Inclusive Education Programs

Higher education drives two-thirds of all upward mobility in the UK – yet social mobility has stalled despite growing numbers of students. How can both be true? That paradox is at the heart of our new The Sutton Trust report, partnering with Carnegie Corporation of New York and led by Rachel Brooks at University of Oxford, exploring how higher education (HE) supports social mobility across high-income countries. In the UK, university accounts for around two-thirds of all upward mobility among those from non-graduate families (see graph). Graduates from these backgrounds have a 32% chance of reaching top-earner status — just below the 36% rate for those with graduate parents, and far above the 12% for their peers without degrees. The story is similar in the US. So, if more disadvantaged students are entering university, why hasn’t this translated into greater mobility? My take: As participation has expanded, the earnings premium associated with a degree has declined for disadvantaged students. University still boosts the likelihood of becoming a top earner – but not quite as much as in the past. Crucially, the highest labour-market returns are concentrated among graduates of the most selective universities, where access gaps remain wide. Meanwhile, disadvantaged students are more likely to attend less-selective institutions that play a vital role in widening opportunity, but typically deliver lower, although still good, earnings outcomes. At the same time, non-graduate routes have not kept pace. As more grads move into top-earning roles, those without degrees – still disproportionately from poorer families – risk being crowded out. Unless technical and vocational pathways are strengthened and properly rewarded, inequality may deepen as higher education grows. So what needs to change if we’re serious about driving social mobility at the system level? Three big priorities: 1. Close access gaps at the top. Redouble efforts not just to raise the numbers of disadvantaged students entering HE, but to close the still-wide gaps at the most prestigious institutions – those that deliver the biggest labour-market returns. 2. Boost outcomes across the system. Improve outcomes for students at less-selective universities, who are still more likely to come from disadvantaged backgrounds – ensuring their earnings gains are maximised. 3. Strengthen high-quality non-graduate routes. The fact that university dominates mobility reflects not only the success of HE, but the weakness of alternatives. Most disadvantaged young people still pursue non-graduate paths – and these must offer real opportunities for success. Until we act decisively, social mobility will remain stalled. Across high-income countries, young people from non-graduate families are still 45% less likely to become top earners than their privileged peers. That gap isn’t inevitable. Big thanks also to Benjamin Hart Golo Henseke David Mills, James Robson, and Xin Xu on the academic team.

A recent in-depth research project on college admissions has unveiled some striking insights about the connection between parental income and college attendance, particularly in the U.S.'s top-tier institutions. 🔍 Key Insights: 1. Selective private colleges exhibit a clear bias towards the wealthy. Those with parents in the top 1% income bracket have significantly higher attendance rates than their peers with similar academic qualifications. 2. Flagship public colleges, in contrast, maintain a more equitable admission system. In-state students across varying income levels attend at comparable rates. 3. Elite private colleges, especially Ivy Leagues, display even more pronounced disparities in admissions. For example, a student from the top 1% income tier is 1.5 times more likely to attend Harvard than another student with the same test score but from a different income group. 4. Legacy admissions, recruitment of athletes, and preferences for students from specific feeder schools often drive this advantage for affluent students. 5. Public universities generally uphold a different mandate and admission process, often not giving preferences based on legacy or donations. This leads to a more diverse student body in terms of economic backgrounds. 📉 Data Source: The comprehensive data, derived from college attendance records and federal income tax details, stems from Opportunity Insights, led by Harvard's @Raj Chetty. It provides a sweeping overview, covering 139 colleges, and juxtaposes student attendance against parental income. 💡 What It Means: Public institutions, by virtue of their larger size and distinct admissions mandate, present a more balanced socioeconomic student profile. Their role in offering equitable higher education opportunities to American students, irrespective of their economic backgrounds, is undeniable. Yet, the disparity in elite private colleges is undeniable. With over half of their student population hailing from the top 20% income bracket, there's a glaring underrepresentation of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. In a society that prides itself on equal opportunities for all, this disparity poses a pressing question: How can we make the path to top-tier education more equitable and reflective of society's diversity? #educationalequity #equalopportunities #nytimes #disparities #ivyleague

