Blog

  • From Pause to Progress: Predictors of Success and Hurdles for Returning Students

    From Pause to Progress: Predictors of Success and Hurdles for Returning Students

    Title: Some College, No Credential Learners: Measuring Enrollment Readiness

    Source: Straighterline, UPCEA

    UPCEA and StraighterLine carried out a survey to examine the driving factors, obstacles, preparedness, and viewpoints of individuals who started but did not finish a degree, certificate, technical, or vocational program. This population, according to the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center, has grown to 36.8 million, a 2.9 percent increase from the year prior. A total of 1,018 participants completed the survey.

    Key findings related to respondents’ readiness to re-enroll include:

    • Predictive factors: Mental resilience, routine readiness, a positive appraisal of institutional communication, and belief in the value of a degree strongly predict re-enrollment intentions.
    • Academic preparedness: A majority of respondents (88 percent) feel proficient in core academic skills (e.g., reading, writing, math, critical thinking), and 86 percent feel competent using technology for learning tasks.
    • Financial readiness: More than half (58 percent) believe they cannot afford tuition and related expenses, while only 22 percent feel financially prepared.
    • Career and personal motivations: The top motivators for re-enrolling include improving salary (53 percent), personal goals (44 percent), and pursuing a career change (38 percent).
    • Beliefs in higher education: Trust in higher education declines after stopping out. While 84 percent of those who had been enrolled in a degree program initially believed a degree was essential for their career goals, only 34 percent still hold that belief. Additionally, just 42 percent agree that colleges are trustworthy.
    • Grit readiness: Four in five respondents feel adaptable and persistent through challenges, and 71 percent say they can handle stress effectively.
    • Flexibility and adaptability: Three-fourths of respondents are open to changing routines and adjusting to new environments.
    • Learning environment: Half of respondents report having access to a study-friendly environment, but 11 percent report not having such access.
    • Time management: Nearly two-thirds are prepared to dedicate the necessary time and effort to complete their education.
    • Support systems: About three in every five respondents receive family support for continuing education, but only 31 percent feel supported by their employers.

    Key findings related to enrollment funnel experiences include:

    • Preferred communication channels: When inquiring about a program, 86 percent of respondents like engaging via email, 42 percent through phone calls, and 39 percent via text messages, while only 6 percent want to use a chatbot.
    • Timeliness and quality of communication: A majority (83 percent) agree or strongly agree that the communication they received when reaching out to a college or university about a program was timely, and 80 percent found it informative.
    • Enrollment experience: Among those who re-enrolled, 88 percent found that the enrollment process was efficient, 84 percent felt adequately supported by their institution, and 78 percent found the process easy.
    • Challenges from inquiry to enrollment: Nearly one-third (31 percent) encountered difficulties with financial aid support, 29 percent experienced delays in getting their questions answered, and 21 percent reported poor communication from the institution.

    Click to read the full white paper.

    —Nguyen DH Nguyen


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

    Source link

  • What is academic freedom? With Keith Whittington

    What is academic freedom? With Keith Whittington

    “Who controls what is taught in American universities
    — professors or politicians?”

    Yale Law professor Keith Whittington answers this
    timely question and more in his new book, “You Can’t Teach That!
    The Battle over University Classrooms.” He joins the podcast to
    discuss the history of academic freedom, the difference between
    intramural and extramural speech, and why there is a
    “weaponization” of intellectual diversity.

    Keith E. Whittington is the David Boies Professor of
    Law at Yale Law School. Whittington’s teaching and scholarship span
    American constitutional theory, American political and
    constitutional history, judicial politics, the presidency, and free
    speech and the law.


    Read the transcript.

    Timestamps:

    00:00 Intro

    02:00 The genesis of Yale’s Center for Academic
    Freedom and Free Speech

    04:42 The inspiration behind “You Can’t Teach
    That!”

    06:18 The First Amendment and academic freedom

    09:29 Extramural speech and the public sphere

    17:56 Intramural speech and its complexities

    23:13 Florida’s Stop WOKE Act

    26:34 Distinctive features of K-12 education

    31:13 University of Pennsylvania professor Amy Wax

    39:02 University of Kansas professor Phillip
    Lowcock

    43:42 Muhlenberg College professor Maura
    Finkelstein

    47:01 University of Wisconsin La-Crosse professor Joe
    Gow

    54:47 Northwestern professor Arthur Butz

    57:52 Inconsistent applications of university
    policies

    01:02:23 Weaponization of “intellectual diversity”

    01:05:53 Outro

    Show notes:

    Source link

  • Top 10 U.S. Higher Ed Stories of 2024 with Robert Kelchen

    Top 10 U.S. Higher Ed Stories of 2024 with Robert Kelchen

    Robert Kelchen is a prolific higher education researcher and also the head of the University of Tennessee at Knoxville’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. He is also a pretty steady blogger on higher education, but he doesn’t have the time to post quite as much as he did before he took on all those extra admin duties. One of the casualties of his reduced blogging schedule is that he no longer posts his regular “top ten” stories of the year in US higher education, which I, as an outsider, always used to find a handy way to keep track of what mattered over the long term in the US.

    But last year, Robert agreed to reprise his role of summarizer-in chief for us on the year’s final pod, and reaction was so positive, we thought we would have him on again for our final podcast of 2024. As always, Robert is sharp, succinct, and not one to shy away from unconventional calls. And so, without further ado, let’s hear Robert’s Top Ten.


    The World of Higher Education Podcast
    Episode 3.14 | Top 10 U.S. Higher Ed Stories of 2024 with Robert Kelchen

    Transcript

    Alex Usher (AU): Robert, let’s start things off. What’s your number 10 story this year?

