Blog

Professional services staff need equal recognition – visibility in sector data would be a good start

Achieving recognition for the significant contribution of professional services staff is a collaborative, cross-sector effort.

With HESA’s second consultation on higher education staff statistics welcoming responses until 3 April, AGCAS has come together with a wide range of membership bodies representing professional services staff across higher education to release a statement warmly welcoming HESA’s proposal to widen coverage of the higher education staff record to include technical staff and professional and operational staff.

By creating a more complete staff record, HESA aim to deliver better understanding of the diverse workforce supporting the delivery of UK higher education. AGCAS, together with AHEP, AMOSSHE, ASET, CRAC-Vitae, NADP and UMHAN, welcome these proposals. We have taken this collaborative approach because we have a common goal of seeking wider recognition for the outstanding contributions and work of our members in professional services roles, and the impact they make on their institutions, regions, graduates and students.

A matter of visibility

Since the 2019–20 academic year, higher education providers in England and Northern Ireland have had the option to return data on non-academic staff to HESA. However, this has led to a lack of comprehensive visibility for many professional services staff. In the 2023–24 academic year, out of 228 providers only 125 opted to return data on all their non-academic staff – leaving 103 providers opting out.

This gap in data collection has raised concerns about the recognition and visibility of these essential staff members – and has not gone unnoticed by professional services staff themselves. As one AGCAS member noted:

Professional service staff have largely remained invisible when reporting on university staff numbers. Professional services provide critical elements of student experience and outcomes, and this needs to be recognised and reflected better in statutory reporting.

This sentiment underscores the importance of the proposed changes by HESA, and the reason for our shared response.

Who is and is not

A further element of the consultation considers a move away from the term “non-academic” to better reflect the roles and contributions of these staff members and proposes to collect data on staff employment functions.

Again, we collectively strongly support these proposed changes, which have the potential to better understand and acknowledge the wide range of staff working to deliver outstanding higher education across the UK. The term non-academic has long been contentious across higher education. While continuing to separate staff into role types may cause issues for those in the third space, shifting away from a term and approach that defines professional services staff by othering them is a welcome change.

As we move forward, it is essential to continue fostering collaboration and mutual respect between academic and professional services staff. Challenging times across higher education can create or enhance partnership working between academic and professional services staff, in order to tackle shared difficulties, increase collaboration and form strategic alliances.

A better environment

By working in this way, we can create a more inclusive and supportive environment that recognises the diverse contributions of all staff members, ultimately enhancing outcomes for all higher education stakeholders, particularly students.

Due to the nature of our memberships, our shared statement focuses on professional services staff in higher education – but we also welcome the clear focus on operational and technical staff from HESA, who again make vital contributions to their institutions.

We all know that representation matters to our members, and the higher education staff that we collectively represent. HESA’s proposed changes could help to start a move towards fully and equitably recognising the vital work of professional services staff across higher education. By expanding data collection to include wider staff roles and moving away from the term “non-academic”, we can better understand and acknowledge the wide range of contributions that support the higher education sector.

This is just the first step towards better representation and recognition, but it is an important one.

Source link

March 26, 2025
Sussex fined almost £600k over free speech
The University of Sussex is to be fined a record £585,000 over a failure to uphold free speech and academic freedom.

The Office for Students (OfS) has found “significant and serious breaches” of free speech and governance issues at the University of Sussex.

The regulator’s investigation, which followed the departure of academic Kathleen Stock from the university, says that said policies intended to prevent abuse or harassment of certain groups on campus had created “a chilling effect” that might cause staff and students to “self-censor.”

OfS found that Sussex’s policy statement on “trans and non-binary equality” failed to uphold the principles of freedom of speech and academic freedom governance – and had created a “chilling effect” on campus.

It also said the university failed to have “effective and adequate management and governance arrangements in place” to uphold those principles.

Officially, OfS’ inquiry focused on the university’s general compliance with the regulatory framework, rather than the departure of Kathleen Stock specifically – but also found “no evidence to suggest that Professor Stock’s speech during her employment at the university was unlawful.”

Sussex has come out fighting. Vice chancellor Sasha Roseneil told the Financial Times that universities are now exposed to regulatory risk if they have policies that protect staff and students from racist, homophobic, antisemitic, anti-Muslim or other abuse, and said the regulator had decreed “free speech absolutism as the fundamental principle” for universities.

She also claims the regulator had “refused to speak to us,” and that the fine imposed was “wholly disproportionate” – arguing the university had defended Stock’s right to pursue her academic work and express her “lawful beliefs.”

The report – some 1,224 days since OfS says it opened the investigation – comes at a tricky time for the government. Its decision first to pause, and then announce an intention to partially repeal the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, has to some extent been centred on concerns that the Act as passed represented a “hate speech charter” preventing universities from taking steps to protect marginalised groups on campus.

OfS’ decision – notwithstanding that it is one taken in the context of a previous and pre-existing legal framework – will therefore be widely seen as rebuttal of the idea that protection of that sort conflicts with free speech and academic freedom.

But on the other side of that argument is Sussex itself – experiencing OfS’ fifth ever fine, and arguing that OfS’ decision will itself have a chilling effect on efforts to:

…prevent abuse, harassment or bullying, to protect groups subject to harmful propaganda, or to determine that stereotyped assumptions should not be relied upon in the university curriculum.

Kathleen Stock left her post as Professor of Philosophy at the University of Sussex in October 2021, shortly after which the Office for Students (OfS) announced that it had opened an investigation focused on whether or not the university had met its obligations for academic freedom and freedom of speech within the law for all students and staff, whatever their views.

Although Stock and her departure from Sussex has become easily the most-referenced example used to illustrate the need for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, it had at that stage only recently completed its run in the Commons – so the investigation opened by OfS was over whether the university had complied with general ongoing conditions E1 and E2 – which, in the original Jo Johnson design, were designed to give regulatory force to the “public interest governance principles” for academic freedom and freedom of speech.

This report outlines how OfS determined breaches of conditions E1 and E2, how penalties were calculated, and raises concerns that the university may have breached broader legal duties on free speech and academic freedom. Here there’s a short background, a look in detail at the report itself, and what it might mean for the campus culture wars in coming years.

Background

In late 2021 at the University of Sussex – a campus with a long history of radical politics – a group of students describing themselves as queer, trans, and non-binary had mounted a campaign calling for Stock’s dismissal.

Responding both to her teaching and books, they claimed she was espousing a “bastardised version of radical feminism that excludes and endangers trans people.” Posters and protests ensued, Stock reported receiving death threats and was advised by police to take safety precautions, and the university’s vice chancellor, Adam Tickell (now at Birmingham) defended Stock’s academic freedom and announced an investigation into the protests.