One of the worst features of bureaucratic systems is that the people making decisions often do not bear the consequences. They have no skin in the game. When a policy fails, other people pay the price. Consider admissions at UC Berkeley. UC stopped considering SAT and ACT scores in part to widen access for low income, first generation, and minority students. The resulting admissions numbers looked more equitable, and the policy was treated as a success. But removing a measure does not remove the underlying problem. Admissions are supposed to identify students who are prepared to succeed in a demanding program. You do not teach someone to swim by throwing them into deep, rough water and leaving them to sink or swim. The linked article shows what improved admissions statistics can conceal. Mission High School’s Berkeley acceptance rate rose sharply after UC stopped considering standardized tests. Yet many students arrived academically behind their peers, and retention and graduation rates were poor. The problem was not their ability or work ethic. Their high school had not provided the same academic preparation available to students elsewhere. The administration got statistics it liked, but students were placed in programs for which many had not been prepared, and faculty were left trying to teach students who needed far more support than the university had arranged to provide. The problem is not admitting disadvantaged students. The problem is treating admission as if it solves the inequality that left them underprepared. Real equity means fixing unequal preparation and giving students the support they need to succeed. It does not mean hiding evidence of inequality and declaring victory. Bad decisions have a price. Unfortunately, the people making those decisions are rarely the ones required to pay it. https://lnkd.in/eJAUKRFc

From 1% to real representation.  Do you really want more professors who look like me? In 2023/24, women held 32% of professor roles, while Black professors remained at 1%. Progress for some, stagnation for others. HESA Soure: https://lnkd.in/eSA7JVFr Here’s what needs to happen: -Targeted hiring & cohort appointments in under-represented fields -Transparent promotion criteria with equity checks at each stage -Workload equity (teaching/admin) so research time is protected -Sponsorship, not just mentoring named advocates for promotion rounds -Bias-aware panels with trained members and diverse shortlists -Retention & progression funds tied to clear milestones -Accountability: publish disaggregated data and set time-bound KPIs -Climate & belonging: zero tolerance for exclusionary behaviours; respond to survey insights If you’re shaping policy, budgets, or promotion processes, this is your call to act, and measure. #HigherEd #Equity #Inclusion #Professorship #BlackAcademics #Representation #Accountability #Belonging #Leadership

85% more students in higher education: can India make it happen by 2035? A recent report highlights a massive requirement: an 85% jump in enrolments over the next decade to meet the National Education Policy’s goal of achieving a 50% Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) in higher education by 2035. Today, our GER stands at ~28–30%. The gap is undeniable. But so is the opportunity. What NEP 2020 actually aims for   NEP isn’t just a numeric target. It’s a structural shift towards: ✔ Universal access ✔ Multidisciplinary learning ✔ Flexible academic pathways ✔ Digital-first education ✔ Quality, equity, and inclusion ✔ Research, innovation, and global competitiveness Where India stands today  ➜ Enrolments need to nearly double. ➜ Capacity must grow at 5.3% annually. ➜ State-wise disparities in access remain wide. ➜ The digital divide still limits participation. The challenge is huge, but transformational change rarely happens without ambition. How India can realistically reach 86.11 million enrolments To move from vision to execution, we need a multi-layered approach: 1️⃣ Build capacity beyond brick-and-mortar   Digital universities, hybrid learning, and credit-based online programmes must supplement traditional campuses. 2️⃣ Strengthen school-to-higher-education pipelines   Better transition rates, reduced dropouts, and targeted support for girls and underserved communities will expand the core learner base. 3️⃣ Expand access with equity at the centre   Regional imbalances must be addressed through community outreach, scholarships, remote-learning infrastructure, and inclusive institutional design. 4️⃣ Prioritise quality with scale   Faculty development, research culture, industry partnerships, and employability-driven curricula will ensure that enrolment growth translates into real outcomes. 5️⃣ Invest in people and technology   From AI-powered learning to robust LMS platforms, scaling education requires technology as the backbone, not an add-on. 6️⃣ Strengthen policy, governance, and funding mechanisms   Public-private partnerships, strategic autonomy, and increased investment in education will determine the speed of progress. If we align policy, technology, institutional readiness, and learner needs, the 86.11-million target becomes not just achievable but transformative. What will it take to move faster, and are we ready to mobilise the ecosystem? – Charu Jain #NEP2020 #HigherEducation #EducationReform #EducationIndia #FutureOfEducation #TransformingEducation #InclusiveEducation #India2035

