Blog

  • Universities want more money upfront. DfE wants proof students are really there

    Universities want more money upfront. DfE wants proof students are really there

    When students get their student maintenance loans, they get the first instalment a lot earlier than their university gets the corresponding tuition fee payment.

    That might help explain the curious case of disparities between pulldown – but there’s a sound theory to it. Students without savings could face a cashflow issue if it was any other way.

    It’s becoming a problem for universities too. The Office for Students’ (OfS) financial sustainability update report highlights low liquidity levels in the sector – especially during certain points in the annual cycle.

    That matters because universities have to meet minimum liquidity requirements in the registration conditions in England. A failure to maintain those levels can also impact “going concern” status and breach some lending covenants.

    In the past, cash flow imbalances tended to be offset by other income sources, borrowing, or cross-subsidies, such as from international student fees.

    But given how universities operate and the demands on cash before those SLC payments come in, there is in some providers a disproportionate reliance on arrears payments from SLC-funded students compared to other funding sources.

    For non-SLC funded students, universities typically charge fees upfront (or at least in front-loaded advance instalments) or get payments for stuff like government-funded apprenticeships monthly. Research funding streams also match payments to incurred costs.

    But the SLC’s payment profile for undergrads is 25:25:50 – so universities face significant upfront costs in the first two terms and then wait longer than standard 30-day payment terms to receive funds, forcing them to bridge the gap using other resources.

    So the University Alliance has a proposal – switch those payments to 40:40:20 to improve the sector’s funding position:

    Even if the move was phased first to 33:33:33 and then to 40:40:20 it would have an immediate impact on the current situation which has been adversely impacted by the previous administration’s approach to international student recruitment through restrictive visa policies.

    The current system is going to have to undergo change anyway, given the potential implications of the LLE. I note in passing that one of the most common student leader manifesto goals this year is better, less front-loaded instalments – surely the principle (and the issue in terms of cashflow) cuts both ways.

    But UA’s proposal might not land in quite the way intended – partly because the Student Loans Company is under pressure to increase yield.

    Leakage

    DfE’s “Tailored Review” of the Student Loans Company back in July 2019 talked of the rapidly increasing size of the student loan book, and the increasing importance and value of having a robust, well-resourced and effective repayment strategy which actively seeks to maximise yield.

    That said that the SLC is hamstrung by IT systems which do not “adequately facilitate the use of smart diagnostics for effective modelling, proactive use of data analytics and more precise customer segmentation” to minimise repayment leakage:

    Indeed, unverified customers account for c. £7bn of uncollected repayments (although many of these would not be in a position to repay)

    September’s SLC board minutes noted that its CEO had been along to DfE’s Audit and Risk Committee, where the department led an item on the student finance loan book, with an emphasis on its “scale and yield potential”.

    And its newly published Business Plan for 2024-25 says it will work with partners in DfE to progress proposals to “improve repayment customer verification rates”, “improve data quality to increase verification and yield” and look at options to apply stronger sanctions to customers not adhering to the terms and conditions of their student finance repayments.

    Some of that is about the SLC’s systems – but one of the problems noted in the National Audit Office’s report into franchising is that there is often “insufficient evidence” that students are attending and engaging with their courses:

    In determining a student’s eligibility for loan payments, and before making payments, SLC uses lead providers’ data to confirm students’ attendance. Lead providers self-assure their own data… there is no effective standard against which to measure student engagement, which attendance helps demonstrate, and there is no legal or generally accepted definition of attendance. Providers themselves determine whether students are meaningfully engaged with their course.

    So in a set of circumstances where the NAO and the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) are already worried about attendance and engagement, and providers are worried about their own cashflow, it seems unlikely that DfE is going to be receptive of a proposal to give providers more of the money early – especially if, in the case of franchised provision, it can’t just claw it back from the lead provider if there’s a problem like the Applied Business Academy.

    As we noted back in October, the government’s response to the NAO and the PAC was that it published guidance on attendance management in May, against which providers can be held to account “in relation to the release of SLC tuition fee payments”.

    That said that there is an “understanding and acceptance” across the sector that providers should have in place published attendance and engagement policies, so that students understand the commitment expected of them and the respective process a provider follows if attendance expectations are not met.

    It also said that in any circumstance where a provider does not have a published policy, the department “expects” that one will exist from the 2024-25 academic year – but it’s pretty clear talking to people around the country that that goal hasn’t been meaningfully met in large parts of the sector, at least in terms of a policy that both covers home students and is “auditable”.

    And part of the difficulty there is what is or isn’t meant by “attendance”.

    Attending isn’t always in person

    The Attendance Management guidance says:

    Attendance means participation in a course by a student, including, but not limited to, teaching face-to-face or blended study, in line with a provider’s published attendance policy. A provider should communicate its policy to a student and have an auditable process in place to support the action it may take when a student does not meet attendance expectations.

    It goes on to say that providers have flexibility to ensure every student engages with a course, and that the student and/or the course may require greater or less attendance than another due to circumstances or content.

    SLC told me that there is no difference between “attendance” and “engagement” – the definition of “attendance” for student finance purposes is active and ongoing engagement. Crucially, it said that “attendance” doesn’t have to mean “in person”, or “studying on campus”.

    But the conflation of “attendance” and “engagement” doesn’t seem to apply when a course is designed and designated. Noting that “blended learning” combines traditional classroom teaching with online learning and independent study, it says that there has been some confusion as to whether these courses should be coded as distance learning courses:

    Courses of any teaching method are distance learning if the students only attend occasionally, for example once a term. If students attend regularly, for example once a week, and follow a structured timetable, the course is not distance learning and you should not add it to CMS as such.

    That paragraph draws a clear distinction between attendance and engagement. Its two scenarios also appear to draw a distinction between (physical) attendance and “engagement”:

    • Scenario 1: Thomas is studying a BA Hons in sports coaching. His course hours are 30 weeks online study including lectures and tutorials, 2 days per week physical attendance at sports academy, 6 days per year attendance at university. As Thomas needs to attend the sports academy regularly rather than occasionally, this is an in-attendance course.
    • Scenario 2: Kate is studying an HND in Musical Theatre. Her course hours are 30 weeks online study including lectures and tutorials, 3 days per year (1 day per term) attendance at college. As Kate only needs to attend college occasionally rather than regularly, this is a distance learning course.

    The difference between Scenario 2 and the patterns of attendance being seen by many providers around the country this term is that in that scenario, the course is designed not to include regular physical attendance.

    A two-stage process

    SLC told me that whether it’s distance or in-person, engagement on a course is required and confirmation of that engagement is therefore required for SLC to make a fee loan payment on the student’s behalf.

    Ongoing engagement is not part of the definition of in-person or distance learning. That distinction relates to the attributes of the course that is supplied by the provider, as to whether the course has elements of in-person learning or if the student is not required to be in-person.

    But the obvious question is as follows. Notwithstanding codified exemptions for disabled students, if a course is designed as blended, would an acceptable “attendance management” policy for a course of that sort allow a student to engage all term, but only occasionally physically attend?

    If yes, and Kate’s HND wasn’t designed as blended, and her mate Kathy was on a course that was designed as blended, that would seem to mean that they could both have exactly the same attendance and engagement pattern, but Kathy would get a maintenance loan while Kate wouldn’t.

    If, on the other hand, a course was designed as blended and requiring regular in-person attendance, and SLC would expect an attendance/engagement policy to enforce that regular in-person attendance, there’s plenty of providers right now falling foul of those expectations.

