Author: admin

Time to address disability inclusion for university staff

Staff wellbeing is important for all organisations.

This is especially evident in higher education where research indicates that staff wellbeing impacts on the student experience, the metric that drives the sector.

In particular, reports demonstrate that stress and burnout is higher in university staff than in the general population, reflecting systemic factors such as high workloads and insecure contracts.

There has been a greater focus on this issue in recent years and staff wellbeing is acknowledged within the University Mental Health Charter. However, as the sector is squeezed financially, staff are being placed under even greater pressure to do more with less, further placing staff wellbeing at risk.

Such issues are likely to disproportionately impact those with protected characteristics – including disabled staff. However, nowhere is the need for staff support more apparent than in relation to equality and diversity, where the focus on student experience typically leaves a void for staff: For example, Universities UK notes:

We believe that anyone who would benefit from a university education should have access to one. But more than that, we want to support our members in creating inclusive environments where all students enjoy their experience and achieve their study and career goals.” (emphasis added)

But what about disabled staff?

Data from Advance HE reveal that 6.8 per cent of staff in higher education have disclosed a disability, with the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA) reporting this as 15,155 academic staff and 16,320 staff in non-academic roles (though the latter figure represents only those providers that complete this, optional part of the underlying HESA submission). Given that 24 per cent of working age adults have a disability and 17.3 per cent of students declare a disability, disabled staff are vastly under-represented in higher education. Representation is especially problematic for academics, as declarations are consistently higher among professional and support staff. It is likely that the rates of disabled staff are impacted by a range of factors including a reluctance to disclose, with sharing a disability likened to “coming out”.

Even the words “disclosure” and “declare” themselves suggest that sharing your disability is something to be concerned about; hence inclusive language is important in all discussions of disability. Disclosure is, of course, particularly important for staff with non-visible disabilities who may otherwise not have their impairments acknowledged. Being visible is also central to challenging ableism and collective advocacy.

Disabled staff face a number of barriers to inclusion. For example, line management support is inconsistent and disabled staff experience glass partitions and ceilings that limit both horizontal and vertical movement. It should, however, be emphasised that disabled staff are not a homogenous group.

Staff with a range of impairments are included within available data, including those disclosing specific learning differences and longstanding illness or health conditions. Further, some staff disclose multiple disabilities, impairments and conditions. Care should be taken to understand the experiences of staff with specific conditions or condition types and to acknowledge the extent to which experiences differ both across and within categories of disability.

Staff are legally protected by the Equality Act (2010) which requires workplaces to make reasonable adjustments for impairments. Negotiating this process can, however, be exhausting for staff who have to advocate for themselves and make a case for how the employer should operationalise the weasel word “reasonable”. Staff can be encouraged to disclose disabilities though an improved commitment to support, for example by universities being flexible in their application of accommodations and line managers being given training to appreciate that staff may have fluctuating conditions and that the same impairment can impact staff differently.

Wider support is also welcomed through government initiatives such as Access to Work, though accessing timely support is challenging in the UK context where reported wait times for assessment have increased significantly.

Disabled Staff Networks can be a core part of the support for workers with impairments; these can offer a place for social connection, an empathic ear, and a place where staff can share experiences and strategies to respond to workplace challenges. In addition, the National Association of Disabled Staff Networks (NADSN) connects and represents disabled staff networks; here members share resources, promote events and work together to bring about change. NADSN has been supporting disabled staff networks to drive real policy change within higher education institutions (HEIs) and, over the past decade, has responded to national consultations and contributed to policy development thus amplifying the voices of all disabled staff and providing challenge to colleagues leading equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI); there are excellent resources on their website for anyone wanting to learn more.

While NADSN’s work has been powerful for disabled staff, there is a lack of wider support from influential organisations to drive equality and diversity in relation to disability in universities. Important progress is being made in highlighting key issues relating to race and gender; in particular the Race Equality Charter and Athena Swan are pressing for transformative change. Although these schemes have not been without criticism, they have increased visibility of equality issues and championed a cultural shift. It is also important to recognise that intersectionality is highlighted within these charters, pertinent to staff who face more than one form of discrimination, such as disabled women in academia who benefit from support with progression. Nonetheless, a disability charter has been conspicuous by its absence.

Work to improve disability inclusion for staff in universities is taking place, for example Evans and Zhu’s (2022) Disability Inclusion Institutional Framework stresses an integrated approach to disability inclusion, and places equal emphasis on staff and student disability inclusion. They argue that if disability inclusion is to improve for students we need to start with staff. There are also excellent examples of work such as podcasts sharing experiences of disability in HE; these increase visibility of disability, help to connect the community, and promote learning from each other. Within research, disability is being addressedand there is greater focus in both policy and practice on the development of anti-ableist research cultures that enable disabled researchers and professional services colleagues. Also pressing for change is the University Mental Health Charter where wellbeing of staff is acknowledged within domain 3 and inclusivity noted as an enabling theme; the charter describes the challenges that staff have to navigate such as issues with adjustments, social barriers, and the impact of the built environment.

What’s next?

More focus and commitment is needed to respond to disability initiatives and drive impactful change. In 2022 colleagues who had met via NADSN began discussing how to respond to this need. Rather than creating a charter like the examples above, we set out to develop a mechanism to encourage universities to share best practice relating to the inclusion of disabled staff. RIDE Higher, standing for “Realising the Inclusion of Disabled Employees” in Higher Education, was born and today it is a core initiative of NADSN.

RIDE Higher is chaired by Melanie Best of the University of Wolverhampton, and run by and for disabled staff working in higher education; our steering group includes staff from HE institutions across the UK (Please connect with us through NADSN’s news page and social media channels). Its mission is to change the HE landscape and ensure that disabled employees are seen, valued, and can thrive.

RIDE Higher is committed to a research-informed approach to driving disability inclusion across the sector. Central to this initiative, is the need for better understanding the lived experience of disabled staff working in higher education. This is why RIDE higher is launched the first National Disabled Staff Survey (NDSS) during Disability History Month, which fittingly, focussed on “livelihood and employment” this year.

We invite all staff who are Disabled, Deaf, Neurodivergent and living with a long-term health condition in UK universities to share their experiences with us We welcome your perspectives, whatever your role in the university, whether your experiences of disability are visible or non-visible, whether you have a diagnosis confirmed or not, and whether you have disclosed your impairment or health condition to your university or not. We acknowledge that identity is complex and that you may have an impairment but not identify as disabled; we welcome your input however you choose to identify.

Acknowledgements: As authors we would like to thank those who provided peer feedback during the development of this article including the RIDE Higher steering group (Melanie Best, Hamied Haroon, Dan Goodley, Elisabeth Griffiths, Meredith Wilkinson, Gayle Brewer, and Anica Zeyen).