More than 200 academic philosophers from across the UK went on to sign an open letter supporting Stock’s right to “engage in open and scholarly debate without fear of harassment,” but notably the Sussex branch of the University and College Union (UCU) criticized Tickell’s stance, expressing solidarity with the protesting students and calling for an investigation into “institutional transphobia” at the university.

Stock resigned on 28 October, and in a subsequent radio interview on Woman’s Hour, she denied being transphobic, and explained that her resignation followed attacks from colleagues who opposed her views and who, according to Stock, encouraged an “extreme” response from their students. Stock also said that it was the UCU statement that had “effectively ended” her career at Sussex.

What was novel about the affair is that while there had been quoted incidents of “mobbing,” “cancellation,” and “no platforming,” these had tended to be focused on figures outside of universities, visiting as speakers.

Since the Education Act 1986 had started to require to universities to “take reasonably practicable steps to ensure that freedom of speech within the law is secured for members, students and employees of the establishment and for visiting speakers,” it had been the last of that list that had caused that legislation – and the last of that list that had largely generated skirmishes since.

But when Arif Ahmed – now OfS’ Director for Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech, then a fellow philosopher at the University of Cambridge – wrote for Index on Censorship in early 2022, he noted a new character to conflict on campus. Ahmed picked up other cases – the 500 students that had petitioned Oxford University to force two professors to include trans women in their research into women’s equality, and the academics that had had talks cancelled at Essex University after they were accused of transphobia.

Not wanting to “anticipate what that inquiry finds,” the article also argued that in principle, there may be academic freedom issues on both sides, including “the right of students (or anyone else) to protest against her” – albeit that:

…we must distinguish peaceful protest in favour of a principle like rights for trans people… harassment and victimisation of an individual aimed at blocking their speech.

That often fraught line – between freedom to speak (and research), and freedom from harm – is both as old as John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859), and one that has dogged the debate about campus culture generally and the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act specifically ever since. Where a regulator might draw the line has been an open question – and the report now illustrates it clearly.

An inspector calls

On 7 October 2021, OfS contacted the university seeking information on what steps it had taken to protect free speech and academic freedom for Kathleen Stock and others with similar views, and how it had assessed whether the incident amounted to harassment based on her gender critical beliefs. After reviewing this and examining relevant policies, it formally launched an investigation on 22 October.

The investigation focused on whether the university had taken reasonably practicable steps to uphold lawful free speech and academic freedom, whether its governance documents complied with OfS public interest principles and legal duties (including under the Equality Act 2010), and whether its policies – particularly those on academic freedom, HR, and EDI – had negatively impacted free expression.

It imposed “cooperation requirements,” reviewed multiple rounds of documentation, and considered policy changes made during the process. Provisional findings were shared in March 2024, and final decisions were made on 14 February 2025 after considering the university’s response.

The first breach – of Condition E1 – concerns the university’s governing documents, and the way in which OfS says they restricted lawful speech – including “gender critical” views, which are protected under the Equality Act 2010.

OfS says this created a chilling effect – discouraging staff and students from expressing certain views. Though not officially about Stock’s case per se, it’s cited as a real-world example – OfS taking the opportunity to remind readers of its role in safeguarding lawful free speech through a viewpoint-neutral, “impartial” approach.

The university first adopted a Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement in November 2018. On 12 November, a proposal was made to publish it on 20 November – Trans Day of Remembrance. The draft was reviewed by the University Executive Group (UEG) on 13 November, which supported its general direction, but called for further discussion after review by the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

Despite this, the UEG held an unscheduled meeting on 14 November 2018, during which it approved the statement for publication on 20 November. No separate minutes were recorded for this meeting. That 2018 version remained in effect when OfS began its investigation in October, and is the main source of the compliance problem.

Some tricky timeline issues ensue which relate to later revisions, and OfS has not yet determined whether one of its identified breaches has extended beyond March of last year.

But essentially, the judgement centres on four aspects of different versions of the university’s policy – which it’s counting here for E1 purposes as one of the university’s governing documents:
- A requirement for “any materials within relevant courses and modules [to] positively represent trans people and trans lives.” OfS refers to this as the Positive Representation Statement throughout its report;
- A statement that “the curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people”. It refers to this as the Stereotyping Statement;
- A statement that “transphobic propaganda … will not be tolerated.” It refers to this as the Transphobic Propaganda Statement;
- A statement that “transphobic abuse, harassment or bullying (name-calling/derogatory jokes, unacceptable or unwanted behaviour, intrusive questions) are serious disciplinary offences for staff and students and will be dealt with under the appropriate University procedures.” It refers to this as the Disciplinary Statement.
OfS’ conclusion is that the university breached E1 because the four statements breached the academic freedom and freedom of speech principles.

That’s partly because the statements were capable of restricting lawful speech – including in-course content – and signalled that some views weren’t welcome. This, says OfS, produced a chilling effect – Stock self-censored, and others likely did too. She removed lawful material from her curriculum, narrowing academic debate and reducing students’ exposure to diverse views. Other staff may have followed suit or felt pressured to.

Its argument is that the policy lacked safeguards for legally protected beliefs like “gender critical” views and that its other governing documents didn’t fill that gap. The university’s wider “Statute VII” offered some protection for free speech and academic freedom, but in OfS’ view was insufficient.

Partly because the investigation has been on for a long time – and partly because the university has been making changes to policies throughout – there’s also some complex evaluation of what’s happened since the initial investigation opened, all of which is of a similar nature.

See-saw

Much of the material on wider legal duty breaches is focussed on gender critical views as a protected belief – anyone searching for the ways in which OfS might have evaluated efforts to protect trans students just won’t find it.

Hence OfS found no “credible evidence” that the university assessed whether its restrictions on expression under the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement were proportionate – a key requirement under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights – that it says raised the risk that the policy’s interferences with freedom of expression were disproportionate and therefore unlawful.

Similarly, OfS was concerned the university may have breached equality law under section 19 of the Equality Act 2010 by indirectly discriminating against individuals with gender critical beliefs – a protected characteristic. The Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement included provisions (e.g. the Positive Representation, Stereotyping, Transphobic Propaganda, and Disciplinary Statements) that it says restricted lawful speech, including gender critical views. Again, OfS found no credible evidence that the university conducted an objective justification assessment for the restrictions when adopting the policy.

OfS was also concerned that the university may have failed to comply with the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED). It found no credible evidence that the university properly considered the equality implications of the policy, as required under the PSED, and while the university claimed to have conducted an Equality Impact Assessment for the 2023 version, this appeared limited to the removal of the Positive Representation Statement and did not assess the remaining content.

