Tag: Year

  • Just 329 students with an EHCP got to a high tariff provider last year

    Just 329 students with an EHCP got to a high tariff provider last year

    Everyone who can benefit from higher education deserves to do so. That’s pretty much what people remember the Robbins report as saying – and it is a comforting story that higher education likes to tell itself.

    But it doesn’t really hold true in the experiences of an increasingly diverse pool of potential applicants.

    The state of the art of supporting and regulating fair access to (and participation in) higher education in England has moved far beyond the (rather unsophisticated) idea of national targets and metrics. Like it or loathe it, the risk-based approach taken by the Office for Students is commendably grounded both in the experience of individual students and the academic literature.

    However a weakness of this approach is the temptation to argue that any access gaps represent a failure of higher education providers rather than taking a whole system (educational and, indeed socio-economic) perspective. When we do glance at wider problems with, say schools attainment it may not always be universities that are best placed (or adequately supported) to address them.

    And let us not be coy here – there are gaps:

    [Full screen]

    The chart shows progression rates to HE, either to all providers or “high tariff providers” (of which more later) for each year since 2009-10. The size of the dots represent the number of students in that population, the colours represent the groups of characteristics: you get everything from measures of economic disadvantage, to ethnicity, to disability and – new for this year – care experience. We are looking at the students that might usually be expected to enter HE that academic year (so the cohort that turned 18 the previous year – those who took a year out before university or who progress after resits will not be shown as progression to HE).

    SEN and EHCP

    There’s thousands of potential stories in this data – for this article I’m going to focus on special educational needs (SEN) as a factor influencing progression.

    As you can see from the chart 21.1 per cent of students with any special educational need progressed to higher education by the age of 19 in 2023-24. This is the highest on record, but before you break open the champagne we should add that the progression rate for their peers without SEN was more than 50 per cent. And for progression to high tariff providers the gap is even starker: 14.9 per cent without SEN, 3.8 with.

    Though a traditional image of a student with SEN may be of someone who is less academically able, there are many very academically inclined students who have SEN and are able to progress to any destination you can think of if they can access the right support. Support is not exactly easy to come by, and it is very much a lottery whether support is available to a particular child or not. Progression to any higher education setting by 19 was 25.4 per cent for those with SEN who had more generalised support, and just 9.4 for those who managed to get an education, health, and care plan (EHCP).

    Again, the experience of pupils with an EHCP may make it more likely that they apply later on (and thus not feature in their cohort data) – those who do progress often need to top up their level 2 or 3 qualifications before being able to progress to the next level of study, all of which takes time.

    But just 1.5 per cent of students with an EHCP, 327 students, progressed to a high tariff provider. To me, that’s a systemic failing.

    Regional dimensions

    More so than any other characteristic, where you live (and, more germanely, where you go to school) has a huge impact on your educational experience with SEN. In Kensington and Chelsea, 45.5 per cent of students with SEN are in HE by the age of 19. In Thurrock, the figure is more like 10 per cent.

    The variation is similar for all students – 71 per cent get to university in Redbridge, 26 per cent in Knowsley.

    [Full screen]

    But this core variation (which covers everything from socio-economic status to school quality to aspirations) is overlaid by the varying proportions of students with SEN in each area, and the varying levels (and quality) of the support that can be provided.

    [Full screen]

    Some 23.3 per cent of all students in Middlesbrough have a SEN marker. In Havering the figure is 8.85 per cent (there are some outliers with low numbers of students in total)

    What is being done?

    As Alex Grady of nasen wrote on the UCAS blog earlier this year, the many misconceptions around SEN indicating some form of “learning difficulty” that makes higher education irrelevant or impossible still persist. Students with SEN very often flourish at university, but the assumption that they will not attend higher education – so thinking around support through and beyond the transition between compulsory education and higher education often happens late or in a piecemeal fashion.

    It is comparatively rare for a university to visit a non-mainstream school, or vice-versa. There are many reasons (not least financial) for this not to happen, but there is a clear benefit to introducing students from all settings to a range of post-compulsory routes early and often. Sometimes special schools and other alternate provision partner with larger local schools to make this happen.

    Student records do not transition neatly between the compulsory sector and higher education, a situation not helped by the presumption that an EHCP extends to age 25 if you don’t go to university, but ends if they do (this, beautifully, is considered a “positive outcome”). A student may be used to assuming staff understand the best way to support them (as this is what happened at school) and feel uncomfortable or ill-equipped to effectively argue for similar support in HE.

