Tag: addressing

  • Addressing Student-Centered Transfer Reform in Los Angeles

    Addressing Student-Centered Transfer Reform in Los Angeles

    California’s community college–to–four-year university transfer pipeline has not delivered the outcomes students need. While 80 percent of community college students intend to transfer, just 19 percent reach a California State University campus within four years. The gap is stark. While there have been numerous statewide efforts to define clear pathways to California State University and the University of California, time and time again it’s taken local innovation and collaboration between sending and receiving colleges to make a real difference.

    In Los Angeles, which enrolls a quarter of the state’s students, educators and partners have spent nearly a decade working to support student-centered transfer innovations by focusing attention on implementation of the associate degree for transfer (A.D.T.), a 2+2 pathway intended to offer community college students guaranteed admission to the CSU and an efficient path to graduation. Cross-sector education and workforce collaboratives like the L.A. Compact and the L.A. Region K–16 Collaborative, both convened by UNITE-LA—a nonprofit advancing equitable education and career pathways—have stewarded this work.

    In 2017, UNITE-LA brought together leaders from California State University, Northridge; the L.A. Community College District; and other local public and private universities to attempt to solve a common challenge: re-engaging students who stopped out. Recognizing that institutions had a shared responsibility to support this student population, California’s first reverse-transfer program was born.

    CSUN Connections went further than traditional reverse-transfer models by helping disengaged students seamlessly transfer their credits to a partnering community college, apply them to an A.D.T. when available and then transfer back to CSUN to complete their bachelor’s with all the benefits of an associate degree. This work required us to take stock of the student data and identify where institutional and systemwide policy barriers, including degree offerings, residency requirements and program misalignments, were costing students additional time and money

    Concurrently, campus partners wanted to better understand A.D.T. pathway availability and student outcomes from a regional perspective. Recognizing that the benefits of the A.D.T. unravel when such degrees are not locally available or, when available, rendered inaccessible by enrollment impaction, 16 community colleges and four CSUs engaged in historic data sharing to assemble a clearer picture.

    The findings were clear: The A.D.T. was not yielding the desired results. Students who earn the A.D.T. transfer to CSU at half the rate of non-A.D.T. earners. A.D.T. earners often did not complete their degree in two years, and many did not enter CSU in the same field of study. This is due, in part, to the fact that A.D.T.s are not offered locally in many high-paying fields in popular majors like STEM and health. Students of color, especially L.A.’s African American student population, were even less likely to earn the degree, transfer or enter high-demand fields.

    In response, UNITE-LA convened a 2021 community of practice focused on improving transfer pathways in the region, asking, to what extent do our educational systems yield inequities in transfer, and for whom? Why is this happening? And how might we bring change? The group surfaced systemic challenges and also revealed that meaningful solutions must be developed at the campus level.

    From 2022 to 2024, UNITE-LA piloted a new approach: the Student-Centered Transfer Redesign Process. In partnership with California State University, Dominguez Hills; Cal Poly Pomona; and their feeder community colleges, campus administrators and staff in academic affairs, student services and enrollment management worked together alongside faculty to diagnose barriers and design strategies to improve transfer and bachelor’s attainment.

    The process went beyond policy change—it built campus capacity. Participants gained deeper understanding of equity gaps, stronger cross-campus relationships and hands-on tools for problem solving. Empathy interviews with transfer students shifted the focus from what students did or didn’t do to what they experienced, learned and overcame. This perspective is critical to making a student-ready system instead of making students conform to existing policies that don’t serve them.

    For example, through the Transfer Redesign Process, CSUDH looked at data-backed recommendations of the statewide AB 928 Committee and assessed the viability of expanding its campus emergency aid program for prematriculated transfer students. Such aid could help incoming transfer students navigate unexpected expenses associated with transfer, such as moving costs, childcare costs and additional transportation expenses like up-front parking or transit pass fees.

    In another example, Cal Poly Pomona sought to partner with a feeder community college to implement eTranscript in order to create faster and more consistent transcript and data-sharing processes to support transfer student success. As noted in a recent study of five public institutions in California, despite improvements in available technology, transcript sharing remains a highly manual process that can delay transfer students in receiving final credit-evaluation decisions that are needed for accurate advisement and on-time course registration.

    These efforts underscore a core lesson: Localized collaboration is essential for effective implementation of state policy, to diagnose new challenges as they arise, to develop responsive solutions from the ground up and then to advocate for the scaling of innovations that work. The size of California’s higher education systems and complexity of degree pathways require more robust investments to support this type of cross-campus work. State-funded initiatives like the K–16 Collaboratives have provided flexible funding to make it possible in places like Los Angeles. But sustained, dedicated funding is key to turning localized innovation into statewide reforms that reach all Californians. With the state’s Cradle-to-Career Data System, the new Master Plan for Career Education and proposed Education Interagency Council, California has an opportunity to embed these lessons statewide.

    Los Angeles is fortunate in that it has a coalition of education leaders willing to cut through the bureaucracy and advance change for the well-being of students. It’s taken data sharing, relationship building, intermediaries and a creative blend of funding, but our students deserve systems that work. Campuses deserve resources to improve them. By aligning funding, policy, practice and partnership, we can ensure their success—and, in turn, the prosperity of our communities and our state.

    Adam Gottlieb is the director of postsecondary strategy and policy at UNITE-LA. 

    Source link

  • Addressing educational poverty – HEPI

    Addressing educational poverty – HEPI

    • By Pam Tatlow, Policy Adviser to the Cathedrals Group of Universities

    The Government’s decision to extend free school meals to an estimated 500,000 primary school children is a win-win, both in addressing disadvantage and supporting learning and attainment. In fact, all primary-age school children in Scotland and London now receive free school meals, with an evaluation of the latter concluding that its impact was overwhelmingly positive and that for some children, school attendance and mental well-being had also been improved.

    It’s clear that free school meals are a worthwhile investment of Department of Education resources. It is also why Ministers should maximise take-up in England by linking auto-enrolment of Free Schools Meals with universal credit and pupil premium.

    But why should universities care about Free School Meals? The answer is quite simple, especially if, like the Cathedrals Group of Universities, you recruit students who progress to university later in life. In some universities, many students are parents and carers in their own right who will undoubtedly benefit from widening the eligibility for free school meals. It’s a policy that has inter-generational impact as well as positive impacts on the children of today.  

    Moreover, rising levels of inequality as documented by the OECD, the IMF, the World Bank and in the UK by Danny Dorling, Professor of Human Geography at the University of Oxford, constrain not only economic growth (an objective of Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer) but also educational attainment – a fact not lost on Professor Becky Francis, Chair of the government’s Curriculum and Assessment review who concluded in 2015 ‘that all the data supports the idea that the socioeconomic divide is the biggest issue in education’. While diverse in size, Cathedrals Group Universities continue to play a key role in educating the teachers of the future, but crucially are also united by a commitment to social justice – and this means a continuing interest in measures that address inequality.

    The June Spending Review was notable for its silence on other measures which might directly support educational attainment beyond the primary stage. There is still time for Ministers to recognise that supporting pupils and students during their studies is an investment in their futures that will pay dividends in terms of monetised and non-monetised benefits for individuals, communities and ultimately the Treasury itself.

    At the secondary phase, Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) was a weekly payment to disadvantaged young people aged 16-19 in full-time education. Introduced in 1999, expanded nationwide in 2004, the EMA was abolished by the Coalition Government in England in October 2010, with the 2010/11 academic year marking the final year of the scheme. Replaced by a 16-19 Bursary Fund that continues today, the Fund has a significantly reduced budget and, other than for the most disadvantaged and vulnerable young people, is administered at the discretion of colleges and training providers, which decide their own schemes.

    The difference between this Fund and the EMA is stark. EMA provided direct payments to young people for which they could apply before opting for a specific post-16 education course or institution. As shown by its continuation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the EMA remains a popular policy with young people (who were not consulted about its abolition in England). Research by the Edge Foundation confirmed that the EMA had a positive impact on post-16 education participation and retention rates among young people from lower-income families and those with disabilities. Although the school leaving age has been increased to 18 for over a decade, there are often costs associated with post-16 study, such as specialist equipment and transport, for which young people get little support. What does exist in England is discretionary and dependent on a postcode lottery.

    Then there’s higher education, which by common agreement needs a new funding model in England and, in the view of the Cathedrals Group, more direct government investment. Investment in universities and investment to address the hardship of students are two sides of the same coin. If maintenance support for students is increased by inflation, it will be welcome but not enough. London Economics research for the Sutton Trust in 2024 confirmed that the abolition of maintenance grants (which did not have to be repaid) has resulted in students from the poorest families incurring the highest debts during their studies. Moreover, parental income thresholds, which determine when parents are expected to contribute to the living costs of their children at university, have remained frozen at £25,000 pa. The same research estimated that in real terms, household income thresholds should have increased to £32,535 and that students from poorer households could graduate with over £60,000 of debt, 38% higher than those from wealthier families.