    Robert Kelchen (RK): Number 10 out of the U.S. is more changes to big-time college athletics. It seems like things cannot stay stable, and that’s in part because there is so much money involved. So, the big changes this year are more teams changing athletic conferences. Everyone is trying to jockey for position in big-time college athletics to be on the right side of TV contracts. Never mind that the next round of TV contracts may look very different with people cutting the cord from cable. The other big piece is a landmark settlement with former athletes. That requires a financial settlement and then also athletes going forward are going to get about 20 percent or so of all revenue.

    AU: Gross revenue?

    RK: Yeah. So, this also affects the number of scholarships that programs can offer. Previously for big-time athletics, that number was limited. Now, it’s not limited. They focus more on roster sizes instead. This means colleges have some really tough financial choices to make. Because they have to pay athletes, and if they want programs to be competitive, they need to offer more scholarships. That means what will probably happen is some colleges are going to look at dropping sports to club status so they don’t have to pay for scholarships. While also keeping in mind they can’t just drop the women’s sports, at least under Title IX regulations. Although, who knows what’s going to happen for regulations.

    AU: We’ll get to that. We’ll get to that. Let’s move along to number nine.

    RK: Number nine is college closures. It always seems to hang on the list because we continue to see closures. We had a really chaotic closure in early June with the University of the Arts in Philadelphia. I don’t think they were on anyone’s radar for closing.

    Their public financials at the time looked decent, but then their accreditor stepped in, saying, “We’re going to shut you down,” and it happened within a week.

    It was apparently for financial reasons. And it wasn’t immediately obvious from the financial statements from, say, a year and a half ago, what was going on. But it seems like they just ran out of cash very quickly. And it got to the point where, with a week’s notice, students couldn’t finish, faculty couldn’t find jobs, and staff couldn’t find jobs. It was just the absolute worst way to do things.

    AU: Has the number of closures actually ticked up—I mean, you’ve made the point on many occasions that there are always program closures.

    RK: Yeah, you know, there are always program closures. They really did try to push a lot of the low-performing for-profits out, and there just aren’t as many now.

    But I think the big piece that’s coming now is not college closures as much as program closures and academic restructuring. It’s a great time to be a consultant in this industry. Because consultants are the ones brought in to help do the studies on this, identify programs that may need to be closed, and institutional leaders like it because someone else is making the tough calls.

    AU: What about number eight?

    RK: Does anyone want international student? They’ve been a cash cow for many institutions for a while now but that’s beginning to change. Australia’s gotten the majority of the global news coverage on this, with their efforts to try to cap enrollment, which is really divisive there, especially among the more rural institutions that would like more international students. You’re seeing it in Canada, the UK, and the US looking to move in that direction. That potentially creates opportunities in Southeast Asia or in Europe.

    Another wildcard in international students is what’s going to happen with both China and India? Where China is always at risk of having a major policy change, and there seems to be a fair amount of instability in India right now.

    AU: Number seven?

    RK: Number seven is state funding for higher education. There’s been a lot made in the U.S. about disinvestment in public higher education, but over the last decade or so, state funding for higher education in most states has been pretty strong. The states where it’s been the weakest are often the more politically liberal states, and that’s basically because they’ve had more longstanding budget issues. But a number of the more conservative states have funded pretty well, and state funding is at a two-decade high right now.

    I have a hard time seeing that continuing because state budgets have largely flatlined for the upcoming fiscal year. There have been some states that have gone down the route of tax cuts from post-pandemic money that’s starting to come due. But also, there’s just more skepticism about the value of public higher education. And there are states like Utah where enrollment is up substantially. But they’re looking at cutting funding and telling universities and colleges to expect less in the way of enrollment. This really creates the haves and have-nots in public higher education. The big-name public universities are growing like crazy. The regionally focused colleges are struggling mightily.

    AU: You’ve talked about a flight to quality among students. Is it likely that state funding starts to follow into the flagships more than it used to?

    RK: It depends in part on the funding model. If it’s an enrollment or performance funding type model, then that will happen. But also, states don’t want to see regional institutions fail. So they need to have some kind of capacity there.

    The big question that states have to wrestle with is how big they want their flagship institution to be. Do they want to push students to regional institutions? In some states, they have the governance structure in place to do that, even though it’s extremely politically painful. And in other states, there’s no centralization whatsoever, so there’s really nothing they can do about it.

    AU: What about number six?

    RK: Number six is the protests about the war in Gaza and the fall of several Ivy League presidents. I did some analysis back in the spring, and it was really only at a fairly small number of colleges, these protests. But they happened at the institutions that policymakers care about — the super-elite private colleges and some of the big public flagships. Congressional Republicans found that hauling in college presidents — especially women of color — plays really well to their base. And I think that was one of the reasons behind republican elector success.

    AU: That appearance in front of Congress by the presidents of Penn, MIT, and Harvard really was kind of the flashpoint of the year, wasn’t it? I mean, two of them were out within a month of that appearance. It’s another example of Americans assuming that what happens at a very small handful of prominent private institutions is actually reflective of something bigger, isn’t it?

    RK: That’s exactly it. And one of the big reasons is that so many of the policymakers and so many of the journalists — that is their sphere, that’s what they know. We’re also seeing a really interesting dichotomy as President-elect Trump announces his key political appointments. He’s abolishing the Department of Education, reforming higher education, but at the same time, all his press releases highlight the colleges these people went to. So, he’s saying, “They went to NYU, they went to Penn,” while simultaneously dumping on them.

    AU: Robert, what about number five?

    RK: Number five is the increased political realignment by educational attainment. It used to be that if people had a bachelor’s degree, there was a pretty good chance they were pro-business Republicans. That was a substantial part of the base — part of what really kept the party going post-Reagan through the George W. Bush years.

    Then, I think we saw a bit of this starting with Obama, and then it really moved forward. The Democrats made substantial gains among college-educated individuals, especially those with postgraduate degrees. Then Trump came in 2016 and really accelerated the realignment, where college-educated individuals shifted to the Democratic Party, while non-college-educated individuals moved toward the Republican Party.