    Universities do address this, both in highlighting the support that they offer students and in signposting what is available via the Disabled Students’ Allowance (many students with SEN do not identify themselves as “disabled”, and the variations in terminology are a recognised issue). But schools also have a role to play in preparing students for an application and choice experience that is pretty bewildering for all students.

    Additional data

    The DfE Widening Participation release is the only place where you get a definition of a “high tariff” provider – in 2023-24 this term referred to higher education providers with a mean tariff of 125.8 or above (last year this was 129.4).

    [Full screen]

    Source link

  • Efforts to Restrict or Protect Libraries Both Grew This Year – The 74

    Efforts to Restrict or Protect Libraries Both Grew This Year – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    State lawmakers across the country filed more bills to restrict or protect libraries and readers in the first half of this year than last year, a new report found.

    The split fell largely along geographic lines, according to the report from EveryLibrary, a group that advocates against book bans and censorship.

    Between January and July 2025, lawmakers introduced 133 bills that the organization deemed harmful to libraries, librarians or readers’ rights in 33 states — an increase from 121 bills in all of 2024. Fourteen of those measures had passed as of mid-July.

    At the same time, legislators introduced 76 bills in 32 states to protect library services or affirm the right to read, the report found.

    The geographic split among these policies is stark.

    In Southern and Plains states, new laws increasingly criminalize certain actions of librarians, restrict access to materials about gender and race, and transfer decision-making power to politically appointed boards or parent-led councils.

    Texas alone passed a trio of sweeping laws stripping educators of certain legal protections when providing potentially obscene materials; banning public funding for instructional materials containing obscene content; and giving parents more authority over student reading choices and new library additions.

    Tennessee lowered the bar to prosecute educators for sharing books that might be considered “harmful to minors.”

    A New Hampshire bill likewise would’ve made it easier for parents or the state attorney general to bring civil actions against school employees for distributing material deemed harmful to minors, but it was vetoed by Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte.

    In Nebraska, a new law allows for real-time alerts for parents every time a student checks out a book. South Dakota requires libraries and schools to install filtering software. New laws in Idaho heighten the requirements to form library districts and mandate stricter internet filtering policies that are tied to state funding.

    In contrast, several Northeastern states have passed legislation protections for libraries and librarians and anti-censorship laws.

    New Jersey, Delaware, Rhode Island and Connecticut have each enacted “freedom to read” or other laws that codify protections against ideological censorship in libraries.

    Connecticut also took a major step in modernizing libraries in the digital age, the report said, becoming the first state in the nation to pass a law regulating how libraries license and manage e-books and digital audiobooks.

    Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at [email protected].

    Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Ransomware attacks in education jump 23% year over year

    Ransomware attacks in education jump 23% year over year

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

    Dive Brief:

    • Ransomware attacks against schools, colleges and universities rose 23% year over year in the first half of 2025, according to a report from Comparitech, a cybersecurity and online privacy product review website.
    • The six months saw 130 confirmed and unconfirmed ransomware attacks against educational institutions, with an average ransom demand of $556,000.
    • Education was the fourth-most-targeted sector during the first half of 2025, behind business, government and healthcare, according to Comparitech.

    Dive Insight:

    Schools have become a popular target for hackers thanks to a combination of increased digitization, the robust amount of student and staff data, and a lack of cybersecurity resources. Some 82% of K-12 schools in the U.S. experienced a cyber incident between July 2023 and December 2024, according to a March report from the nonprofit Center for Internet Security.

    In one of the most prominent recent known examples,a 19-year-old agreed to plead guilty in May to allegedly hacking and extorting student information system provider PowerSchool for $2.85 million. The incident resulted in the leaking of sensitive data of 10 million teachers and more than 60 million students. School districts also received extortion threats in relation to the cyberattack, and more than 100 school systems sued PowerSchool over the breach.

    One challenge of tracking cyberattacks is that incidents aren’t always disclosed by the organization targeted or the ransomware group that attacks. As a result, the Comparitech report said, figures are likely to change as more information is released and incidents are confirmed.

    Comparitech labels a ransomware attack as “confirmed” when the impacted organization publicly reports a ransomware incident or acknowledges a cyberattack that aligns with a ransomware group’s claim.

    As school districts try to navigate these threats and attacks, some of the leading preventative measures include investing in cybersecurity insurance and incorporating multifactor authentication for accessing files.

    Once a breach is discovered, experts recommend determining what external help is needed, whether from cyber incident support teams or private vendors, and alerting law enforcement — including the FBI and entities such as the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team. The FBI advises against paying ransoms, as doing so can encourage further cyberattacks and doesn’t guarantee that stolen data will be returned or that access to critical systems will be restored.