    So you end up with three categories:

    1. Providers who’ve never really had a proper policy on any of this for home students – let alone enforce one – beyond noticing if a student doesn’t submit what can often be end-of-year summative assessment.
    2. Providers who designed a course as blended where students are in reality engaging in a “distance learning” kind of way – which, while confirming engagement in accordance with the rules, seems hugely unjust to tens of thousands of OU students if nothing else.
    3. Providers who are heavily auditing and requiring physical attendance – partly to achieve parity with international students – at just the point that students are struggling to attend in-person given wider demands on their time.

    It may well be the case that SLC is stuck with the definitions it has – which in part date back to the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998.

    But if it’s the case that it’s OK for an attendance policy to not actually require regular in-person attendance, it’s hard to believe that whatever size and shaped-problem that DfE and the SLC have with student loan fraud is going to get anything other than worse.

    And in the end, this all comes back to an old problem – not knowing what’s going on underneath headline non-continuation.

    How far in?

    Remember those risks that OfS identified in its insight brief on subcontracting:

    • Data of extremely poor quality has been submitted in relation to students at some subcontractual partnerships, leading to payments being made to, and on behalf of, students who are not genuinely entitled to them.
    • Delivery partners have lacked clear attendance policies, making it almost impossible for lead providers to submit accurate data to the OfS and the SLC in relation to these students.
    • Students have been encouraged to register for courses that they do not genuinely intend to study, to access public funding through maintenance loans. In some cases, students have withdrawn from courses shortly after receiving these funds; in others there are grounds to doubt that they are continuing to study, despite their termly attendance being confirmed.

    Whether we’re looking at a select group of partnerships as OfS published data on last week or directly taught provision, while we know what percentage of UG students don’t make it to the second year, we don’t know what proportion:

    • Got instalment 1 of the maintenance loan but didn’t get as far as “engaging” enough for the provider to claim instalment 1 of the tuition fee loan (they don’t show up at all in non-continuation)
    • Engaged enough to enable the provider to claim instalment 1 but not enough to enable the provider to claim instalment 2 (and what proportion of them claimed maintenance instalment 2)
    • Engaged enough to enable the provider to claim instalment 2 but not enough to enable the provider to claim instalment 3 (and what proportion of them claimed maintenance instalment 3)
    • Engaged enough to enable the provider to claim instalment 3 but then failed and was withdrawn
    • Engaged enough to enable the provider to claim instalment 3 and was eligible to progress but then self-withdrew
    • And we don’t know any of the above for subsequent years of study.

    In many ways, what we have here is (yet) another iteration of the stretch involved in a single level playing field. There have been endless tales down the years of Russell Group alumni not really “engaging” at all for entire years, and in some cases entire degree courses – only to pull it out of the bag at the end. It’s an adult environment, after all.

    On the other hand, with another part of the sector now under close scrutiny over ghost students of differing definitions – just as the FE sector saw scandals over in the 90s – it doesn’t feel like that kind of legend is to be allowed.

    In terms of the cashflow thing, if DfE and the SLC are going to push more of the money upfront, they’re surely going to want to know the percentages and numbers in each of the above categories.

    And the accuracy of those percentages and numbers involves providers being sure about “enough” engagement – in an auditable way across the diversity of programmes and reasonable adjustments – to tick the box in the data return to SLC three times a year.

    It does feel like there’s some distance to go on all of that as it stands.

    Source link

  • Supreme Court must halt unprecedented TikTok ban to allow review, FIRE argues in new brief to high court

    Supreme Court must halt unprecedented TikTok ban to allow review, FIRE argues in new brief to high court

    Today, FIRE filed an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of TikTok’s emergency application for an injunction pending review of a law that would force it to shut down absent divestiture of Chinese ownership. The Summary of Argument from the brief, on which FIRE is joined by the Institute for Justice and Reason Foundation, explains the law’s grave threat to free speech. 

    The nationwide ban on TikTok is the first time in history our government has proposed — or a court approved — prohibiting an entire medium of communications. The law imposes a prior restraint, and restricts speech based on both its content and viewpoint. As such, if not unconstitutional per se, it should be subject to the highest level of First Amendment scrutiny. Given the grave consequences, both for free speech doctrine and for the 170 million Americans who use TikTok to communicate with one another, this Court should at least hit the “pause button” before allowing such a drastic policy to go into effect.

    The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit correctly recognized the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act, (“the Act”) as a direct regulation of speech. Exercising original and exclusive jurisdiction over TikTok’s constitutional challenge, the court held the Act “implicates the First Amendment and is subject to heightened scrutiny,” and assumed but did not decide strict scrutiny was warranted. . However, the court held the Act “clears this high bar,” granting deference to the government’s characterization of alleged national security concerns to conclude the Act was “carefully crafted to deal only with control by a foreign adversary, and it was part of a broader effort to counter a well-substantiated national security threat posed by the [People’s Republic of China].”

    Although the appellate panel was correct that the Act should be subject to the highest level of First Amendment scrutiny, it failed to actually hold the government to its burden of proof, and deferred too readily to unsupported assertions of a national security threat.

    Congress has not met the heavy constitutional burden the First Amendment demands when regulating speech, let alone banning an entire expressive platform. No published legislative findings or other official public records attempt to explain or substantiate why the Act’s severe encroachment on millions of Americans’ right to speak and to receive information is necessary to address a real and serious problem. Nor was there any showing the ban would effectively address the asserted risks.

    The proffered evidence of the law’s purpose reveals illegitimate intent to suppress disfavored speech and generalized concerns about data privacy and national security. These concerns fall far short of satisfying strict scrutiny, and the court’s extreme deference to governmental conjecture is unwarranted, misguided, and dangerous. Nor is the Act narrowly tailored to any compelling or substantial government interest, as the First Amendment requires.

    Constitutional intrusions of this unprecedented magnitude demand this Court’s full consideration before they take effect. This Court should grant Petitioners’ emergency application for an injunction pending review.

    Source link

  • Free speech advocates converge to support FIRE’s ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ federal court appeal

    Free speech advocates converge to support FIRE’s ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ federal court appeal

    FIRE, supported by a wave of prominent organizations and scholars as “friends of the court,” has appealed a district court’s ruling that limited the rights of students to attend middle and high school wearing clothes bearing the “Let’s Go Brandon” political slogan. FIRE is asking a federal appeals court to strike down the decision below and uphold freedom of expression for public school students, and a broad spectrum of free speech advocates and language experts are backing us up.

    So what happened? In April 2023, FIRE sued a west Michigan school district and two administrators for preventing two students from wearing “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts. The “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan originated during an October 2021 NASCAR race. After the race, won by Brandon Brown, members of the crowd chanted “Fuck Joe Biden” during Brown’s post-race interview. A commentator remarked that the fans were shouting “Let’s Go Brandon!” 


    WATCH VIDEO: NASCAR fans chant “Fuck Joe Biden” after the race.

    Since then, the presidential campaign of Donald Trump and Republican members of Congress have used the phrase widely, including during Congressional floor speeches, to show their displeasure with the Biden administration. The “Let’s Go Brandon” slogan airs uncensored on broadcast television, national cable news, and broadcast radio for all to hear. In the case on appeal, FIRE’s clients wore their “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts to school to express their disapproval of Biden and his administration. 

    During the lawsuit, the school acknowledged the students did not cause any disruption with their apparel. Yet this past August, the District Court for the Western District of Michigan upheld the school district’s censorship of “Let’s Go Brandon” apparel, holding “Let’s Go Brandon” is legally indistinguishable from “Fuck Joe Biden” and therefore constitutes “profanity.” 