Taken as a whole, this is a pretty extensive illustration of the principle both in the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 and OfS’ draft guidance on it – both on “particular regard” to the importance of freedom of speech, and these two notable paras in the draft:

Freedom of speech within the law is protected. Unlawful speech is not protected. However, there is no need to point to a specific legal basis for speech. Instead, the starting point is that speech is permitted unless restricted by law.

Free speech includes lawful speech that may be offensive or hurtful to some. Speech that amounts to unlawful harassment or unlawful incitement to hatred or violence (for instance) does not constitute free speech within the law and is not protected.

There are likely to be debates about the extent to which that was clear to providers in the old regime, and whether the new regime is merely an enforcement wrapper around pre-existing legal duties – but that’s the framing in use in this decision.

A record (reduced) fine

The fining decision is then explained in in line with Regulation 4 of the 2019 Monetary Penalties Regulations, where OfS considered several factors – the nature, seriousness, duration, and impact of the breach; any financial or other benefit the university may have gained or losses it avoided; and whether the breach had been repeated.

OfS assessed that the breach was “serious, prolonged, and had a chilling effect on lawful speech and academic freedom” – and while no direct financial gain was identified, the regulatory failure was significant enough to warrant a monetary penalty to reflect the severity and ensure accountability.

In setting the penalty, OfS also considered steps the university took to prevent future breaches and the likely impact of a monetary penalty on students. A “baseline penalty” was established as per Regulation 4, then adjusted based on aggravating and mitigating factors, including the university’s compliance history. The maximum penalty allowable was either 2 per cent of qualifying income or £500,000, whichever was higher.

For 2023–24, Sussex’s qualifying income was £232,358,874, making the cap £4,647,177. OfS applied its published framework (Regulatory Advice 19) to determine the final penalty, ensuring it was “proportionate, targeted, and justified” in light of the breach’s seriousness and the steps taken by the university since.

The university’s financial position was relevant – with (at the time) substantial income and reserves, OfS concluded that a penalty would not materially harm students. Instead, it would promote future compliance, both at Sussex and, notably, across the sector. The baseline penalty was set at 0.9 per cent of qualifying income: £2,091,230.

Mitigating factors included steps taken by the university to reduce the restrictive effect of its policy like removing the “positive representation” requirement, adding an objective definition of “transphobic abuse,” and including a safeguard for academic freedom in the 2023 policy.

Aggravating factors included the length of the breach (over four years) and the failure to self-report. After applying both sets of factors – each justifying a 0.2 per cent adjustment in opposite directions – the penalty remained unchanged at 0.9 per cent.

The university’s compliance history did not warrant any further adjustment. It cooperated with the investigation and there was no evidence of dishonesty, recklessness, or concealment. Accordingly, after the first three steps of the process, the final penalty for the breach remained £2,091,230.

Governance and delegation

The second breach (Condition E2) was a process one – key policies were adopted by groups lacking the delegated authority to do so. The Prevent Steering Group approved the 2021 Freedom of Speech Code of Practice, the University Executive Group approved the 2023 External Speakers’ Procedure, and also approved the 2022 and 2023 versions of the Trans and Non-Binary Equality Policy Statement – each time acting outside its remit.

These governance failures were deemed significant. Decisions were made by bodies not authorised to take them, raising the risk of insufficient scrutiny or expertise and potentially compromising compliance with legal and regulatory duties. Those failures, found OfS, could result in decisions not in the best interests of staff or students. The breach was not an isolated incident, but part of a pattern suggesting “systemic weaknesses rather than a one-off lapse.”

The university didn’t report the breach to OfS (the old Kafka-esque rules around the reportable events regime), nor has it taken clear steps to address or rectify its governance failures. As such, OfS concluded that its intervention factors supported a breach of condition E2(i), and that regulatory action was necessary to address the university’s ongoing non-compliance with its own governance framework.

This time the baseline penalty was 0.5 per cent of the university’s qualifying income (£1,161,794) for the E2 breach, reflecting its seriousness as a governance failure. While the decisions made without proper authority risked poor quality outcomes, the direct impact on students was assessed as less severe than the E1 breach, and the penalty was also viewed as a means to incentivise future compliance, both at Sussex and across the sector.

Because of aggravating factors – like the longstanding nature of the breach, failure to report it, and lack of remedial steps – the penalty was increased by 0.2 percentage points, bringing it to 0.7 per cent (£1,626,512). No mitigating factors were identified.

As with the E1 breach, the university’s compliance history didn’t affect the penalty, and it had cooperated with the investigation – but OfS ultimately concluded that penalties at the calculated levels would be disproportionately high. And so balancing all considerations – the seriousness of the breaches, financial capacity, cumulative penalty size, and the novelty of regulatory enforcement in this area – OfS reduced the final penalties and imposed £360,000 for the E1 breach and £225,000 for the E2 breach, totalling £585,000.

This was deemed “sufficient” to deter future non-compliance while maintaining financial sustainability. Sussex says the fine is “wholly disproportionate.”

Fallout and next steps

There will doubtless be some fallout from the decision – not least because Sussex is (at least in principle) very publicly criticising the process, the fine, and the judgement made on the EDI/freedom of speech see saw.

In some ways what’s surprising – although on reflection inevitable – is that this wasn’t really an investigation about the Stock affair at all. She and others calling for full implementation of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act may well argue that the investigation ought to have handled how she was treated, how she was protected (or otherwise) by the university, and drawn conclusions about the handling of events leading to her departure. OfS may well argue – campaigners almost certainly will – that that would only have been possible under the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act.

There are real questions over how long the process has taken, that are not substantially addressed or answered in the report – and the huge fine imposed. That OfS is able to follow the logic of its own documents is one thing, but when compared against some of the teaching and learning investigations it’s done so far, either those providers are in for huge fines, or inevitable comparisons are going to be drawn about relative impact.

There will also be questions about Arif Ahmed himself. The report dots the Is and crosses the Ts as we would expect it to – and includes the “neutrality” defence we’ve come to recognise. But even though he’s unlikely to have been personally involved in this process, we should be reminded of the OIA’s advice that providers need to take steps to avoid “actual bias and the reasonable perception of bias” when handling complaints. Given in a previous role that Index on Censorship blog was entitled “We academics must fight the mob – now”, it’s not hard to see why some might at least perceive an agenda.

The other questions surround the jurisprudence. It remains the case that in the cases we’ve seen, different levels of protection for freedom of speech apply in different contexts – there’s no doubt that in a lecture hall or seminar room, the way the Human Rights Act is applied is different to during someone’s personal life, free time, and so on. There’s nothing in here on the different contexts of conduct that a “university” encompasses – and it remains a hole in what OfS has published so far, and arguably in the way it has evaluated the policies for the breaches.