    Source link

  • Graduate Outcomes, 2022-23 graduating year

    Graduate Outcomes, 2022-23 graduating year

    The headline numbers from this year’s graduate outcomes data – which represents the activities and experiences of the cohort that graduated in 2022-23 around 15 months after graduation look, on the face of it, disappointing.

    There’s a bunch of things to bear in mind before we join the chorus claiming to perceive the end of graduate employment as a benefit of higher education due to some mixture (dilute to preference) of generative AI, the skills revolution, and wokeness.

    We are coming off an exceptional year both for graduate numbers and graduate recruitment – as the pandemic shock dissipates numbers will be returning to normal: viewed in isolation this looks like failure. It isn’t.

    But we’ve something even more fundamental to think about first.

    Before we start

    We’re currently living in a world in which HESA’s Graduate Outcomes data represents the UK’s only comprehensive official statistics dealing with employment.

    If you’ve not been following the travails of the ONS Labour Force Survey (the July overview is just out) large parts of the reported results are currently designated “official statistics in development” and thus not really usable for policy purposes – the response rate is currently around 20 per cent after some very hard work by the transformation team, having been hovering in the mid-teens for a good while.

    Because this is Wonkhe we’re going to do things properly and start with looking at response rates and sample quality for Graduate Outcomes, so strap in. We’ll get to graduate activities in a bit. But this stuff is important.

    Response rates and sample quality

    Declining survey response rates are a huge problem all over the place – and one that should concern anyone who uses survey data to make policy or support the delivery of services. If you are reading or drawing any actionable conclusions from a survey you should have the response rate and sample quality front and centre.

    The overall completion rate for the 2022-23 cohort for Graduate Outcomes was 35 per cent, which you can bump up to 39 per cent if you include partial completions (when someone started on the form but gave up half-way through). This is down substantially from 48 per cent fully completing in 2019-20, 43 per cent in 2020-21, and 40 per cent in 2021-22.

    There’s a lot of variation underneath that: but provider, level of previous study (undergraduate responses are stronger than postgraduate responses), and permanent address all have an impact. If you are wondering about sampling errors (and you’d be right to be at these response rates!) work done by HESA and others assures us that there has been no evidence of a problem outside of very small sub-samples.

    Here’s a plot of the provider level variation. I’ve included a filter to let you remove very small providers from the view based on the number of graduates for the year in question – by default you see nothing with less than 250 graduates.

    [Full screen]

    What do graduates do?

    As above, the headlines are slightly disappointing – 88 per cent of graduates from 2022-23 who responded to the survey reported that they were in work or further study, a single percentage point drop on last year. The 59 per cent in full-time employment is down from 61 per cent last year, while the proportion in unemployment is up a percentage point.

    However, if you believe that (on top of the general economic malaise) that generative AI is rendering entry level graduate jobs obsolete (a theme I will return to) you will be pleasantly surprised by how well employment is holding up. The graduate job market is difficult, but there is no evidence that it is out of the ordinary for this part of the economic cycle. Indeed, as Charlie Ball notes, we don’t see the counter-cyclical growth in further study that would suggest a full-blown downturn.

    There are factors that influence graduate activities – and we see a huge variation by provider. I’ve also included a filter here to let you investigate the impact of age: older graduates (particularly those who studied at a postgraduate level) are more likely to return to previous employment, which flatters the numbers for those who recruit more mature students.

    [Full screen]

    One thing to note in this chart is that the bar graph at the bottom shows proportions of all graduates, not the proportions of graduates with known destinations as we see at the top. I’ve done this to help put these results into context: though the sample may be representative it is not (as is frequently suggested) really a population level finding. The huge grey box at the top of each bar represents graduates that have not completed the survey.

    A lot of the time we focus on graduates in full-time employment and/or further study – this alternative plot looks at this by provider and subject. It’s genuinely fascinating: if you or someone you know is thinking about undergraduate law with a view to progressing a career there are some big surprises!

    [Full screen]

    Again, this chart shows the proportion of graduates with a known destination (ie those who responded to the Graduate Outcomes survey in some way), while the size filter refers to the total number of graduates.

    Industrial patterns

    There’s been a year-on-year decline in the proportion of graduates from UG courses in paid employment in professional services – that is the destination of just 11.92 per cent of them this year, the lowest on record. Industries that have seen growth include public administration, wholesale and retail, and health and social care.

    There’s been a two percentage point drop in the proportion of PG level graduates working in education – a lot of this could realistically put down to higher education providers recruiting fewer early-career staff. This is a huge concern, as it means a lot of very capable potential academics are not getting the first jobs they need to keep them in the sector.