    As FIRE’s appeal argues, that’s not how speech works. “Heck” is not the same as “hell,” “darn” is not the same as “damn,” and “Let’s Go Brandon” is not the same as “Fuck Joe Biden.” The government may not censor public school students’ political expression absent substantial disruption. Nor may school districts bypass this First Amendment protection by dubbing disfavored political speech “profane.” 

    This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other minor students to engage in non-disruptive political expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Last week, 18 individuals and organizations, including some of the world’s foremost linguistic experts, joined together to file eight amicus curiae, or “friend of the court” briefs in support of minors’ free speech rights. These briefs urge the Sixth Circuit to recognize what has long been understood outside the courtroom — sanitized expression is, by design, distinguishable from the profane language it replaces: 

    Linguistic Scholars: Dr. Melissa Mohr, Dr. Rebecca Roache, Professor Timothy Jay, Professor John H. McWhorter, and Professor Steven Pinker are internationally recognized linguistic scholars whose works focus on the history, psychology, and sociology of swearing. Each has written extensively on how language works and the role it continues to play in society. Together, they submitted a brief through Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, helpfully delineating the different types of “sanitized expression,” including euphemisms like “Let’s Go Brandon,” and describing their ubiquity and importance in political discourse. As they state at the beginning of their brief: “This case is not about swearing; it is about not swearing.”

    First Amendment Scholars: Dean Erwin Chemerinsky, Professor Clay Calvert, Professor Roy Gutterman, Professor Mary-Rose Papandrea, and Professor Joseph A. Tomain submitted an amicus brief through Cornell Law School’s First Amendment Clinic and attorney Michael Grygiel. Drawing on decades of study, the scholars methodically apply seminal First Amendment decisions to this particular case. Their brief argues: “the lower court failed to apply Tinker’s ‘substantial disruption’ test, as required when schools seek to prohibit student expression within the school environment that communicates a political message,” and thus “departed from longstanding public student constitutional free speech principles.”

    Liberty Justice Center: The Liberty Justice Center’s amicus brief asserts the district court’s decision represents an unprecedented expansion of “profanity” and is part of a nationwide increase in political censorship. The brief describes how “censorship of entirely mainstream political discourse has become all too common around the country” and school authorities increasingly seek to restrict free expression. The LJC argues that the district court’s opinion exacerbates this growing problem, by authorizing schools to treat “every euphemism . . . as the equivalent of its reference.”

    Dhillon Law Group, Young America’s Foundation, and Hamilton Lincoln Law Institute: These organizations submitted an amicus brief asserting the lower court’s failed to properly apply Tinker and its progeny to the students’ “Let’s Go Brandon” sweatshirts, which likewise represented political, non-profane student speech. Through careful analysis of First Amendment doctrine, their brief explains that the “district court erred in disregarding the political nature of appellants’ ‘Let’s Go Brandon’ apparel” and undervaluing the importance of First Amendment protections in K-12 public schools.

    National Coalition Against Censorship: The National Coalition Against Censorship submitted an amicus brief through Covington & Burling LLP to challenge the district court’s categorization of “Let’s Go Brandon” as unprotected “profane” expression. The brief argues that the “district court’s analysis would create a new, ill-defined category of ‘euphemistic’ profanity,” and “give school officials wide latitude to silence viewpoints they find objectionable, a result at odds with existing First Amendment doctrine.” The brief asserts that the lower court’s decision “represents a serious departure from our nation’s historical commitment to protecting political speech” and urges the Sixth Circuit to reverse. 

    Manhattan Institute: The Manhattan Institute’s amicus brief emphasizes the critical importance of preserving free speech rights in K-12 public schools, where students develop the skills necessary to productively engage in democratic society. The brief describes case law reflecting the importance of these freedoms in primary and secondary schools — and argues the district court’s opinion fails to “accurately reflect this understanding.”

    Parents Defending Education: Parents Defending Education submitted an amicus brief through Consovoy McCarthy PLLC arguing that the district court’s decision cannot be reconciled with First Amendment principles. The brief emphasizes how the school codes at issue in this case are part of a growing and concerning “trend of schools adopting speech codes prohibiting controversial speech.” And the brief asserts each of the cases relied on by the lower court are distinguishable.

    Buckeye Institute: The Buckeye Institute’s amicus brief contends that under established First Amendment doctrine, “[r]egulation of speech under the First Amendment should constitute a rare exception.” Yet, they argue, the Michigan school district, motivated by desire to censor what it deems undesirable speech, disregarded that doctrine in order to censor non-disruptive political speech “that does not fall within one of the Supreme Court’s approved exceptions” to the First Amendment’s protection. 

    Our clients and their counsel are grateful for the support of this impressive and diverse amicus coalition. This case will play a critical role in protecting the rights of other minor students to engage in non-disruptive political expression as guaranteed under the First Amendment.

    Source link

  • Online Learners: Generational Influences on Expectations and Satisfaction

    Online Learners: Generational Influences on Expectations and Satisfaction

    Earlier this year, I was interested to read RNL’s Generations of Online Learners report, which was produced by cross-tabbing our national survey of (largely) prospective online students by the three primary student generations. There has been greater awareness in recent years of the influence of generational differences in higher education, and this made me interested to explore the perceptions of students by age within our National Online Learners dataset.

    These data reflect the responses to the RNL Priorities Survey for Online Learners (PSOL) over the past three academic years (fall 2021 through spring 2024), which now reflects a fully post-pandemic point of view. The total data represents 101,925 student records from 153 institutions. The PSOL asks students to indicate a level of importance and a level of satisfaction on a variety of experiences associated with their online study.

    While the standard age categories used in the PSOL don’t exactly line up with the generational parameters, we can get close with these designations:

    Age Indicator Generational Designation
    19-24 Gen Z
    25-34 Millennial (One)
    35-44 Millennial (Two)
    45 -54 GenX

    Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment

    One of the high priority items on the PSOL is the perception of “Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.”

    Tuition paid is a worthwhile investment.

    Gen Z Millennial (One) Millennial (Two) Gen X
    Importance* 86% 89% 91% 92%
    Satisfaction** 62% 67% 71% 76%

    *% of students who indicated the item was important/very important
    **% of students who indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with this item

    While this item is just 6 percent less important to Gen Z students than it is to Gen Xers, Gen Z students are 14 percent less satisfied than the Gen Xers. The older the student, the more likely they are to be satisfied with their tuition investment. What this says to online programs is you may need to more intentionally build the case for the investment of time and resources when you are recruiting and looking to retain Gen Z students (the primary “traditional age” student cohort) than you may need to be when recruiting (and seeking to retain) either Millennials or Gen X online students.

    Items of less importance to Gen Z/more important to Gen X

    Three other items stand out as being much less important to Gen Z students than they are to Gen X students:

    • This institution has a good reputation.
    • Factor to enroll: Reputation of the institution
    • Source of information: Catalog (online)

    Each of these items saw at least 10 percent less importance among Gen Z online students when compared with Gen X.

    This could be considered in the reverse: these items are actually more important to older students than they are younger students. If you are an online program that is specifically looking to recruit online learners who are older, you may want to emphasize your overall reputation and include reliable resources that speak to the quality of the education you are providing.

    These Gen X ratings may be (at least in part) due to a lack of exposure that this generation had to online learning options when they were younger; they may need more evidence that online learning is an acceptable way to get a degree. In addition, older online students may be more accustomed to reviewing catalogs and expecting to see a complete catalog as an online resource as they are determining their program and direction for course work.

    Conversely, the relative lack of concern that Gen Z students give to issues of reputation (likely as a placeholder for “quality” of the program) is likely an indicator of their comfort with the online modality – which for them does not represent something experimental or new. Particularly after the pandemic (and their exposure to online or remote learning) they may not have loved those experiences, but they did become quite comfortable with them.