Source link

January 21, 2025
Rethinking the Financial Challenge of English Universities

By Adam Habib, Vice-Chancellor at SOAS University of London, and Lord Dr. Michael Hastings of Scarisbrick CBE, Chair of the Board of Trustees at SOAS.

The business model of English higher education is broken. We are not sure that this simple fact is sufficiently understood by all stakeholders in higher education. Do not mistake us: we all recognise the serious financial crises that most English universities are confronting. But this is not the same as understanding its causal features and what to do about it. The latest financial report from the Office for Students (OfS), released in mid-November, suggests 72% of English universities will be in deficit by the end of the academic year if they continue as is. It does not suggest much about how to address it. In fact, it does not even ask why the other 28% of universities are not in deficit. Is this because of their historical endowments or their specific student profile, or are they doing something the others are not?

But the OfS is not the only stakeholder reluctant to ask the hard questions: how we got here and what to do about it. This malady afflicts almost all other stakeholders. Let’s begin with the basics. Almost three decades ago, the British government committed to massifying education and ensuring that at least 50% of their school-leaving population had the privilege of going to university. The challenge was how to pay for it. They introduced fees, first as a small proportion of the actual cost in 2006, and then to cover the entire cost in 2012 (at least for Business degrees, Humanities and the Social Sciences). The popular backlash this generated, especially since almost all universities rushed to implement the maximum permitted fee, led the politicians to subsequently avoid increasing fees in line with inflation. The net effect was that within a few years, the actual cost of university education outstripped the fees.

The solution followed by most universities was to increase international fees and their intakes of foreign students. To attract more of these students, universities borrowed heavily, built shiny new facilities, expanded their pastoral services and grew their student numbers. This was assisted in part by the removal of student number caps on home students. Costs increased, and to cover these, more income was required, which led to even higher international fees and more foreign students.

All higher education stakeholders were complicit in this. The Government initially supported this solution because it obviated the need for more government subsidies and enabled foreign currency earnings. Vice-chancellors and higher education executives deluded themselves in thinking that the international postgraduate masters students came to the UK universities because of their institutions’ research reputations, even though survey after survey demonstrated that these students were increasingly attracted by the prospect of employment prospects and the post-study visa. Unions, both academic and professional service ones, acquiesced given that these international fees enabled higher salaries and subsidised greater research time for academics. There was even broader public support as it contained the fees for domestic students.

Until of course, a new breed of ethnically oriented right-wing politicians mobilised on the chauvinistic instinct of there being too many foreigners in Britain. This first manifested in Brexit, then China and subsequently all foreigner-bashing, and finally visa restrictions on dependents. The net effect was a dramatic fall in applications and enrolment of international students, with the ensuing financial crisis of universities in the UK. A positive spin-off of this state of affairs is that almost all stakeholders now recognise the flimsy fiscal foundation of universities. The negative feature is that it still has not generated an honest reflection and behaviour on the part of all stakeholders or a sufficiently deep deliberation on the business model of higher education in the UK and what to do about it.

Take, for instance, the stance of government. The Secretary of State for Education announced in the House of Commons on 4 November 2024 the first university fee increase for undergraduate students in eight years. Yet the Chancellor had increased the Employer National insurance a few days before from 13.8 to 15 percent. The net effect is a further loss of £59 million for universities in the UK from the 2025/26 academic year.

Neither is the debate in universities more imaginative on what to do about the financial crisis and the business model of higher education. University vice-chancellors and Universities UK have recognised the need to revert to greater public funding for higher education, although there is a broad recognition that this is an unlikely solution in the near future given the fiscal crisis of the state. They have suggested through individual vice-chancellor advocacies that universities would require the financial equivalence of £12,000 fees, but again, almost all recognise the political challenge of achieving this during a cost-of-living crisis. The reluctant fallback back? A retreat to international student fees by retracting or reforming the visa restrictions, thereby allowing for further increases in income from foreign students.

But this is just not a feasible solution for the long term. Higher education in the UK has priced itself out for ordinary international students looking solely for a higher education qualification. The only rationales for postgraduate master’s students accessing UK universities, given their high-cost structure, are either post-study employment or the learning of a specific qualification not available in alternative higher education settings. The former is increasingly becoming politically unfeasible, and the latter is not a sufficiently large market to financially sustain British universities.

This is in addition to the moral and commercial challenges of this business model. As we have suggested elsewhere, there should be serious objections to this model, which is effectively directed towards sucking out resources from countries far more impoverished than the UK, to essentially cross-subsidise domestic citizens. Moreover, it accelerates the brain drain, weakening institutional capacities and human capabilities in the majoritarian world at precisely the moment when such societies require an enhancement of capabilities to address the local manifestations of transnational challenges like climate change, pandemics, food insecurity and war.

Where to go from here, then? First, there is an urgent need for an honest conversation led by government without any smoke and mirrors on the fiscal latitude available to it and the consequences thereof for the financing of higher education. Second, there is a need for a thorough reflection on what has fiscally worked, and what has not in the recent past on the management and executive stewardship of universities in the UK. Third, there is a need for an honest discussion in universities on the fiscal viability of excessively small classes and unduly low staff-student ratios, 40% research time for all teaching and research contracts, and the importance of institutional differentiation in mandates and how these should speak to the former two elements. Finally, we need to think through the limits of cross-subsidising from international student fees and what new opportunities are opening up globally for fulfilling our institutional mandates.

One opportunity, that has not been sufficiently explored by British universities, is how to assist in the education and training of hundreds of millions of young people in the majoritarian world. This is an urgent necessity not only for the economic development of these societies but also for enabling societies across the world to manage the transnational challenges of our time, without which we may not survive as a human species. Obviously, this will not be possible on the existing cost structures or business models of higher education. But partnering with universities in the Global South, involving the joint development of curricula, co-teaching and co-assessment, could bring down cost structures of higher education. This could then feed into more reasonable fees being charged, thereby opening up new higher education markets for British universities. Cost structures could also be reconsidered in relation to scale. The more students there are within a program, limited to pedagogical requirements, the more cost per student is reduced, and the more competitive fees can become. New technologies involving online teaching and global classrooms, many of which were pioneered for our own students during the Covid-19 Pandemic, can make this equitable transnational teaching even more feasible.

Some forms of transnational teaching are already underway in UK universities. But these often take the form of online learning, overseas campuses and franchise models of higher education, all of which are only directed at obviating the financial challenges of British universities. While we would be reluctant to take rigid positions against these models – they may indeed be relevant in certain contextual circumstances – we do hold that the equitable partnership model identified above holds the pedagogical benefit of enabling learning that is both globally grounded and locally relevant. It also does not pit the financial security of British universities against that of universities of the majoritarian world. Essentially, these equitable teaching partnerships can pioneer one element of a new business model that enhances collaboration and mutual benefit for universities in the UK and the majoritarian world.