The practical compatibility of the decision with impending heavy duties on harassment will also be a concern – with frantic rewrites of policies similar in nature and tone to that adopted by Sussex likely to face pushback from those who fear a wider retreat from equality-focussed work.

It’s the government, though, that faces the trickiest set of decisions from here on in. Its decision to pause and intent to soften somewhat the Act has all been about a perception that it was to result in free speech absolutism at the expense of the protection of minorities.

It may be a reflection of the law or a very particular (and contestable) interpretation of it – and legal challenges may ensue – but if nothing else, it’s hard to see how the version of “absolutism” deployed here is compatible with (for example) the IHRA definition of antisemitism – something successive governments have consistently supported, and which Ahmed himself only changed position on when taking up his role.

Notwithstanding that Labour has disappointed trans campaigners since taking office, it will now have to decide whether Sussex is right that universities are now “exposed to regulatory risk if they have policies that protect staff and students from racist, homophobic, antisemitic, anti-Muslim or other abuse.” And if they are, whether the problem is the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act, the Human Rights Act, or Arif Ahmed himself.
Source link
March 25, 2025
The Enrollment Cliff Is Here and Now What?

Higher education is facing a pivotal moment. Institutions across the country are bracing for a significant decline in enrollment—a phenomenon widely known as the Enrollment Cliff. This looming challenge is not a distant threat but a present reality. According to EducationDynamics’ 2025 Landscape of Higher Education report, 29% of Americans perceive the cost of education as unjustifiable, raising concerns about affordability and value. At the same time, the last several years have been marked by year-over-year enrollment declines, with freshman enrollment declining by 1.5% overall in fall 2022, including a 5.6% drop at highly selective institutions. These continued losses signal a diminishing undergraduate pipeline, making it increasingly difficult for colleges to recover pre-pandemic enrollment levels.

Colleges and universities that rely on traditional enrollment strategies find themselves at risk as the pool of prospective students shrinks.

The question is no longer whether institutions will be impacted but rather how they will adapt. Understanding and engaging the Modern Learner is critical to developing sustainable enrollment strategies. Institutions that recognize this shift and align their marketing, recruitment and engagement strategies accordingly will be the ones that thrive in the changing landscape.

What Caused the Enrollment Cliff?

The Enrollment Cliff stems from a variety of factors, including demographic and behavioral changes. Declining birth rates in the early 2000s have resulted in fewer high school graduates, meaning a smaller population of traditional college-aged students. At the same time, the percentage of high school graduates choosing to enroll in college has been significantly decreasing, with 9% choosing not to pursue college after completing high school. Amid this environment, the value of a degree has also been increasingly questioned. Rising tuition costs, skepticism about degree value, and the rise in alternative pathways have all contributed to this shift.

For decades, institutions have relied on a steady pipeline of high school graduates to sustain enrollment. However, this model is no longer sustainable. Institutions must rethink their recruitment strategies and expand their focus beyond the traditional student demographic to remain competitive in an increasingly uncertain landscape.

Why is College Enrollment Declining?

While the Enrollment Cliff is primarily driven by demographic trends, the decline in college enrollment is also influenced by shifting student priorities and perceptions of higher education. Economic uncertainties, rising concerns about student debt, and the growing number of alternative credentials have made prospective students more hesitant about pursuing a four-year degree. As we discussed in our previous blog article, Seeing Past the Enrollment Cliff of 2025, this shift is compounded by the growing demand for more flexible, career-oriented education options, alongside the growing belief among students that the cost of a traditional college education is increasingly unjustifiable.

Despite overall enrollment projections remaining flat throughout 2030, this stagnation masks a critical shift—the student population is becoming more diverse in age and educational backgrounds. Non-traditional students—working adults, career changers, and life-long learners—are now a growing factor in higher education. Institutions that fail to recognize and adapt to these changing dynamics are falling behind.

Additionally, the financial health of many colleges and universities is increasingly at stake. Since 2019, institutional risk levels have risen, signaling heightened financial pressures due to enrollment declines. As tuition revenue declines, schools must find innovative ways to attract and retain students.

Who is the New College Student? It’s the Modern Learner.

To combat the Enrollment Cliff, institutions must first understand who they are trying to reach—the Modern Learner.

The Modern Learner is not bound by traditional academic pathways. They prioritize flexibility and accessibility, seeking educational experiences that align with career objectives, financial constraints, and personal commitments. Modern Learners are the architects of their own educational journeys, emphasizing cost, convenience, and career outcomes as their primary decision-factors.

Modern Learners expect institutions to meet them where they are—whether that means offering online and hybrid courses, providing transparent career-aligned curriculums, or delivering personalized learning experiences. The assumption that age determines learning modality is outdated. Today, students of all backgrounds demand control over how, when, and where they learn.

Institutions that recognize these evolving preferences and tailor their offerings accordingly will be best positioned to sustain and grow their enrollment in coming years.

How to Combat the Enrollment Cliff with a Unified Strategy

Higher education professionals can effectively navigate the enrollment cliff, but success in this new landscape necessitates intentional strategic adjustments. Higher education professionals must adopt a unified enrollment and marketing strategy that directly addresses the evolving preferences of Modern Learners. A nonunified approach will not be sufficient; institutions need an integrated strategy that builds brand strength, prioritizes engagement and delivers tailored messaging at critical moments to impact student decision-making

Build a Strong Brand and Reputation

A strong institutional brand is essential for long-terms sustainability. More than just a marketing tool, a well-defined brand communicates an institution’s value proposition and helps establish trust with prospective students. A compelling brand differentiates an institution from its competitors, making it easier to attract and retain students.

Data from the 2025 Modern Learner report underscores the importance of brand on enrollment decisions, with 58% of students initiating their search by looking for schools first, not programs. Institutions that effectively position themselves as student-centered, outcome-focused and accessible will gain a competitive advantage.

Focus on Engagement and Personalization

Understanding Modern Learners is only the first step. Engaging them effectively is what is truly critical. Institutions must shift from broad, one-size-fits all marketing approaches to highly personalized engagement strategies. Modern Learners want to feel valued. Their perception of higher education is influenced by their interactions with an institution, from the first website visit to ongoing conversations with admissions personnel. Research from the Modern Learner Report reveals that only one-third of Modern Learners are considered active promoters when it comes to their educational experience. This highlights a significant opportunity to innovate engagement strategies and approach outreach with a student-oriented mindset, as institutions that prioritize personalized communication and meaningful interactions can foster stronger connections, increase student satisfaction, and ultimately drive enrollment and retention.