When the same students keep falling through the cracks, it’s time to examine the cracks. Some students are working twice as hard just to be seen as average. I think of a student who was articulate, curious and consistently engaged in class. Their contributions showed deep understanding. Yet every timed exam told a different story. Anxiety tightened the clock, not their thinking. What looked like underachievement was actually a barrier, one we don’t always see unless we look beyond the grade. Then there’s another student, equally capable and motivated, who quietly opts out of school activities and enrichment opportunities. Not due to lack of interest but lack of access. Over time, that quiet absence compounds. Confidence dips. Belonging fades. Potential goes unnoticed. These students aren’t failing the system. The system is failing to notice what’s in their way. How can we support them: 📍Build flexibility into assessment where possible, without compromising standards 📍Normalise conversations around anxiety, learning needs, and support 📍Offer alternative ways for students to demonstrate understanding 📍Create systems that ensure access regardless of financial background 📍Notice patterns early and intervene before disengagement becomes invisibility Removing barriers to learning isn’t about lowering expectations. It’s about designing environments where understanding, opportunity and potential have room to show up. So here’s the question we need to sit with: What barriers are we expecting our students to quietly overcome alone? #ZippysClassroom #MakeTeachingGreat #InclusiveEducation #EquityInEducation

One in five college students today is raising a child. But the systems meant to support them still reflect outdated assumptions about who college is for and what students need to succeed. Student parents—overwhelmingly women and disproportionately women of color—comprise the “new majority” of adult learners who are navigating #HigherEd along w/ caregiving, full-time jobs, and serious financial pressure. Nearly two-thirds of student parents spend 40 hours/week caring for dependents (Trellis Strategies). The demographic cliff has finally forced institutions to look beyond the 18-year-old "traditional" student. What they’re finding is a massive, motivated population that’s too often unsupported. But there are bright spots and promising strategies that others can build on. 👩⚕️ At The College of Health Care Professions, #studentparents attend in-person classes just 1–2 times/week thanks to a #HyFlex model. They also get tailored advising & coaching. 🏫 Austin Community College's Parenting Student Project has improved retention, graduation, mental health, and financial stability. Over 95% of participants stay enrolled semester-to-semester. (Russell Lowery-Hart) 💡 The Single Moms Success Design Challenge—launched by Education Design Lab and supported by ECMC Foundation—aims to boost completion rates for single moms at #CommunityColleges by 30%. Early results are encouraging. 👉Bottom line: If we want to close equity gaps and boost credential attainment, we need to treat student parents as the high-potential, high-return population they are. And doing so will have outsize, multi-generational impact. That means: ✔️ Hybrid and flexible learning ✔️ Child care and housing supports (see: Beam, formerly Edquity) ✔️ Mental & behavioral health services (see: TimelyCare)  ✔️ Affordable, outcomes-based financing (see: Ascent) ✔️ Stronger workforce pathways If you're working on strategies to unlock #economicmobility and better serve #adultlearners —or want to start— I’d love to connect!

UGC 2026 Equity Regulations: Understand the Law. Protect Equity. Prevent Misuse. As academic leaders, our role is not to amplify polarisation, but to create understanding, safeguards, and trust. The UGC (Promotion of Equity in Higher Education Institutions) Regulations, 2026, notified in the Gazette, have triggered strong reactions. To respond meaningfully, we must consider three elements together: 📌 the Supreme Court’s direction, 📌 the intent of the regulation, and 📌 the risk of misuse—and how to prevent it. ⸻ Why this regulation exists These regulations were framed pursuant to repeated directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, asking UGC to move from advisory guidelines (2012) to enforceable regulations, particularly after serious complaints of discrimination and tragic student suicides. This is a court-mandated shift, not a discretionary policy move. ⸻ What changed from 2012 to 2026? 2012 Guidelines • Advisory in nature • Voluntary or weak enforcement • No real penalties 2026 Regulations • Statutory and legally enforceable • Mandatory Equal Opportunity Centres & Equity Committees • 24×7 helplines and monitoring • Accountability of heads of institutions • Penalties, including loss of UGC recognition 👉 Equity is no longer optional. ⸻ The controversy: removal of the “false complaint” clause The draft regulations included a provision to act against false or malicious complaints. This clause is absent in the final Gazette notification. Likely reasons: • Avoiding deterrence to genuine victims • Recognising power asymmetry on campuses • Aligning with Supreme Court emphasis on victim protection • Reliance on existing legal processes This was a deliberate policy choice, but it has raised valid concerns. ⸻ Preventing misuse—especially against general category students Equity and fairness must go together. Even without an explicit clause, misuse can be prevented through implementation: • Due process, not presumption • Neutral, trained, multi-member committees • Inquiry distinct from punishment • Reasoned, documented, appealable decisions • Strict confidentiality to prevent reputational harm • Use of existing legal provisions in proven malicious cases ⸻ The real challenge Not social justice vs fairness, but: ✔ equity with due process ✔ protection without fear ✔ accountability without surveillance culture ⸻ A call to stakeholders Students. Faculty. Administrators. Policymakers. Parents. 📌 Read the Gazette notification 📌 Understand the Supreme Court mandate 📌 Focus on implementation safeguards, not dilution 📌 Ensure dignity and trust for all stakeholders Laws fail not because of intent, but because of poor implementation. As education leaders, our responsibility is to ensure that UGC 2026 strengthens campuses—rather than divides them. #UGC2026 #HigherEducation #SupremeCourtOfIndia #EquityWithFairness #AcademicLeadership #UniversityGovernance