Such a model of higher education could also become part of the soft power arsenal of the UK. Increasingly, government has broached the idea of a global Britain. This would be a Britain recognised as a collaborative partner of other nations, enabling them to achieve their national objectives, while enabling itself to be economically competitive and socially responsive to both its own citizens and its international obligations. An equitable orientation to its higher education system would assist this strategic national agenda.

We are by no means suggesting that equitable transnational learning should replace all other forms of teaching in UK higher education. This would be unrealistic and, frankly, would violate the responsibility of British universities to be nationally responsive. Instead, we recommend that in the pursuit of a financially sustainable higher education system, a diverse set of income strategies – subsidy, domestic fees, international fees, ODL, executive education and equitable transnational educational partnerships – is required. This final strategy not only opens up a new higher education student market at a different price point but also enables us to square our imperative to be financially sustainable with our commitment to be socially and globally responsive.

The strategic challenge of managing higher education institutions in the contemporary era is the management of tensions between competing imperatives. It also requires thinking outside the box, innovating and finding new markets, and servicing these at new price points, while continuing to meet the social obligations implicit in the mandate of universities. This is what we believe is sometimes missing from the deliberations on making British universities financially sustainable. The debate can only be enriched and the recommendations made more robust if we are prepared to think beyond what we are comfortable with.

Source link

January 21, 2025
7 Trends to Inform Online Program Expansion in 2025

As I reviewed the new IPEDS data release last week, I was looking for the data and intelligence that would be most helpful for online enrollment leaders to have in hand to underpin and inform this year’s success. These points, in combination with key trends that became clear in other sources I reviewed late last year will enable online leaders to succeed this year as well as plan for the future.

Note that I am not discussing changes that may emerge after January 20, but I will be doing so after a long talk I have scheduled with Cheryl Dowd from WCET who tracks online regulations and with whom I will be co-presenting at the RNL National Conference this summer.

So, what do you need to know?

1. Online and partially online enrollment continue to dominate growth.

Four years after the pandemic, more students each year are continuing to decide to enroll in either fully or partially online study. While year-over-year change in every post-pandemic year has seen some “return to the classroom,” when compared with pre-pandemic enrollment (2019), 2.3 million more undergraduates and 450k more graduate students are choosing fully or partially online study. Perhaps more important, 3.2 million fewer undergraduates and 288k fewer graduate students are choosing classroom-only programs. Institutions seeking to grow enrollment must develop processes to quickly determine the best online programs to offer and get them “to market” within 12 months.

2. Institutions seeking to grow online enrollment are now competing with non-profit institutions.

As recently as five years ago, your strongest competition came from for-profit institutions. In some ways, these institutions were easy to beat (excepting their huge marketing budgets). They had taken a beating in the press to the extent that students knew about it, and they were far away and unknown. Today, institutions face no less of a competitive environment, but the institutions dominating the scene – and most likely a students’ search results – are national non-profits. These institutions are, of course, not local so they aren’t well known, but they have not been through the scrutiny which eroded interest in the for-profits. Student search engine results are also now filled with ambitious public and private institutions seeking to “diversity their revenue streams.” As such, institutional marketers need to adjust their strategies focused on successfully positioning their programs in a crowded market, knowing that they can “win” the student over the national online providers if they ensure that they rise to the top of search results.

3. Online enrollment growth is being led by non-profit institutions.

Seventeen of the 20 institutions reporting the greatest growth in online enrollment over the last five years are nonprofit institutions—a mix of ambitious public and private institutions and national non-profits. What is more, the total growth among institutions after the two behemoths far exceeds Southern New Hampshire University and Western Governors University. These nimble and dynamic institutions include a variety of institution types (with community colleges well represented) across the higher education sector. Institutions seeking to grow online enrollment should research what these institutions are offering and how they are positioning their programs in the market and emulate some of their best practices.

4. New graduate program growth is dominated by online/partially online offerings.

In 2024, a research study by Robert Kelchen documented growth in the number of available master’s programs in the U.S. over the last 15 years. Not only did Kelchen document a massive expansion in availability (over the 15-year period, institutions launched nearly 14,000 new master’s programs on a base of about 20,000), but also that the pace of launching online or hybrid programs dramatically outpaces classroom programs. This rise in available offerings far outpaces the rate of growth of the online student market, resulting in significantly higher levels of competition for each online student. Institutions seeking to grow their online footprint must ensure that they fully understand both the specific demand dynamics for each of their programs and the specifics of what online students want in their program. A mismatch on either factor will inhibit growth.

5. Online success is breeding scrutiny of outcomes.

We all know something of the power of social media today. This was reinforced for me recently by an Inside Higher Education story which focused on the 8-year rates of degree completion among the biggest online providers. The story was triggered by a widely read Linked IN post and followed up by numerous other stories and posts and comments across the platform. This is just the kind of exposure that is most likely to generate real scrutiny of the outcomes of online learning – which were already taking shape over the last year or more. In fact, this focus on outcomes ended up as one of the unfulfilled priorities of the Biden Education Department. I have long said that institutions seeking to enter the online space have an opportunity to tackle some of the quality issues that first plagued the for-profits, now challenge the national online non-profits, and will confront others if not addressed soon.

6. Key preferences for online study have been changed by the pandemic.

RNL’s own 2024 online student survey surfaced dozens of important findings that online leaders should consider as they chart their course. Two findings stand out as reflecting profound changes in online student preferences, and both are likely the result of pandemic-era experiences. First, all but 11 percent of online students told us that they are open to at least some synchronous activities in their program, likely the result of hundreds of online meetings during the pandemic. Similarly, they told us that the ideal time to communicate with recruiters/counselors from online programs is now during business hours. This is also likely to be related to the pandemic period, in which millions of people working from home began to regularly contend with some personal business during their day. Institutions should assess both of these factors as they think through student engagement (to address point #5), and the intense competition of the online space (to address point #3).

7. Contracting institutions are not focusing on online enrollment.

Finally, we return to the new IPEDS data to see that institutions that have experienced the greatest enrollment contraction over the last five years demonstrate almost no access to fully online study (dark blue lines in the chart below), and only limited access to programs in which students can enroll in both online and classroom courses (light blue lines). Even where there has been some online or partially online growth, these efforts have not been given adequate attention to counterbalance contraction among students enrolled in classroom-only programs (green lines). These data again make it clear (as stated in point #1) that institutions facing classroom-only contraction must either amend their goals to account for reduced enrollment or determine which online or hybrid programs would be most attractive to students in their region and then ensure that such offerings are visible in a highly competitive higher education market.

Explore more at our webinar

Join us for a deeper dive into trends during our webinar, 5 Enrollment Trends You Need to Know for 2025. This discussion with me and a number of my RNL expert colleagues will look at research and trends that should shape strategic and tactical planning over the next 12 months. Particularly, as we enter what has been identified as the first year of the “demographic cliff,” data-informed decision-making will be more important to enrollment health than ever before. Register now.