Deliver the Right Message at the Right Time in the Right Place

Modern Learners move quickly through the decision-making process. Institutions must ensure their messaging is consistent, compelling, and delivered at the right time. A cohesive communication strategy is essential for guiding students through their enrollment journey.

Data from the Modern Learner Report illustrates how rapidly prospective students compile a shortlist of schools. Once they identify potential institutions, they make application decisions swiftly. Across both undergraduate and graduate Modern Learners, most students take fewer than three weeks between building a consideration set and making their initial inquiries. Notably, 20% of undergraduate Modern Learners complete this process within just one week. While this trend holds across most Modern Learner segments, traditional undergraduate students tend to take longer, with 34% waiting one to months before making inquiries. Colleges and universities that provide timely, relevant, and persuasive messaging will have a stronger chance of converting interest into enrollment by remaining top of mind.

Will Higher Education Survive?

The Enrollment Cliff is not merely a challenge; it is a catalyst for change. While institutions that fail to adapt may struggle, those that embrace change will find opportunities for growth and innovation.

The future of higher education belongs to institutions that recognize the needs of the Modern Learner and evolve accordingly. Those that prioritize flexibility, career alignment, and student-centric engagement will not just endure the Enrollment Cliff—they will turn it into an opportunity for strategic transformation.

At EducationDynamics, we aim to be a trusted partner in your journey. By leveraging data-driven insights, personalized marketing and strategic enrollment management, we help you build stronger connections with prospective students, strengthen institutional reputation, and drive sustainable revenue growth. Together, we can navigate these changes and create lasting impact.

The Enrollment Cliff is here. The time to act is now. Partner with EducationDynamics to create a unified enrollment and communication strategy that will position your institution for long-term success.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Victory in Virginia! Gov. Youngkin defends free speech by vetoing bill on ‘altered’ political media

If you were planning to post an edited photo online of a Virginia political candidate during the next election, you might’ve been in trouble.

After FIRE’s opposition and outreach on this bill, Gov. Glenn Youngkin just prevented that from happening by vetoing HB 2479.

The Virginia General Assembly passed HB 2479 to suppress “altered” and AI-generated depictions of candidates — enforced with threats of fines and even jail time — unless a conspicuous disclaimer was added. Instead of trusting the public to decide what’s true, false, or credible, HB 2479 would have violated the free speech rights of Virginians to make the government into the arbiter of truth.

This bill would’ve made it illegal for virtually any Virginian to sponsor an “electioneering communication” that contains “altered” or AI-generated images or audio recordings of identifiable candidates running for elected office. This included messages appearing in print, TV, radio, or online platforms within 60 days of an election.

Not only would it have included traditional paid campaign ads, but anyone’s speech expressing support for or against a candidate that involves the exchange of something of value and appears in a paper, a broadcast, or is promoted online for a fee. This could include using an AI tool that requires a paid license or even posting on a social media platform using a paid premium account that many platforms offer to extend the content’s visibility and reach.

What “altered” means is anyone’s guess — but the government would be the decider. Any edit that created a “fundamentally different impression” of the photo or video could count, meaning it could have covered even simple edits like cropping a photo. If an image of a candidate was cropped to fit onto a page, an aggrieved candidate could sue and argue that the crop created a “fundamentally different impression” from the original if the portion cropped out removed some kind of context — such as part of the background or another person.

And every speaker was covered, not just mud-slinging political opponents. Suppose a small business owner buys space in a newspaper to highlight how a mayor running for reelection failed to address public safety concerns outside her shop. If she includes a slightly edited and unflattering image of the mayor, she could have been sued — even if the content is not misleading (or even relevant).

The disclaimer requirement wouldn’t have solved the bill’s problems, and in fact created new ones. The First Amendment protects both your right to speak your mind and to hold your tongue, but disclaimers force you to utter government-mandated speech. Even worse, the disclaimer here could have actually misled voters into thinking that someone is spreading falsehoods — even if the ad was factually accurate — simply because edited or AI-generated material was included.

Lawmakers certainly need to protect the electoral process, but this bill would have done the opposite, and it restricted far more speech than necessary to prevent true voter deception. It therefore was unlikely to withstand judicial scrutiny.

The better, constitutional way to fight falsehoods that arise during campaigns is to let candidates fight speech with more speech. If an ad is misleading or outright wrong, candidates can and should point it out. Should any depictions of candidates rise to the level of being actually defamatory, Virginia already has laws to address it. Otherwise, the First Amendment protects our right to use expressive tools like AI to enhance political communication.

Our system of government hinges on the freedom to freely express our opinions about candidates for public office. We commend Youngkin for his veto, which will help preserve the First Amendment rights of Virginians and ensure a vibrant, open political discourse.

Source link

March 25, 2025
DEI statements could function as ideological firewalls, new study finds

Findings from my study — released as an issue brief by Manhattan Institute — provide the first available empirical evidence that DEI statements in faculty hiring and promotion could be used as political firewalls to enforce ideological conformity and screen out candidates who hold dissenting views.

In the study, applicants who discussed having engaged in specific DEI-related efforts — such as building outreach programs targeting students and faculty of color or chairing a committee on race relations — received higher scores from faculty evaluators.

All told, data from seven experimental studies involving 4,953 tenured/tenure-track university faculty together show that faculty exhibit a clear preference for DEI statements that discuss race/ethnicity and gender, while down-rating those that do not.

Even if applicants began their statements by explicitly saying, “I have long been committed to equity, diversity, and inclusion,” and then detailed work on mentoring and outreach to students in rural communities — but not race-based or feminist efforts — they were far less likely to be recommended for further review.

In fact, one of the studies found that only 45% of faculty who evaluated a viewpoint diversity DEI statement recommended advancing the candidate for further review, compared to 88% of faculty who recommended advancing the candidate who discussed race or gender-based efforts.

FIRE has long argued that requiring DEI statements can too easily function as a political litmus test in hiring and promotion, forcing faculty to express prevailing ideological positions on DEI — or face the consequences.

Moreover, even among college and university faculty, opinions on DEI statements are mixed. In two different large national surveys, FIRE found that faculty were split on whether colleges should require DEI statements in job applications.

There are still many unexplored questions about DEI statements, and their future remains uncertain. That said, it remains to be seen whether DEI statements are being eliminated entirely by some institutions, or whether they are simply being rebranded.

But insofar as DEI statements function as a form of viewpoint discrimination disguised as an anti-discrimination initiative, colleges and universities should reconsider their continued use.

FIRE has model legislation to prohibit the use of political litmus tests in faculty hiring, promotion, and tenure awards, and in student admissions at public institutions of higher education.

