Tag: system

  • Can regulation cope with a unified tertiary system in Wales?

    Can regulation cope with a unified tertiary system in Wales?

    Medr’s second consultation on its regulatory framework reminds us both of the comparatively small size of the Welsh tertiary sector, and the sheer ambition – and complexity – of bringing FE, HE, apprenticeships and ACL under one roof.

    Back in May, Medr (the official name for the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research in Wales) launched its first consultation on the new regulatory system required by the Tertiary Education and Research Wales Act 2022.

    At that stage the sector’s message was that it was too prescriptive, too burdensome, and insufficiently clear about what was mandatory versus advisory.

    Now, five months later, Medr has returned with a second consultation that it says addresses those concerns. The documents – running to well over 100 pages across the main consultation text and six annexes – set out pretty much the complete regulatory framework that will govern tertiary education in Wales from August 2026.

    It’s much more than a minor technical exercise – it’s the most ambitious attempt to create a unified regulatory system across further education, higher education, apprenticeships, adult community learning and maintained school sixth forms that the UK has yet seen.

    As well as that, it’s trying to be both a funder and a regulator; to be responsive to providers while putting students at the centre; and to avoid some of the mistakes that it has seen the Office for Students (OfS) make in England.

    Listening and responding

    If nothing else, it’s refreshing to see a sector body listening to consultation responses. Respondents wanted clearer signposts about what constitutes a compliance requirement versus advisory guidance, and worried about cumulative burden when several conditions and processes come together.

    They also asked for alignment with existing quality regimes from Estyn and the Quality Assurance Agency, and flagged concerns about whether certain oversight might risk universities’ status as non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) – a technical thing, but one with significant implications for institutional autonomy.

    Medr’s response has been to restructure the conditions more clearly. Each now distinguishes between the condition itself (what must be met), compliance requirements that evidence the condition, and guidance (which providers must consider but may approach differently if they can justify that choice).

    It has also adopted a “make once, use many” approach to information, promising to rely on evidence already provided to Estyn, QAA or other bodies wherever it fits their purpose. And it has aligned annual planning and assurance points with sector cycles “wherever possible.”

    The question, of course, is whether this constitutes genuine simplification or merely better-organised complexity. Medr is establishing conditions of registration for higher education providers (replacing Fee and Access Plans), conditions of funding for FE colleges and others, and creating a unified quality framework and learner engagement code that applies across all tertiary education.

    The conditions themselves

    Some conditions apply universally. Others apply only to registered providers, or only to funded providers, or only to specific types of provision. As we’ve seen in England, the framework includes initial and ongoing conditions of registration for higher education providers (in both the “core” and “alternative” categories), plus conditions of funding that apply more broadly.

    Financial sustainability requires providers to have “strategies in place to ensure that they are financially sustainable” – which means remaining viable in the short term (one to two years), sustainable over the medium term (three to five years), and maintaining sufficient resources to honour commitments to learners. The supplementary detail includes a financial commitments threshold mechanism based on EBITDA ratios.

    Providers exceeding certain multiples will need to request review of governance by Medr before entering new financial commitments. That’s standard regulatory practice – OfS has equivalent arrangements in England – but it represents new formal oversight for Welsh institutions.

    Critically, Medr says its role is “to review and form an opinion on the robustness of governance over proposed new commitments, not to authorise or veto a decision that belongs to your governing body.” That’s some careful wording – but whether it will prove sufficient in practice (both in detail and in timeliness) when providers are required to seek approval before major financial decisions remains to be seen.

    Governance and management is where the sector seems to have secured some wins. The language around financial commitments has been softened from “approval” to “review.” The condition now focuses on outcomes – “integrity, transparency, strong internal control, effective assurance, and a culture that allows challenge and learning” – rather than prescribing structures.

    And for those worried about burden, registered higher education providers will no longer be required to provide governing body composition, annual returns of serious incidents, individual internal audit reports, or several other elements currently required under Fee and Access Plans. That is a reduction – but won’t make a lot of difference to anyone other than the person stiffed with gathering the sheaf of stuff to send in.

    Quality draws on the Quality Framework (Annex C) and requires providers to demonstrate their provision is of good quality and that they engage with continuous improvement. The minimum compliance requirements, evidenced through annual assurance returns, include compliance with the Learner Engagement Code, using learner survey outcomes in quality assurance, governing body oversight of quality strategies, regular self-evaluation, active engagement in external quality assessment (Estyn inspection and/or QAA review), continuous improvement planning, and a professional learning and development strategy.

    The framework promises that Medr will “use information from existing reviews and inspections, such as by Estyn and QAA” and “aim not to duplicate existing quality processes.” Notably, Medr has punted the consultation on performance indicators to 2027, so providers won’t know what quantitative measures they’ll be assessed against until the system is already live.

    Staff and learner welfare sets out requirements for effective arrangements to support and promote welfare, encompassing both “wellbeing” (emotional wellbeing and mental health) and “safety” (freedom from harassment, misconduct, violence including sexual violence, and hate crime). Providers will have to conduct an annual welfare self-evaluation and submit an annual welfare action plan to Medr. This represents new formal reporting – even if the underlying activity isn’t new.

    The Welsh language condition requires providers to take “all reasonable steps” to promote greater use of Welsh, increase demand for Welsh-medium provision, and (where appropriate) encourage research and innovation activities supporting the Welsh language. Providers must publish a Welsh Language Strategy setting out how they’ll achieve it, with measurable outcomes over a five-year rolling period with annual milestones. For providers subject to Welsh Language Standards under the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, compliance with those standards provides baseline assurance. Others must work with the Welsh Language Commissioner through the Cynnig Cymraeg.