Source link

January 21, 2025
Understanding Digital Marketing Strategy and Costs to Effectively Budget for Growth

In today’s digital-first world, higher education institutions are increasingly turning to digital marketing to educate, engage, enroll, and retain students. However, one of the key challenges that the campus decision-makers face is understanding the potential costs associated with digital marketing and how to effectively budget for growth.

As someone deeply immersed in the world of digital strategy, I often find myself having the same conversation with campus leaders: how do we set realistic expectations about what it really costs to do effective digital marketing? And more importantly, how do we directly link those costs with your institution’s growth objectives? In this blog, I will highlight the key data-driven strategies for assessing ROI and how these strategies inform a strategic budget plan that strengthens your institution’s overall portfolio and drives sustainable growth.

The importance of setting realistic expectations

Success in higher education landscape, particularly when managing a large portfolio, is driven by a disciplined, metrics-oriented approach. From my experience, the institutions that excel are those that rely on crisp numbers, rigorously evaluate their plans ahead of time, and understand the value of projections and estimations. By leveraging detailed forecasts and aligning resources accordingly, we can navigate the complexities of enrollment growth with precision and confidence, always mindful that incremental progress, evaluated at every stage, is key to achieving long-term goals.

Setting expectations means recognizing that significant results take time and careful planning. This translates to setting realistic growth expectations based on an understanding that reaching your enrollment goals will take multiple academic terms. When I am collaborating with our partners, we adopt a structured five year growth trajectory where Year 1 serves as the “foundational” phase, establishing the core infrastructure and strategic alignment. Year 2 is focused on “scaling,” optimizing initial investments to drive measurable growth. Years 3 and beyond are dedicated to “sustained value creation,” with a continuous focus on refining processes and maximizing returns through ongoing optimization and strategic enhancements. This phased approach allows for calculated risk-taking and ensures a clear path to long-term, scalable success.

Once we’ve set realistic expectations for our digital strategy, it’s crucial to ensure that every tactic -whether paid digital marketing, SEO, or creative content, all work together seamlessly to achieve your goals. These elements don’t function in isolation; rather, they complement each other to drive greater visibility, engagement, and, ultimately, enrollments. A well-rounded strategy that integrates SEO to boost discoverability, paid digital marketing for targeted reach, and compelling content to engage prospective students will create a strong foundation for success. By understanding how these components interrelate, you’ll be better equipped to assess their effectiveness and make data-driven adjustments as needed.

From here, let’s dive into how digital strategy translates into budget planning and ROI. Understanding the interconnectedness of these key elements will help you allocate resources more efficiently and set a clear path for measuring the success of your investments.

Connecting strategy to ROI and crafting a strategic budget plan for growth

The connection between strategy and ROI is grounded in the ability to align your digital marketing efforts with measurable outcomes, and it all starts with the establishment of clear and precise enrollment goals. Prioritizing top programs ensures that marketing resources are directed toward the areas with the highest demand or growth potential, improving overall program performance. The right channel mix is crucial to reaching the right audience, maximizing visibility, and efficiently converting interest into applications. Monitoring data and optimizing it in real-time ensures that marketing efforts are continuously adjusted for maximum effectiveness, enhancing the likelihood of meeting targets and improving ROI. Finally, effective allocation based on application timing, seasonality projections, and market revisions allows for strategic adjustments in campaigns to account for fluctuating demands, ensuring marketing spend is optimized throughout the enrollment cycle. Collectively, these elements create a robust framework for maximizing ROI, ensuring that marketing investments lead to increased applications, conversions, and, ultimately, student enrollment.

How do you craft a budget that supports your growth goals? Whether you are the decision-making authority or a decision influencer, here are the essential steps to craft a budget plan that aligns with your institution’s growth objectives and maximizes your enrollments:

1. Define your enrollment goals in detail

When you think of marketing costs, what comes to mind first? How much will it cost to meet your enrollment goals, right? So, your first step in planning a budget is to have your overall Enrollment goal (and, for graduate or online programs, a goal for every program) in front of you. With the goal (or program-level goals) in hand, determine what that means in terms of percentage growth from the current state. You may also have subsidiary goals like enhancing brand awareness, building more brand equity, or engaging alumni. If these are going to be part of your plan, they should also have tangible goals for what you are trying to do. Defining your enrollment goals helps you allocate your budget accordingly and measure ROI effectively.

STRATEGY TIP

Develop a “Goal Mapping” Scenario or you can say a Reverse Funnel (for each program). After you set enrollment goals (for the year or the term) you then need to understand the lead to enroll ratio. This will help you work backwards to determine how many accepted apps/admits will be needed, how many completed apps, how many submitted apps, and finally how many qualified leads will be needed. Based on the program category, dig deeper into what the Cost per Leads (CPL’s) are, based on industry benchmarks. That will help you calculate the estimated ad spend needed to generate those qualified leads.

A note on program-level goals: If you don’t have program-level enrollment goals for your online and graduate programs, finalize those as soon as possible. Until then, focus marketing on building brand awareness. It is likely that people in your own backyard could be less familiar with your program than you may think they are. Brand advertising will ensure that awareness rises so that when you have your program goals, you can build your campaigns on a higher level of familiarity with your institution. However, given that Google reports that 75 percent of graduate and online program searches don’t include an institution name, remember that branding alone will not be enough to fill your classes.

Institutional example: When we began work with one of our partners nearly two years ago, they had not established program-level goals. So, in year one, we focused the largest portion of the budget on institutional awareness, with mini-campaigns focused on specific programs of importance to the institution. By the beginning of the second year, the institution had set program-level goals based on a greater understanding of market conditions. At that point, we began transitioning our campaigns to focus (ultimately 80 percent of the budget) on the programs with the “mini campaign” focused on continuing the brand equity efforts.

2. Prioritize your programs

It is highly unlikely that most institutions can spend marketing dollars on every program they offer. This means that in order to maximize the ROI of your marketing budget, you must prioritize your programs. But how? Take a data-driven approach, prioritizing programs for which you a) know there is market demand both among students and employers, and b) understand the competitor environment. These are the “cash cows” that will demonstrate the best ROI on your marketing spend and support the programs that, while not demonstrating significant market demand, are critical to the institutional mission.

STRATEGY TIP

Spreading a $100K marketing budget across 15 -20 programs will only dilute the ad spend, by spreading it too thin. Instead, identify the top 5-7 programs that have the greatest market demand and focus on them. Note that sometimes, the programs that seem most in need of a “marketing boost”, really aren’t. They are struggling because their market demand situation is not what it once was.

Institutional example: A partner institution recently commissioned RNL to conduct a Program Prioritization and Positioning study focused on their current program mix. The goal was to take a data-driven deep dive into 12 programs vying for marketing dollars, with a focus on understanding student demand and employer needs in the region. The results indicated that while one of the programs they had planned to prioritize came out on top, two others that they hadn’t been planning to focus on also demonstrated strong demand, and one of the programs that they had questioned was confirmed as having weak local market demand.