For more information about this work, please see the now available issue brief or the underlying academic pre-print.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Tailored for Student Success and Built to Drive Results
Why would you settle for a generic LMS when your university deserves one based on its own learning path? Custom LMS development creates a customized experience that drives student achievement from day one, not only provides tools.

Why Universities Need a Custom LMS

Custom LMS systems are much needed in modern institutions since off-the-shevel LMS solutions usually fail to satisfy their various needs. Custom LMS development is hence quite relevant. Customized solutions can fit the processes, academic framework, and student needs of your university, therefore promoting improved institutional effectiveness and learning results.

Did you realize?
- A 2023 EDUCAUSE study shows that 78% of leaders in higher education feel that tailored learning environments directly help to ensure student success.
- Using custom LMS solutions, universities noted a 25% increase in student involvement and a 19% increase in course completion rates.
Key Benefits of a Custom LMS Development for Student Success
- Students advance at their own speed under customized content delivery depending on performance.
- Interactive materials, multimedia integration, and group projects all help to keep students engaged.
- Modern analytics—real-time student performance—allows teachers to modify their plans to raise results.
- Linkages with current SIS, CRM, and outside tools help to simplify procedures.
- Flexibility and scalability help you to ensure long-term viability as your university develops.
How to Develop a Custom LMS for Universities

Customizing the best LMS for student success is about matching the platform with the mission of your university, not only about technology. Here’s a breakdown:
- Name the main goals: Describe for your university what student success means.
- Plot the course of the student. Recognize several student kinds, from those needing more help to fast learners.
- Design for User Experience: Make sure teachers and students alike have a simple, mobile-friendly interface.
- Leverage data: To create reporting and analytics tools to monitor performance and interaction.
- Test, refine, and scale: Beginning with a pilot program, get comments, and always improve.
The Future of Learning with Creatrix Campus

Creatrix Campus provides a best-in-class LMS for student success, therefore enabling universities to design individualized, data-driven learning environments. Features like automatic reporting, assignment administration, and engagement tracking enable our platform to help colleges uncover new academic successes without sacrificing cost-effectiveness.

Ready to change the educational process at your university? Your way, let us create an best LMS for student success that propels student success.
Source link
March 25, 2025
Is it ‘hate speech’ to say Jesus needs a haircut?
Last 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.

Want to make sure you don’t miss an update? Sign up for our newsletter.

Hate speech sentence for TikToker’s joke about Jesus’ hair

Is it a crime to joke that Jesus needs a haircut? In Indonesia, the answer is apparently yes. Ratu Thalisa, a popular TikToker in the country, was just sentenced to two years and 10 months in prison after holding up a picture of Jesus in a video and saying, “You should not look like a woman,” adding that he should cut his hair.

Thalisa, a trans woman, was responding to a commenter telling her to cut her hair like a man’s. Two days after she posted the video, Christian groups reported her to the police for blasphemy violations and she was soon arrested. She was ultimately found guilty of hate speech against Christianity under Indonesia’s Electronic Information and Transactions law for comments that could affect “public order” and “religious harmony.”

Thalisa is one of hundreds found guilty for speech-related offenses under this law in recent years. Similarly, opponents of a demolition project linked to a Roman Catholic diocese in Indonesia now have reason to fear they’ll be targeted under the country’s blasphemy law. The United Catholic Youth Forum, a Catholic group in Indonesia, is pressuring police to arrest a critic who posted a cartoon “depicting a Catholic priest with an excavator,” claiming it “insults the symbol of the Catholic religion.”

Blasphemous speech remains a target globally
- Greek politician Nikolaos Papadopoulos took his feud against artwork he once criticized as offensive to Orthodox Christianity to a new level this month. The country’s National Gallery had to temporarily close after Papadopoulos partially destroyed four works, caricatures of religious icons from artist Christoforos Katsadiotis, by throwing them on the ground.
- Pakistan’s Lahore High Court issued a ruling intensifying the country’s attack on VPN use and blasphemous speech online. The ruling “ordered the immediate termination of all types of VPNs, the registration of all social media websites, and the establishment of special courts nationwide” to combat online blasphemy.
- A Pakistani court sentenced a man to death for “disrespectful remarks against the Holy Prophet.”
- Last month, I wrote about a man who was arrested “on suspicion of a racially aggravated public order offence” for publicly burning a Quran in Manchester, UK. Another man was arrested on similar charges after burning a Quran outside the Turkish consulate in London. And that’s not all — his expression was also met with violence. An attacker was charged after slashing at the Quran burner with a knife.
Online Safety Act, threats to China’s critics, and more out of the UK

Another charged Quran-burner isn’t the only speech news coming out of the UK. Here’s the latest:
- The UK’s Online Safety Act has now gone into effect. The law is wide-ranging and, among other things, requires platforms to take measures against and have in place systems for removing content including extreme pornography, racially or religiously aggravated public order offences, controlling or coercive behaviour, and terrorism. Hundreds of small websites — like The Hamster Forum, “the home of all things hamstery” — have already announced they are shutting down out of fear that they will be unable to meet compliance requirements under the law.
- Earlier this year, the UK shocked privacy advocates when leaks reported that the country’s Home Office demanded Apple offer a backdoor in its encrypted cloud service for users around the world. Apple refused, withdrawing its advanced data protection tool for UK users rather than comply, and responded with an appeal to the country’s Investigatory Powers Tribunal. A hearing was held this month — but it was closed, and media outlets were denied access.
- Neighbors of Hong Kong activists Tony Chung and Carmen Lau, now living in the UK, received disturbing letters offering £100,000 for “information” on their alleged national security crimes against Hong Kong or, even more shocking, for taking them directly to the Chinese embassy in London. An embassy spokesperson claimed the letters were staged but said that “I also want to stress that it is legitimate and reasonable to pursue wanted fugitives.” Similar letters were sent in Melbourne to the neighbors of Kevin Yam, an Australian citizen also wanted in Hong Kong.
Facial recognition’s role in censorship

Last week, Hungarian MPs passed a law making it “forbidden to hold an assembly in violation” of the country’s 2021 law banning the depiction of homosexuality to minors, making Pride marches illegal in the country. Those who hold or attend Pride parades may now face fines — and police “are also allowed to use facial recognition technology to identify possible offenders.”

Facial recognition is playing a role in Iran’s censorship and suppression of women, too. To enforce its oppressive forced veiling policies, Iranian authorities use a slew of tools to target women failing to wear hijab. Those tools include drones, a phone app to report unveiled women, and facial recognition tech.