    That is a sea change to where pollsters now are focusing on weighting polls based on education instead of race or gender. There are still divides in those areas, of course. But what this means for higher ed is that higher education has long been relatively apolitical in the U.S. — probably had a 50-year run that way. But that has started to change dramatically, and that change threatens higher education enrollment as well as public support for the sector.

    AU: It’s tough for a public university. I mean, it’s like saying hospitals are Democrats, right? Or K-12 schools are Republican. It’s weird for a public institution to be identified as partisan. It can’t be easy for public university presidents to be in that position. What can they do? What are they doing to try to reverse that trend?

    RK: One piece of it is who becomes a president of a university or system. We’re seeing more politicians take on those roles. Some of them are unsuccessful, but some of them are very successful as they try to be the bridge between academics and the legislature.

    The other big piece is focusing on outreach and the public mission. Public higher education has two main advantages: one is community outreach, which includes things like agricultural extension classes and community programming. The other is athletics like football, it’s a big driver of public support.

    AU: Okay, what about number four?

    RK: Number four is accreditation. It’s a topic that’s deep in the weeds for a lot of people, but it’s in the political spotlight right now.

    Two big examples stand out. One is the toughest accreditation job in the U.S., which is at the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools (SACS). We no longer have truly regional accreditation in the U.S. — that went away under the first Trump administration. But SACS is still largely focused on conservative southern states, and those states are not happy with accreditation. In Florida, for instance, they decided you have to switch accreditors every cycle. SACS President Belle Whelan is retiring, and I have no idea who in the world would want that job. That is probably the most difficult job in American higher education.

    AU: What’s the potential impact of accreditation becoming more politicized?

    RK: Some of it is just administrative burden for higher ed. If institutions are expected to switch accreditors or if accreditation standards change constantly, that’s a lot of administrative cost.

    But the bigger issue is, will accreditors uphold basic standards? They’ve largely punted on academic standards because every time they try, they get sued. They often win those cases, but it’s expensive. So, accreditors have largely focused on finance. But, the perception is that they’re focused too much on diversity, equity, and inclusion. SACS is actually the only major accreditor that does not require that.

    Another big pressure on accreditation is that several accreditors are now trying to push for shorter bachelor’s degrees. The U.S. traditionally has 120-credit bachelor’s degrees, but there’s a push for 90-credit degrees — shorter, faster, cheaper, better. There’s a strong rationale for it, but also concerns about educational quality. This could completely upend the higher ed finance system. If you get less revenue per student and you eliminate some of the upper-level courses, that might work. But it seems like they’re taking away more of the lower-level general education courses, and those courses subsidize other parts of the system.

    AU: Interesting. Okay, I think DEI has something to do with number three as well.

    RK: Yes. State governments are pushing higher education hard on more of these social issues. Texas and Florida have taken the lead on trying to ban any mention of diversity, equity, and inclusion. In a lot of conservative states — including mine — DEI is now known as “access and engagement” or “access and belonging” or something else. They don’t want to use those words because people expect emails and course syllabi to be searched for those terms.

    At the University of North Texas, for example, the new leader, who came from the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, required that all mentions of DEI be eliminated. They focused on the education school, which is also searching for a new dean.

    AU: But it’s gone beyond just excising words or renaming units. If I recall correctly, at North Texas, they were even getting rid of words like “racism” from course syllabi, which makes it hard to teach U.S. history, doesn’t it?

    RK: It does. There was a round of this about a half dozen years ago where the response was to get rid of the words and do the same thing, the legislatures did not like that so now they’re trying to go back and root all of these out.

    AU: Alright, let’s move on. What’s number two? We’ve got to be coming pretty soon to the election, right?

    RK: We are. But I actually don’t think the election is number one this year. The election of Trump is a big deal, and it will have large effects on American higher education. Will the U.S. Department of Education go away? I’m still extremely skeptical of that. Every Republican since 1979 has said they want to abolish it, but it’s difficult to get rid of an agency. And also, Republicans may have unified control in Washington, D.C., but it’s by the skin of their teeth. They can afford to lose, I think, only two votes in the House of Representatives, and it’s a fractured caucus. They’ve got a lot of other priorities, too.

    Plus, you have members looking ahead to 2026 and wondering if they can get re-elected when the majority party typically loses seats in a midterm election. So, it’s going to be a very unsettled, interesting time. But I don’t see the Department of Education going away.

    The bigger question is, what can sneak its way onto that one bill each year that can be passed completely on a partisan basis? The U.S. has a mechanism called reconciliation, where anything with a budgetary impact can go through the Senate with just 50 votes instead of 60. So, that’s where the action will be.

    If they wanted to make changes to student loans, for example, that would have a direct budgetary impact, so it could be part of a reconciliation bill. The challenge is then uniting the Republican caucus. They’re not always well-aligned. And they’ll have to figure out their priorities. Is it immigration? Is it tax cuts, since the Trump tax cuts are set to expire at the end of 2025?

    And even within education, how big is their focus going to be on K-12 education versus higher education? If history is any guide, K-12 will get most of the attention.

    AU: We also have a new Secretary of Education. She seems quite different from Betsy DeVos. What do you expect from her?

    RK: Yeah, she’s definitely different. Her name’s Jovita Carranza. She ran the Small Business Administration, and by all accounts, she got fairly good marks from employees over there. She’s actually one of the few high-level Trump appointees who did not go to an elite institution. She got a teaching certificate and a French degree from East Carolina University. I just found that fascinating. But I think it’s part of the strategy — put the person with a teaching credential in charge of the Department of Education. From a management perspective, she seems competent. From a policy perspective, it’s a little less clear.

    The stated goal is still to get rid of the Department of Education. But even if that’s their goal, actually pulling it off is another story. There’s legislation to basically break apart the department and shuffle its components into other federal agencies. But that’s a long, complicated process. I’d probably say the chances of it happening are maybe 5 to 10 percent at best.