3. Determine your channel strategy

Once you have prioritized your programs for marketing ROI, setting your channel strategy is pivotal. Personas (at the graduate and online levels developed for each program) dictate the channels on which you should focus. You don’t want (or need) to be present on every single channel just for the sake of “eyeballs.” Be mindful of the budget and how best to use it in order to maximize return, which can only be accomplished if you apply the personas that will inform you where your target student spend their “digital time.” So, for example, not every program may benefit from marketing on LinkedIn. Since it is expensive with a $10 minimum ad spend, a persona-based approach may indicate that other platforms are a much better match. But you can only do this if you know the characteristics of your audience, and that comes from the program personas.

STRATEGY TIP

The critical element in increasing marketing ROI is to engage the right students at the right time on the right channel, without spreading your budget too thin. In contrast, being too invested in any single channel exclusively or too long is also almost always the wrong strategy. There is always a point of diminishing returns as students cycle to different platforms, and you want to be sure to know where to go next before you approach that point by being able to tap into the next new thing.

Institutional example: One of our prestigious campus partners was struggling with recent market shifts that resulted in an overall decline in applications. We dug into market and performance data to help them prioritize programs that had the highest lead-to-enroll ratios, lowest cost per acquisition, and good search volume with an eye to increasing marketing ROI and overall success. This approach not only helped regain their momentum at the top of the funnel but also generated strong conversion volume that exceeded goals and sustainably reduced cost per conversion. These changes benefited not only the marketing operation but were also felt by the call center, and further down the funnel where we saw an increase in applications.

Talk with our digital and enrollment experts

We’re to help you find the right digital marketing and recruitment strategies. Let’s set up a time to talk.

Contact us

4. Analyze data regularly and optimize with agility

If (quality) content is king, data is queen! Sustained growth can only occur when data and insights are continuously incorporated into strategy. Analyzing performance data is crucial to understanding which programs and channels are yielding the largest numbers of applications and enrollments and, hence, generating the best return on ad spend (ROAS). This type of analysis allows for a data-driven approach to strategic pivots on how the marketing budget is allocated to ensure the highest ROI (or ROAS) across channels and the program portfolio. As the cost of marketing has risen, so has the need for marketers to make an effective case to senior leadership for additional marketing dollars. You can only do this if you can demonstrate that you are the best possible stewards of current resources.

STRATEGY TIP

As you continue to increase your campaign efficiency and success with the focus on ROI, your cost per lead will gradually start to go down – on average by 5 – 10 percent in year 2 and beyond. So, campaigns can generate more qualified leads efficiently over the years (for the same cost), thereby maximizing the return on your ad spend (ROAS). This helps you not just grow but also helps in building forecasts and projections for growth compounded over several years – and it also provides a strong ROI-driven basis for any requests you may need to make for additional funds elsewhere.

A note on analytics platforms: The fact that resources have become increasingly scarce at the same time as marketing costs have skyrocketed has resulted, out of necessity, in more sophisticated tracking of ROI. If your internal systems are set up in the correct manner (or if you are working with a strategic partner like RNL) every lead can be tracked to its source, thereby allowing for the assessment of just how effectively each marketing dollar has been used.

Institutional example: A prestigious campus partner was having challenges with converting leads to applications and enrollments. We reviewed their full-funnel data (compete with attribution percentages) and realized something wasn’t working. The top of the funnel was healthy, with good lead volume. However, down the funnel we saw that a disproportionate number of leads were not converting to apps and enrollments. As a result of the review and data analysis, we made a bold strategic pivot to shift significant budget allocations to the channel (Google search) that we could see was producing the greatest numbers of applications and enrollments. Without the data, solving the challenge would have been impossible. With the data, it was easy. Since we made this change, applications, and enrollments have consistently increased each academic period.

Making sure that the top of the funnel strategy is guided by down funnel numbers is the KEY! Effective strategy must evolve through ongoing optimizations with thoughtful placements across diverse media platforms that are informed by performance data. Remember that the path to enrollment is rarely linear and an integrated media strategy allows you to provide a personalized message in the right place at the right time.

5. Understand and account for seasonality/application timings/expansion

Another aspect of the dynamic nature of the marketing process relates to the seasonality of lead flow – and subsequent enrollment. This requires flexibility to adjust your strategies based on real-time performance data collected throughout the year. For any program or institution, there are times of the year during which more or fewer leads are generated. Fully understanding these trends takes time; you can make preliminary judgments on when the lead volume is highest and lowest within one year, but multiple years will allow for greater certainty. As you build your capacity to track lead generation – and conversion throughout the funnel – by program and source – you can create visualizations that map these factors by month. They can be used to build monthly budget allocations like those presented below.

Institutional example: For one campus partner we used the annual performance data in an innovative way. Our data insights indicated that there was more market share to capture, by having the program leverage low cost per conversion at the top of the funnel at certain points in the year, and low cost per acquisition at the bottom at other points of the year. There was time to scale up both applications and enrollments. We developed a forecast plan to address the potential areas of opportunity, calculated the cost, and pitched it to the partner. Once approved, we moved with agility, and implemented additional ad spend on the top champion programs and frontloaded the budgets for the academic periods yielding the highest number of applicants and enrollments. With this, we were not only able to meet the qualified lead goal but also exceeded the enrollments by 19% for the following academic period.

The lifetime value of the student

As you budget for growth, it’s crucial to consider the lifetime value (LTV) of a student. LTV refers to the total revenue a student generates throughout their academic journey and beyond. This value encompasses tuition fees, ancillary revenues (like housing and meal plans), alumni donations, and increasingly in our era lifelong learning opportunities.

Talk with our digital and enrollment experts

We’re to help you find the right digital marketing and recruitment strategies. Let’s set up a time to talk.

Contact us

Source link

January 21, 2025
Centralized Education Management Systems: Revolutionizing Education
There is a huge change happening in higher education. Because technology changes so quickly, higher eds have to be able to deal with new problems and meet the changing needs of students, teachers, and managers. Centralized education management systems or Integrated software solutions are no longer a nice-to-have; they’re necessary for making schools more streamlined, efficient, and ready for the future.

This blog post examines how these centralized education management systems change higher education, deal with problems, and make room for new ideas.

Understanding Integrated Software Solutions

Centralized education management systems or integrated software solutions centralize admissions, curriculum creation, faculty management, student services, compliance, and more.

Instead of managing several technologies that don’t communicate, your institution runs like a symphony. Tracking student progress and managing teacher duties is simple, saving time and resources.

According to Educause (2023), 68% of institutions that use integrated platforms see a considerable operational efficiency boost in the first year.

Addressing Core Challenges in Higher Education

Higher education has obstacles. You may struggle with uncertain enrollment trends, changing accreditation standards, and student needs. However, centralized education administration systems are changing how institutions handle these concerns.