Speech about Israel and Gaza continues to be a target for law enforcement and legislators
- Germany’s State Security Police are investigating an incident during the Berlin International Film Festival, where Hong Kong director Jun Li read out a speech from Iranian actor Erfan Shekarriz, who accused German institutions of supporting “the brutal extermination of the Palestinian people.” The investigation likely rests on the director’s use of “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free,” a phrase that has sometimes been criminalized in Germany.
- In an effort to combat anti-Semitism, New South Wales in Australia has passed new protest and hate speech laws despite some concerns about their breadth. The laws, among other things, restrict protests “near” places of worship and criminalize “intentionally and publicly incit[ing] hatred towards another person, or group of people, on the grounds of race.”
- Canadian writer and activist Yves Engler was hit with harassment and indecent communication charges late last month over comments he made in reply to media figure Dahlia Kurtz on X last summer. Engler said “Racist Dahlia supports killing Palestinian children. 20,000 is not enough she wants even more Palestinian blood spilled.” Engler then alleged he was hit with a new set of charges for writing about the initial ones. Engler spent five days in jail before being released.
- Universities Australia, the representative body for Australia’s higher education institutions, agreed upon a new definition of anti-Semitism to be adopted across its 39 universities after urging from the Australian Senate to create one that “closely aligns” with the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition. (FIRE has expressed concerns about enforcement of the IHRA definition on U.S. campuses and its potential to chill or censor protected speech about Israel.)
- Saying “freedom of expression underpins everything we do at LSE,” the London School of Economics rejected a campaign to cancel a talk for the book “Understanding Hamas and Why That Matters.” Israeli ambassador Tzipi Hotovely had sent a letter to LSE calling for the event cancellation, writing that she was “deeply concerned that the event is providing a platform for Hamas propaganda — a terror organisation proscribed under United Kingdom law.”
Record high internet shutdowns in 2024

As Dispatch readers know, many of the most pressing free speech fights today take place over how, and whether, we can speak freely online. A new report from Access Now revealed that 2024 was the worst year yet for internet shutdowns, finding 296 shutdowns in 54 countries, with seven new countries using the tactic for the first time compared to 2023. The most shutdowns occurred in Myanmar, India, Pakistan, Russia, and Ukraine, with some of those shutdowns imposed by other nations and actors.

Prison for a ‘false post,’ satirical cartoon blocked in India, and more speech news out of the Middle East and Asia
- An elderly Malaysian man was sentenced to six months in prison after failing to pay a fine punishing him for posting “false content” about the king of Malaysia.
- Kyrgyzstan recriminalized libel and insult on the internet and in the media. Now, “complaints will be handled by police and adjudicated by so-called administrative courts in an expedited format” and new fines will be assessed for violations.
- Police handling online crime in India’s Maharashtra state sent a notice to the Wikimedia Foundation to remove “objectionable” content from the Wikipedia page for Chhatrapati Sambhaji Maharaj, a king in 17th century India.
- There’s more Wikipedia news out of India. The Wikimedia Foundation is asking India’s Supreme Court to reverse an order directing Wikipedia to take down a page about its legal dispute with an Indian news agency. The underlying dispute centers on a Wiki entry describing the outlet as a government “propaganda tool.”
- And India’s Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology reportedly blocked the website of Tamil-language weekly magazine Ananda Vikatan over a satirical cartoon depicting Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in chains behind President Donald Trump.
- Vietnamese scholar and journalist Truong Huy San, who goes by the pen name Huy Duc, was sentenced to 30 months in prison for Facebook posts “abusing democratic freedoms to infringe upon the interests of the state.”
- An escalation in President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s campaign against his opponents and critics, Turkish police just arrested Istanbul’s mayor and popular Erdogan rival Ekrem Imamoglu and banned protests for four days in Istanbul.
- Two of Singapore’s government ministers have filed a libel suit against Bloomberg over the outlet’s reporting about real estate in Singapore. Under the Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act, Singapore previously ordered Bloomberg to issue a “correction direction” on its reporting, which the outlet did with a note that it was done “under threat of sanction.”
Guilty finding in egregious case of transnational repression in the U.S.

Last week, two men were found guilty of a plot to murder Iranian-American journalist and activist Masih Alinejad in New York City. Alleged Russian mob members Rafat Amirov and Polad Omarov were found guilty of charges including murder for hire, firearms possession and conspiracy to commit money laundering.

Prosecutors accused the Iranian government of putting a $500,000 bounty on Alinejad and of other plots to harm her. The case is yet another disturbing reminder that oppressive regimes overseas are attempting to silence speech — and critics — within U.S. borders.
Source link
March 25, 2025
Short-term service learning experiences help college students

College students are known to be strapped for time. A May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed found the No. 1 stressor in students’ lives is balancing academics with personal, family or financial responsibilities such as work.

Research shows campus involvement is tied to students’ retention, career development and sense of belonging while in college, but helping time-strapped students access these experiences can be a challenge for institutions.

This year, Goucher College in Maryland created a new forum through the office of Community-Based Learning. The short-term micro-experiences allow students to dip their toes into service without committing to a semester or longer. The college first piloted the unpaid opportunities in spring 2024, and student participation in service learning has increased as a result.

The background: The Office of Community-Based Learning offers seven focus areas for community engagement: animal welfare, empowering ability, environmental sustainability, food and housing security, K-12 education and youth development, immigrant and refugee programs, and health and wellness.

Participation could include off-campus Federal Work-Study roles, volunteering with a social justice student club or through a campus organization, taking a Community-Based Learning course, engaging in an internship, or serving as a student director. The office also partners with faculty members to provide experiences in the classroom, such as a semester-long project for a nonprofit partner or a field trip to a partner site.

One of the reasons CBL has previously not offered short-term or one-day service opportunities is because of ethical concerns of how impactful these experiences are for the organizations or individuals being served.

The change is reflective of the needs of today’s students, who are more likely to be working for pay or on a compressed timeline to complete their undergraduate program as quickly as possible, CBL director Lindsay Johnson Walton said.

To ask students to invest in a long-term program that requires three, four or five semesters’ worth of time, “it’s not practical,” she said.

On the other side, nonprofit and community partners can be so desperately in need of support that they hold fewer concerns about the model of service. “It doesn’t matter if it’s the same students as long as it’s engaged students,” Johnson Walton explained.

Offering short-term participation opportunities requires more work from the college to generate the experience and fill out paperwork because it only happens once, but Johnson Walton hopes with future iterations the process will become more streamlined.

How it works: CBL offers around one micro-experience per week, many taking place on a Saturday morning or afternoon. Each experience has a cap of 10 to 12 students.

Students sign up in advance and commit to volunteering for a few hours. College staff handle logistics, including transportation, covering background checks and coordinating with the site, so students just have to show up and serve. Student coordinators, who are part-time staff working for CBL, also contribute to the organization and execution of events.