    Five areas where Gen Z students are much less satisfied than Gen X

    There were a number of factors for which Gen Z online students indicated satisfaction levels which are 10 percent or more lower than among Gen X online students.

    Faculty provide timely feedback about student progress.

    Gen Z Millennial (One) Millennial (Two) Gen X
    Satisfaction* 66% 71% 73% 76%

    *% of students who indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with this item

    The quality of instruction is excellent.

    Gen Z Millennial (One) Millennial (Two) Gen X
    Satisfaction* 65% 70% 72% 76%

    *% of students who indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with this item

    Adequate financial aid is available.

    Gen Z Millennial (One) Millennial (Two) Gen X
    Satisfaction* 59% 66% 68% 70%

    *% of students who indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with this item

    I receive timely information on the availability of financial aid.

    Gen Z Millennial (One) Millennial (Two) Gen X
    Satisfaction* 64% 72% 74% 74%

    *% of students who indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with this item

    This institution responds quickly when I request information.

    Gen Z Millennial (One) Millennial (Two) Gen X
    Satisfaction* 68 % 76 % 78 % 80 %

    *% of students who indicated they were satisfied/very satisfied with this item

    These data make it clear that the youngest online students are clearly less satisfied with their experience than are older generations. Note that all respondents are in fully online programs and are not reflecting any of the “emergency remote learning” that occurred during the pandemic – a period that precedes the data collection window. Having said this, these younger students may be more ready to be critical of fully online learning due to possible pandemic-era remote learning experiences. Alternatively, their lifelong exposure to all things online may just make them have higher expectations of their online programs than older students. As we have documented elsewhere, their expectations may be informed by the many other highly personalized and speedy online interactions they have in other spheres of their lives.

    The results reflected here provide an opportunity for online programs to consider the student populations they are targeting for recruitment purposes and how they can best retain them through to completion of the program – and thereby maximize their student success outcomes. Targeted initiatives and communication related to these priority areas for younger students may best serve institutions with achieving their goals, recognizing that students in different age groups have different perceptions and perspectives that they bring with them to the higher education experience.

    Survey your students

    The most relevant and useful data points that will maximize student success are always specific to each institution. For this reason, it is important that institutions (and in this case online programs) need to survey their own student population to identify areas of importance and satisfaction (and dissatisfaction). Once you have data for your own institution (or online program), you can isolate it by various demographics and then target your activities for subpopulations that may be less satisfied with their experience. The work you do to gather student feedback data, to explore it for insights and to use it to inform actions will have the greatest impact on student success.

    Contact me if you would like to learn more about administering the Priorities Survey for Online Learners with your students.

    I also invite you to download the 2024 National Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report to learn more about the perceptions of students by class level in traditional and online programs

    Source link

  • Helping Families See the True Cost of College

    Helping Families See the True Cost of College

    When it comes to choosing a college, the sticker price can be a major turnoff. A significant 65% of prospective students and 67% of their families report ruling out institutions based solely on the advertised “sticker price”.

    Source: 2024 Prospective Family Engagement Report

    But what does this mean for colleges and universities, and how can they help families look beyond the sticker shock to understand the true affordability of a degree?

    The rising tide of sticker shock

    Chart showing increase in number of families ruling out campuses because of price, from 58% in 2022 to 67% in 2024Chart showing increase in number of families ruling out campuses because of price, from 58% in 2022 to 67% in 2024
    Sources: 2024 Prospective Family Engagement and 2022 Prospective Family Engagement reports


    Ruling out colleges based on the sticker price is on the rise – and it’s happening fast. In just three years, the percentage of families eliminating schools from consideration due to high upfront costs has jumped from 58% in 2022 to 67% in 2024.

    This suggests that concerns about affordability are increasingly driving the college planning process, with families taking a hard look at the bottom line before even exploring other factors. But is this sticker shock reaction always a rational response, or might colleges be losing out on applicants who could afford to attend with the help of financial aid?

    The generational divide

    Chart showing that that nearly 70% of first generation students and families have ruled out an institution based on price.Chart showing that that nearly 70% of first generation students and families have ruled out an institution based on price.
    Sources: 2024 Prospective Family Engagement and 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing

    A notable divide emerges when comparing the sticker shock responses of first-generation college students to their continuing-generation peers. A full 69% of first-generation students reported ruling out schools based on sticker price, compared to 64% of continuing-generation students.

    This disparity is also reflected in families’ perceptions, with 68% of first-generation families eliminating schools due to cost versus 62% of continuing-generation families. This could suggest that first-generation students and families are less familiar with the intricacies of college financing and the crucial distinction between sticker and net price.

    As a result, they may be more likely to focus on the daunting upfront cost without fully exploring the available aid options. How can colleges better reach, educate, and support these first-generation students about affordability to prevent them from ruling out institutions that could be a great fit financially and academically?

    The role of family involvement

    Chart showing that 75% of students whose families are not involved in college planning will rule out an institution based on sticker price.Chart showing that 75% of students whose families are not involved in college planning will rule out an institution based on sticker price.
    Source: 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing

    The level of family involvement in the college search process also plays a role in sticker shock decisions. Students with very involved parents were less likely to rule out colleges based on sticker price (63%), suggesting that parental guidance may help applicants look beyond the initial cost to consider the bigger financial picture.

    But what about students with less involved parents? A striking 75% of students with uninvolved parents ruled out colleges based on sticker price. How can colleges step in to provide the necessary counseling and education about affordability for these applicants?

    Loan anxiety and sticker shock: A shared concern for students and families

    For both students and their families, concerns about loan debt play a significant role in the sticker shock equation. A striking 70% of students who expressed concerns about borrowing to finance their education were more likely to rule out colleges based on high prices. Families share this loan anxiety – 73% of families with loan concerns reported ruling out institutions based on sticker price. This underscores the need for colleges to address loan concerns head-on through transparent communication about financing options, debt management strategies, and a degree’s long-term return on investment.

    Chart showing more than 70% of students have fears about borrowing to pay for college.Chart showing more than 70% of students have fears about borrowing to pay for college.
    Source: 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing

    By providing reassurance and resources, institutions can help applicants feel more comfortable with the financial commitment and less likely to rule out schools due to initial sticker shock. Importantly, 72% of students and 79% of families reported that their borrowing concerns were negatively impacting their college planning, suggesting that proactive support from institutions is crucial in mitigating loan anxiety and promoting a more holistic view of affordability.

    The net price imperative

    While sticker price can be a major deterrent, the actual net price of attendance paints a very different picture. Institutions must do a better job of clearly communicating net price information to prospective students and families.

    This means highlighting available aid, scholarships, and financing options to demonstrate affordability. Tools like net price calculators can be powerful in helping applicants understand the true cost of attendance. But are these resources being effectively utilized and communicated to offset the sticker shock reaction?

    To help families and students look beyond sticker shock, institutions can take the following steps:

    1. Clearly communicate net price information: Highlight the difference between sticker price and net price on your website and in recruitment materials.
    2. Provide transparent financing information: Break down the costs of attendance and explain financing options in clear, easy-to-understand language.
    3. Offer user-friendly net price calculators: Help families estimate their actual out-of-pocket costs with interactive net price calculators.
    4. Proactively counsel about aid: Don’t wait for families to ask – offer personalized financial aid counseling to prospective students.
    5. Address loan anxiety: Provide resources and guidance to help students and families understand responsible borrowing and debt management.
    6. Highlight value beyond price: Showcase the long-term value and outcomes of a degree from your institution to demonstrate the return on investment.
    7. Partner with high schools: Collaborate with high school counselors to provide early education about college financing and affordability.
    8. Target outreach to first-gen students and their families: Recognize that first-generation students may need additional support and education about the college financing process.
    9. Follow up with sticker-shocked applicants: If a student expresses interest but seems deterred by the sticker price, proactively reach out with information about aid and affordability options.
    10. Leverage video and AI to personalize the process: Use video content and artificial intelligence tools to provide personalized, interactive explanations of financial aid and affordability. AI-powered chatbots can offer 24/7 support to answer families’ financing questions, while personalized video messages can break down complex aid packages in an easy-to-digest format. By embracing these technologies, institutions can create a more engaging, self-service-oriented experience that empowers families to confidently navigate the affordability landscape.