Deconstructing Obstacle Walls

Data scattered between platforms is bothersome. Integration solutions function as a bridge, connecting all departments, including admissions, professors, and administration, to ensure that all individuals are on the same page. For the Purpose of Assisting You Now we’re going to be really honest: manual processes can be really draining—automation handles everyday jobs diligently, so your teams can focus on improving learning outcomes or planning strategic projects!

Students First!

Students today expect more than lectures, homework, and tests. With centralized education management system technologies, institutions may develop tailored learning pathways, track student progress, provide 24/7 support, and keep students engaged until the end!

Integrated solutions cut administrative tasks by 30%, according to McKinsey. Not only does it save time, but it also redirects energy toward important things like helping students succeed and moving higher education forward.

Benefits of integrated software in higher education institution

These are the genuine benefits of higher education integrated software solutions. Beyond saving time, the centralized education management systems improve student performance, institution efficiency, and success.

EDUCAUSE found that integrated centralized education management systems in higher education boosted operational efficiency by 25% and student satisfaction. Pretty amazing, huh?

Let’s list the main benefits:

Data analytics for improving higher education decision-making

Everything in One Place: No more platform switching or tab-searching. Your data, tools, and workflows are connected and available with integrated software. Imagine it’s like having everything you need under a single roof.

Decisions Based on Data: Park the decisions based on guessing and grab the Data analytics for improving higher education decision-making! You can make smart, informed decisions using real-time data and analytics. You’re always informed when tracking student progress or preparing ahead.

Greater Cooperation: Things get lost when departments in your colleges don’t communicate and sync up! Integrating systems makes it easy for students, instructors, and staff to connect and collaborate. Eliminating barriers lets everyone shine.

Student Success: Students matter. Personalizing learning journeys with integrated solutions helps students focus, stay on track, and succeed. Lower barriers, more wins!

AI and Analytics: Their Role

AI and analytics underpin integrated software. They don’t just process data—they make sense of it. They don’t just process data—they make sense of it.
- Predictive Analytics: Identifying at-risk students early and offering on-time help!
- Personalization: AI-powered tools craft tailored learning experiences for students.
- Resource Optimization: Analytics ensure efficient use of campus facilities and resources.
According to a survey by Gartner, institutions leveraging AI in education reported a 45% improvement in student retention rates. These tools are more than enhancements—they’re enablers of smarter, data-driven decisions.

Overcoming Implementation Challenges

Integrated software solutions in higher education have these actual benefits. Besides saving time, they boost student performance, institution efficiency, and success.

Transformative technology like integrated software solutions might make technology implementation seem daunting. Every organization confronts problems, and overcoming them is part of progress. Good news? You’re not alone.

Integrated systems adoption might be difficult, but strategic institutions can make it happen. These important areas may present obstacles and how to overcome them:

Train and Adopt: Getting everyone on board is difficult. Faculty, staff, and students must master the new system, which takes time. A solution? Provide good training and support. Focus on important users, start small, then grow. Users grow more comfortable, smoothing the transition.

Moving unorganized data from outdated systems to a new platform can be a headache. Before migrating, clean and organize data to simplify. A coordinated migration plan with your software provider reduces disruptions.

Change resistance: Hard. Resistance often originates from fear of the unknown or a lack of understanding of how the new system would benefit the institution. As a last step, communicate with stakeholders, show the system’s long-term value, and include decision-makers early!

Customization requires: Every institution has unique needs, so, keep in mind, a generic solution may not work! Find a customizable system that gets tweaked to however you need. Ask questions and customize the system with the software vendor.

Planning, patience, and help are needed to overcome these obstacles. Successful organizations deploy with strategy, training, and flexibility. This vacation has long-term benefits.

EDUCAUSE found that higher education integrated systems increased operational efficiency by 25% and student satisfaction.

Practical Uses and Success Stories

Change is coming from integration. Uniformed systems are benefiting institutions globally, as shown in these success stories.
- Creatrix Campus reduces manual faculty management work by 40% at National University of Singapore.
- Oxford uses statistics to engage and retain students.
- Integration of centralized education management systems helped Otago University speed accreditation by simplifying compliance tracking!
Future Higher Education Integrated Software Trends

Due to these advances, experts expect over 70% of higher education institutions to have fully embraced integrated software platforms by 2030. Here are some software of the trends you can look for.
- Blockchain technology is transforming credentialing by creating secure, tamper-proof academic records.
- Adaptive learning systems give pupils customized content.
- Global collaboration tools include bridging campuses to allow knowledge sharing.
Closing Thoughts

Higher education can transform operations, engagement, and innovation. Integration software solutions or centralized education management systems enable transformation, not just tools.

Creatrix Campus is happy to help institutions reach their potential with smarter, more connected technologies. Ready to elevate your campus? Let’s chat Improving operational efficiency in universities with software.
Source link
January 21, 2025
What High School Students Really Think About College
Let’s talk about the elephant in the room: colleges struggle to connect with their most important audience—students. Fresh data RNL’s research studies show a big disconnect between what higher education offers and what students need. A new report from the Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education is waving red flags about dropping enrollment numbers and workforce gaps if colleges can’t step up their game and prove their worth.

But what’s going on here?

Show me the money: The cost crisis

Here’s what keeps students up at night: money. Nearly all (93%) of prospective students are stressing about college costs (RNL & Halda, 2024). Let that sink in—we’re talking about almost every student thinking about college.

The money story gets even more complicated:
- 82% say they might not even apply because they’re worried about costs (RNL & ZeeMee, 2024)
- 73% aren’t sure if their family can foot the bill (RNL & Halda, 2024)
- Many don’t even try for financial aid because they assume they won’t qualify (RNL, Ardeo & Halda, 2024)
“Is it worth it?”—The million-dollar question

Students aren’t just worried about paying for college—they’re questioning whether it’s worth the investment. The stats tell us:
- 60% wonder if college is worth the time, money, and effort
- Only 63% see a job offer after graduation as their main goal
- Half of students think they can make good money without a degree
  (RNL & Halda, 2024)
Lost in the college maze

In 2024, you’d think finding college info would be easy. Spoiler alert: it’s not. Check this out:
- 72% say applying to college is just too hard (RNL, Ardeo & Halda, 2024)
- 63% can’t figure out how to choose the right school (RNL & ZeeMee, 2024)
- 53% don’t know where to get help with college planning
- 51% are stuck at square one, not knowing where to start
  (RNL & Halda, 2024)
Transforming the college experience: A blueprint for change

The days of one-size-fits-all higher education are over. How can offer what students need?