    AU: Yeah, that sounds about right. Okay, bring us to number one.

    RK: Number one doesn’t come from the White House this year — it comes from the U.S. Supreme Court. And it’s a big one. The Supreme Court decision in Loper Bright overturned a 40-year-old precedent called Chevron. The Chevron doctrine gave federal agencies broad discretion to interpret laws where the statute was vague, and courts would generally defer to the agency’s interpretation. It was seen as a major source of power for the so-called “administrative state.”

    But conservatives have wanted to get rid of Chevron for years. They saw it as giving too much power to unelected bureaucrats. Well, they finally got what they wanted. The Supreme Court’s ruling says, “No more deference to agencies. If the statute isn’t clear, it’s Congress’s job to fix it.”

    AU: So why is that such a big deal for higher ed?

    RK: It’s a big deal because so much of higher education policy in the U.S. happens through administrative rulemaking. Look, the Higher Education Act hasn’t been reauthorized since 2008. Congress hasn’t done anything. So everything that’s happened since then — like changes to student loans, Title IX rules, and accreditation requirements — has been done through executive action or rulemaking by the Department of Education.

    With Loper Bright, that power is now significantly reduced. Agencies can no longer just “interpret” laws as they see fit. They need clear statutory authority from Congress.

    So, here’s the twist. Loper Bright was something conservatives pushed for because they didn’t like how Democratic administrations used Chevron to expand regulations on, say, environmental protection or labor standards. But now, with a Republican administration on the way, they’ve tied their own hands.

    If Trump wants to make big changes to higher education — like dismantling the Department of Education, reforming student loans, or changing Title IX — he’s going to have a harder time doing it through executive action. He’s going to need Congress, and Congress isn’t exactly known for its efficiency.

    AU: So, to summarize, when Democrats were in power, Chevron was seen as a bad thing because it gave them more power. But now, with a Republican in power, they’ve realized that Chevron would’ve been useful for them, too.

    RK: That’s it. It’s ironic, right? They dismantled their own ability to govern. And I think the Trump administration learned a lot the first time about how to effectively use executive authority. They were pretty bad at it in the early years, but they figured it out by the end. Well, now their hands are tied in some crucial areas.

    AU: So, in the end, the impact of the Trump presidency might be a lot less than people think because he won’t be able to wield executive power in the same way.

    RK: That’s quite possible.

    AU: Fascinating. Well, Robert, thank you so much for being with us today. It’s been a great ride, as always. We’ll see you back here in 12 months, and we’ll see how much has changed by the end of 2025.

    RK: Probably quite a bit.

    AU: Yeah, no doubt. Thanks, Robert. And it just remains for me to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, and of course, you — our listeners — for tuning in. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, feel free to reach out to us at [email protected]. And don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education.

    We’ll be back on January 9th with our first episode of the new year. Our guest is a mystery for now — you’ll just have to wait and see. Stay well, have a good holiday season, and bye for now.

    *This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service.

    Source link

  • Institutional constraints to higher education datafication: an English case study

    Institutional constraints to higher education datafication: an English case study

    by Rachel Brooks

    ‘Intractable’ datafication?

    Over recent years, both policymakers and university leaders have extolled the virtues of moving to a more metricised higher education sector: statistics about student satisfaction with their degree programme are held to improve the decision-making processes of prospective students, while data analytics are purported to help the shift to more personalised learning, for example. Moreover, academic studies have contended that datafication has become an ‘intractable’ part of higher education institutions (HEIs) across the world.

    Nevertheless, our research (conducted in ten English HEIs, funded by TASO) – of data use with respect to widening participation to undergraduate ‘sandwich’ courses (where students spend a year on a work placement, typically during the third year of a four-year degree programme) – indicates that, despite the strong claims about the advantages of making more and better use of data, in this particular area of activity at least, significant constraints operate, limiting the advantages that can accrue through datafication.

    Little evidence of widespread data use

    Our interviewees were those responsible for sandwich course provision in their HEI. While most thought that data could offer useful insights into the effectiveness of their area of activity, there was little evidence of ‘intractable’ data use. This was for three main reasons. First, in some cases, interviewees explained that no relevant data were collected – in relation to access to sandwich courses and/or the outcomes of such courses. Second, in some HEIs, relevant data were collected but not analysed. Such evidence tends to support the contention that ‘data lakes’ are emerging, as HEIs collect more and more data that often remain untapped. Third, in other cases, appropriate data were collected and analysed, but in a very limited manner. For example, one interviewee explained how data were collected and analysed in relation to the participation of students from under-represented ethnic groups, but not with respect to any other widening participation categories. This limited form of datafication, in which only some social characteristics were datafied, was not, therefore, able to inform any action with respect to the participation of widening participation students generally. Indeed, across all ten HEIs, there was only one example of where data were used in a systematic fashion to help analyse who was accessing sandwich courses within the institution, and the extent to which they were representative of the wider student population.

    Constraints on data use

    Lack of institutional capacity

    In explaining this absence of data use, the most commonly identified constraint was the lack of institutional capacity to collect and/or analyse appropriate data. For example, one interviewee commented that they did not have a very good data system for placements – ‘we are still quite Excel- based’. Excel spreadsheets were viewed as limited as they could not be easily shared or updated, and data were relatively hard to manipulate. This, according to the interviewee, made collection of appropriate data laborious, and systematic analysis of the data difficult. Interviewees also pointed to the limited time staff had available to analyse data that the institution had collected.

    Prioritisation of ‘externally-facing’ data

    Several interviewees described how ‘externally-facing data’ – i.e. that required by regulatory bodies and/or that fed into national and international league tables – was commonly prioritised, leaving little time for information officers to devote to generating and/or analysing data for internal purposes. One interviewee, for example, was unclear about what data, if any, were collected about equity gaps but believed that they were generally only pulled together for high-level reports ‘such as for the TEF’.