    And if you’ve an eye on the impact of generative AI on early career employment, you’d be advised to keep an eye on the information and communication sector – currently machine generated slop is somehow deemed acceptable for many industrial applications (and indeed employment applications themselves, a whole other can of worms: AI has wrecked the usual application processes of most large graduate employers) in PR, media, and journalism. The proportion of recent undergraduates in paid employment in the sector has fallen from nearly 8 per cent in 2020-21 to just 4.86 per cent over the last two years. Again, this should be of national concern – the UK punches well above its weight in these sectors, and if we are not bringing in talented new professionals to gain experience and enhance profiles then we will lose that edge.

    [Full screen]

    To be clear, there is limited evidence that AI is taking anyone’s jobs, and you would be advised to take the rather breathless media coverage with a very large pinch of salt.

    Under occupation

    Providers in England will have an eye on the proportion of those in employment in the top three SOC codes, as this is a key part of the Office for Students progression measure. Here’s a handy chart to get you started with that, showing by default providers with 250 or more graduates in employment, and sorted by the proportion in the top three SOC categories (broadly managers and directors, professionals, and associate professionals).

    [Full screen]

    This is not a direct proxy for a “graduate job”, but it seems to be what the government and sector have defaulted to using instead of getting into the weeds of job descriptions. Again, you can see huge differences across the sector – but do remember subject mix and the likely areas in which graduates are working (along with the pre-existing social capital of said graduates) will have an impact on this. Maybe one day OfS will control for these factors in regulatory measures – we can but hope.

    Here’s a plot of how a bunch of other personal characteristics (age of graduates, ethnicity, disability, sex) can affect graduate activities, alongside information on deprivation, parental education, and socio-economic class for undergraduates. The idea of higher education somehow levelling out structural inequalities in the employment market completely was a fashionable stick to beat the sector with under the last government.

    [Full screen]

    [Full screen]

    Everything else

    That’s a lot of charts and a lot of information to scratch the surface of what’s in the updated graduate outcomes tables. I had hoped to see the HESA “quality of work” measure join the collection – maybe next year – so I will do a proxy version of that at some point over the summer. There’s also data on wellbeing which looks interesting, and a bunch of stuff on salaries which really doesn’t (even though it is better than LEO in that it reflects salaries rather than the more nebulous “earnings”) There’s information on the impact of degree classifications on activity, and more detail around the impact of subjects.

    Look out for more – but do bear in mind the caveats above.

    Source link

  • How funding policy has affected foundation year provision

    How funding policy has affected foundation year provision

    The coming academic year (2025-26) is the first in which classroom-based foundation year (FY) fees will be capped at a level below the higher level fee cap.

    For many who have experienced or supported foundation year tuition this is a retreat from a proven method for supporting people who have been failed by compulsory schooling in continuing their education. Critics would point to a few years of sustained growth, particularly in franchised provision, that is of more questionable quality and benefit.

    Foundation years are an anomaly in that they sit neither at level three (alongside other pre-university qualifications like A levels or the Access to HE Diploma [AHED]) or level four (alongside higher national diplomas, and the first years of both undergraduate degrees and higher technical qualifications). As such, they will face the worst of both worlds: level 3 funding (for classroom-based provision) covered by level 4 repayment rules and level 4 regulatory interventions.

    Why cut?

    In a ministerial statement that, in a dazzling display of self-awareness, actually used the phrase “fix the foundations” twice, the Secretary of State set a fee limit of £5,760 (the maximum current cost of an AHED, though in practice fees are nearer £4,000) as a maximum for “classroom-based” (non-STEM) foundation years on 4 November 2024.

    There’s a paragraph on the ostensible reasoning for this that is worth bearing in mind:

    The government recognises the importance of foundation years for promoting access to higher education, but they can be delivered more efficiently in classroom-based subjects, at a lower cost to students.

    This sounds more like an access-focused intervention rather than an attempt to cut provision, although it is rather divorced from the cost of provision. This is despite a 2023 report from IFF Research which noted that, based on the available data and on a series of interviews:

    the cost of delivering FY and the first year of a UG degree in the same subject area was found to be broadly similar

    Indeed, there were suggestions that FYs may actually work out more expensive, given the need for more contact time and the tendency towards smaller classes. We should leave aside for the moment the great difficulties we have in understanding the cost of higher education provision more generally, and note that the evidence base for this particular decision is weak. And there is, to be clear, a huge absence of meaningful data about FYs more generally – something DfE itself attempted (after a fashion) to remedy with an ad hoc data release in October of 2023.