    Learner protection plans will be required when Medr gives notice – typically triggered by reportable events, course closures, campus closures, or significant changes to provision. The guidance (in the supplementary detail from page 86 onwards) is clear about what does and doesn’t require a plan. Portfolio review and planned teach-out? Generally fine, provided learners are supported. Closing a course mid-year with no teach-out option? Plan required. Whether this offers the sort of protection that students need – especially when changes are made to courses to reduce costs – will doubtless come up in the consultation.

    And then there’s the Learner Engagement Code, set out in Annex D. This is where student representative bodies may feel especially disappointed. The Code is principles-based rather than rights-based, setting out nine principles (embedded, valued, understood, inclusive, bilingual, individual and collective, impactful, resourced, evaluated) – but creates no specific entitlements or rights for students or students’ unions.

    The principles themselves are worthy enough – learners should have opportunities to engage in decision-making, they should be listened to, routes for engagement should be clear, opportunities should reflect diverse needs, learners can engage through Welsh, collective voice should be supported, engagement should lead to visible impact, it should be resourced, and it should be evaluated. But it does all feel a bit vague.

    Providers will have to submit annual assurance that they comply with the Code, accompanied by evidence such as “analysis of feedback from learners on their experience of engagement” and “examples of decisions made as a result of learner feedback.” But the bar for compliance appears relatively low. As long as providers can show they’re doing something in each area, they’re likely to be deemed compliant. For SUs hoping for statutory backing for their role and resources, this will feel like a missed opportunity.

    Equality of opportunity is more substantial. The condition requires providers to deliver measurable outcomes across participation, retention, academic success, progression, and (where appropriate) participation in postgraduate study and research. The supplementary detail (from page 105) sets out that providers must conduct ongoing self-evaluation to identify barriers to equality of opportunity, then develop measurable outcomes over a five-year rolling period with annual milestones.

    Interestingly, there’s a transition period – in 2026-27, HE providers with Fee and Access Plans need only provide a statement confirming continued commitments. Full compliance – including submission of measurable outcomes – isn’t required until 2027-28, with the first progress reports due in 2028-29. That’s a sensible approach given the sector’s starting points vary considerably, but it does mean the condition won’t bite with full force for three years.

    Monitoring and intervention

    At the core of the monitoring approach is an Annual Assurance Return – where the provider’s governing body self-declares compliance across all applicable conditions, supported by evidence. This is supplemented by learner surveys, Estyn/QAA reviews, public information monitoring, complaints monitoring, reportable events, data monitoring, independent assurance, engagement activities and self-evaluation.

    The reportable events process distinguishes between serious incidents (to be reported within 10 working days) and notifiable events (reported monthly or at specified intervals). There’s 17 categories of serious incidents, from loss of degree awarding powers to safeguarding failures to financial irregularities over £50,000 or two per cent of turnover (whichever is lower). A table lists notifiable events including senior staff appointments and departures, changes to validation arrangements, and delays to financial returns. It’s a consolidation of existing requirements rather than wholesale innovation, but it’s now formalised across the tertiary sector rather than just HE.

    Medr’s Statement of Intervention Powers (Annex A) sets out escalation from low-level intervention (advice and assistance, reviews) through mid-level intervention (specific registration conditions, enhanced monitoring) to serious “directive” intervention (formal directions) and ultimately de-registration. The document includes helpful flowcharts showing the process for each intervention type, complete with timescales and decision review mechanisms. Providers can also apply for a review by an independent Decision Reviewer appointed by Welsh Ministers – a safeguard that universities dream of in England.

    Also refreshingly, Medr commits to operating “to practical turnaround times” when reviewing financial commitments, with the process “progressing in tandem with your own processes.” A six-week timeline is suggested for complex financing options – although whether this proves workable in practice will depend on Medr’s capacity and responsiveness.

    Quality

    The Quality Framework (Annex C) deserves separate attention because it’s genuinely attempting something ambitious – a coherent approach to quality across FE, HE, apprenticeships, ACL and sixth forms that recognises existing inspection/review arrangements rather than duplicating them.

    The framework has seven “pillars” – learner engagement, learner voice, engagement of the governing body, self-evaluation, externality, continuous improvement and professional learning and development. Each pillar sets out what Medr will do and what providers must demonstrate. Providers will be judged compliant if they achieve “satisfactory external quality assessment outcomes,” have “acceptable performance data,” and are not considered by Medr to demonstrate “a risk to the quality of education.”

    The promise is that:

    …Medr will work with providers and with bodies carrying out external quality assessment to ensure that such assessment is robust, evidence-based, proportionate and timely; adds value for providers and has impact in driving improvement.

    In other words, Estyn inspections and QAA reviews should suffice, with Medr using those outcomes rather than conducting its own assessments. But there’s a caveat:

    “Medr has asked Estyn and QAA to consider opportunities for greater alignment between current external quality assessment methodologies, and in particular whether there could be simplification for providers who are subject to multiple assessments.

    So is the coordination real or aspirational? The answer appears to be somewhere in between. The framework acknowledges that by 2027, Medr expects to have reviewed data collection arrangements and consulted on performance indicators and use of benchmarking and thresholds. Until that consultation happens, it’s not entirely clear what “acceptable performance data” means beyond existing Estyn/QAA judgements. And the promise of “greater alignment” between inspection methodologies is a promise, not a done deal.