    Institutional cultures

    A further barrier to using data to analyse access to and outcomes of sandwich courses was perceived to be the wider culture of the institution, including its attitude to risk. An interviewee explained that the data collected in their institution was limited to two main variables – subject of study and fee status (home or international) – because of ‘ongoing cautiousness at the university about how some of that data is used and how it’s shared with different teams’.

    In addition, many participants outlined the struggles they had faced in gaining access to relevant data, and in influencing decisions about what should be collected and what analyses should be run. Several spoke of having to ‘request’ particular analyses to be run (which could be turned down), leading to a fairly ad hoc and inefficient way of proceeding, and illustrating the relative lack of agency accorded to staff – typically occupying mid-level organisational roles – in accessing and manipulating data.

    Reflections

    Examining a discrete set of activities within the UK higher education sector – those relating to sandwich courses – provides a useful lens to examine quotidian practices with respect to the availability and use of data. Despite the strong emphasis on data by government bodies and HEI senior management teams, as well as the claims made about the ‘intractability’ of HEI data use in the academic literature, our research suggests that datafication is perhaps not as widespread as some have claimed. Indeed, it indicates that some areas of activity – even those linked to high profile political and institutional priorities (in this case, employability and widening participation) – have remained largely untouched by ‘intractable’ datafication, with relevant data either not being collected or, where it is collected, not being made available to staff working in pertinent areas.

    As a consequence, the extent to which students from widening participation backgrounds were accessing sandwich courses – and then succeeding on them – relative to their peers typically remained invisible. While the majority of our interviewees were able to speculate on the extent of any under-representation and/or poor experience, this was typically on the basis of anecdotal evidence and their own ‘sense’ of how inequalities were played out in this area. Although reflecting on professional experience is obviously important, many inequalities may not be visible to staff (for example, if a student chooses not to talk about their neurodiversity or first-in-family status), even if they have regular contact with those eligible to take a sandwich course. Moreover, given the status often accorded to quantitative data within the senior management teams of universities, the lack of any statistical reporting about inequalities by social characteristic, as they pertain to sandwich courses, makes it highly likely that such issues will struggle to gain the attention of senior leaders. The barriers to the effective use of metrics highlighted above may thus have a direct impact on HEIs’ capacity to recognise and address inequalities.  

    The research on which this blog is based was carried out with Jill Timms (University of Surrey) and is discussed in more detail in this article Institutional constraints to higher education datafication: an English case study | Higher Education

    Rachel Brooks is Professor of Higher Education at the University of Oxford and current President of the British Sociological Association. She has conducted a wide range of research on the sociology of higher education; her most recent book is Constructing the Higher Education Student: perspectives from across Europe, published (open access) with Policy Press.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • How to Enhance Local SEO for K-12 School Websites

    How to Enhance Local SEO for K-12 School Websites

    Reading Time: 8 minutes

    Search engine optimization (SEO) is essential for improving your school’s online visibility, ensuring that when local families search for educational options, your school is among the first they see. SEO helps your website rank higher in search engine results, making prospective parents more likely to find you before other schools in your area. SEO gives your school a competitive edge in reaching families who are actively seeking information on local educational options. 

    Knowing the value of SEO, most people ask how to do SEO for a school? To begin implementing SEO, schools can focus on three primary areas: On-page SEO, technical SEO, and Local SEO. In this blog, we’re focussing on local SEO.

    An optimized online presence is crucial for K-12 schools to attract and engage prospective families within their local communities. By focusing on Local SEO, schools can increase their visibility in search engine results, connect with families nearby, and build trust as a leading choice for local education. With our 15 years of experience driving results for schools like yours, we know the unique challenges K-12 schools face in reaching prospective parents and students. This guide will walk you through the essential strategies to enhance your school’s local SEO, even if you’re new to search engine optimization.

    Struggling with enrollment?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

     

    Understanding Local SEO for K-12 School Websites and Why It Matters 

    Local SEO optimizes your school’s website and online presence to rank higher in local search results. This optimization specifically targets potential families searching for schools in your area, making it an essential component for K-12 schools looking to expand their visibility.

    When someone searches “best private school near me” or “elementary school in [City],” the results that appear are influenced by local SEO practices. Google and other search engines analyze local relevance factors such as your school’s address, the presence of local keywords, online reviews, and overall domain authority to decide which websites to show at the top. Mastering local SEO for K-12 school websites can make a difference in being found online by families in your community.

    Are you trying to implement effective digital advertising for parents of students? Reach out to learn more about our digital marketing services

    Claiming and Optimizing Your Google My Business Profile

    What is the most effective strategy for local SEO? One of the most powerful steps you can take when marketing to K-12 students’ families in your area is to claim and optimize your Google My Business (GMB) profile. This profile is essential for local SEO because it provides search engines and families with critical information about your school, such as its location, contact information, and operating hours.

    Begin by verifying your school’s GMB profile. When editing the profile, ensure all details are accurate, including the school’s name, address, phone number, website URL, and a brief description of the school’s values and offerings. Google also allows you to add photos, which can be a fantastic way to showcase your school’s facilities, activities, and unique educational experiences. Families browsing through profiles will be drawn to authentic visuals, which can help them feel connected to your school before they even step foot on campus.

    Adding relevant categories (e.g., “Elementary School” or “Private School”) and attributes to your GMB profile increases your chances of appearing in local searches specific to your school type. Regularly update your GMB profile with fresh photos, events, and posts, as Google favors active profiles, enhancing your school’s local SEO ranking.

    Example: This is how Google presents your institution to searchers when you create and optimize your Google My Business account. Your GMB profile provides critical information about your institution in an easy-to-consume layout.