1. Simplify the journey

Colleges must strip away the bureaucracy that scares away promising students. This means:
- Creating a streamlined, user-friendly application process
- Building intuitive websites that guide rather than confuse
- Offering clear, step-by-step roadmaps to enrollment
- Providing personalized application support based on each student’s background and needs
2. Talk money from day one

No more financial surprises or hidden costs. Colleges should:
- Present total costs upfront, including living expenses and materials
- Break down financial aid options in clear, everyday language
- Show concrete examples of return on investment
- Create customized financial planning tools that account for individual circumstances
3. Show Real Results

Students deserve to see the real impact of their investment:
- Share detailed job placement data by major and career path
- Report actual salary ranges for recent graduates
- Feature diverse alumni success stories across different fields
- Match potential career outcomes to students’ individual interests and goals
3. Innovate the Learning Experience

Education shouldn’t be rigid. Modern colleges must:
- Design flexible learning paths that fit different lifestyles
- Develop focused credential programs for specific career goals
- Create clear pathways from certificates to full degrees
- Offer personalized learning tracks based on student strengths and career objectives
The future of higher education isn’t just about making things easier—it’s about making them work better for each individual student. Colleges that embrace these changes won’t just survive; they’ll thrive by truly serving their students’ needs.

The future of higher education: A student-first revolution

Let’s be honest: the old college playbook isn’t cutting it anymore. Students are drowning in debt, juggling full-time jobs with classes, and questioning whether a degree is worth the sacrifice. They’re not asking for less rigor—they’re asking for a system that acknowledges their reality.

The WICHE report plainly states, “Demography need not be destiny.” But this isn’t just about numbers.
- It’s about Darla raising two kids while pursuing her nursing degree.
- It’s about Javier, the first in his family to consider college and has no roadmap to follow.
- It’s about Sophia working two jobs just to afford textbooks.
- It’s about Tyler, a baseball standout from rural Iowa whose guidance counselor is stretched too thin to help him navigate the recruiting process his parents never experienced.
- It’s about Emma, whose well-meaning parents have taken over her college search entirely, leaving her silent and stressed about expressing her own dreams.
These students aren’t looking for handouts. They’re looking for:
- A system that respects their time and responsibilities
- Clear paths that connect their education to real careers
- Flexible options that don’t force them to choose between life and learning
- Proof that their investment will pay off in tangible ways
The colleges that will thrive aren’t the ones with the fanciest buildings or the most prestigious names. They’re the ones who dare to ask: “What do our students need to succeed?”

Because here’s the truth: higher education isn’t just about preserving institutions. It’s about transforming lives. And right now, too many bright, capable students are being left behind by a system that wasn’t built for them.

The future belongs to colleges brave enough to change. Not just with fancy words and mission statements but with real, student-centered solutions that make education accessible, achievable, and worth every dollar and hour invested.

Reports cited in this blog—available for free download
Source link
January 21, 2025
Ambow Education Continues to Fish in Murky Waters

In May 2022, The Higher Education Inquirer began investigating Ambow Education after we received credible tips about the company as a bad actor in US higher education, particularly with its failure to adequately maintain and operate Bay State College in Boston. The Massachusetts Attorney General had already stepped in and fined the school in 2020 for misleading students.

As HEI dug deeper, we found that Ambow failed years before under questionable circumstances. And we worked with a number of news outlets and staffers in the offices of Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Ayanna Pressley to get justice for the students at Bay State College.

Since that 2022 story we continued to investigate Ambow Education, its CEO Jin Huang, and Ambow’s opaque business practices. Not only were we concerned about the company’s finances, we were wary of any undue influence the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had on Ambow, which the company had previously acknowledged in SEC documents.

A Chinese proverb says it’s easier to fish in murky waters. And that’s what it seemed like for us to investigate Ambow, a company that used the murky waters in American business as well as anyone. But not everything can remain hidden to US authorities, even if the company was based out of the Cayman Islands, with a corporate headquarters in Beijing.

In November 2022, Ambow sold all of its assets in the People’s Republic of China, and in August 2023 Bay State College closed abruptly. We reported some strange behaviors in the markets to the Securities and Exchange Commission, but they had nothing to tell us. Ambow moved its headquarters to a small rental space in Cupertino, where it still operates.

In 2024, Ambow began spinning its yarns about a new learning platform, HybriU, using Norm Algood of Synergis Education as its huckster. HybriU presented at the Computer Electronics Show in Las Vegas and at the ASU-GSV conference in San Diego and used those appearances as signs of legitimacy. It later reported a $1.3 million contract with a small company out of Singapore.

In 2025, Ambow remains alive but with fewer assets and only the promise of doing something of value. Its remaining US college, the New School of Architecture and Design, has had problems paying its bills, and there are at least two cases in San Diego Superior Court pending (for failure to pay rent and failing to pay the school’s former President). However, Ambow has been given a clean bill of health by its regional accreditor, WSCUC.

A report by Argus Research, which Ambow commissioned, also described Ambow in a generally positive light, despite the fact that Ambow was only spending $100,000 per quarter on Research and Development. That report notes that Prouden, a small accounting firm based in the People’s Republic of China is just seeing Ambow Education’s books for the first time. In April 2025 we wonder if we’ll get adequate information when Ambow reports its 2024 annual earnings, or whether we find just another layer of sludge.

Source link

January 20, 2025
Joe Biden Commutes Life Sentence of Indigenous Activist Leonard Peltier (APTN News)

From Minnesota Public Radio News

In one of his last official acts before leaving the White House, President Joe Biden released Leonard Peltier from prison. The action is an extraordinary move that ends a decades-long push by Indigenous activists, international religious leaders, human rights organizations who argued that the 80-year-old Native American activist was wrongly convicted.

Source link

January 20, 2025
New UK government video targets international students

Secretary of state for education, Bridget Phillipson, addressed students considering studying abroad, highlighting the benefits of a UK education and promoting the country’s post-study work opportunities.

“In the new academic year, we will welcome thousands of international students who will be starting courses in our universities and I hope to see many more in the future,” Phillipson said in the video shared by the UK Council for International Student Affairs (UKCISA).

“The UK is a wonderful and safe place to study. Our country is home to some of the very best universities in the world – four of the world’s top 10 can be found right here in the UK.

“An education from a British university has been the springboard for success for so many global trailblazers, from politics to business, from the arts to the sciences, in fact dozens of current and recent world leaders studied here in the UK and our universities have driven some of the most exciting and valuable research anywhere in the world.

“You could be part of the next groundbreaking wave of research and join a new generation of inspiring leaders,” she told prospective students.

Phillipson went on to describe some of the ways in which UK universities support their international students through pastoral support, work experience, scholarships and bursaries.

“You’ll also get have the chance to join Alumni UK – a global group of people from around the world who have studied here. It’s a fantastic professional network that you can tap into to get great advice and guidance.”

Phillipson went on to promote the UK’s Graduate Route, describing the opportunity which lets graduates “work, live and contribute” in the UK.

International students forge international friendships so by studying abroad, you can help build bridges between our countries, and these connections help make the world a better, brighter place.

