Connect with us

Education

The Guardian view on university finances: stop chipping away at a crumbling system | Editorial

Published

on


It is a year since Sir Keir Starmer said that “crumbling” universities were in a worse state than Labour realised before the election. But having failed to come up with a meaningful plan to fix them, ministers now risk further harm. Changes to visa rules and a new levy on international student fees threaten to undermine the sector – with alarming knock-on effects in places where universities play an especially important economic and cultural role.

This is the main theme of a new report from the Centre for Cities. It points to towns and cities, mostly outside the south-east and including Plymouth and Hull, where universities have an outsize role in economic activity. In places such as Exeter and Dundee (where the university recently received a £40m bailout from the Scottish government), international student fees make universities the biggest exporters of services. The message to ministers is to pay attention to such connections. Economic growth and higher education policies need to be joined up.

The mess of university finances long predates this government. It was New Labour’s decision to fund the expansion of places by introducing fees, and indebting the next generation. The Tories were in favour of market mechanisms and allowed the value of fees to stagnate. They lowered the income threshold from which loans must be repaid but declined to fill the gap on university balance sheets. The sector’s heavy reliance on international student fees was the result. These now add up to a quarter of all revenue – up from 5% 30 years ago.

There are problems with this funding model, among them the questionable ethics of students from poorer countries subsidising the education of young Britons. But Brexit, international competition and regulations designed to cut immigration (by preventing students from bringing family members), have all harmed UK universities’ ability to attract students. Now, the Home Office plans to contact 130,000 international students and warn them against overstaying, or lodging asylum claims that lack “merit” – in what it says is an attempt to crack down on abuses.

Objections to such measures go beyond their impact on universities. Attempts to make the UK a less welcoming destination are part of an alarming rightward lurch on immigration by the government. But given that the UK has encouraged its higher education sector to maximise exports currently estimated to be worth £23bn by drawing in foreign students, the impact of this reversal on them needs to be addressed.

For universities it’s made worse because domestic student numbers peaked in 2021-22, and employer national insurance increases will more than cancel out the extra revenue from a small rise in tuition fees. The proposed levy on international student fees will further reduce income unless fees rise – although ministers say receipts will be reinvested.

The Centre for Cities’ work is valuable because it reminds us that universities are not ivory towers. As well as being home to libraries and laboratories, they are civic hubs with myriad ties to the towns and cities in (or near) which they are based. The collapse of any one of them would have severe consequences beyond its formal boundaries. This is not to say that nothing needs to change. About lifelong learning, universities must develop new ideas. But it is difficult to build on crumbling foundations. It’s time ministers explain how, and when, they will mend them.

  • Do you have an opinion on the issues raised in this article? If you would like to submit a response of up to 300 words by email to be considered for publication in our letters section, please click here.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Education

Why AI’s true power in education isn’t about saving time

Published

on



AI's purpose in education isn't to automate teaching, but to clear space for the creativity, experimentation, and human connection.

Key points:

As a former teacher, educator coach, and principal, I’ve witnessed countless edtech promises come and go. The latest refrain echoes through conference halls and staff meetings: “AI saves teachers X hours a week.” While time is undeniably precious in our profession, this narrative sells both educators and students short. After years of working at the intersection of pedagogy and technology, I’ve come to believe that if we only use AI to do the same things faster, we’re not innovating–we’re just optimizing yesterday.

The real opportunity: From efficiency to impact

Great teaching has never been about efficiency. It’s iterative, adaptive, and deeply human. Teachers read the room, adjust pace mid-lesson, and recognize that moment when understanding dawns in a student’s eyes. Yet most AI tools flatten this beautiful complexity into task lists: generate a worksheet, create a quiz, save time, done.

The question we should be asking isn’t, “How do I get through prep faster?” but rather, “What would I try if I didn’t have to start from scratch?”

Consider the pedagogical best practices we know drive student success: timely personalized feedback, inquiry-based learning, differentiation, regular formative assessments, and fostering metacognition. These are time-intensive practices that many educators struggle to implement consistently–not for lack of desire, but for lack of bandwidth.

AI as a pedagogical ally

When AI is truly designed for education–not just wrapped around a large language model–it becomes a pedagogical ally that reduces barriers to best practices. I recently observed a teacher who’d always wanted to create differentiated choice boards for her diverse learners but never had the time to build them. With AI-powered tools that understand learning progressions and can generate standards-aligned content variations, she transformed a single instructional idea into personalized pathways for 30 students in minutes, then spent her saved time having one-on-one conferences with struggling readers.

This is the multiplier effect. AI didn’t replace her professional judgment; it amplified her impact by removing the mechanical barriers to her pedagogical vision.

Creativity unleashed, not automated

The educators I work with already have innovative ideas, but often lack the time and resources to bring them to life. When we frame AI as a creative partner rather than a productivity tool, something shifts. Teachers begin asking: What if I could finally try project-based learning without spending weekends creating materials? What if I could provide immediate, specific feedback to every student, not just the few I can reach during class?

We’ve seen educators use AI to experiment with flipped classrooms, design escape room reviews, and create interactive scenarios that would have taken days to develop manually. The AI handles the heavy lifting of content generation, alignment, and interactivity, while teachers focus on what only they can do: inspire, connect, and guide.