    A tight timeline

    The key dates bear noting because they’re tight:

    • April 2026: Applications to the register open
    • August 2026: Register launches; most conditions come into effect
    • August 2027: Remaining conditions (Equality of Opportunity and Fee Limits for registered providers) come into full effect; apprenticeship providers fully subject to conditions of funding

    After all these years, we seem to be looking at some exit acceleration. It gives providers approximately six months from the consultation closing (17 December 2025) to the application process opening. Final versions of the conditions and guidance presumably need to be published early 2026 to allow preparation time. And all of this is happening against the backdrop of Senedd elections in 2026 – where polls suggest that some strategic guidance could be dropped on the new body fairly sharpish.

    And some elements remain unresolved or punted forward. The performance indicators consultation promised for 2027 means providers won’t know the quantitative measures against which they’ll be assessed until the system is live. Medr says it will “consult on its approach to defining ‘good’ learner outcomes” as part of a “coherent, over-arching approach” – but that’s after registration and implementation have begun.

    Validation arrangements are addressed (providers must ensure arrangements are effective in enabling them to satisfy themselves about quality), but the consultation asks explicitly whether the condition “could be usefully extended into broader advice or guidance for tertiary partnerships, including sub-contractual arrangements.” That suggests Medr has been reading some of England’s horror stories and recognises the area needs further work.

    And underlying everything is the question of capacity – both Medr’s capacity to operate this system effectively from day one, and providers’ capacity to meet the requirements while managing their existing obligations. The promise of reduced burden through alignment and reuse of evidence is welcome.

    But a unified regulatory system covering everything from research-intensive universities to community-based adult learning requires Medr to develop expertise and processes across an extraordinary range of provision types. Whether the organisation will be ready by August 2026 is an open question.

    For providers, the choice is whether to engage substantively with this consultation knowing that the broad architecture is set by legislation, or to focus energy on preparing for implementation. For Welsh ministers, the challenge is whether this genuinely lighter-touch, more coherent approach than England’s increasingly discredited OfS regime can be delivered without compromising quality or institutional autonomy.

    And for students – especially those whose representative structures were hoping for statutory backing – there’s a question about whether principles-based engagement without rights amounts to meaningful participation or regulatory box-ticking.

    In England, some observers will watch with interest to see whether Wales has found a way to regulate tertiary education proportionately and coherently. Others will see in these documents a reminder that unified systems, however well-intentioned, require enormous complexity to accommodate the genuine diversity of the sector. The consultation responses, due by 17 December, will expose which interpretation the Welsh sector favours.

    Source link

  • Court temporarily blocks overnight ban on expression at University of Texas System

    Court temporarily blocks overnight ban on expression at University of Texas System

    Dive Brief:

    • A federal judge on Tuesday temporarily blocked University of Texas System officials from enforcing a state law that bans free speech and expression on public campuses between the hours of 10 p.m. and 8 a.m.
    • The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sued leaders of the UT system in September on behalf of student groups who argued the law violated their First Amendment rights.
    • U.S. District Judge David Alan Ezra, a Reagan appointee, found that plaintiffs raised “significant First Amendment issues” with the law and its application, and he granted a preliminary injunction on enforcement while the case plays out.

    Dive Insight:

    Texas passed SB 2972, earlier this year in the wake of 2024’s wave of pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. campuses.

    “In April 2024, universities across the nation saw massive disruption on their campus,” state Sen. Brandon Creighton, the primary author of the bill, wrote in a statement of intent. “Protesters erected encampments in common areas, intimidated other students through the use of bullhorns and speakers, and lowered American flags with the intent of raising the flag of another nation.”

    In late September, Creighton, was named chancellor and CEO of the Texas Tech University System. 

    Along with specifically prohibiting First Amendment-protected activity overnight, the law also bars the campus community from inviting speakers to campus, using devices to amplify speech and playing drums or other percussive instruments during the last two weeks of any term. 

    In its complaint, FIRE called the law “blatantly unconstitutional.” 

    “The First Amendment doesn’t set when the sun goes down,” FIRE senior supervising attorney JT Morris said in a September statement. “University students have expressive freedom whether it’s midnight or midday, and Texas can’t just legislate those constitutional protections out of existence.”

    Ezra agreed in his ruling. 

    “The First Amendment does not have a bedtime of 10:00 p.m.,” the judge wrote. “The burden is on the government to prove that its actions are narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. It has not done so.”

    In his ruling, Ezra wrote that the law’s free speech restrictions were not content-neutral and so must survive a strict legal test for the government to show that the law is the least restrictive possible to achieve a “compelling” goal. 

    The judge pointed to public posts by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and the bill’s statement of intent, both decrying the pro-Palestinian protests. Abbott described the protests as antisemitic and called for the arrest and expulsion of protestors.

    “The statute is content-based both on its face and by looking to the purpose and justification for the law,” Ezra wrote. 

    Ezra also highlighted that the statute carved out an exception for commercial speech in his ruling. 

    “Defendants betray the stated goal of preventing disruption and ensuring community safety by failing to expand the Bans to commercial speech,” he wrote. “Students can engage in commercial speech that would otherwise violate the Bans simply because it is not ‘expressive activities,’ no matter how disruptive.”

    In response to the law, the University of Texas at Austin adopted a more limited version of the policy that only banned overnight expressive activities in its common outdoor area that generate sound to be heard from a university residence. 

    However, Ezra concluded the pared-down policy wasn’t enough to protect students’ constitutional speech rights, as UT-Austin could change it or enforce it subjectively. 