    Review of routes

    If you were wondering where the impetus for this policy intervention originally came from, you have to look back to Philip Augar’s review of post-18 fees and funding back in 2019:

    We recommend that student finance is no longer offered for foundation years, unless agreed with the OfS in exceptional cases.

    In broad-brush terms, his argument was that foundation years did a similar job to some level 3 qualifications (specifically the Access to HE Diplomas) at greater cost: he characterised this as “enticing” underqualified students onto expensive four year degrees that may not be in their best interests.

    It was one of many largely arbitrary (and mercifully forgotten) Augar recommendations on higher education funding, to the credit of the previous government it was very much more aligned to addressing the value offered to students. As Michelle Donelan said in 2022:

    We also know that there are some people who need a second chance, an opportunity to get into higher education through a less conventional route. Often this route is through foundation years, but we think it is unfair that some of those who take advantage of this transformational opportunity have to pay over the odds. So we are reducing the fee limit for foundation years to make them more accessible and more affordable for those who need a second chance.

    Quantity and quality

    Okay. So, ignoring Augar, there’s never been an agenda to cancel or limit the availability of foundation years. The cuts are based (albeit on some quite shaky data) on reducing costs for students while maintaining affordability for providers.

    There is, however, widely reckoned to be a quality issue with some FYs offered via franchise or partnership arrangement – something which DfE did not appear to have considered in collecting data or commissioning reports.

    With the 2025 recruitment cycle mostly over, we now have the ability to assess how the sector has responded to these interventions via the Unistats dataset.

    As I never tire of telling people, Unistats is not perfect but it is useful. The big headline story we’ve tracked in recent years is a reduction in the number of undergraduate courses on offer overall – down 6 per cent between 2023 and 2024, and down a further 3 per cent between 2024 and 2025.

    Foundation supply

    But underneath this we lost one in ten courses with compulsory foundation years (courses that must start with a foundation year) between 2023 and 2024, and a further five percent between 2024 and 2025. The latter year also saw nearly 6 per cent of optional foundation years (courses that can include a foundation year if required) disappear.

    [Full screen]

    What about franchise provision? Using a unistats proxy (does the registered UKPRN match the display UKPRN, or is there an additional UKPRN for a different teaching location) it appears that the number of franchised compulsory foundation years grew from 90 in 2023 to 107 in 2024. This trend reversed between 2024 and 2025 (with numbers falling back below 80), but the number of optional franchised foundation years fell off a cliff after 2023: from 53 in 2023 to just 12 in 2024, and 13 in 2025.

    At a (top level) subject area the dominance of social sciences and business foundation years has declined a little – engineering foundation years have always been popular and have broadly persisted over the three years in question (and are the most popular by far at Russell Group providers). Among franchised provision business and management still dominates, but the last three years has seen a rise in the number of creative and engineering foundation years offered (largely with specialised providers as franchisers).

    Policy outcomes and policy intentions

    So, it all depends on how you take the impetus of the government’s change in foundation year policy. If it was a measure to reduce overall the number of classroom (non-STEM) foundation years it has had some questionable success, likewise if you believe it was a policy designed to limit the spread of franchised foundation year degrees.

    It is possible that it has driven savings within universities – allowing foundation years to be run more cheaply. This might explain things like the paradoxical rise in franchised foundation years in creative arts alongside a drop in non-franchised provision – smaller and less historically encumbered (and potentially lower quality) providers may be better at running these foundation years at a lower overall cost.

    Here’s who is offering these courses – and what they are.

    [Full screen]

    This defaults to FY provision in 2025 but is – with a bit of effort, a fascinating tool for looking over the complete three years of courses advertised to undergraduates.

    As usual, we are hugely short of data – the fact that unistats (of all things) offers the best lens on what is happening suggests that there’s nobody in DfE with an eye on what is going on.

    But rumours of the demise of the classroom based foundation year, or even the franchise model in providing this, are likely to be overstated. It remains to be seen, by whatever measure, whether the cut-price offer is as good.

    Source link

  • An Oklahoma Teacher Took a Leap of Faith. She Ended Up Winning State Teacher of the Year – The 74

    An Oklahoma Teacher Took a Leap of Faith. She Ended Up Winning State Teacher of the Year – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    OKLAHOMA CITY — Those who knew Melissa Evon the best “laughed really hard” at the thought of her teaching family and consumer sciences, formerly known as home economics.

    By her own admission, the Elgin High School teacher is not the best cook. Her first attempt to sew ended with a broken sewing machine and her mother declaring, “You can buy your clothes from now on.”

    Still, Evon’s work in family and consumer sciences won her the 2025 Oklahoma Teacher of the Year award on Friday. Yes, her students practice cooking and sewing, but they also learn how to open a bank account, file taxes, apply for scholarships, register to vote and change a tire — lessons she said “get kids ready to be adults.”

    “Even though most of my career was (teaching) history, government and geography, the opportunity to teach those real life skills has just been a phenomenal experience,” Evon told Oklahoma Voice.

    After graduating from Mustang High School and Southwestern Oklahoma State University, Evon started her teaching career in 1992 at Elgin Public Schools just north of Lawton. She’s now entering her 27th year in education, a career that included stints in other states while her husband served in the Air Force and a break after her son was born.

    No matter the state, the grade level or the subject, “I’m convinced I teach the world’s greatest kids,” she said.

    Her family later returned to Oklahoma where Evon said she received a great education in public schools and was confident her son would, too.

    Over the course of her career, before and after leaving the state, she won Elgin Teacher of the Year three times, district Superintendent Nathaniel Meraz said.

    So, Meraz said he was “ecstatic” but not shocked that Evon won the award at the state level.

    “There would be nobody better than her,” Meraz said. “They may be as good as her. They may be up there with her. But she is in that company of the top teachers.”

    Oklahoma Teacher of the Year Melissa Evon has won her district’s top teacher award three times. (Photo provided by the Oklahoma State Department of Education)

    Like all winners of Oklahoma Teacher of the Year, Evon will spend a year out of the classroom to travel the state as an ambassador of the teaching profession. She said her focus will be encouraging teachers to stay in education at a time when Oklahoma struggles to keep experienced educators in the classroom.

    Evon herself at times questioned whether to continue teaching, she said. In those moments, she drew upon mantras that are now the core of her Teacher of the Year platform: “See the light” by looking for the good in every day and “be the light for your kids.”

    She also told herself to “get out of the boat,” another way of saying “take a leap of faith.”

    Two years ago, she realized she needed a change if she were to stay in education. She wanted to return to the high-school level after years of teaching seventh-grade social studies.

    The only opening at the high school, though, was family and consumer sciences. Accepting the job was a “get out of the boat and take a leap of faith moment,” she said.

    “I think teachers have to be willing to do that when we get stuck,” Evon said. “Get out of the boat. Sometimes that’s changing your curriculum. Sometimes it might be more like what I did, changing what you teach. Maybe it’s changing grade levels, changing subjects, changing something you’ve always done, tweaking that idea.”

    Since then, she’s taught classes focused on interpersonal communication, parenting, financial literacy and career opportunities. She said her students are preparing to become adults, lead families and grow into productive citizens.

    And, sure, they learn cooking and sewing along the way.

    “I’m getting to teach those things, and I know that what I do matters,” Evon said. “They come back and tell me that.”

    Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: [email protected].


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • 60% of Teachers Used AI This Year and Saved up to 6 Hours of Work a Week – The 74

    60% of Teachers Used AI This Year and Saved up to 6 Hours of Work a Week – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Nearly two-thirds of teachers utilized artificial intelligence this past school year, and weekly users saved almost six hours of work per week, according to a recently released Gallup survey. But 28% of teachers still oppose AI tools in the classroom.

    The poll, published by the research firm and the Walton Family Foundation, includes perspectives from 2,232 U.S. public school teachers.

    “[The results] reflect a keen understanding on the part of teachers that this is a technology that is here, and it’s here to stay,” said Zach Hrynowski, a Gallup research director. “It’s never going to mean that students are always going to be taught by artificial intelligence and teachers are going to take a backseat. But I do like that they’re testing the waters and seeing how they can start integrating it and augmenting their teaching activities rather than replacing them.”

    At least once a month, 37% of educators take advantage of tools to prepare to teach, including creating worksheets, modifying materials to meet student needs, doing administrative work and making assessments, the survey found. Less common uses include grading, providing one-on-one instruction and analyzing student data.

    A 2023 study from the RAND Corp. found the most common AI tools used by teachers include virtual learning platforms, like Google Classroom, and adaptive learning systems, like i-Ready or the Khan Academy. Educators also used chatbots, automated grading tools and lesson plan generators.

    Most teachers who use AI tools say they help improve the quality of their work, according to the Gallup survey. About 61% said they receive better insights about student learning or achievement data, while 57% said the tools help improve their grading and student feedback.

    Nearly 60% of teachers agreed that AI improves the accessibility of learning materials for students with disabilities. For example, some kids use text-to-speech devices or translators.

