to help. As well as sharing with our student leadership so that students get a sense of how people are feeling. That’s our next step.

    We’re still going to do the individual outreach and the whole group support and programming. But how do we use this data now as a larger institution that really wants to focus in on student support?

    Q: You mentioned a little bit about what’s next, but is there anything else on the horizon that we should know about as you all move into year two of Spirit?

    A: I think the biggest thing is really emphasizing the blended AI-human interaction. The system gives us a number of risk factors and measures how students are doing, and we want to use that information as a proactive approach to support students. Whether it’s programming for specific needs or for specific groups of students, whatever it may be to get proactive, so that we know, in a sense, what students are doing and what their needs are.

    The other thing we’re going to see over the next year or two is hopefully we’ll start to see some trends and patterns of how students are responding. Going into year two, I assume that we’re going to have some similar responses. But who knows? Every class is different and every year is different, so trying to see, what are some trends? We can use that data to be proactive and plan what students may need, before they even know they need it, in a way. Using this information and making it actionable so it’s not just data that’s sitting in a system is so important to us.

    Source link