Educators are the true catalysts

As we evaluate AI tools for our schools, we must look beyond time saved to amplified impact. Does the tool respect teaching’s complexity? Does it support iterative, adaptive instruction? Most importantly, does it free educators to do what they do best?

The catalysts for educational transformation have always been educators themselves. AI’s purpose isn’t to automate teaching, but to clear space for the creativity, experimentation, and human connection that define great pedagogy. When we embrace this vision, we move from doing the same things faster to doing transformative things we never thought possible.



Source link

Continue Reading

Education

What National Endowment for the Humanities cuts mean for high schoolers like me

Published

on


In April, the Trump administration announced drastic funding cuts to the National Endowment for the Humanities. Those cuts are harming education groups that rely on NEH grants — and students like me. 

Among the organizations that lost funding was National History Day, a nonprofit that runs a half-century-old competition engaging some 500,000 students annually in original historical research. It also provides teachers with resources and training. For many schools, the annual event is cemented into the social studies curriculum. 

The cuts sliced $825,000 from National History Day’s budget over several years, the group said. Meanwhile, more than half of its state-level competitions rely in part or entirely on funding from state humanities councils — which were also devastated by the cuts. 

Without that money, National History Day’s leaders say some states will likely have to cancel their programs altogether, and the national event will be scaled back, too. 

The loss of funding is discouraging to me, a high school senior in Texas who has witnessed the passage of legislation in my state and around the country in recent years limiting what can be taught in history and social studies classes. National History Day allowed me the chance to expand on what I felt was missing or inaccurate in my textbooks. The fact that there might no longer be a structured way for students to navigate incomplete curricula feels scary and is an intentional part of a broader effort by lawmakers to change how history is understood and what students can know about their past.

Related: Become a lifelong learner. Subscribe to our free weekly newsletter featuring the most important stories in education. 

At my sixth to 12th grade school in El Paso, Texas, History Day is an annual event that all middle school students participate in from September to January. They choose their topics and presentations and work to research and create a finished project as historians. 

In February, we hold a schoolwide competition, a highly anticipated event in which high schoolers serve as judges and mentors for middle school projects, ultimately deciding which students advance. High schoolers automatically advance. We have become known locally as an “NHD school” and fostered a community of students who love history.

I have participated in local and state History Day fairs since seventh grade, and the program allowed me to grow as a writer and researcher. In my junior year, I wrote a paper about British imperialism and how it led to violence during the 1947 Partition between India and Pakistan, and the lasting divisions today. 

I scoured dozens of oral histories of Partition survivors, including interviewing family members about their experiences. The self-guided nature of National History Day, the resources from my El Paso branch, and the support from my history teacher made my paper more than a project — but a connection with my Pakistani identity. I was able to go beyond just learning about the Partition, but also understanding how it shaped my family’s lives.

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

Many other students have had similar experiences with the program. 

National History Day “is a way to explore a niche or smaller area of history that I wouldn’t be able to as deeply in a classroom,” said Tessa Kipnis, a high school senior at Westtown School in Pennsylvania, who wrote her project on the Rwandan genocide and France’s role in it. “It’s helped me to expand upon my passion for storytelling and self-motivated research.” 

Added Kipnis: “It’s the student-led inquiry that is really going to dissipate with the funding being cut. And I feel with our current situation with the Department of Education and the funding and lack thereof, it’s hard not to view this funding being cut as part of a bigger piece.”

Many communities may be able to raise money to keep their local programs going. But even if my local or state National History Day programs continue, I know that not all communities will have the same resources. In turn, the national event will be missing vital perspectives of students, especially those from low-income and marginalized communities.  

Part of what makes History Day so special is interacting with other projects and building community with other students. Now, it feels exclusive.

Anita Kuriakose, a high school junior at Academies at Englewood in New Jersey, told me she shares those concerns. “[NEH funding cuts] may cause other students to be cut from the research experience, and not be able to gain more insight into historical perspectives. Students won’t be given the chance to think creatively or research more about history outside the classroom.” 

Related: Teachers struggle to teach the Holocaust without running afoul of new ‘divisive concepts’ rules

Lynne O’Hara, deputy director of educational programs at National History Day and a former social studies teacher, also told me that National History Day hinges on accessibility. “History Day is a program that should be available to all students,” she said.

“Sometimes in education, we’re just pushed to do so much and give students a little taste of all these things. But you get one topic that you really have control over and command over, and I think that really empowers students,” added O’Hara. “When I would ask my students on the last day, ‘What’s the thing you did that you were most proud of in this class?’ Ninety-nine percent of them said, ‘It was my History Day project.’” 

O’Hara told me the sense of community at my school around National History Day is common among participating schools. “When teachers participate over the years, not only does it change the way they teach, but it also creates these school cultures.” 

The idea that some students will not be able to experience History Day and the thrill that comes with choosing what they research is heartbreaking. Many history curricula already discuss the past in a way that doesn’t allow nuance, and National History Day gave me a path to explore the people, events and injustices that are traditionally ignored.