    More teachers in the Gallup survey agreed on AI’s risks for students versus its opportunities. Roughly a third said students using AI tools weekly would increase their grades, motivation, preparation for jobs in the future and engagement in class. But 57% said it would decrease students’ independent thinking, and 52% said it would decrease critical thinking. Nearly half said it would decrease student persistence in solving problems, ability to build meaningful relationships and resilience for overcoming challenges.

    In 2023, the U.S. Department of Education published a report recommending the creation of standards to govern the use of AI.

    “Educators recognize that AI can automatically produce output that is inappropriate or wrong. They are well-aware of ‘teachable moments’ that a human teacher can address but are undetected or misunderstood by AI models,” the report said. “Everyone in education has a responsibility to harness the good to serve educational priorities while also protecting against the dangers that may arise as a result of AI being integrated in ed tech.”

    Researchers have found that AI education tools can be incorrect and biased — even scoring academic assignments lower for Asian students than for classmates of any other race.

    Hrynowski said teachers are seeking guidance from their schools about how they can use AI. While many are getting used to setting boundaries for their students, they don’t know in what capacity they can use AI tools to improve their jobs.

    The survey found that 19% of teachers are employed at schools with an AI policy. During the 2024-25 school year, 68% of those surveyed said they didn’t receive training on how to use AI tools. Roughly half of them taught themselves how to use it.

    “There aren’t very many buildings or districts that are giving really clear instructions, and we kind of see that hindering the adoption and use among both students and teachers,” Hrynowski said. “We probably need to start looking at having a more systematic approach to laying down the ground rules and establishing where you can, can’t, should or should not, use AI In the classroom.”

    Disclosure: Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to The 74.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • One year on from the election, Labour is losing the student vote

    One year on from the election, Labour is losing the student vote

    A year ago, Sir Keir Starmer secured the largest election victory in the UK since 1997.

    Labour won 411 seats and a 174-seat majority – and while Labour’s vote share across many constituencies dropped compared to national predictions, the UK was washed with red seats.

    Yet as we reflect on Labour’s time in government to date, it’s fair to say the journey has not been smooth.

    Starmer has already made several significant U-turns and has announced policy changes that haven’t landed well with voters – increases to national insurance contributions, reducing winter fuel payments and the “tractor tax”, to name a few.

    As public trust in the government continues to decline and disapproval rates rise, we are continuing to see a swing of support over to Reform UK – including in constituencies with large student populations.

    PLMR recently commissioned Electoral Calculus to conduct a new multi-level regression and post-stratification (MRP) poll to understand voting intentions and the current political attitudes of the public.

    Conducted in June 2025 with a sample size of 5,400 individuals, the results show a significant change in student voting patterns and beg the question – is Labour losing the student vote?

    Voting intentions

    If a General Election was called tomorrow, our data currently places Reform UK with 31 per cent of the vote share ahead of Labour with 22 per cent and the Conservatives trailing with 19 per cent. Reform UK is predicted to win an outright majority, securing 377 seats and a majority of 104.

    If a General Election was therefore called tomorrow, Nigel Farage would become the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.

    The data also shows changes in constituency MPs, including for ministers with responsibility for higher education like the Secretary of State for Education, Bridget Phillipson MP, according to the projections.

    While the sector is not unaccustomed to experiencing regular and quick changes in political governance – with six university ministers being in post in the last five years alone – the data does point to wider challenges for HE and the student vote.

    Reform the system

    Last year, the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) published a piece about whether students made a difference at the 2024 General Election – identifying the top twenty student constituencies and Labour’s vote share in these seats.

    We have analysed our polling to understand how these constituencies would fare in an election if it were called tomorrow – the results from which show the changing state of voting intentions in these areas.

    Of the twenty constituencies, over one-third (35 per cent) are predicted to move away from being Labour-held to either Reform or Green. This aligns with the national picture – voters are showing an ever-growing frustration with the current government and are therefore evolving their political affiliation.

    When we look specifically at the data for 18-24-year-olds – acknowledging the experiences of those beyond this age group who are currently studying in UK higher education – we continue to see this pattern of voting behaviour.

    For example, when asked who they would vote for if a General Election was called tomorrow, 24 per cent of 18-24-year-olds who indicated a likelihood to vote noted their intention to vote for Labour – with 23 per cent claiming they would vote for Reform UK and 21 per cent for the Green Party.

    The Conservatives followed with 13 per cent, the Liberal Democrats with 10 per cent and Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru with 1 per cent each.

    Interestingly, when we then consider the likelihood of voting among 18-24-year-olds we see further frustration with the current political system.

    For example, under half (41 per cent) of 18-24-year-olds responded that they would “definitely” vote in a General Election if it were called tomorrow, followed by 11 per cent who would be “very likely” to vote.