    The bottom line and more findings from our Perceptions report

    The sticker shock phenomenon is a real and growing concern in college admissions. However, by understanding the factors that drive these decisions and taking proactive steps to educate families, colleges can help prospective students see beyond the advertised tuition rate to consider the true affordability of a degree. This requires a nuanced understanding of the college financing landscape and a commitment to clear, transparent communication. With the right approaches, institutions can attract diverse applicants who may have otherwise been deterred by sticker shock.

    You can read more insights and findings in the 2024 High School Students’ Perceptions of College Financing report, co-sponsored by our partners Ardeo and Halda. This report captures data from a survey of more than 2,100 11th- and 12th-grade students. Read it now.

    Source link

  • Australia blocks social media for teens while UK mulls blasphemy ban

    Australia blocks social media for teens while UK mulls blasphemy ban

    This year, FIRE launched the Free Speech Dispatch, a regular series covering new and continuing censorship trends and challenges around the world. Our goal is to help readers better understand the global context of free expression. The previous entries covered policing of online speech, assassination attempts on U.S. soil, and more. Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter. 

    One step forward, two steps back for Australia

    (Mojahid Mottakin / Shutterstock.com)

    Communications Minister Michelle Rowland confirmed there was “no pathway to legislate” the government’s controversial plans to require platforms to moderate “misinformation.” In other words, the legislation is effectively dead. The bill, which I covered in a previous Dispatch, defined misinformation as “reasonably verifiable as false, misleading, or deceptive” and “likely to cause or contribute to serious harm.” There are many free speech concerns that arise when the government grants itself the power to require moderation of speech it deems untrue.

    But while Australia’s troubling misinformation legislation failed, another worrying bill sailed forward. Late last month, Australia passed the Social Media Minimum Age bill, legislation banning social media for children under the age of 16 that does not even allow for parent permission, despite the myriad threats it poses to free speech and privacy. 

    Australia isn’t the only country considering measures limiting youth access to social media. Here in the United States, the Kids Online Safety Act — which suffers from numerous First Amendment pitfalls — risks passage in Congress. Advocates and legislators have even pushed for bills similar to Australia’s that would wholesale stop American teens from accessing social media sites.

    UK adds blasphemy to its mounting free speech woes


    WATCH VIDEO: Free nations don’t have blasphemy laws. The UK needs to tread carefully.

    Once again, the UK is making headlines — the bad kind. The reason this time? Late last month, Member of Parliament Tahir Ali called on UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to lead “measures to prohibit the desecration of all religious texts and the prophets of the Abrahamic religions.” 

    There’s a term for that: a blasphemy law.

    The UK’s relationship with free expression is currently in a free fall and the last thing it needs right now is more forms of expression to police. Blasphemy laws are often packaged and promoted in language about protecting the powerless but, as countless recent arrests and prosecutions make clear, are regularly wielded as a tool to preserve power, whether religious, political, or somewhere in between. 

    Ali’s advocacy of a blasphemy law is deeply wrong-headed, but he is far from the only one to think it might be a worthy venture. Last year, in response to a spate of Quran burning incidents, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution encouraging more countries to “address, prevent and prosecute acts and advocacy of religious hatred” — a nebulous concept prone to abuse — and months later, Denmark enacted such a law. 

    That wasn’t even the only blasphemy-related story to emerge this month out of the UK. In November, the Advertising Standards Authority banned comedian Fern Brady from using an advertisement for her stand-up tour that comically depicted Brady in place of the Virgin Mary in a riff on Alonso Cano’s 17th century painting, “St. Bernard and the Virgin.” In its decision, the ASA alleged that the image could cause “serious offence” to Christians, and directed her to avoid causing insult “on the grounds of religions” again.

    Comedian Fern Brady advertisement for her stand-up tour that comically depicted Brady in place of the Virgin Mary in a riff on Alonso Cano’s 17th century painting, “St. Bernard and the Virgin"

    Advertisement for comedian Fern Brady’s stand-up tour. (Alonso Cano / Fern Brady)

    The latest in censorship, tech, and the internet:

    • An investigation from Legal Initiatives for Vietnam discovered a shockingly high 90% compliance rate from companies including Meta, Google, and TikTok in response to government requests for content moderation, often of material critical of the government. Meta even utilizes a secret list of Vietnamese officials its users aren’t allowed to criticize. 
    • Pakistan appears to be the first country to block the relatively new social media platform Bluesky, but that’s no great surprise given Pakistan’s frequent internet censorship efforts.
    • A Citizen Lab report found that books “largely related to LGBTIQ, the occult, erotica, Christianity, and health and wellness” were the top items Amazon restricts shipments of to certain countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. Troublingly, Amazon “uses varying error messages such as by conveying that an item is temporarily out of stock” rather than stating upfront that the books are not available due to local censorship rules.
    • If you’re in Kyrgyzstan, watch what you say on the internet. In late November, the country’s parliament approved a bill that will issue fines for online “insult and libel.”
    • Russian communications authority Roskomnadzor is reportedly beefing up its efforts to cut off foreign internet access — including VPNs — in regions including Chechnya as it’s “testing its own sovereign internet it can fully control.”
    • The Parliament of Malaysia passed a worrying Online Safety Bill handing over to authorities broad new power to combat “harmful” content on the internet, including the ability to search and seize material from service providers without a warrant. “Freedom of speech does exist,” Communications Minister Fahmi Fadzil said, “but we are also given power through Parliament to impose any necessary restrictions for the safety of the public.”

    South Korea’s fleeting martial law decree threatened a free speech disaster 

    South Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023 attending a NATO summit

    South Korea President Yoon Suk Yeol in 2023 (Gints Ivuskans / Shutterstock.com)

    On Dec. 3, President Yoon Suk Yeol shocked the world by declaring martial law in South Korea under the guise of protecting “liberal democracy from the threat of overthrowing the regime . . . by anti-state forces active within the Republic of Korea.”

    The decree banned, among other things, “fake news, public opinion manipulation, and false propaganda” as well as rallies and “all political activities.” All media would also be “subject to the control of the Martial Law Command.” Alleged violators of these and other provisions risked being “arrested, detained, and searched without a warrant.”

    Hours later, Yoon reversed course in response to massive protests and a parliamentary veto.

    Speech-related arrests and sentencing from Hong Kong to Brazil

    Elsa Wu - adoptive mother of the democrat Hendrick Lui - was arrested outside court on Tuesday. She was holding up a banner that read "Righteous people live, villains must die."