    HEM 1HEM 1

    Source: Randolph-Macon Academy | Google

    Optimizing Your Website for Location-Based Keywords

    Your website’s content should reflect keywords families might use when searching for schools in your area. Instead of generic phrases like “top K-12 school,” incorporate keywords that feature your location, such as “top K-12 school in [City]” or “private high school in [Suburb].” These location-based keywords help search engines understand that your school serves families in a specific area, increasing your chances of appearing in relevant searches.

    Consider adding a dedicated “Location” or “About Our Community” page that details your school’s surrounding area, landmarks, or neighborhoods. This page could highlight the community values and amenities available, reinforcing that your school is embedded within the local community. Mentioning nearby cities, neighborhoods, or districts can also strengthen your local SEO, especially for families who want their children to be educated within specific geographic boundaries.

    Each page of your website should also include the school’s full name, address, and phone number (often referred to as NAP – Name, Address, Phone Number) in a consistent format. Placing your NAP details in the footer ensures they appear across the entire site, building user trust and Google’s confidence in your school’s legitimacy and location.

    Example: WillowWood School’s metadata uses the title WillowWood School | K-12 Private School | Toronto. In your metadata, include your school’s city to rank for location-based searches.

    HEM 2HEM 2

    Source: WillowWood School

    Creating High-Quality, Locally Relevant Content

    Content marketing is an excellent way to boost your school’s visibility in search results. Develop blog posts, articles, and resource pages that speak to local concerns, events, and topics families in your area care about. Writing blog posts on subjects like “Why Choose a Private School in [City]” or “The Benefits of Small Class Sizes in [Neighborhood] Schools” can help attract local searches and establish your school as a knowledgeable voice within the community.

    Another powerful content idea is to publish posts about school events, open houses, and seasonal programs like summer camps. These posts can generate interest from families looking for activities within your area, leading to higher engagement on social media platforms.

    Local content can also come as testimonials and success stories from parents and students within the community. Encourage current families to share their experiences and post their stories on your blog or testimonials page. Positive testimonials boost your school’s reputation, and add keywords and phrases that resonate with other families in your area.

    Example: Here, Nanjing International School shares culturally and geographically relevant content on its YouTube channel, helping it to attract prospects. When creating content, particularly visual, highlight your school’s location and discuss any advantages it offers students.

    HEM 3HEM 3

    Source: Nanjing International School | YouTube

    Encouraging Positive Online Reviews

    Online reviews play an important role in local SEO, particularly for schools. Families considering your school will likely check online reviews to gauge what other parents and students think of your programs, culture, and overall quality. Reviews posted on Google, Yelp, Facebook, and niche educational sites help build trust and credibility while boosting your local SEO ranking.

    One way to encourage reviews is by setting up an easy process for parents to leave feedback. After key events like open houses, school performances, or parent-teacher meetings, follow up with an email inviting parents to share their experience on Google or other review sites. Always respond to reviews in a timely, professional manner, whether positive or negative. This responsiveness shows that your school values feedback and is engaged with its community, which search engines recognize positively.

    Example: Western Heights Montessori School’s website displays several positive reviews. These personal and specific reviews highlight the school’s unique selling points. When encouraging parents to write reviews, try to prompt them toward a similar result.

    HEM 4HEM 4

    Source: Western Heights Montessori

    Building Citations and Directory Listings

    Citations, or mentions of your school’s name, address, and phone number on other websites, are a key component of local SEO. Citations help search engines confirm your school’s existence and location, ultimately building your website’s authority. Common places for citations include online school directories, community websites, and local educational resources.

    Research reputable, relevant directories specific to education or your geographic area, and ensure your school’s information is listed accurately. Local chambers of commerce, community pages, and educational sites often provide directory listings or profiles where your school can be featured. Each additional citation strengthens your local SEO, contributing to a greater chance of appearing in local search results.

    Example: This is GLCT’s listing on the International School Database. By appearing on directories like this, you’re expanding your online presence, making it easier for prospects to find your school.

    HEM 5HEM 5

    Source: Great Lakes College of Toronto |  International School Database

    Building Local Backlinks

    Backlinks, or links from other websites to your school’s website, are essential for establishing credibility in SEO. Local backlinks are even more valuable, as they signal to Google that your school is an authority in the community. Consider contacting local organizations, libraries, businesses, or news outlets that could mention or link to your school.

    For example, if your school partners with local businesses for community events, ask them to link to your website in their event descriptions. Participating in community service projects or sponsoring local events can provide backlink opportunities. Press releases about notable achievements or events at your school, published on local news sites, can generate valuable backlinks.

    Implementing Schema Markup

    Schema markup is a form of structured data that helps search engines understand specific information on your website. For K-12 schools, schema can highlight important details such as your school’s name, location, contact information, and even specific features like tuition or grade levels offered.

    Adding schema markup helps Google better understand the context of your website, often leading to enhanced search result displays with additional information like ratings, contact details, or event dates. Schools that use schema have a competitive advantage in local search results, as this markup can make your listing stand out.

    For example, implementing schema to highlight upcoming events, open house dates, or application deadlines allows families searching for local school options to identify important details quickly. Schema markup may require technical assistance, but it’s worth considering to boost your local SEO efforts further.

    Tracking and Adjusting Your Local SEO Strategy

    After implementing these local SEO practices, tracking your progress is essential. Use Google Analytics and Google Search Console to monitor key metrics such as organic search traffic, click-through rates, and the keywords driving traffic to your site. These insights can help you understand which strategies are working and where adjustments are needed.

    Regularly updating and refreshing your website’s content, profile listings, and SEO practices is vital to staying competitive. Local SEO is an ongoing process, and search engine algorithms frequently change, so periodically revisiting and refining your strategy can ensure your school continues to attract and engage the local community effectively.

    Implementing local SEO for your K-12 school’s website may initially seem complex, but by focusing on the essential practices we’ve discussed today, you’ll soon see its value. By investing in local SEO, you’re building a more robust digital foundation and positioning your school as a valuable resource in your community.