Over the years, I have watched many organizations invest significant time and energy into equity initiatives. Thoughtful workshops are delivered; committees are convened; and statements are drafted with care. And as my 12-year-old would say, “I PROMISE YOU,” the effort is often sincere. And yet, outcomes frequently remain uneven. The issue is rarely a lack of commitment. More often, equity has not been integrated into governance structures where authority, incentives, and accountability reside. When inclusion efforts operate alongside formal decision-making rather than within it, progress depends on individual champions. It advances when the right person is at the table and slows when attention shifts elsewhere. Sustainable change requires something sturdier. Governance determines how power circulates through an organization. It shapes who makes decisions, how performance is evaluated, how advancement pathways are structured, and how accountability is measured. When equity considerations are embedded at this level, they influence compensation models, succession planning, risk oversight, and operational strategy. They become part of how the institution functions rather than an initiative it supports. We see this dynamic take shape across sectors (hello #PatternRecognition). In post-secondary institutions, governance shapes how academic freedom, hiring practices, promotion pathways, and student experience are structured. In professional services environments, governance influences partnership models, client relationships, and reputational stewardship. The context differs, but the principle holds: inclusion must be integrated into the core operating structures of the organization. Embedding equity within governance strengthens institutional integrity. It signals that inclusion is not dependent on personality or goodwill but anchored in structure. Over time, that structural alignment shapes culture more effectively than any standalone initiative. When governance evolves, culture follows. And when culture is reinforced by structure, change endures. #TheSystemIsHuman #EDIB #IDEA

Free Tuition, Equal Outcomes: Lessons from Chile and Sarawak’s Bold Step Forward In 2016, Chile implemented a policy offering free university tuition to students from lower-income families, aiming to expand access to higher education and reduce socioeconomic disparities. A study published in the British Educational Research Journal by Oscar Espinoza and colleagues analyzed data from 12 Chilean universities, comparing students who received free tuition with those who paid full fees. Key Findings: • Academic Performance: Students benefiting from free tuition performed on par with their peers who paid tuition. • Course Pass Rates: No significant differences were observed between the two groups. These results suggest that eliminating financial barriers does not negatively impact student achievement. In fact, by leveling the playing field, free tuition policies can promote equity without sacrificing academic standards. Fast forward to 2026, Sarawak is set to implement a similar initiative. The Sarawak government has announced the Free Tertiary Education Scheme (FTES), which will fully sponsor higher education for eligible Sarawakians enrolling in state-owned higher learning institutions. This initiative aims to strengthen human capital through lifelong learning. Notably, the program extends to working individuals or those who have been previously in the workforce, allowing them to return for full-time studies. Eligibility criteria include holding the ‘K’ status in their MyKad to prove Sarawakian identity, enrollment as full-time students, and acceptance into the higher-learning institution. Moreover, more than 80% of courses offered by state-owned institutions such as Swinburne University of Technology Sarawak, University of Technology Sarawak (UTS), and Curtin University Malaysia will be tuition-free starting next year. This policy is purposefully designed to tackle the shortage of highly skilled workers, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM), and other professional disciplines. Implications: Sarawak’s initiative reflects a commitment to equitable access to higher education, drawing parallels with Chile’s experience. By removing financial barriers, both regions aim to foster social mobility and reduce inequality. The Chilean study provides empirical evidence that such policies do not compromise academic performance, suggesting that Sarawak’s approach could yield similar positive outcomes. As nations worldwide seek to build more inclusive education systems, Sarawak’s model serves as a compelling case study in balancing access, equity, and quality.