    • “Righteous people live, villains must die.” Elsa Wu, the mother of a Hong Kong activist recently sentenced to four years in prison, was arrested “on suspicion of disorderly conduct” for holding a banner with this message outside of a courthouse in November.
    • Indian journalist Mohammed Zubair has been charged with “endangering sovereignty, unity and integrity of India” for criticizing, and posting video of, comments a well-known Hindu priest made about the Prophet Muhammad. “It’s a classic case of shooting the messenger,” one of Zubair’s colleagues said. “It’s a witch hunt.”
    • Shortly after Zubair’s arrest, and on a similar basis, Indian police raided the offices of the Association for Protection of Civil Rights on charges including “promoting enmity.” The raid was reportedly based on the group’s social media posts highlighting abuses against Muslims in India.
    • Thai human rights lawyer Arnon Nampa, already imprisoned on similar charges, was sentenced this month to another two years in prison “over a 2020 social media post in which he allegedly criticised the king’s authority.” In total, he will serve over 16 years in prison and is one of many Thai activists punished for insulting or criticizing the country’s monarchy. Additionally, three Thai activists were charged with “contempt of court” for protesting a 2022 ruling from the Constitutional Court about the prime minister’s term limit.
    • Dozens of protesters have been arrested after demonstrating against Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze’s announcement that Georgia will postpone its efforts to join the European Union until 2028.
    • A Brazilian court has issued its longest-ever sentence for racism — nearly nine years in prison — over a woman’s 2017 social media video about a Malawian child adopted by two white Brazilian celebrities. The woman, Day McCarthy, called the child a “monkey” in a video and complained that “fake people and suck-ups” criticize McCarthy, “who identifies as half Black,” for not having “blue eyes and straight hair and a beautiful nose” but compliment the child’s appearance. McCarthy now lives in France and it’s unclear if she will serve the sentence. 

    Iran releases two dissidents but expands cruel crackdown on forced veiling critics

    Last week, a wide-ranging new law went into effect that will further punish women who transgress Iran’s deeply oppressive mandatory hijab laws. Punishments range from flogging to long prison terms to travel bans and even death for “nudity, indecency, unveiling and bad dressing” and related crimes.

    But amidst this awful development, there were some bright spots. Iranian cartoonist Atena Farghadani was released after serving eight months in prison on charges of “propaganda against the state” and dissident rapper Toomaj Salehi was also released after being held for 753 days over his support of women’s rights protests in the country. At one point, Salehi had been sentenced to death before the ruling was overturned by Iran’s Supreme Court.

    Tiananmen joke grounds ‘Family Guy’ episode from in-flight entertainment

    "Family Guy" father Peter stands in front of the tanks in Tiananmen Square


    WATCH VIDEO: In the first episode of the TV sitcom “Family Guy,” Peter Griffin briefly stands in front of the tanks at Tiananmen Square. (YouTube.com)

    Hong Kong airline Cathay Pacific is the latest example of a corporation eager to comply with the Chinese government’s political sensibilities after a passenger complained about an in-flight Family Guy episode that jokingly referenced Tank Man and the Tiananmen Square. 

    “We emphasise that the content of the programme does not represent Cathay Pacific’s standpoint, and have immediately arranged to have the programme removed as soon as possible,” the airline wrote in a statement earlier this month. It remains unclear what, exactly, is the company’s “standpoint” on the Tiananmen Square killings.

    Mostly, but not all, bad news in arts and media:

    • Bangladesh’s Press Information Department recalled the accreditation of 167 journalists in the country, a “broad and sweeping cancellation” that has “left the journalist community alarmed.”
    • Haiti’s telecommunications authority CONATEL suspended evening show Radio Mega after a wanted gang leader called into the show “claiming that he was offered a large bribe by a member of the ruling Presidential Transition Council to negotiate peace with the gangs.”
    • After a lengthy 14 years, broadcaster Luisito “Chito” Berjit Jr. was finally acquitted after a Filipino court found there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of libel over his reporting about alleged government corruption.
    • A report this month from the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute found that about two-thirds of respondents “perceived news outlets to have practiced self-censorship,” a record high result since the polling began in 1997.
    • French media regulatory authority Arcom reportedly fined a conservative TV station €100,000 for failure to uphold its “obligation of honesty and rigour in the presentation and processing of information” after it showed an image calling abortion the world’s leading cause of death during a Catholic program.
    • Kuwait has reportedly banned the release of “Wicked” within the country “amid reports that the film includes a gay character, which led to its prohibition.” The musical joins a long list of films, including “Barbie” and “Thor: Love and Thunder,” to face local bans over inclusions of LGBT themes or characters.
    • Belarusian authorities arrested seven reporters from an online independent news outlet for “supporting extremist activities.” The president of the Belarusian Association of Journalists said it “looks like the authorities have decided to arrest all journalists they suspect of being disloyal ahead of January’s presidential vote.”
    • If you expected to make it through this year without a censorship controversy from the divisive Australian Olympian break-dancer Raygun, think again. Her lawyers reportedly threatened legal action against the event space hosting comedian Steph Broadbridge’s show “Raygun: The Musical.” Broadbridge says Raygun’s lawyers “trademarked the poster used to advertise the musical” and “banned her from replicating the iconic kangaroo hop.”

    Source link

  • Report on Grad Student Preferences

    Report on Grad Student Preferences

    According To the New UPCEA and Collegis Report, 71% of Prospective Graduate Students Prefer Fully Online Programs

    Findings highlight the need for strategic outreach to address master’s degree enrollment challenges in a competitive market

    [Washington and Illinois] – December 16, 2024 – A new report released today by UPCEA, the online and professional education association, and Collegis Education, a higher education solutions tech-enabler, highlights the growing interest in online master’s degree programs that provide flexibility, transparency and streamlined communication in graduate programs. Based on a survey of over 1,000 prospective graduate students, Building a Better Pipeline: Enrollment Funnel Needs and Perspectives from Potential Post-Baccalaureate Students reveals key insights for higher education institutions aiming to improve graduate recruitment strategies.

    “We are entering a period where every enrollment matters. Enrollment growth for graduate programs has been stagnant for the past 15 years, despite the number of baccalaureate degree holders growing. Future success requires colleges and universities to better align offerings with student preferences and communicating on their terms,” said Jim Fong, Chief Research Officer at UPCEA. “Listening to prospective students’ interests and addressing their needs provides a stronger roadmap for institutions to succeed in what will be a hyper-competitive landscape.”

    Key findings from the report include:

    • Delivery Preferences: Fully online programs are the most preferred format, with 71% of respondents showing strong interest, followed by hybrid formats (53%).
    • Program Priorities: A specific program of study is the top consideration (54%), followed by institutional reputation (28%) and delivery method (18%).
    • Communication Preferences: Email remains the preferred contact method for 47% of respondents during the inquiry process, with most willing to share basic details such as their name and email address.
    • Engagement Challenges: Sixty-two percent of respondents said difficulty finding basic program information on an institution’s website would cause them to disengage. At the same time, financial concerns dominated the latter stages of the application process.

    The report highlights a growing demand for master’s degree programs, which 65% of respondents identified as their top interest. It also points to an urgent need for institutions to address gaps in their outreach strategies to meet these demands effectively.

    “As higher education faces tightening budgets, strategic investments in program delivery and candidate outreach have never been more important. These findings emphasize the need for a fully transparent graduate search experience – from program research to application – to engage and inform students so they can see the value and affordability from the start,” said Tracy Chapman, Chief Academic Officer of Collegis Education. ”Institutions that leverage data, technology, and talent can strengthen relationships with prospective students to build communication and trust.”

    With graduate enrollment projected to grow by just 1.4% over the next five years, institutions must innovate to stay competitive. The report provides data-driven insights to help universities design more effective outreach and recruitment strategies, particularly in light of the 32% increase in master’s program offerings since 2017, which has led to a 15% decrease in average program size.

    Actionable Insights for Institutions

    With graduate enrollment projected to grow by just 1.4% over the next five years, institutions must innovate to stay competitive.The survey revealed that requiring too much personal information in online request-for-information (RFI) forms often leads to student disengagement. Institutions should streamline these forms and prioritize providing clear, accessible program details—such as tuition, course requirements, and job outcomes—on their websites. UPCEA’s analyses show that many institutions lack this essential information, which can deter potential applicants early in the inquiry process.