    “The threat of prosecution arises not only from UT’s adopted policy but also from the legislative statute,” the judge wrote. “As adopted, UT Austin is not currently in compliance with the statute, and at any point could change or be instructed to change its policies to comply with the law.”

    FIRE cheered the injunction on Tuesday. 

    “We’re thankful that the court stepped in and halted a speech ban that inevitably would’ve been weaponized to censor speech that administrators disagreed with,” FIRE Senior Attorney Adam Steinbaugh said in a statement. 

    In its lawsuit, the free speech group has asked the judge to permanently block the law’s enforcement.

    Source link

  • A joined up post-16 system requires system-level thinking combined with local action

    A joined up post-16 system requires system-level thinking combined with local action

    There have been so many conversations and speculations and recommendations aired about the forthcoming post-16 skills and education white paper that you’d be forgiven for thinking it already had been published months ago.

    But no, it’s expected this week some time – possibly as early as Monday – and so for everyone’s sanity it’s worth rehearsing some of the framing drivers and intentions behind it, clearing the deck before the thing finally arrives and we start digesting the policy detail.

    The policy ambition is clear: a coherent and coordinated post-16 “tertiary” sector in England, that offers viable pathways to young people and adult learners through the various levels of education and into employment, contributing to economic growth through providing the skilled individuals the country needs.

    The political challenge is also real: with Reform snapping at Labour’s heels, the belief that the UK can “grow its own” skills, and offer opportunity and the prospect of economic security to its young people across the country must become embedded in the national psyche if the government is to see off the threat.

    The politics and policy combine in the Prime Minister’s announcement at Labour Party Conference of an eye-catching new target for two thirds of young people to participate in some form of higher-level learning. That positions next week’s white paper as a longer term systemic shift rather than, say, a strategy for tackling youth unemployment in this parliament – though it’s clear there is also an ambition for the two to go hand in hand, with skills policy now sitting across both DfE and DWP.

    Insert tab a into slot b

    The aspiration to achieve a more joined up and functioning system is laudable – in the best of all possible worlds steering a middle course between the worst excesses and predatory behaviours of the free market, and an overly controlling hand from Whitehall. But the more you try to unpick what’s happening right now, the more you see how fragmented the current “system” is, with incentives and accountabilities all over the place. That’s why you can have brilliant FE and HE institutions delivering life-changing education opportunities, at the same time as the system as a whole seems to be grinding its gears.

    Last week, a report from the Association of Colleges and Universities UK Delivering a joined-up post-16 skills system showcased some of the really great regional collaborations already in place between FE colleges and universities, and also set out some of the barriers to collaboration including financial pressures causing different providers to chase the same students in the same subjects rather than strategically differentiating their offer; and different regulatory and student finance systems for different kinds of learners and qualifications creating complexity in the system.

    But it’s not only about the willingness and capability of different kinds of provider to coordinate with each other. It’s about the perennial urge of policymakers to tinker with qualifications and set up new kinds of provider creating additional complexity – and the complicating role of private training and HE provision operating “close to market” which can have a distorting effect on what “public” institutions are able to offer. It’s about the lack of join-up even within government departments, never mind across them. It’s also about the pervasiveness of the cultural dichotomy (and hierarchy) between perceptions of white-collar/professional and blue-collar/manual work, and the ill-informed class distinctions and capability-based assumptions underpinning them.

    Some of this fragmentation can be addressed through system-wide harmonisation – such as the intent through the Lifelong Learning Entitlement (LLE) to implement one system of funding for all level 4–6 courses, and bringing all courses in that group under the regulatory purview of the Office for Students. AoC and UUK have also identified a number of areas where potential overlaps could be resolved through system-wide coordination: between OfS, Skills England, and mayoral strategic authorities; between the LLE and the Growth and Skills Levy; and between local skills improvement plans and the (national) industrial strategy. It would be odd indeed if the white paper did not make provision for this kind of coordination.

    But even with efforts to coordinate and harmonise, in any system there is naturally occurring variation – in how employers in different industries are thinking about, reporting, and investing in skills, and at what levels, in the expectations and tolerance of different prospective students for study load, learning environment, scale of the costs of learning, and support needs, and in the relationship between a place, its economy and its people. The implications of those variations are best understood by the people who are closest to the problem.

    The future is emergent

    Complex systems have emergent properties, ie the stuff that happens because lots of actors responded to the world as they saw it but that could not necessarily have been predicted. Policy is always generating unforeseen outcomes. And it doesn’t matter how many data wonks and uber-brains you have in the Civil Service, they’ll still not be able to plot every possible outcome as any given policy intervention works its way through the system.

    So for a system to work you need good quality feedback loops in which insight arrives in a timely way on the desks of responsible actors who have the capability, opportunity and motivation to adapt in light of them. In the post-16 system that’s about education and civic leaders being really good at listening to their students, their communities and to employers – and investing in quality in civic leadership (and identifying and ejecting bad apples) should be one of the ways that a post-16 skills system can be made to work.

    But good leaders need to be afforded the opportunity to decide what their response will be to the specifics of the needs they have identified and be trusted, to some degree, to act in the public interest. So from a Whitehall perspective the question the white paper needs to answer is not only how the different bits of the system ought to join up, but whether the people who are instrumental in making it work themselves have the skills, information and flexibility to take action when it inevitably doesn’t.

    Source link

  • Australia eases risk ratings amid calls to scrap system

    Australia eases risk ratings amid calls to scrap system

    According to reports, a brief note issued by the Department of Home Affairs through the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), which oversees international student data, confirms that evidence levels have been updated.