Some experiences that work well as short-term offerings include volunteering at the food bank or assisting at an animal shelter, while other partners, such as public schools, still operate best with more sustained interactions.

On the trip back, staff lead a short debrief and guided reflection to help students connect their experiences to larger learning objectives and provide additional opportunities to learn or serve, if needed. Students are also sent a short questionnaire that asks them to reflect on their work.

Short-Term Experiential Learning Grows

Community-based learning isn’t the only area where Goucher College has shortened the duration of experiential learning opportunities.

In 2020, Goucher launched micro-internships for students, primarily to address a lack of offerings available to students due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The remote offerings help connect students with alumni and other college partners and give students a project to assist in their career development and growth.

Similarly, the global education office has seen a growth in student interest for three- to five-week study abroad offerings rather than semester-long programs.

Who’s doing it: The micro-experiences have attracted a wide variety of students, some who are curious about service learning and just want to dip their toes in. International students often fall into this category because volunteering can be a uniquely American experience, and the projects give them insight into different organizations and spaces they may not otherwise engage in, such as schools, Johnson Walton said.

Others have a passion for service but are unable to devote much time to it, so micro-experiences provide a flexible opportunity.

Many students had a service requirement while in high school or were told that volunteering is a good feature for their college application, which makes service more of a reflex, Johnson Walton said. “They think they should be doing it, because culturally it’s been built into the list of things you’re supposed to do.”

Each of these students reflects an opportunity to further engage them in longer-term community-based learning in a curricular or co-curricular setting.

Feedback from participants shows that even small or short projects can have an impact on the student. At a volunteer appreciation event, one student wrote they learned how to plant a tree, which is a simple action, but one that can help a lot of people and a skill they can take and use again and again, Johnson Walton said.

Similarly, sorting food at the food bank can seem insignificant, but recognizing how many people that food will feed can help students gain perspective on their service impact.

For organizers of community-based learning experiences, it can be hard to grapple with the potential harm done by short-term community service because of the power dynamics involved, but Johnson Walton has learned that allowing students to get out and do can be a great first start to thoughtful and intentional service.

Seeking stories from campus leaders, faculty members and staff for our Student Success focus. Share here.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Bowdoin to Devote $50M Gift to AI Learning, Teaching

Bowdoin College has received a $50 million gift from Reed Hastings, 1983 alumnus, Netflix cofounder and Powder Mountain CEO, to create the Hastings Initiative for AI and Humanity.

The gift, the largest in the college’s 231-year history, will be used largely to support teaching and research related to artificial intelligence. It will pay for 10 new faculty members, expand faculty-led research and curriculum offerings, and drive campuswide conversations about the benefits and challenges of AI.

“This donation seeks to advance Bowdoin’s mission of cultivating wisdom for the common good by deepening the College’s engagement with one of humanity’s most transformative developments: artificial intelligence,” Hastings said in a press release. “As AI becomes smarter than humans, we are going to need some deep thinking to keep us flourishing.”

Hastings credited a late Bowdoin mathematics professor, Steve Fisk, for first encouraging him to study AI. “Steve was about forty years too early, but his perspective was life-changing for me,” Hastings said.

“We are thrilled and so grateful to receive this remarkable support from Reed, who shares our conviction that the AI revolution makes the liberal arts and a Bowdoin education more essential to society,” Bowdoin president Safa Zaki said in a statement.

Source link

March 25, 2025
Louisiana Sees Improved Pass Rates With Corequisite Model

During the 2020–21 academic year, only 12 percent of students attending a public institution in Louisiana who attempted to complete a credit-bearing English class passed. This past fall, success rates among learners jumped to 60 percent.

The change reflects an overhaul of remedial education courses at the state level, led by the Louisiana Board of Regents, to improve completion rates across the system’s 28 colleges and universities.

The initial numbers, coupled with high passing rates among mathematics courses, are a step in the right direction to support credential attainment for adults in Louisiana, said Tristan Denley, deputy commissioner of academic affairs and innovation for the Board of Regents.

What’s the need: The overhaul of remedial education is tied to the state’s strategic initiative, Louisiana Prospers, which sets a goal for 60 percent of the state’s adult population to have at least a credential of value. At present, the state is at 51 percent attainment, up six percentage points from 2021.

“One of the fundamental changes that had to be made to be able to increase that attainment in that way is really the barrier of early math and English success,” Denley explained.

Compared to remediation, corequisite courses reflect an asset-based approach to student success that indicates institutional readiness for student achievement. Resea r ch shows students who are placed in corequisite courses are more likely to retain, save money and graduate earlier, compared to their peers.

“A traditional approach to remediation sort of says, ‘Well, I know you think you’re in college, but maybe not quite yet,’” Denley said.

Other states, including California, Georgia, Illinois and Tennessee have also prioritized corequisite courses over remedial education offerings to boost student success.

Building better: The process of rolling out corequisite education began in spring 2022, providing each of the state’s 28 institutions 18 months to launch the math program and then another 18 months for English courses.

Louisiana launched its corequisite course structure for math courses in starting in fall 2023, and during that academic year, 52 percent of students in a corequisite class completed a college-level math course, up 41 percentage points from 2020–21, when only 11 percent of remedial math students completed a credit-bearing course.

Implementing corequisite education at scale is a large undertaking, requiring work from math and English faculty as well as the registrar’s office and others, and each rollout looked a little different depending on the college and its needs.

The system office hosted technical assistance and professional development events to support campuses, including semesterly corequisite academies, which brought together 150 faculty who teach corequisite math and English to share best practices, identify common challenges and establish a community of practice.

“Interestingly, there are lessons to be learned from the math folk for the English folk, and vice versa, as well as among themselves in those different disciplines,” Denley said.

One important facet of the corequisite model is addressing students’ self-perceptions of themselves as learners—particularly in math courses where students experience math anxiety—so the board established “Mindset Meauxtivators,” a faculty development course that emphasizes a growth mindset. Two hundred–plus corequisite faculty have completed the course, and a dozen or so serve as faculty champions for this work within their own campuses or regions.

What’s next: The state will continue to collect data and parse through to identify trends in completion of credit-bearing English and math courses across student groups and institutions.

Identifying opportunities to support faculty with modern pedagogy that assist with corequisite education is another focus for the board, because the teaching style is much different from remedial.

Attainment is the goal of this current strategic plan, but future student success work in Louisiana will address socioeconomic mobility and ensuring students “make good on the credential they earn,” Denley said. “After they’ve earned that, what are ways in which we can make sure that that credential is life-changing, both to themselves and to their families and their communities?”

We bet your colleague would like this article, too. Send them this link to subscribe to our newsletter on Student Success.

Source link

March 25, 2025