    Struggling with enrollment?

    Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!

    FAQs

    How to do SEO for a school?

    To begin implementing SEO, schools can focus on three primary areas: On-page SEO, technical SEO, and Local SEO. In this blog, we’re focussing on local SEO.

    What is the most effective strategy for local SEO?

    One of the most powerful steps you can take when marketing to K-12 students’ families in your area is to claim and optimize your Google My Business (GMB) profile.

    Source link

  • The Meaning of 2025

    The Meaning of 2025

    So, was that a fun year, or what?

    From Marc “Tonya” Miller and the federal government knee-capping the postsecondary sector in January to Marc “Harding” Miller and the federal government coming back around in September to knee-cap the college sector specifically to Ontario college presidents calling each other whores and more…it was a year to remember. Heck of a ride.

    But as catastrophic as the current fall in revenue seems, it’s worth remembering a couple of things. First, we’re not alone in this. Australia, the UK, France, the Netherlands: they’re all going through something similar. So are some (primarily but not exclusively blue) US states. And second of all, Canada’s institutions are still on most measures better funded than those elsewhere in the OECD (although that advantage is getting narrower all the time). So there’s an argument to be made that there’s nothing special going on here, and in a way this is just reversion to the mean. Not a lot of comfort in that, obviously, but misery loves company, etc.

    There is, I think, a  world-wide phenomenon (though perhaps it does not capture the dynamics of low and middle income countries) which is: NOBODY WANTS TO PAY FOR IT. Higher education is expensive on a per-student basis and it now extends to a far higher percentage of the population than it has at any point in human history. The implicit assumption within higher education communities was that by broadening access to higher education, we would win more public approval for higher education finance. Instead, by making higher education the norm, we made the “gains” from higher education a lot harder for graduates to see since they weren’t as “exceptional” anymore. There’s a point where attempts to boost access to pos-secondary education ceases to feel like spreading opportunity and starts to feel like imposing chores. Beyond that point, public support for higher education falls.

    (More generally, the closer institutions come to being “universal,” the more they seem like utilities, and the fraction of the population that wants “world-class” utilities is vanishingly small. People just want utilities to work, quietly and properly, with no fuss—which is probably why evident dysfunction like months-long campus disruptions from encampments are so deeply unpopular.)

    In other words, we’ve spent 80 years building a system of higher education that is simply more expensive to run than the public is willing to support. Some countries have tried to get around this by financializing things a bit, imposing tuition fees but putting off the bill via student loans, and that helps somewhat as long as governments don’t use that as an excuse for continuing to reduce public funding (which, barring the UK, they mostly haven’t). Some, like Canada and Australia, have tried the neat trick of getting foreigners to pay for their higher education systems via international student tuition fees, but over-reliance on this tactic tends to run up against externalities in the housing market.

    Which means we finally have to confront the problem of nobody wanting to pay for the system we have created.

    There will be huge economic and geo-political ramifications to not paying for the system. Canadian universities depend on having fat margins in undergraduate and professional master’s degree to subsidize research. To a lesser but not insignificant extent, colleges depend on having fat margins in non-tech programs in order to cross-subsidize expensive programs in the trades programs. We don’t talk about these cross-subsidies much (in fact most institutions try to hide them as much as possible, which is a big reason that politicians and even public servants don’t really understand why universities and colleges behave the way they do), but they are fundamental to the way we organize institutions.

    Think about the consequences of reducing those cross-subsidies within universities at the exact moment when advances in technology are opening up huge potential advances in energy, materials science, and health. We (and the Brits, and the Aussies, and the Dutch) are simply going to cede advances in these areas to other countries who are not cutting back on science. China, probably. India and Turkey, maybe. And think about cutting the cross-subsidies in colleges at the exact moment when we need more and better-trained skilled tradespeople in order accelerate the construction of housing and other critical infrastructure.

    (Remember in 2016, when we could console ourselves that however big a disaster Trump was, at least Canada could profit by offering an attractive landing spot for international science and tech talent? Well, we aren’t saying that in 2024. We could be hiring up a storm of top talent, but the money isn’t there to do it, and the housing market is such a disaster we’re afraid to invite people in. Both levels of government have much to answer for.)

    Anyways, it’s easy to bitch about funding but as you’ve heard me say before, no one is coming to save us. There’s zero evidence that anyone in government is suddenly going to decide that Eating the Future is wrong, so the sector is going to have to work out solutions on its own. Non-enshittified solutions, that is. Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to re-think the whole model to make it less costly and more efficient. And that doesn’t just mean asking questions about whether we need this new building, or that academic program or this new executive position, or quite so many student services devolved to the faculty level (all of which are important!) but also some more fundamental questions, like:

    Is it integral to our model that undergraduate degrees be four years in length? (There are parts of Canada, like Manitoba, where it is not.)

    Are research and teaching really the complementary goods many claim they are, or would more specialization of effort be of benefit? (Equally: why should teaching cross-subsidize research, as it so plainly does in a variety of ways?)

    Do degrees need to be awarded along disciplinary lines (which have inconsistent relations to occupations and careers) or are there other ways to do it?

    What if, instead of giving research money to (mainly) universities and asking them to get matching funds from industry, we gave vouchers to industry to work with universities/colleges that they could either use or lose?

    What if colleges got out of skilled trades training altogether and handed it over to industry?

    Few people are going to like all the answers (or even the questions) here, but nevertheless these are the kinds of questions the post-secondary system should be asking not just itself but the rest of society as well.

    But that’s all for next year. In the meantime, happy and restful holidays to all. There will be a podcast tomorrow and our AI Newsletter on Friday, but this will be the final blog of 2024. Regular service will resume January 6. Be well

    The post The Meaning of 2025 appeared first on HESA.