    In light of the 32% increase in master’s program offerings since 2017, which has led to a 15% decrease in average program size, this report provides vital data-driven insights to help universities design more effective outreach and recruitment strategies.

    Methodology

    Conducted in August, the survey was completed by 1,005 qualified participants. Qualified respondents were between the ages of 18 and 64, held at least a bachelor’s degree, were not currently enrolled in a post-baccalaureate program, and were at least somewhat interested in pursuing further education. Nearly a quarter (24 percent) of respondents were 55 to 64 years old, 18 percent were aged 46 to 54, and 14 percent were 23 to 26 years old, showing deep interest in fully online graduate programs regardless of age.

    For more information on the survey findings, download the report at https://collegiseducation.com/insights/student-experience/research-report-graduate-student-perspectives/

    # # #

    About UPCEA:

    UPCEA is the online and professional education association. Our members continuously reinvent higher education, positively impacting millions of lives. We proudly lead and support them through cutting-edge research, professional development, networking and mentorship, conferences and seminars, and stakeholder advocacy. Our collaborative, entrepreneurial community brings together decision-makers and influencers in education, industry, research, and policy interested in improving educational access and outcomes. Learn more at upcea.edu.

    About Collegis Education:

    As a mission-oriented, tech-enabled services provider, Collegis Education partners with higher education institutions to help align operations to drive transformative impact across the entire student lifecycle. With over 25 years as an industry pioneer, Collegis has proven how to leverage data, technology, and talent to optimize institutions’ business processes that enhance the student experience. With the strategic expertise that rivals the leading consultancies, a full suite of proven service lines, including marketing, enrollment, retention, IT, and its world-class Connected Core® data platform, Collegis helps its partners enable impact and drive revenue, growth, and innovation. Learn more at CollegisEducation.com.

    Media Contacts:

    UPCEA
    Molly Nelson
    VP of Communications
    [email protected]

    Collegis Education
    Alyssa Miller
    [email protected]
    973-615-1292

    Source link

  • 5 Reasons to Administer the Refreshed College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS)

    5 Reasons to Administer the Refreshed College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS)

    The expectations of higher education faculty and staff have changed. Understanding the experiences, opinions, and satisfactions of your faculty and staff is invaluable to creating a healthy culture and work environment. But it’s not just about fostering a positive atmosphere—it’s also critical for retaining your employees, improving the student experience, and reducing the risk of lost institutional knowledge.

    To help institutions better understand and support their faculty and staff, RNL is excited to introduce the refreshed College Employee Satisfaction Survey (CESS), designed with enhanced features to delve deeper into employee engagement and satisfaction at colleges and universities. Here are five reasons your institution should consider administering the updated CESS in 2024-2025.

    1. Gain a comprehensive view of your employee experience

    The updated CESS measures key aspects of faculty and staff morale, including workplace recommendations, overall job satisfaction, and retention rates. With this data, you’ll have a clear picture of your university’s workplace culture, helping you make meaningful improvements driven by faculty and staff input.

    2. Identify what matters most to your team

    The refreshed CESS explores key aspects of the employee experience including internal communication, prioritization of institutional goals, work-life balance, and satisfaction with compensation. Your employees also highlight institutional strengths and opportunities for improvement, giving you direct feedback on what they value most.

    3. Benefit from detailed, actionable reports

    With your participation in the CESS, you’ll receive comprehensive reports, including faculty and staff segment analyses, the raw survey data, and the RNL CESS Benchmark National Norms report.* This information empowers you to take targeted action to boost employee morale.

    4. Support accreditation and strategic planning

    Survey results from the CESS can be a powerful asset in accreditation and strategic planning processes. Demonstrating a commitment to understanding the employee experience helps to demonstrate compliance with key standards and conveys that your institution is proactive about maintaining a thriving educational environment.

    5. Take advantage of special pricing and longitudinal analysis

    To celebrate the launch of the refreshed survey, RNL is offering a 25% discount on standard administration fees for surveys conducted in 2025. Moreover, institutions engaging in the CESS more than once within a five-year span will receive a complimentary longitudinal comparison report. This report is invaluable for tracking changes and trends over time, providing a deeper understanding of the long-term impact of implemented policies and changes.

    The refreshed College Employee Satisfaction Survey from RNL is more than just a survey; it’s a comprehensive tool that empowers higher education institutions to thrive by fostering a healthy campus culture and satisfying work environment. By participating in the CESS, your institution can gain critical insights, enhance strategic planning, and ultimately, elevate the overall campus culture.

    To learn more or to schedule your institution’s participation, please visit our dedicated College Employee Satisfaction Survey webpage.

    *Benchmark reports will be sent to participating institutions once seven institutions of their type like 4-year publics, 2-year publics, or 4-year private conduct the 2024 CESS.

    Source link

  • The Power of Tailored Advising in Supporting Student Success

    The Power of Tailored Advising in Supporting Student Success

    This post was co-written with Natalie McVay.

    As a college graduate, RNL’s Natalie McVay has direct experience and helpful insights on the impact of advising on student success outcomes. After attending two separate institutions with differing levels of advising support, Natalie identified specific elements of “transactional” advising that nurtured her success, guiding her on her path to degree completion. For more information on Natalie’s perspective—including advising methods that impacted her ability to retain at her first institution, resulting in her decision to transfer—see RNL’s on-demand webinar The Student’s Perspective: Retention and Motivation.

    A proactive approach to student success

    In an era where student engagement and retention are top priorities, institutions are seeking innovative ways to support students at risk of leaving. Tailored transactional advising is a proactive approach to advising, relevant for all advising philosophies. This approach identifies students in need and provides opportunities to intervene with targeted resources to improve their experience. This strategy not only demonstrates the institution’s commitment to student success but also provides a clear return on investment (ROI) for the student.

    Identifying students’ needs and intervening with resources

    Using analytics and data-driven insights, institutions can identify students who are at risk of leaving due to various factors such as low academic performance, lack of engagement, or other challenges. By intervening early, advisors can offer support, connecting students with resources that match their specific needs.

    However, it’s not about overwhelming students with a laundry list of available resources. Instead, advisors must show students how the institution is committed to their success, highlighting the specific benefits and value of the resources being offered within an appropriate timeframe. And they need to provide the specific resources that each student is looking for.

    Identifying students’ needs and offering support to address those needs at key points in their academic journeys can be the critical influence needed to retain at-risk populations and to ultimately improve student success outcomes.

    One way to gather relevant data about students is through RNL’s Retention Management System (RMS) which measures non-cognitive motivational indicators that pinpoint each student’s (and cohort’s) strengths, risk factors, and receptivity for support at three pivotal transitions in their academic journey. (Learn more about the RMS.)

    The power of written proof

    When students are struggling, they may feel disconnected from their institution. One way to engage them is by incorporating communications that reflect students’ specific concerns along with relevant campus resources to address those concerns. Tailored, timely and data-informed communications can be a key source of guidance in helping students successfully meet their goals. This approach acknowledges students’ individual concerns and shows that the institution is invested in their well-being.

    The impact of words in transactional advising

    In a transactional advising scenario, words have the power to make a significant difference. A well-crafted email or in-person message can convey empathy, understanding, and a genuine interest in your student’s success. The tone and language used can either make or break the student’s perception of the institution’s commitment to their success.

    Let’s consider two email examples in response to a student who is struggling with study habits and sense of belonging, and who is also receptive to career guidance:

    Option 1: A basic transactional approach

    “Have you taken advantage of these student resources?