Bridget Phillipson, UK secretary of state for education

“Studying in the UK sets you up for success in your career, but it’s more than that. International students forge international friendships so by studying abroad, you can help build bridges between our countries, and these connections help make the world a better, brighter place.”

Phillipson previously addressed international students in a video not long after stepping into the role in July 2024.

On the release of the latest video, Anne Marie Graham, UKCISA chief executive, said she was “encouraged” to see the continuing messages of welcome and support from the UK’s education secretary.

“Current and prospective students will also welcome the secretary of state’s ongoing support for the graduate visa and her reflections on the mutual benefits of a UK education – not just the contributions that international students make to the UK, but the positive impact on their own careers and ambitions,” she told The PIE.

“We look forward to continuing to work with the UK government to ensure international students are welcomed and supported, from pre-arrival visas to post-graduation work opportunities, so that all international students have a positive experience studying here.”

Pedram Bani Asadi, chair of the UKCISA’s Student Advisory Group commented: “I welcome the support from this government for international students’ hopes and dreams, and recognition of all the contributions we make to both UK culture and the economy.

“Having access to the Graduate Route has been absolutely essential for me to be able to reinforce the skills I learnt in my studies and contribute to the UK. I appreciate all the friends and experiences I’ve had here and look forward to continuing my role as a #WeAreInternational student ambassador, and working with the UK government to support my fellow international students to have a positive experience.”

Since Labour took came into power, sector stakeholders have noted the government’s more welcoming tone toward international students, a marked contrast to the rhetoric of the previous Conservative government.

Despite a change in rhetoric, the Labour government has shown no intention of reversing the Conservative’s decision to ban international students on UK taught master’s courses from bringing dependants with them to the UK.

“While the new government has said many positive things about international students, the focus on immigration remains acute,” said Jamie Arrowsmith, director of Universities UK International in an update to sector earlier this month.

The UK’s international educations strategy is currently under review, and the rollout of the new approach is set for April.

Sector leaders gathered at the QS Reimagine Education summit in London late last year to discuss priorities for the UK’s international education sector going forward, giving suggestions for a refreshed strategy, which included improved post-study work rights.

Source link

January 20, 2025
Now in office, how Trump could overhaul higher ed

President Trump’s second inauguration took place in the Capitol rotunda Monday.

Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images

President Donald Trump’s inauguration today kicks off what is likely to be a disruptive four years for higher education.

He enters office at a time when college and university enrollment numbers are floundering, public disillusionment with the cost of a degree is growing and culture wars are raging on. Combined, these circumstances give the president—and his Republican counterparts on Capitol Hill—an opportunity to ramp up scrutiny and accountability measures for the nation’s top institutions while also decreasing the federal footprint in education.

During the campaign, Trump said he plans to abolish the Education Department, ban the participation of trans athletes in women’s sports, “fire” accreditors and cut funding for scientific research. He has also discussed expanding short-term financial aid offerings, making student unionization more difficult, protecting conservatives’ speech on campuses, disallowing college vaccine mandates and creating a free online national college funded by new taxes on wealthy private universities.

Since winning the election, Trump has yet to offer more details on how he will fulfill the policy promises he’s made.

Colleges, meanwhile, have mostly adopted a wait-and-see approach to the incoming Trump administration. Over all, reactions to Trump’s election on college campuses were more muted this time around compared to the protests and outcry in 2016.

But Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric and calls for mass deportations worry some college leaders. Several institutions advised international students to get back to campus before Monday, warning them that executive orders from the new president could complicate their return. Others pledged not to participate in mass deportations and said they would defend DEI programs and policies.

Trump’s impact on higher education will likely vary according to the type of institution. For instance, for-profits and other colleges are expecting less red tape and oversight from the administration, while historically Black colleges and universities are preparing to educate the administration and Congress about their institutions and their value.

Trump’s Team So Far

He tapped Linda McMahon—former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, co-chair of his transition team and founder of a pro-Trump think tank—to carry out his anti–diversity, equity and inclusion education agenda and shrink the department.

McMahon has yet to receive a confirmation hearing in the Senate, but she’s expected to get the green light. Who else will serve with McMahon in key roles related to higher ed such as the under secretary, assistant secretary of civil rights and chief operating officer for Federal Student Aid is not yet clear.

Trump did nominate former Tennessee commissioner of education Penny Schwinn as deputy secretary Friday. Schwinn, who will likely focus primarily on K-12 policy, was part of former University of Florida president Ben Sasse’s cabinet as vice president for PK-12 and pre-bachelor’s programs.

McMahon’s appointment surprised some education policy observers given her lack of education experience. But others see her as a loyal lieutenant with a strong track record in business who can get things done at the department.

Day One Plans

Trump doesn’t need McMahon and her team in place to get started. While day one of the administration will be filled with much of the traditional pomp and circumstance, the president’s transition team has also said it will include the signing of 200 executive orders, Fox News reported Sunday, which would be a record.

It’s not clear how many of those orders will affect colleges and universities, but higher education, which received little attention from Trump in his first term, is expected to rank higher on the administration’s priority list this time around. Actions related to diversity, equity and inclusion programs; transgender students; campus antisemitism; and immigration could be among the first on the docket.

During his first administration, Trump toned down oversight of for-profit colleges, issued new Title IX rules that bolstered due process protections for those accused of assault and appointed a conservative majority to the U.S. Supreme Court, paving the way for justices to later strike down affirmative action in June 2023, among other changes.

Now, just as he did in the first term with Obama’s policies, Trump will likely roll back many of the regulations President Biden put in place. Those include added steps to the process of merging or acquiring colleges, protections for borrowers who were misled by their higher ed institution and an income-driven repayment program that lowered monthly payments for millions of borrowers. Others, however, including gainful employment, might remain in place, as the GOP considers increasing federal oversight of colleges and universities.

Biden’s Team Wraps Up

Trump’s list of potential repeals grew shorter when a federal judge vacated the Biden administration’s Title IX rules. Other lawsuits challenging rules made by the Biden administration are still pending.

The outgoing president and his team have been scrambling to wrap up loose ends. In just a few weeks, they finalized new rules for online education and college prep programs, announced settlements in multiple civil rights and antisemitism investigations, and issued several rounds of debt relief. That’s along with new guidance related to online program managers and the Title IX requirements for financial payments to college athletes.

Before the holidays, Biden withdrew two debt-relief proposals, half-baked rules on accreditation and state authorization, and a controversial rule regarding the participation of transgender student athletes in women’s sports. The decision forces Trump to start at square one rather than leaving the existing policies open to amendment.

But the president may not even need to act himself on some of these issues as Republicans take the lead in Congress. House Republicans have passed legislation to ban trans women from women’s sports teams nationwide and to crack down on the detention of undocumented immigrants. The immigration bill could also potentially make it more difficult for international students from China and India to study in the U.S. The Senate voted Friday to advance that bill for a final vote, which could come as soon as Monday.

Source link

January 20, 2025