Organizations including the Oregon Humanities and the Federation of State Humanities Councils, the American Council of Learned Societies, the American Historical Association and the Modern Language Association have sued over the cuts. In August, a federal judge characterized the Trump administration’s abrupt cancellation of the grants as unlawful and allowed the case to proceed.

The theme for the 2025-26 National History Day event is “Revolution, Reaction, Reform in History.” I hope that in six months, I will be able to present at my local fair and that National History Day will continue to provide students nationwide with a necessary platform.

Marium Zahra is a high school senior and independent journalist based in El Paso, Texas. Her work covering social justice and youth has been published in outlets including The Nation, Prism Reports, Yes! Magazine and The Progressive.

Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at preston@hechingerreport.org

This story about National History Day was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.



Source link

Continue Reading

Education

We cannot afford to dismantle Head Start, a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns

Published

on


The first words I uttered after successfully defending my dissertation were, “Wow, what a ride. From Head Start to Ph.D.!” Saying them reminded me where it all began: sitting cross-legged with a picture book at the Westside Head Start Center, just a few blocks from my childhood home in Jackson, Mississippi. 

I don’t remember every detail from those early years, but I remember the feeling: I was happy at Head Start. I remember the books, the music, the joy. That five-minute bus ride from our house to the Westside Center turned out to be the shortest distance between potential and achievement. 

And my story is not unique. Every year, hundreds of thousands of children — kids whose names we may never know, though our futures depend on them — walk through Head Start’s doors. Like me, they find structure, literacy, curiosity and belonging.  

For many families, Head Start is the first place outside the home where a child’s potential is nurtured and celebrated. Yet, this program that builds futures and strengthens families is now under threat, and it’s imperative that we protect it. 

Years later, while training for high school cross-country meets, I’d run past the park next to the center and pause, flooded with memories. Head Start laid the foundation for everything that followed. It gave me structure, sparked my curiosity and built my early literacy skills. It even fed my short-lived obsession with chocolate milk.  

More than that, Head Start made me feel seen and valued. 

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

There’s a clear, unbroken line between the early lessons I learned at Head Start and the doctoral dissertation I defended decades later. Head Start didn’t just teach me my ABCs — it taught me that learning could be joyful, that I was capable and that I belonged in a classroom.  

That belief carried me through elementary school, Yale and George Washington University and to a Ph.D. in public policy and public administration. Now, as part of my research at the Urban Institute, I’m working to expand access to high-quality early learning, because I know firsthand what a difference it makes.  

Research backs up what my story shows: Investments in Head Start and high-quality early childhood education change lives by improving health and educational achievement in later years, and benefit the economy. Yet today there is growing skepticism about the value of Head Start, reflecting an ongoing reluctance to give early childhood education the respect it deserves.  

If Head Start funding is cut, thousands of children — especially from communities like mine in Jackson, where families worked hard but opportunities were limited — could lose access to a program that helps level the playing field. These are the children of young parents and single parents, of working families who may not have many other options but still dare to dream big for their kids.  

And that is why I am worried. Funding for Head Start has been under threat. Although President Donald Trump’s proposed fiscal 2026 budget would maintain Head Start funding at its current $12.3 billion, Project 2025, the influential conservative policy document, calls for eliminating the program. The administration recently announced that Head Start would no longer enroll undocumented children, which a group of Democratic attorneys general say will force some programs to close.  

Related: Head Start is in turmoil 

I feel compelled to speak out because, for our family, Head Start wasn’t just a preschool — it was the beginning of everything. For me, it meant a future I never could have imagined. For my mother, Head Start meant peace of mind — knowing her son was in a nurturing, educational environment during the critical developmental years. My mother, Nicole, brought character, heart and an unwavering belief in my potential — and Head Start helped carry that forward. 

My mother was just 18 when she enrolled me in Head Start. “A young mother with big dreams and limited resources,” she recounted to me recently, adding that she had “showed up to an open house with a baby in my arms and hope in my heart.” 

Soon afterward, Mrs. Helen Robinson, who was in charge of the Head Start in Jackson, entered our lives. She visited our home regularly, bringing books, activities and reassurance. A little yellow school bus picked me up each morning. 

Head Start didn’t just support me, though. It also supported my mother and gave her tips and confidence. She took me to the library regularly and made sure I was always surrounded by books and learning materials that would challenge and inspire me. 

It helped my mother and countless others like her gain insight into child development, early learning and what it means to advocate for their children’s future.  

Twenty-five years after those early mornings when I climbed onto the Head Start bus, we both still think about how different our lives might have been without that opportunity. Head Start stood beside us, and that support changed our lives. 

As we debate national priorities, we must ask ourselves: Can we afford to dismantle a program that builds futures, strengthens families and delivers proven returns? 

My family provides living proof of Head Start’s power.  

This isn’t just our story. It is the story of millions of others and could be the story of millions more if we choose to protect and invest in what works. 

Travis Reginal holds a doctorate in public policy and public administration and is a graduate of the Head Start program, Yale University and George Washington University. He is a former Urban Institute researcher. 

Contact the opinion editor at opinion@hechingerreport.org. 

This story about the Head Start funding was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter. 

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending