Category: Features

How Veterans Can Lead the Future of Work and Learning

This Veterans Day, we’re reminded that honoring service means more than recognition; it’s a shared responsibility. Colleges and universities play a vital role in translating appreciation into action by working with community and employer partners to expand access, reduce barriers, and build clear, accelerated pathways for veterans to thrive before, during, and after their postsecondary education.

Each year, about 200,000 service members transition out of active duty. They bring with them leadership, discipline, and adaptability, qualities employers consistently say they need most. For many veterans, the first stop is college, supported by the Post-9/11 GI Bill. But not all want, need, or can afford to wait for a four-year degree to launch their next chapter. The real question is: How do we ensure veterans don’t miss the job-ready pathways already reshaping the workforce?

The challenge of underemployment and the demand for talent

On the surface, veterans appear to be doing well; unemployment among former service members is approximately 3% in comparison to non-veterans at 3.9%. But the picture changes when we look deeper. Nearly one in three veterans is underemployed, working in roles that don’t fully use their skills or pay family-sustaining wages. The compressed 180-day transition window, during which service members must make rapid choices about careers, finances, and education, makes it harder to align strengths with opportunity. Veterans who do not find meaningful employment or education in that first year risk long-term financial instability and lower lifetime earnings.

At the same time, labor market demand makes the case urgent. Employers in healthcare, cybersecurity, advanced manufacturing, logistics, and clean energy face acute shortages. More than a million cybersecurity roles are currently unfilled, and clean energy jobs grew nearly 4% last year. Veterans, who bring technical expertise, leadership, and adaptability, are uniquely positioned to step into these roles if their skills are translated and recognized in ways that match employer needs.

A moment of opportunity

Across the country, alternative career pathways are gaining momentum. Apprenticeships, certificates, industry certifications, and work-integrated learning programs are offering faster, lower-cost routes into well-paid jobs. National efforts to expand registered apprenticeships highlight just how far the U.S. has to go compared with peer nations. If even a fraction of community college students were connected to apprenticeships, hundreds of thousands of new slots could open roles where veterans’ discipline and readiness give them a natural advantage.

At the same time, higher education is recalibrating. Undergraduate enrollment has dropped by more than a million students since 2019, while institutions are investing in short-term credentials and competency-based programs. Senior leaders are deeply concerned about the public perception of the value of college and their institutions’ long-term financial viability, with nearly eight in ten presidents citing public trust as a major issue. Those concerns are not abstract: by 2032, an estimated 18.4 million experienced workers with postsecondary education are expected to retire, creating urgent pressure to prepare the next generation. Veterans are well-positioned to help fill this gap if institutions translate military learning into both degrees and short-term credentials.

If institutions recognize and apply military learning through credit for prior learning (CPL) and short-term credential pathways, they can accelerate veterans’ success while rebuilding confidence in the relevance of higher education itself. ACE supports this effort through Military Guide, which helps colleges translate military training into academic credit, and through expanding frameworks for CPL that ensure quality and equity in how experience counts. These tools make it possible for veterans to see their service recognized as learning and for institutions to meet learners where they are.

A call to action

This convergence of policy momentum, employer demand, and institutional innovation creates a rare window of opportunity. The traditional “college-for-all” approach is showing its limits, with more than half of four-year graduates underemployed a year after graduation. For veterans, the stakes are even higher. Transition is a once-in-a-lifetime moment to align skills, benefits, and pathways.

Employers: Don’t overlook veteran talent. Create or expand apprenticeships and structured on-ramps that recognize military skills. Veterans bring discipline, adaptability, and leadership—traits every sector needs to stay competitive. They also carry official military transcripts that document their training and education, which can be mapped directly to specific skills and competencies. Military job titles and occupational codes however can be deceiving in the civilian market. Demystifying those roles and challenging stereotypes is essential to avoid overlooking highly qualified candidates. Leveraging veterans’ records and experiences can shorten onboarding, reduce training costs, and ensure they are matched to roles where they can thrive.

Higher education: Build shorter, stackable programs that honor prior learning gained through military service and beyond. Military transcripts and experience can serve not only as transfer credit but also as tools for admissions decisions, prerequisite fulfillment, and course waivers, accelerating time to completion. Just as important, institutions should recognize that many veterans are looking to pivot into entirely new career fields. By meeting veterans where they are, higher education can both close critical skills gaps and strengthen enrollment while rebuilding public trust.

Credential providers: Ensure certifications are accessible, affordable, and aligned with industry demand. You are uniquely positioned to bridge the federal government, corporate America, learners, and higher education institutions, making pathways clearer and faster for veterans. In your validation processes, include recognition of military and prior learning so veterans can more easily demonstrate their competencies and translate service-earned experience into credentials with immediate labor market value.

Turning appreciation into action

Veterans bring unmatched skills, experience, and determination, but they shouldn’t have to navigate their next chapter alone. Employers, higher education, and credential providers each have a role to play in creating faster, more transparent, and career-aligned pathways that turn potential into progress.

Higher education has always been central to the American narrative, a source of opportunity, innovation, and community strength. Its next chapter depends on unlocking the full potential of every learner, especially those who have proudly served. When institutions, employers, and credential organizations work in concert, we transform gratitude into real pathways.

For example, Dixon Center for Military and Veterans Services has long championed a “united in purpose” approach, offering technical assistance, resource-sharing, and leadership to amplify veteran-serving efforts across all sectors. Their work underscores the importance of collective responsibility: honoring service not just with words, but with system-wide action. As one example, the center led an effort to formulate and administer the Trucking Business Academy, which mustered colleges, industry leaders, and other nonprofits to chart a comprehensive curriculum for truck drivers to successfully build their own businesses.

This Veterans Day, honoring military service means building pathways forward. By opening clearer, faster, and more trusted routes to learning and work and by aligning across sectors, we can ensure veterans don’t just find jobs. They lead the way in shaping the future of education, workforce development, and national resilience.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

November 4, 2025
George Williams urges VCs to ‘aim higher’ – Campus Review

Universities are ‘friendless and alone’, Western Sydney University vice-chancellor George Williams explained in his new essay, that warns of the dangers of fading social license.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

November 2, 2025
Developing a Playbook for Presidents Under Pressure
After four decades in higher education and now beginning my third presidency, I’ve watched the ground shift dramatically beneath campus leaders. Here in 2025, outrage often outpaces facts, and presidents can sometimes become targets less for their actions than for what they represent.

Set against that backdrop, churn is high: 55 percent of presidents reportedly expect to step down within five years, and the average stint is 5.9 years, which is 2.6 years shorter than in 2006. Among presidents of color, it’s just over half.

The criticisms aimed at presidents under fire generally fall into three categories. First, the leader is genuinely ineffective or has made serious missteps. Second, the office itself is the lightning rod because it’s the place where the “buck stops.” Third, presidents are singled out for personal or political reasons, broadly defined, like being new, coming in as an external hire, or being a member of an underrepresented group. Opponents see these presidents as easy targets: less networked, more vulnerable, and therefore more expendable. This piece focuses on the third group: the leaders most vulnerable to attacks rooted in identity or circumstance rather than performance.

Such attacks are rarely random. They are orchestrated and designed to do harm. Some of these systematic campaigns rise to the level of defamation, attorney Katy Young, managing partner at Ad Astra Law Group, warns. In these moments, the silence of the campus, community, and board is not a strength—it is a surrender.

What follows is a playbook I wish university leaders and their board members would review and discuss before a sudden media blitz engulfs their president and campus.

Build early warning systems

Institutions are rarely blindsided because no one saw trouble coming. They’re blindsided because the right people weren’t talking early enough, or because the early signals were dismissed as noise.

In today’s hyperconnected environment, the difference between a passing controversy and a crisis often comes down to whether leaders catch the warning signs early. To build an effective early warning system, leaders need to think in three modes: proactive (anticipating), concurrent (tracking), and reactive (responding).

Before it happens: Run regular simulation exercises with trusted faculty, staff, and students who influence opinion on and off campus. Role-play how the university spokesperson or designated officials would respond to an orchestrated campaign disguised as “concern” or “accountability.”

As it ramps up: Communications staff must move beyond scanning headlines and Google alerts. They need to monitor social media channels, blogs, templated letters to the editor, alumni Facebook chatter, and local op-eds. Repeated or similar comments on these platforms can be early signals that a coordinated campaign is already underway.

When it breaks: Establish input and feedback loops with trusted stakeholders. If rumors are circulating, gather information from those who have received the “intel.” Listen carefully, collect details without “killing the messenger,” and thank those who come forward. Their willingness to share may give you just enough time to respond strategically before the game slips out of your hands.

Align legal and communication responses

One of the biggest mistakes I’ve seen universities make is allowing the legal and communications teams to develop strategies in isolation, by default rather than design. When this happens, the plays don’t line up, and the institution starts from a confused rather than cohesive position.

Lawyers for both public and private universities are trained to limit legal exposure. Typically, their instinct is to say—and to have others say—as little as possible. A common legal move is a bland placeholder: “We take this seriously and are looking into it,” or the always popular “Because this issue is under investigation, we cannot comment further at this time.”

Public institutions face more legal constraints under the First Amendment and state law than do private institutions. While the latter may have more regulatory leeway, both share the reputational risks of silence.

Communications professionals, by contrast, are trained to frame and guide the narrative. In a 24/7 social media environment, their role is to move quickly to establish context, add examples that illustrate institutional values, and sustain credibility with key audiences. Good communicators also insist on honesty—especially in tough situations—because nothing erodes trust faster than the perception of a cover-up.

Both approaches—when coordinated early on—can add value. Siloed strategies, by contrast, look like the right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing. Or worse, that the university is running a trick play to hide something.

Once a false narrative takes hold, it’s nearly impossible to “unring the bell.” That’s why legal and communications strategies must be integrated from day one. Boards must also resist the temptation to rely solely on legal advice. What makes sense in a courtroom may destroy credibility in the court of public opinion.

Steps for integrating legal and PR strategies
- Appoint a crisis liaison to help stakeholders weigh the tradeoffs between caution and urgency.
- Develop and rehearse a communications playbook in advance of a crisis that maps out roles and responsibilities and stresses the need for consistency in messaging for all audiences. You will also want to define who has final authority.
- Ensure the board has balanced information and recommendations from both professionals.
- Understand the costs of a communications delay.
Institutions that opt for silence to reduce legal exposure risk an erosion of trust in both the university and its leaders.

Train boards to lead, not lag

Boards can unintentionally make a crisis worse by staying quiet at key moments or by failing to visibly support their leader. (The Association of Governing Boards has found that nearly 40 percent of boards have not done scenario planning or have no plans to do it.) Very few presidents can remain viable or effective in the face of board abandonment or governance silence, or even the perception of abandonment.

That’s why boards must be trained in modern crisis response and media literacy. Though time consuming, Boards should consider annually run tabletop simulations—simple scenario-based exercises widely available from higher ed associations—so they practice crisis communication and governance before the real test arrives. Hands-on trainings like these remind boards that fiduciary duties are not the only ones that should be addressed in meetings, retreats, and the like.

In times of calm, not crisis, trustees should think about how their voice—or lack of it—shapes current and ongoing institutional narratives. Timely, confident, values-based statements from boards can reassure stakeholders that the institution is steady and supportive of a leader unfairly under fire.

Decide when to weigh in and when to wait

Not every attack requires a megaphone response. But some do. When misinformation is demonstrably false and spreading, the institution must correct the record loudly and clearly.

When facts are still emerging, it’s appropriate for a trusted spokesperson—not the president or board chair—to acknowledge the situation, commit to transparency, and set expectations for updates. But when the president is the target of personal, vicious, and untrue attacks, the board chair or designee should step forward. Staying under the radar in these cases is read as reticence or hesitancy, not prudent governance. To the targeted president, it can feel like desertion.

Know when to settle—and when to go to court

This may be the most contested element in the playbook.

Too often, the decision between settling and going to court is made strictly as a legal calculation. But in cases of defamation, settling can reinforce false narratives, deepen community skepticism, and leave current and future leaders wondering if the board will have their back when it matters most.

Timing, the strength of the legal arguments, and reputational harm all matter. Settlement may demonstrate common and financial sense when these conditions are in play: it is very early in the proceedings, the university’s legal position is weak, and little public attention has been drawn to the dispute. By contrast, settlement may be ill-advised when a case has been in the system for years, the filings strongly favor the university, and reputational harm has already been magnified by a media campaign.

In my own experience at California Lutheran University, both my predecessor Chris Kimball and I were dismissed from a long and highly visible lawsuit just as the university entered serious settlement discussions. As a defendant who had been the target of a vicious four-year media campaign, I was relieved to have my personal name cleared. But as a three-time university president, I was disappointed that the decision to settle prevented the truth from coming fully to light in the court system—through testimony, documents, and rulings.

The truth is the most powerful play we have, and settlements often keep it on the sidelines. That is the major and lingering downside, especially when settlements occur late in the game that the university is otherwise winning.

Build coalitions before you need them

When the contest turns rough, the teammates who step onto the field are the ones you’ve practiced and trained with long before. Effective coalitions aren’t built in the middle of a crisis; they are built in times of calm, long before the crisis hits.

Engage faculty leaders who understand the complexity and tradeoffs of the issue being contested. Build a cadre of alumni who speak about that issue from experience, not hashtags. Help students see the value of facts over speculation. Coalitions built on trust and mutual respect are the ones most likely to defend their institution and leaders when opponents try to shout them down.

Final thoughts: Protecting the presidency is protecting the institution and higher education as a whole

Character assassination doesn’t just harm a leader; it weakens the institution’s ability to attract students, retain donors, recruit faculty, and live out its mission. It also undermines public confidence in higher education at a moment when trust is finally starting to rebound.

Perhaps most importantly, it sets a dangerous precedent for our students, who may reasonably ask: If the institution won’t back its leader when things get messy, why should we believe it will back us?

Protecting presidents from orchestrated defamation is not about shielding us from critique. Fair critique is a healthy and vital part of accountability. What we must resist is the conflation of accountability with calculated campaigns of destruction.

Our opponents already have a playbook. It’s time we write, revise, and share our own. My hope is that this piece serves as one chapter in a larger guide to which many ACE members will contribute—because protecting the presidency is not just about safeguarding one leader. It’s about preserving the integrity and stability of the academy, especially at times like these, when individual leaders, specific institutions, and the whole sector are under fire.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.
Source link
September 10, 2025
Sarah Bendall on good governance – Campus Review

NSO First Assistant Ombudsman Sarah Bendall spoke to Campus Review editor Erin Morley about how student complaints reflect current sector issues, like governance, and how it will work with the Australian Tertiary Education Commission (ATEC).

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

September 3, 2025
Working Students Face New Challenges in a Shifting Policy Landscape
Most undergraduates today are juggling academics with paid work, many logging 40 or more hours a week. That load leaves little margin: more non-academic responsibilities, less time for coursework, and fewer opportunities to engage on campus mean these students often feel the effects of federal policy changes first.

The budget reconciliation bill signed into law on July 4 threatens to make those challenges worse, reshaping student loans and public benefit programs like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and Medicaid in ways that risk cutting off critical financial lifelines. On Pell Grants, the news is mixed: the bill restores a revised Workforce Pell program that could open doors to short-term training, but makes other changes that may reduce access for some students.

For working students already balancing jobs, school, and basic needs, these changes could tip the balance toward longer time to degree, greater debt, or leaving school altogether. Using recent data, we explore how these students are making ends meet now, and what colleges, universities, and policymakers can do to protect and strengthen the supports that help them stay enrolled and graduate.

Profile of student workers

According to the 2020 National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS:20), nearly three-quarters of undergraduate students work while enrolled, with around a third of those students working full time. Results from Trellis Strategies’ 2024 Student Financial Wellness Survey (SFWS) identified similar rates of employment, allowing the ability to cross-reference specific questions about overall financial wellness. In this post, we compare SFWS respondents who answered “yes” to the question “Do you work for pay?” with those who answered “no.”

About half of all SFWS respondents reported using income from their employment to pay for school. However, many working students have additional financial commitments beyond their education. For example, 19 percent of working respondents indicated they provide financial support to a child, and 18 percent provide the same support to their parents or guardians. Overall, about half of working SFWS respondents (47 percent) shared that it was important for them to support their family financially while in college, compared to 38 percent of their non-working peers.

This heightened familial commitment is reflected in the fact that many working students—36 percent of those responding to the 2024 SFWS—identify primarily as workers who go to school, rather than students who work. Furthermore, working students attend part-time at higher rates (38 percent) compared to their non-working peers (28 percent).

How working students pay for college

Most students who were working at the time the 2024 SFWS was administered self-reported using their employment to pay for college (see Figure 2). Many used personal savings as well, but only seven percent were able to “work their way through college” using employment and/or personal savings alone. Instead, working students, similar to their peers who don’t work, depend upon aid such as grants and loans to be able to access higher education.

Nationally representative data from NPSAS:20 show that almost 40 percent of working students receive Pell Grants and more than a third borrow federal student loans (non-working students receive federal aid at similar rates).

For these students, losing part of their federal aid could mean they can no longer afford higher education. This is especially true for those students with limited financial flexibility to fall back on. Working students in the SFWS were more likely to report using credit cards to pay for college and were less likely to receive financial support from parents or family, as compared to their non-working peers.

Implications of policy changes

The reconciliation bill passed by Congress in July 2025 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) includes many changes that impact students, with particularly significant consequences for those who work.

On Pell Grants, the bill offers both opportunities and new concerns. It restores a revised Workforce Pell Grant program, starting July 2026, that expands the traditional Pell Grant to include eligible short-term non-degree programs at accredited institutions, an option that could help working students earn credentials more quickly and move into higher-paying jobs.

At the same time, the bill restricts Pell eligibility when other scholarships, grants, or non-federal aid fully cover a student’s cost of attendance. Under this system, a working student who receives a private scholarship that might otherwise allow them to decrease their working hours could instead see their Pell Grant decrease. While intended to prevent Pell from being awarded in “full-ride” situations, the change could also affect working students who have substantial financial responsibilities beyond the calculated cost of attendance.

The bill also includes significant changes to federal student loan programs and repayment options, with most of the changes effective as of July 1, 2026. Parents borrowing Parent PLUS loans will now have annual and aggregate borrowing caps. About one in 10 undergraduate students, including among working students, reported that their parents borrowed loans for their education. Limits on this borrowing may constrain the financial resources of some students, with possible negative consequences for their academic momentum.

Changes to SNAP and Medicaid will affect state budgets, putting higher education at risk and making it harder for people to enroll in and complete a credential while meeting their basic needs. Many students, despite also working, already face significant barriers such as food and housing insecurity, as found in the 2024 SFWS.

While no changes were made to student-specific eligibility criteria in SNAP, new work requirements in SNAP and Medicaid prioritize work over education, making it harder for people to complete a credential while maintaining access to food and health assistance. These work requirements will also create new administrative hurdles, which research shows result in people being kicked off of Medicaid despite being eligible.

The net effect of these changes will relegate more people to low-wage work by delaying or denying their ability to complete credentials that would provide higher wages, lower unemployment and poverty rates, and less use of public benefits. While the Medicaid work requirement changes don’t begin until January 2028, the SNAP changes were effective upon signing of the bill. However, states are awaiting further guidance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture on how to administer those changes.

Any reduction in financial aid or public assistance resources for students may mean that more students will need to work longer hours while enrolled to make ends meet. Besides reducing the number of hours available to study, work schedules can also directly conflict with class schedules and other campus activities.One-quarter of working respondents in the 2024 SFWS reported missing at least one day of classes due to conflicts with their job, and 56 percent of students with jobs agreed or strongly agreed that their job interfered with their ability to engage in extracurricular activities or social events at their school. Students with a weaker sense of connection and belonging at their institution have been shown to have worse academic performance and retention rates than their peers.

Supporting working students

While changes to federal student aid programs are still being debated, colleges and universities can ensure they have programs and processes in place to support working students at their campuses. Institutional leaders can:
- Develop or enhance robust support systems, such as emergency grants, connection to public services, and adequate financial aid, to help students weather financial challenges, develop a stronger connection to their institution, and remain enrolled.
- Implement strategic course scheduling that can help students more effectively plan employment, child care, transportation, and other needs so they can enroll in and complete more classes in a timely way.
- Leverage regular data collection to respond to the needs of their specific student body. Participating in the annual Student Financial Wellness Survey is free and provides institutions with a customized report, benchmarking insights, and de-identified student data.
- Policymakers should consider how programs can best serve students juggling multiple time commitments and financial priorities. Robust social services, such as child care and access to public assistance programs, can allow more working students the opportunity to thrive. Adequate financial aid can help students work less and complete their credentials sooner, opening the door to higher wages.
If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.
Source link
August 18, 2025
As Cuts to Department of Veterans Affairs Loom, Our Commitment to Veterans Education Faces a Critical Test

“VA support isn’t a gift, it’s a debt.”

That was the message displayed on signs across the National Mall on June 6, where thousands of veterans rallied against sweeping federal job cuts. With the Dropkick Murphys on stage and lawmakers like Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) in the crowd, the “Unite for Veterans, Unite for America” rally marked a striking show of both unity and frustration.

While many agencies are facing delays or court injunctions, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is moving forward with plans to eliminate approximately 83,000 positions, or about 15 percent of its workforce. Public attention has been understandably focused on the impact these cuts may have on veterans’ health care. But staffing losses could also disrupt access to veterans’ education benefits, just as even more veterans and service members may be turning to higher education and career training.

Among the many education and training benefits administered by the VA, the Post-9/11 GI Bill is the cornerstone of financial aid for military learners, including veterans, service members, and their families. From 2009 to 2019, the federal government budgeted nearly $100 billion for the program, with 2.7 million enlisted veterans eligible to use those benefits over the next decade. And the return on investment is clear: Veterans who use their education benefits complete college at twice the rate of other independent students—those typically supporting themselves without parental aid—according to research by the American Institutes for Research.

Despite the GI Bill’s importance, military learners often struggle to access the benefits they’ve earned. Eligibility rules can be confusing, and transferring benefits to spouses or dependents involves time-consuming red tape. Many students and the institutions that serve them rely on VA staff to interpret the rules, resolve disputes, and ensure benefits are processed on time. With fewer staff, that support system is at risk of breaking down.

This strain comes amid a broader wave of federal downsizing that is hitting the veteran community especially hard. The federal government has long been the largest employer of veterans, and the current reduction in force across the federal government is disproportionately affecting them. In just one example, the Department of Defense is reportedly cutting 50,000 to 60,000 civilian jobs, many held by veterans.

At the same time, the Army is considering reducing its active-duty force by as many as 90,000 troops, amid shrinking reenlistment options. Even senior military leadership have seen targeted cuts. The result is that more veterans and service members will be leaving military service and looking to build new careers. This in turn will increase the demand for VA education and training benefits, just as fewer staff may be available to help them access those benefits.

For decades, support for military learners has united policymakers across party lines. In a time of significant change in Washington, we need to uphold our commitments to those who have dedicated their lives and careers to serving our nation. This includes a commitment to ensuring that the VA has the staffing and resources it needs to deliver on its promise—so every veteran can access the education benefits they’ve earned.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

June 16, 2025
Mobility Isn’t a Choice: How Higher Education Can Better Serve Military Learners

This post is excerpted from a forthcoming book on learner mobility to be published in July 2025 by the American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers.

Every few years, they pack up their lives, move across states—or oceans—and start over. New schools, new systems, new expectations.

For military learners, this isn’t a study abroad adventure or a career move; it’s a way of life. Yet while their reality is defined by mobility, too many of our systems in higher education still assume stability.

Military learners make up about five percent of the undergraduate population—roughly 820,000 students nationwide. But they aren’t a monolith. They’re active-duty service members juggling college coursework with operational demands like exercises, surprise inspections, and even deployments. They’re veterans navigating civilian life, often in isolation, and often while supporting a family. They’re National Guard and reserve members wearing multiple hats that opposing forces demand they change on command. And they’re spouses and dependents navigating new colleges, mid-degree or mid-semester, again and again, with each relocation.

Their stories are different, but the friction points are the same: staying on track academically while managing a life defined by mobility.

Unlike traditional students, military learners don’t choose when or where they go—on orders, deployments, or other permanent or temporary service-related relocations. And each move can derail progress. Credits don’t transfer, residency rules reset, tuition costs spike, and financial aid doesn’t always follow the same logic. These students bring resilience, discipline, and lived experience into our classrooms, but higher education hasn’t fully adjusted to meet them where they are.

The transfer tangle and financial aid maze

One of the biggest hurdles is transfer credit. While articulation agreements—formal arrangements for transferring credits between institutions—do exist, they often don’t reflect the realities of military learners, especially when it comes to military training or nontraditional learning experiences. Some accumulate credits from multiple institutions, only to be told their new school won’t accept them.

The result? Lost time, lost money, and unnecessary frustration.

Add to that the patchwork of residency rules. Even when learners are stationed in a state under military orders, they may not qualify for in-state tuition. While states like Virginia and Florida have implemented inclusive policies, others continue to lag, turning mobility into a penalty as well as a reality.

Financial aid adds another layer of complexity. Programs like tuition assistance and the GI Bill are essential, but they often fall short. Tuition assistance differs by branch and may not cover full tuition at private or out-of-state schools. The Post-9/11 GI Bill is a powerful benefit, but its eligibility rules and transfer limitations don’t always align with the unpredictable, stop-and-go nature of military life.

What states and institutions are doing right

There are promising models to build on. In Ohio, Military Transfer Assurance Guides standardize how public institutions accept military training as credit. Texas and New York offer additional tuition support for veterans, while Florida helps cover housing and textbook costs when GI Bill payments lapse between terms.

At the institutional level, schools like Grand Valley State University, Syracuse University, and the City University of New York (CUNY) are raising the bar. Their “Veteran Promise” programs guarantee admission, recognize military training, and offer wraparound support tailored to military-connected students.

That’s not charity—that’s what equity looks like. When institutions commit, military learners succeed.

The power and promise of credit for prior learning

Credit for prior learning (CPL) may be one of the most powerful—and underused—tools to support military learners, who bring extensive work and life experience to their postsecondary studies that can be translated into credit.

CPL recognizes that learning happens outside the classroom: through military training, job experience, CLEP exams, or portfolio assessments. When applied effectively, it can shorten the path to graduation, reduce student debt, and boost confidence for learners who’ve already mastered real-world skills.

Tools like ACE’s Military Guide help institutions apply CPL consistently and responsibly. But here’s the problem: CPL isn’t consistently communicated, awarded, or valued. In some cases, it’s limited to elective credits rather than core degree requirements, undermining its purpose.

CPL isn’t just about transfer and awarding credit; it’s also about unlocking opportunity. Validated learning can, and should, play a role in admissions, satisfying prerequisites, waiving introductory or duplicative coursework, and advising military learners on the path that is best for them. When institutions fully embrace the broader utility of CPL, they open more doors for military learners to engage meaningfully with higher education from the very start of their journeys.

To change that, institutions need more than buy-in—they need system-wide strategies. CPL should be central to transfer reform conversations, especially when supporting learners who are older, more experienced, and balancing school with work or caregiving.

The role of advising and ecosystem support

Too often, military learners don’t get the tailored advice they need. On-base education centers can be vital entry points, but they need stronger bridges to campus advising teams who understand military culture, CPL, and transfer systems. Institutions sometimes resist broader CPL use over concerns about revenue loss or academic rigor, while students are left unaware of opportunities due to poor communication or advising gaps. Aligning on-base education centers with well-trained campus advisors is one step forward; improving internal communication across departments is another.

Student Veterans of America’s Success Hub, which includes the SVA Advising Center, supports all service members, veterans, and their families in making informed decisions about higher education opportunities and meaningful careers through the use of AI, success coaches, and expertise where the military, veterans, and higher education intersect.

Organizations like NACADA are doing the work to improve professional development in this area, but we need deeper, sustained collaboration. Cross-sector partnerships between colleges, employers, and the U.S. Department of Defense are where real impact happens.

Programs like Syracuse’s Onward to Opportunity and ACE’s Reimagining Transfer for Student Success illustrate what’s possible when higher education and workforce systems align.

The BLUF, or Bottom Line Up Front

Military learners aren’t asking for special treatment. They ask for systems to make sense for the lives they actually lead. With the right policy changes, institutional commitments, and collaborative frameworks, we can turn mobility from a barrier into a bridge.

But we also need better data, better pathways, and a better understanding of what success looks like for these students—not just access, but degree completion and career readiness. Military learners aren’t an exception. They are the future of an inclusive, prepared, and resilient workforce.

It’s time higher education met these students where they are because they’re already leading the way.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

May 27, 2025
Supporting Student Wellbeing in Uncertain Times

Higher education is operating in a time of rapid change and uncertainty. Changes in federal and state policy, funding, and increasing polarization are reshaping campus environments and profoundly affecting many students’ experiences. As leaders, it is critical to understand how these forces are impacting student wellbeing—and what actions institutions can take to adapt and strengthen their supports for students.

The Action Network for Equitable Wellbeing (ANEW) is a networked community of higher education changemakers working together to advance systems-level transformation to improve student wellbeing. Drawing on the involvement of more than 200 colleges and universities, our experience shows that while there is no single solution, institutions can act quickly and intentionally to strengthen student support using a practical, data-driven, human-centered approach.

Through this collaborative work, we’ve identified three strategies that are helping campuses respond more effectively to the rapidly evolving needs of their students: using real-time disaggregated data, conducting empathy interviews, and building a rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making.

Collect real-time quantitative data and analyze it thoughtfully

How students are doing can change rapidly as policies and rhetoric shift, availability of external resources change, significant events on campus or in the world occur, and new barriers or supports emerge. Relying on older data (e.g. survey data collected nine months ago) can miss important changes. Without timely insight, decisions may be based on outdated information or an incomplete understanding. Systematically collecting real-time data helps institutions stay aligned with students’ current realities.

To support this kind of real-time data collection, ANEW institutions have used the Wellbeing Improvement Survey for Higher Education Settings (WISHES)—a short survey, available at no cost, that provides institutions with timely and actionable data on a range of outcomes and experiences influencing student wellbeing. WISHES helps institutions monitor student wellbeing and stay responsive to the present moment.

But aggregate data tell only part of the story. To understand how different groups of students are faring, disaggregating data by relevant student characteristics can reveal patterns that may be hidden in campus-wide averages and allow institutions to focus support where it is most needed, such as groups of students who might be disproportionately struggling.

In fall 2023, the University of California, Irvine administered WISHES, disaggregated its data, and found that Middle Eastern students seemed to be experiencing more challenges than their peers in some measures. “Aggregate data really doesn’t tell you anything [about what to do]—you have to disaggregate,” said Doug Everhart, director of student wellness and health promotion at UC Irvine. “In order to find meaning behind the data, you have to follow up and ask questions to dig into the lived experience and the ‘why’. That focus is what makes [the ANEW] approach so useful.” The real-time disaggregated data allowed the team to better understand the Middle Eastern student experience and develop strategies responsive to their needs.

Conduct empathy interviews to develop actionable, human-centered insights

Real-time disaggregated survey data can reveal where differences exist—but it likely won’t explain them. Empathy interview is a method used in diverse sectors and settings to understand what’s behind the patterns in quantitative data. These insights are important for informing what specific changes are needed to better support students.

An empathy interview is a one-on-one session that uses deep listening and responsive prompts to explore the lived experience of an individual on a specific topic such as wellbeing. Empathy interviews uncover holistic and nuanced perspectives about a student’s life—including what they’re facing, what matters to them, and how they navigate challenges and opportunities. Empathy interviews are not formal research, but they offer a structured way for leaders to move beyond assumptions and gain insights that are authentic, revealing, and actionable from those who are most affected.

Katy Redd, executive director of the Longhorn Wellness Center at the University of Texas at Austin, reflected on the value of this strategy, “Going through this process pushed us to confront the gap between how we assume students experience college and what their day-to-day reality actually looks like for low-income students. Listening closely helped us notice invisible norms and structures that many students are expected to navigate without support. It shifted our mindset—away from surface-level solutions and toward deeper questions about how our systems function and for whom.”

Michelle Kelly, assistant vice president for health and wellbeing at the University of Texas at Arlington, described a similar shift in perspective: “There was a moment after our empathy interviews where it just clicked: we’d been asking students to navigate systems we ourselves hadn’t fully mapped. It was humbling—but also motivating. Hearing their stories reminded us that the data isn’t just about trends—it’s about real people trying to make it through college while juggling a hundred other things.”

These interviews, coupled with WISHES data, revealed insights that were difficult to uncover through other methods and have helped institutions think and act more systematically about what’s shaping students’ experiences and outcomes.

Develop a rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making

Being responsive to student needs isn’t about changing course in response to every complaint—it’s about noticing patterns early and adjusting when needed, which requires more than one-time or yearly data collection. Institutions that build a regular rhythm of frequent data collection and sense-making are better equipped to detect shifts, learn from them, and adapt in ways that support student wellbeing.

WISHES is most effective when administered multiple times per semester over many years. Data collected frequently over time provide helpful context when trying to understand how students are impacted by significant events on campus or in the world. Institutions can better answer questions like: Are students struggling more or less than they were at similar points of the semester in previous years? In times of extraordinary change, it is easy to imagine that students are doing worse than they were previously. Frequent data collection and sense-making allow us to objectively determine if this assumption is true.

ANEW institutions that frequently collect data over time using WISHES have been able to understand in close to real time how large external events—such as the pandemic, October 7, and the shifting political environment—have impacted student wellbeing. Schools have reported that WISHES data enabled them to check their assumptions about the impact these events had on student wellbeing. In some cases, assumptions have been disproven using data, allowing schools to avoid trying to solve nonexistent problems or the wrong problem.

As the University of Maryland reflects, “We’ve administered WISHES 10 times over the past two years and have seen firsthand the benefits of frequent data collection and are excited for the future. We most recently have begun to build a dashboard to display our WISHES metrics over time and democratize these critical insights to a myriad of roles within our campus community, which we hope will lead to more effective support for students across our university.”

In the face of today’s challenges, higher education has a powerful opportunity—and responsibility—to lead with empathy, insight, and action. By embracing a data-driven, student-centered approach, institutions can move beyond assumptions and truly understand what their students need to flourish. The experiences shared by ANEW institutions demonstrate that meaningful change is not only possible but already underway. Now is the time for campuses to lean in, listen deeply, and build the systems that will support every student’s wellbeing.

This post was written by Joanna Adams (Rochester Institute of Technology), Jennifer Maltby (Rochester Institute of Technology), and Allison Smith (New York University), with the co-leadership and insights of hundreds of changemakers contributing to the Action Network for Equitable Wellbeing.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

May 16, 2025
Labor, Coalition and Green education policies compared – Campus Review

Australians go to the polls this Saturday to choose the next government. The Australian Labor Party, the Liberal-National Coalition and the Australian Greens have a variety of different policies for education in the funding, content and management spaces.

Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

Membership Login

Source link

April 30, 2025
Renewing the Social Contract for Higher Education

Higher education is at a crossroads.

Most Americans recognize that our nation’s colleges and universities contribute enormously to the nation’s economy and the welfare of its people. For over a century, the sector has been an essential driver of innovation, discovery, job creation and economic mobility.

There is unambiguous evidence linking postsecondary education to increased lifetime earnings, better health outcomes and greater participation in civic life. Higher education is not only a valuable commodity, it is an American treasure.

And yet, none of these arguments seem to gain purchase in the American imagination.

There are myriad reasons for this, many of which came along well before the administration put research universities in the crosshairs. The cost of college has been out of reach for many families for decades. Student debt has soared to excessive levels. Legacy acceptances advantage wealth and bloodlines, making a mockery of “merit-based” admissions. Most problematic, only 60 percent of students who start a degree actually complete one.

As a result, public confidence in the sector has dropped precipitously over the last decade.

So, what might be done?

If colleges and universities are to remain relevant in the 21st century, we need a renewed social contract between institutions of higher education and the American people, focused on student success. Put another way, student outcomes should be at the center of the way we understand an institution’s place in the landscape.

To these ends, the Carnegie Foundation and the American Council on Education last week announced the new Student Access and Earnings Classification, a unique approach to describing the contributions of postsecondary institutions nationwide.

Specifically, we will compare similar institutions across the nation, identifying whether they provide access to students in communities they serve, and whether those students go on to successful, wealth-generating careers in the regions in which they live and work. Importantly, the Student Access and Earnings Classification tracks both students who complete their degrees and those who do not, so institutions are accountable for all students, not just those who graduate.

We have identified 479 Opportunity Colleges and Universities nationwide, places that are engines of the American Dream. They come in all sizes and types, and they can be found in all four corners of the nation. They include institutions long recognized for their contributions to economic mobility—places like Arizona State University, Spelman College, Texas A&M and Xavier University. They also include institutions that receive little fanfare—places like Ball State in Indiana, Texas Southmost College, Utah Valley University, Wheeling University in West Virginia and Blackfeet Community College in Montana.

Looking forward, the Carnegie Classifications for Institutions of Higher Education—the nation’s gold standard for organizing the postsecondary sector—will determine institutional excellence not simply based on prestige, student selectivity or degrees awarded, but based on how well schools set their students up for success in the real world.

Whether you are a parent, student, policymaker or institution leader, Opportunity Colleges and Universities warrant recognition, understanding and investment. For if we establish more places like them in the years ahead, and ensure that the postsecondary sector is accountable for student success, we will create more opportunities for everyone. And that, we think, is something most Americans will rally behind.

If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.

Source link

April 28, 2025