    • Study groups
    • Peer group chat
    • Meet with an alumni

    We want to ensure you have the support you need to succeed.”

    Option 2: A more personal and supportive transactional approach

    “Natalie, my goal is to connect you to the right resources here on campus!

    If the study group doesn’t feel like the right fit, make sure to check out the peer group chat. I know there are other students like you waiting to take the first step. I also have a contact list of alumni who would love to connect with you about various career paths they chose after completing their degree here at [institution].

    I’m in your corner!”

    The second option not only acknowledges Natalie’s struggles but also employs empathy and a genuine interest in her well-being while offering options to address her specific concerns. By using words that convey a sense of support and connection, advisors can build trust and help students feel more invested in their own success.

    Utilizing mail merge and word play

    Institutional data, such as student success initiatives and predictive analytics, can be used to populate emails like these. Mail merge capabilities can help advisors send personalized messages to students, making them feel seen and valued. Word play, such as using phrases like “I’m in your corner,” can make a significant impact, creating a sense of connection and community.

    By leveraging tailored transactional advising, institutions can demonstrate their commitment to student success and provide a more personal and supportive experience for students. By using data-driven insights and targeted resources, advisors can make a meaningful difference in a student’s life, helping them stay enrolled and achieve their goals.

    According to Natalie, tailored transactional advising influenced her desire to consistently re-enroll and, ultimately, graduate as an adult student from the institution that helped deliver her 2nd student experience: “My commitment to them was higher because I felt their commitment to me.”

    Watch the webinar

    To learn more about this approach, listen to the on-demand webinar on the topic. 

    You can also connect with RNL professionals to learn how the Retention Management System can work at your institution, providing you with data you need to make personal connections with students to keep them enrolled. 

    Source link

  • Innovation and skills in the English devolution white paper

    Innovation and skills in the English devolution white paper

    Devolution is a central plank of the government’s growth agenda. Providing places with the tools and resources to address local problems in ways that make sense on the ground is a means to unleash potential – and to end what English devolution minister Jim McMahon is happy to call the “top-down micromanaging” approach of ringfencing funds and centralising decision making.

    The launch of the English devolution white paper is the first step on that journey. Strategic authorities, led (for preference) by elected mayors, will cover the entirety of England. Integrated settlements will provide powers covering transport, infrastructure, housing, public services – and, of particular interest to the higher education sector, skills and innovation.

    A big part of the work of the white paper is in consolidating and standardising what had become an unruly system. Sitting above unitary, county, and district councils, a layer of strategic authorities will take on the services that larger areas need to thrive:

    Our goal is simple. Universal coverage in England of Strategic Authorities – which should be a number of councils working together, covering areas that people recognise and work in. Many places already have Combined Authorities that serve this role.

    The forthcoming English Devolution Bill will enshrine this concept in law. We get a computer game-like hierarchy of how strategic authorities will level up (so to speak): foundation strategic authorities (which do not – yet – have a mayor), followed by mayoral strategic authorities, which can then “unlock” designation as established mayoral strategic authorities through fulfilling various criteria. This will grant integrated funding settlements and other treats such as the ability to pilot new kinds of devolution.

    Already eligible for this top designation are Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, the North East, South Yorkshire, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire. There’s an aspiration for something similar to apply to London as well, but some legislative fiddling will be needed due to the capital’s “unique circumstances.”

    Innovation

    If you’ve got your head around the different levels of hierarchy, there’s actually quite a lot in the white paper for research and innovation, dependent on an area’s level of devolution.

    In language echoing the industrial strategy green paper, we are told that a strong local network of public and private institutions focused on R&D, innovation, and the diffusion of ideas “is one of the factors which sets highly productive local economies apart.” A big part of this is closer join-up between UKRI and local government.

    Working our way up the devolution ladder, all strategic authorities (including foundation level) will be able to draw on UKRI data on the location of R&D investments, to better allow them to “understand publicly supported innovation activity in their region and how to best take advantage of it.”

    Those mayoral strategic authorities will additionally work with Innovate UK to produce joint plans, to shape long-term innovation strategies and investments in places. UKRI will also be extending its regional partnerships and “network of embedded points of contact” with mayoral strategic authorities.

    And then coming up to the pinnacle of devolution, those established mayoral strategic authorities – to remind you: Greater Manchester, Liverpool City Region, the North East, South Yorkshire, West Midlands, and West Yorkshire, and possibly London – will get actual devolved research funding, in the form of a future regional innovation funding programme allowing local leaders to develop “bespoke innovation support offers for their regions.”

    This draws somewhat on the spirit of the Regional Innovation Fund, though this was allocated to individual higher education institutions – what’s on offer here sounds like a pot of money controlled by mayors. Its format is also to be based on lessons learned from the Innovation Accelerator pilot, which was funding by levelling up money.

    Plus, established mayoralties will get an annual meeting with the science minister, more regular engagement with senior staff at UKRI, and the chance to be consulted on the development of relevant DSIT and UKRI strategies.

    All in all, it’s a decent start down the road of a more significantly devolved research landscape. Important to note, however, that the actual funding on offer to established mayors is contingent on next year’s spending review, and so we’re talking about 2026–27 onwards here. And we might also observe that the House of Commons science committee’s inquiry into regional R&D, announced last week, has clearly been set up with an eye to influencing how this all comes together.

    At least to begin with, there will also be a not insignificant gap between what’s on offer to the most established sites of devolution – some funds to spend as desired, a seat at the strategy table – and what those “foundation” strategic authorities receive, which will be little more than a bit of regional R&D data. There’s potential for imbalance between regions here. Foundation-level authorities are described as a “stepping stone” to later acquiring a mayor, but it could be a long and drawn-out process.

    Skills and more

    On skills, strategic authorities will retain ownership of the Adult Skills Fund (with ringfencing removed from bootcamp and free course pots to allow for flexibility), take on joint ownership of Local Skills Improvement Plans alongside employer representative bodies, and work with employers to take on responsibility for promoting 16-19 pathways. In future, strategic authorities will have a “substantial role” in careers and employment support design outside of the existing Jobcentre Plus network, as the Get Britain Working white paper gestured towards.

    You’ll have spotted that this does not immediately extend to higher education, except to the extent that universities and colleges already get involved with adult skills provision. However the centre of gravity is such that any provider with an avowed interest in the local area will end up developing close relationships with strategic authorities. It isn’t just on skills or innovation – many universities work with local government on issues that affect students (and staff!) such as housing, infrastructure, and transport, and will have a strong interest in working with strategic authorities with new and wider powers to act.

    Administrative geography corner

    If you are labouring under the impression that dividing England up into administrative chunks is a fairly straightforward task, may we introduce you to possibly the single finest document ever published by the Office for National Statistics: the Hierarchical Representation of UK Geographies.

    Pedants may also note that the existing geography of LSIPs, which was controversially allowed to evolve into being outside of the established local authority boundaries, does not map cleanly to current or proposed local authorities – something that a future iteration of plans may need to consider. Likewise, the scope of university core recruitment areas or civic aspirations may not map to either.

    What we’d have loved to have shown you is a map showing which of the new strategic authorities your campus might be in. Sadly the boundaries of the “current map of English devolution” included in the white paper do not cleanly map to England’s many contradictory systems of administrative geography. Some of the devolved areas depicted are almost LSIP regions, one (Surrey) is a non-metropolitan ceremonial county, and one – Devon, including Torbay but not under any circumstances Plymouth – is just plain mad.

    As soon as we get an answer and some boundaries from ONS, we’ll let you know. In the meantime, here’s the map from the white paper:

    Source link