    Yet 21 per cent responded that they would “definitely not” or are “unlikely” to vote, and 16 per cent were unsure. That reveals an almost even split in the likelihood of voting among 18-24-year-olds. For a traditionally politically mobile population, this raises concerns about young people’s faith and willingness to engage with an election.

    Participants were then asked about the most important issues that will influence how they vote at the next General Election, with the top three issues for 18-24-year-olds being the cost of living and the economy (57 per cent), the National Health Service (NHS) waiting times, staffing and funding (45 per cent), and immigration and border control (25 per cent).

    While these generally align with trends in all other age groups,

    18-24-year-olds express greater concern for wider issues than other age cohorts. For example, 23 per cent of individuals in this age group reported being concerned about housing affordability and home ownership, 22 per cent about trust in politicians and government integrity, and 19 per cent about climate change and the environment.

    While some in other age cohorts reported concerns in these areas, the proportion is highest among 18-24-year-olds.

     

    So what does all of this tell us?

    It’s clear that Labour isn’t sustaining the support it built up during the General Election campaign last year, despite securing such an historic electoral victory, and this is true especially in student-heavy constituencies – with many already indicating their interest in seeing an electoral change.

    As economic challenges continue to create barriers within HE, with many institutions closing courses, implementing redundancy programmes and depending on international fees due to limited increases to domestic fees in line with inflation, government must be proactive in its engagement with the sector to recognise how challenges to the student experience can impact voter intention.

    With a growing national swing towards Reform UK, Labour must become aware of the challenges facing student voters if it wants to change the projected course of action and secure a second term in office.

    With lots of work to do ahead of 2029 – and only a year into this Parliament – student interests need to rise up the political agenda.

    Source link

  • Academics working 9 hours a day, 365 days a year – Campus Review

    Academics working 9 hours a day, 365 days a year – Campus Review

    Workforce

    Funding challenges, promotion issues and heavy workloads are linked, a separate survey found

    Erin MorleyJune 25, 2025Last Updated: June 25, 2025

    0

    A survey has found academics are working 3,256 hours a year, about double the Australian average, and are suffering worse anxiety and depression as a consequence.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Higher Education: 10 Questions from a Year 10

    Higher Education: 10 Questions from a Year 10

    1. How much harder are university courses than school? Do you have to be naturally gifted to excel at university? For example, can you do well in scientific or mathematical degrees through just hard work, or is there more to it? Do some courses require complex skills that you may not have from school, such as high levels of intricate practical skills for medicine or engineering, which you may not have needed for your GCSE or A-Level exams?
    2. How are lectures or seminars different to typical school lessons? How are you taught at university? How much of the learning process is taking notes, doing activities, researching, and so on? What is the environment like? For example, what are the class sizes like?
    3. How are you assessed at university? Most assessments at school nowadays are done in an exam at the end of the course. How different is the process at a university? For example, how much of it is exams, and how much is marked work throughout the course? Does this vary with the course?
    4. How do I pick the right course? Some people know exactly which career path they want to take, and this can be quite an easy decision for them, but many have no idea. What factors are the most important when picking a university and subject to study? Does a university’s prestige always correspond to its value to a student? 
    5. How do different courses vary from each other? Many seem to believe that some courses are easier or require less work than others, or some are much more enjoyable. Is this the case? How do contact hours with your professors differ from course to course?
    6. What are the advantages of different types of degrees? How do hands-on qualifications such as apprenticeships compare to standard degrees? What are the benefits of part-time degrees or ‘sandwich’ courses?
    7. What is life at a university like? What are the pros and cons of living in student accommodation? How much space and freedom do you have? Is it easy to get distracted from your studies when living amongst all your friends? What are the most important factors when choosing accommodation?
    8. What is the work-life balance at university like? I would assume that university courses require a lot more effort than GCSEs or A-Levels. Is that always true? How much more (or less) time do you spend studying than at school? Do you have to sacrifice a social life to get good grades? Can you easily get burnt out at university? Does this vary with the course? 
    9. Are campus or non-campus universities better? What are the advantages of each? Are they better for different types of people, or the different courses that they take? Are there noticeably different atmospheres between them? For example, do you get a better sense of community at a campus university, or do you grow more independent at a non-campus university?
    10. Is studying abroad a good idea? Most people stay in their home country to study. Is looking at universities in other countries a good idea, especially when doing a course such as languages? What are the advantages of studying abroad? Are single years abroad or exchanges a better alternative to this?

    * To declare an interest, Ben Hillman is the son of Nick Hillman, HEPI’s Director.

    Source link