    Source link

  • HEDx Podcast: Barriers to students accessing ed-tech – Episode 149

    HEDx Podcast: Barriers to students accessing ed-tech – Episode 149

    Chief strategy officer of global digital content provider VitalSource Jared Pearlman joins Martin Betts on HEDx this week to discuss the need for HE to deliver affordable student experiences and business models for technology providers that make these experiences sustainable.

    He provides a great summary of current global barriers to providing equitable, ed-tech enabled access to learning.

    Do you have an idea for a story?
    Email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Melbourne uni owes staff $72m in unpaid wages, UniSQ confirms 150 staff laid off

    Melbourne uni owes staff $72m in unpaid wages, UniSQ confirms 150 staff laid off

    University of Melbourne interim vice-chancellor Nicola Phillips said the university will continue its leadership role in employment compliance. Picture: NCA NewsWire/Martin Ollman

    The University of Melbourne will fork out a total of $72m to cover the underpayments of 25,000 staff, after investigations into wage theft claims found the institution had failed to properly pay employees over a 10-year period.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • New University of Wollongong vice-chancellor announced

    New University of Wollongong vice-chancellor announced

    Professor Lu when he won a Queensland Great award in 2013. Picture: Mark Calleja

    Professor Max Lu will move to Australia to be the University of Wollongong’s (UOW) sixth vice-chancellor in May next year.

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • President-Elect Trump Nominates Lori Chavez-DeRemer for DOL Secretary and Linda McMahon for Education Secretary

    President-Elect Trump Nominates Lori Chavez-DeRemer for DOL Secretary and Linda McMahon for Education Secretary

    by CUPA-HR | December 10, 2024

    Over the past few weeks, President-elect Donald Trump has announced several nominations for leads at federal agencies. Of relevance to CUPA-HR members, Trump has nominated Rep. Lori Chavez-DeRemer (R-OR) to serve as secretary at the Department of Labor (DOL) and Linda McMahon to serve as the Department of Education (ED) secretary. The following analysis dives into how Chavez-DeRemer and McMahon may lead each agency’s regulatory action on a few of the most pressing policy issues.

    DOL Secretary

    FLSA

    Chavez-DeRemer was nominated to serve as labor secretary on November 22. Chavez-DeRemer was viewed as a surprising pick for many in the labor and employment policy space given her Congressional record and support from labor unions. Her nomination raises questions about the direction in which DOL will go under the Trump administration with respect to certain policies and regulations, such as the overtime regulations under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), joint employer regulations, and independent contractor regulations.

    As a reminder, the Biden administration’s overtime regulations were struck down in federal court on November 15. The ruling strikes down all components of the Biden administration’s rule, including the July 2024 and January 2025 salary thresholds and the triennial automatic updates. On November 26, however, the Biden administration filed a notice of appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in hopes of reinstating the rule before their term ends.

    Chavez-DeRemer has not publicly supported or opposed the Biden administration’s overtime rule, but labor unions have supported the rule through regulatory comments and public statements. Many anticipated that a second Trump administration’s DOL would stop defending the Biden rule in court if the Biden administration chose to appeal. Given organized labor’s support of Chavez-DeRemer, there is a chance that DOL under her authority would continue to defend the rule in court. However, it appears unlikely that the rule in its entirety would be defended, and it is more likely that DOL would attempt to defend the July salary threshold only. As a reminder, the salary threshold increase that took effect on July 1, 2024, used the Trump administration’s 2019 overtime rule methodology to determine the level, which could lead to a possible reasoning for defending the July salary threshold level.

    Joint Employer and Independent Contractor Rules

    Similar to the overtime regulations, the future of other labor and employment regulations relevant to higher ed HR appears uncertain in the face of Chavez-DeRemer’s nomination. Two DOL regulations — the joint employer and independent contractor rules — seem certain to swing back in favor of policies like those implemented under the first Trump administration, but Chavez-DeRemer’s inconsistent record in Congress on both issues makes it unclear how DOL under Trump will regulate them.

    Notably, Chavez-DeRemer is one of three Republican cosponsors of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, a Democrat-backed bill that would expand organized labor’s power over workers and employers. There are provisions in the PRO Act that a second Trump DOL is not anticipated to implement, including provisions to apply a controversial “ABC” test for worker classification under the National Labor Relations Act and to adopt a broader joint employer standard under the NLRA than the standard implemented by the Trump administration. Given her support for the PRO Act, Chavez-DeRemer could change direction from the anticipated actions expected from the Trump administration with respect to joint employment and independent contractor status, along with other labor policies.

    Education Secretary

    Linda McMahon was nominated to serve as ED secretary on November 19. McMahon’s nomination was also considered a surprise, but for reasons surrounding her previous experience. During Trump’s first term, McMahon served as the administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration, and most recently, she served as co-chair of Trump’s transition team. She was previously an executive for World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE). With respect to education, McMahon served as a trustee for Sacred Heart University for over a decade, and she also briefly served on the Connecticut Board of Education.

    Title IX

    McMahon’s previous positions and experience do not provide much insight into her stance on higher education policy. That being said, we expect that McMahon will largely follow the education policy direction of President-elect Trump if she is confirmed. With respect to Title IX, it is expected that Trump will seek to reimplement his administration’s 2020 Title IX regulations nationwide, which we anticipate McMahon will follow. It remains to be seen if McMahon and the Trump administration’s ED will attempt to issue new Title IX regulations that may be more conservative than those issued in 2020 to address concerns regarding rights and protections for transgender students.

    Looking Ahead

    Both Chavez-DeRemer and McMahon will face Senate confirmation hearings by relevant oversight committees and votes by the full Senate. During confirmation hearings, more information about the nominees’ priorities at their respective agencies will be revealed. CUPA-HR will keep members apprised of any updates related to the confirmation process of Chavez-DeRemer and McMahon as well as regulatory updates from DOL and ED.



    Source link