    “The September 2025 evidence level update for countries and education providers (based on student visa outcome data from 1 July 2024 to 30 June 2025) has taken place, effective for applications lodged on or after 30 September 2025,” read a statement by the DHA on the PRISMS website.

    Consultants and universities in Australia are able to work out these levels through the government’s document checklist tool, which reveals a provider’s risk standing based on the requirements triggered when paired with a student’s country of origin.

    Reports suggest that level 1 (lowest risk) includes Bangladesh and Sri Lanka; level 2 (moderate risk) includes India, Bhutan, Vietnam, China, and Nepal; and level 3 (highest risk) includes Fiji, the Philippines, Pakistan, and Colombia.

    Although India and Vietnam, both prominent source markets for Australia, improved from level 3 to level 2 on the back of stronger grant rates, China slipped from level 1 to level 2, possibly due to a surge in asylum applications from Chinese nationals, particularly students, as some reports suggest.

    While education providers in Australia registered under CRICOS (Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students) are assigned an evidence level, each country is also given one based on its past performance with student visas, particularly visa refusals, asylum applications, and breaches of conditions.

    Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements
    Ravi Lochan Singh, Global Reach

    The combination of provider and country levels determines the documents required for an international student’s visa application.

    Stakeholders have highlighted the lack of transparency in assessing country risk levels, particularly as students from countries with reduced risk ratings may still arrive in Australia under precarious conditions.

    “Are there not more Indians applying for protection visas? Hasn’t Nepal followed Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in political turmoil, where the economy has suffered? This has raised concerns around students meeting GS requirements. There are also whispers that certain operators may encourage students to apply for protection visas,” stated Ravi Lochan Singh, managing director, Global Reach.

    Visa prioritisation is already tied to intended caps, with applications processed on a first-in, first-out basis until a provider reaches 80% of its allocation, explained Singh.

    With almost all universities now streamlined for visas and the majority promoted from level 2 to level 1, lowest risk, and almost none remaining in level 3, the evidence-level system appears unnecessary to some.

    “The concept of ‘streamlining’ (and then the development later of the SSVF) took place at a time where there was a whole-of-government focus on growing international student numbers and increasing the value, while maintaining integrity, of the highly important international education sector,” shared Mike Ferguson, pro vice-chancellor of Charles Sturt University.

    According to Ferguson, a former DHA official, “English and financial requirements were streamlined as part of the visa process, based on a risk assessment, given the other safeguards in place – obligations enforced by TEQSA and ASQA in terms of providers ensuring students have sufficient English proficiency and the use of the GTE requirement to consider a student’s holistic economic circumstances.”

    However, with international student numbers rising since the early 2010s, “times have changed” and the focus has shifted to managing enrolments and ensuring sustainable growth, explained Ferguson.

    “My view is that all students should provide evidence of funds and English with the visa process. That would align with community expectations, support enhanced integrity and potentially help to some degree with some of the course hopping behaviour we are seeing (though the latter requires a range of measures),” he contineud.

    “DHA could still determine the degree to which they scrutinise the funds submitted but that would be based on a more holistic and granular risk assessment – not just based on country and provider.”

    Evidence levels of select Australian institutions, showing whether they have remained steady, been upgraded, or downgraded, as shared by Ravi Lochan Singh. Correction: Deakin University was previously categorized under risk level 2 (not 1) and has since been upgraded to 1.

    Singh further stated that concerns around visa hopping and attrition could be exacerbated, as international students may now enter Australia through universities and then transition to higher-risk, non-university sectors without needing new visa applications, especially since Australia has yet to mandate linking study visas to the institution of initial enrolment, unlike neighbouring New Zealand.

    Moreover, Singh pointed out that when students arrive without adequate financial backing, it can increase visa misuse, which may lead authorities to tighten risk classifications again.

    “The document checklist tool provides a clear framework for assessing the risk level of a university. However, it raises concerns about the recent trend of promoting the application of visas without financial funds, as suggested by the document checklist tools. While these visas may be approved, this approach could potentially lead to the return of the country to risk level 3 in the future,” stated Singh.

    “For instance, if a country’s risk level is 3 (such as Pakistan), and Home Affairs requires financial and English requirements to be attached to the visa application, the university’s risk level is inferred to be 2. If the Home Affairs tool waives this requirement, the risk level is reduced to 1.”

    The PIE has requested comment from the DHA and is awaiting a response.

    Australia’s reported changes to country evidence levels come just a month after the government announced an additional 25,000 international student places for next year, raising the cap to 295,000.

    Source link

  • Back to the Future? What could system reform of higher education look like? 

    Back to the Future? What could system reform of higher education look like? 

    Author:
    Mike Boxall

    Published:

    This HEPI blog was kindly written by Mike Boxall, writing in a personal capacity.  

    According to the latest survey by PA Consulting, over 90% of university vice-chancellors endorse a call for ‘fundamental system reforms’ to secure the survival of their sector against what they universally regard as an unprecedented combination of existential threats and challenges. Yet the responses seen from across the sector to date have been distinctly conventional and, in a literal sense, conservative: cost-cutting, portfolio rationalisation, recruitment freezes and redundancies, and forgone investments. While undoubtedly necessary in some cases to stave off short-term financial crises, such measures hardly represent transformational innovations; indeed, almost half the survey respondents predicted that their institutions would look and feel much the same in ten years’ time as today. As one vice-chancellor put it:  

    We have been propping up a 20th-century system that is no longer fit for the purposes of the early 21st century 

    Meanwhile, policymakers in the Department of Education and the Office for Students are busily preparing contingency measures against the heightened risk of multiple institutional failures and institutions plan for continued retrenchment. Big questions remain unanswered: Why might ‘fundamental system reforms’ be needed? What could (or should) a fundamentally reformed higher education system look like? And how might it be brought about in an era of continued fiscal and policy austerity? 

    Unlike just about every other sector facing seismic shifts in their markets and operating environments, universities have remained uniformly committed to what many regard as self-limiting and increasingly outdated business models: 

    • Reliance on providing essentially similar subject-based courses to limited cohorts of school-leavers, largely neglecting the more diverse learning needs of much larger populations of in-career professionals and their employers. 
    • Adherence to misleadingly named ‘full-time’ study schedules typically limited to 30 weeks a year or less, with single annual entry points and campuses and facilities largely empty of students and staff for almost half the year. 
    • A deficit-based business model in which devolved expenditure plans are set (and spent) separately from confirmed earnings, often resulting in unexpected year-end shortfalls and relying on cross-subsidies from international student fees to balance budgets. 
    • Over 150 autonomous and self-determining universities competing with one another for shares of largely fixed or even shrinking markets and funding sources, with success judged more in terms of reputational standings than by the quality and social value of their services. 

    It must be acknowledged that, despite these self-imposed limitations, the current university system has defied repeated prophesies of its demise. It has survived largely intact for many decades, with few provider closures or even forced mergers, and continues to recruit almost 1.5 million domestic and international students each year, generating over £55 billion in revenues. A handful of global institutions with annual incomes exceeding £1 billion or more may be considered too big and important to fail, and indeed these few continue to do relatively well, often at the direct expense of less-favoured rivals.  However, many, perhaps even most, others face a future of chronic struggles to cover inexorably rising costs and to protect their shares of markets eroded by new competitors and alternative options for students, employers, knowledge users and public programmes. Survival for these providers through continued efficiency drives might be possible, but it won’t be fun; nor will it be sufficient to secure the pivotal roles of universities in educating and informing an increasingly complex and precarious world. 

    The roles and contributions of universities in today’s and tomorrow’s learning society are no less important than in the past, but they will be different. In particular, they have a unique responsibility for sustaining human and social intelligence in the face of impersonal AI and related technological advances. To fulfil this role, universities must move beyond the limitations of their legacy models, expanding their roles within national and localised ecosystems to promote: 

    • Lifelong and continuous learning and professional development for all adults, from post-secondary to late-career stages, and from initial formation to periodic upskilling and personal renewal, facilitated and supported through the Lifelong Learning Entitlement and related schemes  
    • Cumulative and personalised learning attainments, embracing the rounded acquisition and development of knowledge, competences, experience and personal development, incorporating micro-credentials and stackable awards on the lines proposed by the OECD 
    • Variety and choice of accessible pathways through different modes of provision for useful learning as and when sought by individuals and employers, embracing universities, colleges, training providers and online services, as is being developed in Greater Manchester  
    • Funding and economic structures based on the value and benefits of different modes of learning provision, shared equitably between individuals, employers, civic authorities and the State, on the lines explored by the UNESCO Innovative Funding for Education project. 

    While fully articulated and integrated learning and skills ecosystems built on these principles may seem a long way off, the examples cited show that prototypes can already be seen in localised initiatives and emerging proposals across the international tertiary formation landscape. A variety of models built around these principles might emerge, displaying the characteristics of complex adaptive systems: self-organising and dynamic networks of diverse partners and stakeholders, producing emergent results in response to changing experiences.   

    Unpredictable and sometimes surprising outcomes of these kinds cannot easily be planned or fitted into pre-determined blueprints. They are thus unsuited to the normal pattern of government policy interventions. Rather, the role of government should be to provide the enabling conditions and supportive frameworks (including funds) within which self-organising solutions can emerge. A good start would be to reduce the fragmentation of policy, funding and regulatory constraints to innovation and enterprise across existing learning and skills provision. The Commission on Tertiary Education and Research (Medr) in Wales offers a laudable start towards that end, now being emulated in the Republic of Ireland and in New Zealand. 

    System-wide reforms on this scale do not in any way diminish the importance or critical roles of universities in serving fast-changing national needs for advanced education and skills. What they would do would be to shift the debate on the health of higher education provision from its current focus on enabling universities to continue doing what they have always done, on their own terms, to redefining and consolidating their roles at the heart of sectoral or place-related advanced learning ecosystems.  In spirit, if not in forms, this would represent returns to the principles on which most universities (both pre- and post-1992) were first established and which many would argue are needed even more today. 

    Source link

  • Texas Tech System Ends Class Discussions of Trans Identity

    Texas Tech System Ends Class Discussions of Trans Identity

    The Texas Tech University System has ordered all faculty to refrain from classroom discussions of transgender identity, The Texas Tribune reported.

    In a letter to the leaders of the five universities in the system, Texas Tech Chancellor Tedd Mitchell wrote that the institutions must comply with “current state and federal law,” which “recognize only two human sexes: male and female.“ He cited Texas House Bill 229, which defines sex strictly as determined by reproductive organs, a letter from Texas governor Greg Abbott directing agencies to “reject woke gender ideologies,” and President Trump’s January executive order—which is not a federal law—declaring the existence of just two genders.

    “While recognizing the First Amendment rights of employees in their personal capacity, faculty must comply with these laws in the instruction of students, within the course and scope of their employment,” Mitchell wrote.

    The move follows a confusing week at Angelo State University—part of the Texas Tech System—where a new set of policies first seemed to prohibit faculty from engaging in any sort of pride displays but ultimately limited discussion and content only related to trans identity.

    Mitchell’s letter provided little guidance for faculty about how to implement the new policy, suggesting it presents certain challenges.

    “This is a developing area of law, and we acknowledge that questions remain and adjustments may be necessary as new guidance is issued at both the state and federal levels,” he wrote. “We fully expect discussions will be ongoing.”

    Source link

  • The Next System Teach-Ins and Their Role in Higher Education

    The Next System Teach-Ins and Their Role in Higher Education

    In a time when higher education grapples with systemic challenges—rising tuition, debt burdens, underfunding, and institutional inertia—the Next System Teach-Ins emerge as a powerful catalyst for critical dialogue, community engagement, and transformative thinking.

    A Legacy of Teach-Ins: From Vietnam to System Change

    Teach-ins have long functioned as dynamic forums that transcend mere lecturing, incorporating participatory dialogue and strategic action. The concept originated in March 1965 at the University of Michigan in direct protest of the Vietnam War; faculty and students stayed up all night, creating an intellectual and activist space that sparked over 100 similar events in that year alone.

    This model evolved through the decades—fueling the environmental, civil rights, and anti-apartheid movements of the 1970s and 1980s, followed by the Democracy Teach-Ins of the 1990s which challenged corporate influence in universities and energized anti-sweatshop activism. Later waves during Occupy Wall Street and Black Lives Matter sustained teach-ins as a tool for inclusive dialogue and resistance.

    The Next System Teach-Ins: Vision, Scope, and Impact

    Vision and Purpose

    Launched in Spring 2016, the Next System Teach-Ins aimed to broaden public awareness of systemic alternatives to capitalism—ranging from worker cooperatives and community land trusts to decentralized energy systems and democratic public banking.

    These teach-ins were designed not just as academic discussion forums but as launching pads for community-led action, connecting participants with toolkits, facilitation guides, ready-made curricula, and resources to design their own events.

    Highlights of the Inaugural Wave

    In early 2016, notable teach-ins took place across the U.S.—from Madison and New York City to Seattle and beyond. Participants explored pressing questions such as, “What comes after capitalism?” and “How can communities co-design alternatives that are just, sustainable, and democratic?”

    These gatherings showcased a blend of plenaries, interactive workshops, radio segments, and “wall-to-wall” organizing strategies—mobilizing participants beyond attendee numbers into collective engagement.

    Resources and Capacity Building

    Organizers were provided with a wealth of support materials including modular curriculum, templates for publicity and RFPs, event agendas, speaker lists, and online infrastructure to manage RSVPs and share media.

    The goal was dual: ignite a nationwide conversation on alternative systemic models, and encourage each teach-in host to aim for a specific local outcome—whether that be a campus campaign, curriculum integration, or forming ongoing community groups.

    2025: Renewed Momentum

    The Next System initiative has evolved. According to a May 2025 update from George Mason University’s Next System Studies, a new wave of Next System Teach-Ins is scheduled for November 1–16, 2025.

    This iteration amplifies the original mission: confronting interconnected social, ecological, political, and economic crises by gathering diverse communities—on campuses, in union halls, or public spaces—to rethink, redesign, and rebuild toward a more equitable and sustainable future.

    Why This Matters for Higher Education (HEI’s Perspective)

    Teach-ins revitalize civic engagement on campus by reasserting higher education’s role as an engine of critical thought and imagination.

    They integrate scholarship and practice, uniting theory with actionable strategies—from economic democracy to ecological regeneration—and enrich academic purpose with real-world relevance.

    They also mobilize institutional infrastructure, offering student-led exploration of systemic change without requiring prohibitive resources.

    By linking the global and the local, teach-ins equip universities to address both planetary crises and campus-specific challenges.

    Most importantly, they trigger systemic dialogue, pushing past complacency and fostering a new generation of system-thinking leaders.

    Looking Ahead: Institutional Opportunities

    • Host a Teach-In – Whether a focused film screening, interdisciplinary workshop, or full-scale weekend event, universities can leverage Next System resources to design context-sensitive, action-oriented programs.

    • Embed in Curriculum – The modular material—especially case studies on democratic economics, energy justice, or communal models—can integrate into courses in sociology, environmental studies, governance, and beyond.

    • Forge Community Partnerships – By extending beyond campus (to community centers, labor unions, public libraries), teach-ins expand access and deepen impact.

    • Contribute to a National Movement – University participation in the November 2025 wave positions institutions as active contributors to a growing ecosystem of systemic transformation.

    A Bold Experiment

    The Next System Teach-Ins represent a bold experiment in higher education’s engagement with systemic change. Combining rich traditions of activism with pragmatic tools for contemporary challenges, these initiatives offer HEI a blueprint for meaningful civic education, collaborative inquiry, and institutional transformation.

    As the 2025 wave approaches, universities have a timely opportunity to be centers of both reflection and action in building the next system we all need.

    Sources

    Source link

  • California Unions Sue Trump Admin Over Threats to UC System

    California Unions Sue Trump Admin Over Threats to UC System

    The Trump administration has frozen more than $500 million in federal funding to UCLA.

    A coalition of California education unions and faculty associations is suing the Trump administration to challenge what they say is “the illegal and coercive use of civil rights laws to attack the University of California system and the rights of their members,” the American Association of University Professors announced Tuesday. 

    The coalition comprises 19 groups—including the AAUP, the American Federation of Teachers and 10 University of California campus faculty associations—and is represented by the legal organization Democracy Forward.

    “We will not stand by as the Trump administration destroys one of the largest public university higher education systems in the country and bludgeons academic freedom at the University of California, the heart of the revered free speech movement,” AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement. “We stand hand in hand to protect not only our individual rights to free expression, debate, and association, but also to safeguard the health, safety, and economic mobility of our communities—all of which is at risk.”

    The Trump administration has issued a litany of demands to the University of California in exchange for restored federal funding, including unfettered government access to faculty, student and staff data; cooperation with immigration enforcement; a ban on gender-inclusive restrooms and locker rooms; an official statement that the UC does not recognize transgender identity; and over a billion dollars in penalties. So far, the University of California, Los Angeles, has borne the brunt of the demands, but university system officials fear that funding freezes could extend to the system’s other campuses.

    On Sept. 4, University of California, Berkeley, officials notified 160 faculty, staff and students that their names appeared in documents given to the Trump administration as part of the administration’s investigation into alleged antisemitism on campus. 

    “UCLA [faculty association] is honored to stand with this coalition, which presents as an important reminder of what the UC really is—the people who day in and day out do the work on UC campuses,” Anna Markowitz, president of the UCLA faculty association executive board, said in a statement Tuesday. “Today, we join the people of the UC in standing up against federal extortion, job loss, bans on speech and expression—against any effort to dismantle core public values that have made the UC great.”

    Source link

  • UC System Warns of Broader Risks in Federal Funding Fight

    UC System Warns of Broader Risks in Federal Funding Fight

    The Trump administration has already frozen $500 million in grant funding at UCLA.

    The University of California system is warning state lawmakers that federal funding cuts could extend well beyond UCLA as tensions between the Trump administration and American colleges continue to rise.

    UC president James B. Milliken wrote a letter to dozens of local elected officials Tuesday explaining that “the stakes are high and the risks are very real.” The system’s 10 institutions could lose billions of dollars in aid, forcing its leaders to make tough calls about staffing, the continuation of certain academic programs and more, he said.

    President Trump has already frozen more than $500 million in grants at UCLA, allegedly because the Justice Department accused the university of violating Jewish students’ civil rights. The president demanded the university pay a $1.2 billion fine to unlock the funds, and system officials are worried that more funding cuts are likely. California lawmakers have repeatedly urged the UC system not to capitulate.

    In an August letter, State Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat and chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and 33 other lawmakers told Milliken that Trump’s actions were “an extortion attempt and a page out of the authoritarian playbook,” the Los Angeles Times reported. 

    Milliken wrote in Tuesday’s letter that a loss in funding would “devastate” the system and harm students, among other groups.

    “Classes and student services would be reduced, patients would be turned away, tens of thousands of jobs would be lost, and we would see UC’s world-renowned researchers leaving our state for other more seemingly stable opportunities in the US or abroad,” he wrote.

    If the UC system loses federal funding, it would need about $4 to $5 billion a year to make up the difference, Milliken added. “That is what fighting for the people of California will take.”

    Source link

  • VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    VICTORY! University of North Texas system lifts drag ‘pause’ after FIRE/ACLU of TX letter

    DENTON, Texas, Aug. 28, 2025 — The University of North Texas system confirmed that it has lifted its “pause” on drag performances across its campuses, in response to a demand letter from civil liberties organizations informing the school that it was violating its students’ First Amendment rights.

    On March 28, UNT System Chancellor Michael Williams issued a system-wide directive announcing an immediate “pause” on drag performances on campus. Williams’ directive came days after a similar drag ban from the Texas A&M University System was blocked by a federal judge following a lawsuit from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

    On Aug. 14, FIRE and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Texas sent a letter informing Williams that his “pause” violated the Constitution for the same reasons.

    “UNT cannot justify banning an entire class of protected expression from campus performance venues on the basis that such expression might cause offense,” the letter read. “In the same way that some people may not appreciate UNT allowing students, staff, or visitors to engage in prayer on campus or wear t-shirts supporting rival universities, the fear that such speech may be ‘offensive’ to some is not a constitutionally permissible reason to ban it.”

    Yesterday, the UNT Office of General Counsel responded to the FIRE/ACLU-TX letter and announced that in light of a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit blocking yet another drag ban in Texas — this time at West Texas A&M University — “the UNT System’s temporary pause on drag performances has ended.”

    “If campus officials can silence expression simply because some find it ‘offensive,’ no one’s speech will be safe,” said FIRE Strategic Campaigns Counsel Amanda Nordstrom “Today it’s drag shows, but tomorrow it could be political rallies, art exhibits, or even bake sales. From West Texas to North Texas and any direction you look, the message is clear: drag is protected expression, and the show must go on.”

    “UNT repealed its drag ban following public backlash and legal pressure,” said ACLU of Texas Attorney Chloe Kempf. “As we and the courts have repeatedly made clear, banning drag is plainly unconstitutional. Drag is a cherished source of joy and liberation for the LGBTQIA+ community — and this reversal ensures students can once again freely express and celebrate their identities on campus.”

    The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization dedicated to defending and sustaining the individual rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought—the most essential qualities of liberty. FIRE recognizes that colleges and universities play a vital role in preserving free thought within a free society. To this end, we place a special emphasis on defending the individual rights of students and faculty members on our nation’s campuses, including freedom of speech, freedom of association, due process, legal equality, religious liberty, and sanctity of conscience.

    CONTACT:

    Alex Griswold, Communications Campaign Manager, FIRE: 215-717-3473; [email protected]

    Kristi Gross, Press Strategist, ACLU of Texas: [email protected]

    Source link