    Universities know only too well about educational poverty. Notwithstanding the pressures on institutional funding, many have increased their hardship funds. In spite of their best efforts, including money advice, demand from students for financial support outstrips budgets. Hepi and Advance HE’s 2025 Student Experience Survey confirms that cost-of-living concerns have impacted on students’ studies but also the extent to which students now combine study and paid employment with the average total of study and workload hours for students who work standing at 44.3 hours a week – ‘higher than the average full-time job in the UK’.

    And to end where we began: in Finland, there are no free school meals because the provision of free meals is an integral part of the Finnish education system – the same system which is consistently ranked first among all OECD countries in education and in terms of the outcomes and well-being of its pupils and students. Only the Treasury can now help square the circle and address educational poverty of pupils, students and their families at every stage of their educational journey. Such a strategy would not only support the government’s stated ambition to tackle inequality but also Ministers’ aspiration to improve educational attainment – a win all round.

    Source link

  • Addressing workforce challenges in higher education – Campus Review

    Addressing workforce challenges in higher education – Campus Review

    How empowering academic and administrative staff with HR tech drives employee engagement and retention

    Please login below to view content or subscribe now.

    Membership Login

    Source link

  • Helping Students Navigate Transitions, Addressing Teacher Shortages

    Helping Students Navigate Transitions, Addressing Teacher Shortages

    Across Texas, students entering dual-credit programs with the goal of becoming educators often face unclear pathways and unnecessary obstacles. But in the North Texas region, a multisector group is working to change that—starting as early as high school.

    Through programs like Pathways in Technology Early College High School (P-TECH) and early-college high schools, students can begin working toward their teaching credentials before they graduate. The Acceleration to Credential (A2C) Working Group—convened by Educate Texas—brings together local independent school districts, Dallas College and four-year university partners to create clearly defined pathways that connect high school, community college and bachelor’s-level educator preparation.

    While the intention behind many dual-credit programs is to offer students more opportunity, the reality is that inconsistent requirements across institutions often create confusion. A student may graduate high school having earned college credits, only to find those credits don’t transfer toward a four-year degree. Or they may complete an associate degree that doesn’t align with bachelor’s programs in education.

    To address this, A2C partners designed a coordinated model known as Target Pathways, which:

    • Aligns associate degree pathways to all bachelor’s education programs in the region.
    • Meets both high school graduation and Texas Core Curriculum requirements.
    • Creates space for local adaptation within a unified regional framework.
    • Provides students with clear maps of all degree and certification requirements.

    These streamlined pathways aim to improve student outcomes, reduce excess credit accumulation and increase the number of teacher candidates completing their degrees on time and with less debt.

    The associate of art in teaching (A.A.T.) degrees that students earn in these P-TECH programs have shown promising outcomes when it comes to entering education careers. Between 2010 and 2023, 49 percent of A.A.T. earners in Dallas–Fort Worth became paraprofessionals or teachers or advanced into education leadership positions, according to an analysis by Wesley Edwards at the University of North Texas (Wesley Edwards, AAT Analysis, University of North Texas, April 23, 2024, and Sept. 21, 2024). As these pathways expand across more high schools, partners across the state should continue investing in the supports students need to enter the education workforce.

    “Developing a robust pathway for high school students to not only earn credentials but also gain valuable exposure to industry is critically important as we look to meet workforce needs,” said Robert DeHaas, vice provost of the School of Education at Dallas College.

    This work is about more than academic alignment—it’s about building the relationships and trust needed to create meaningful change.

    “This work requires close coordination between large systems that haven’t always worked together,” DeHaas said. “The collaborative has helped foster the coalition-building needed to break down these historical silos and create a college road map that supports the upward economic mobility of our students.”

    Educate Texas will continue supporting A2C by helping school districts implement these pathways and facilitating collaboration with higher education partners. By investing in regional alignment and early access, the A2C model offers a promising solution for expanding the teacher pipeline in Texas and beyond.

    Joseph Reyes is deputy director of teaching and leading at Educate Texas, an initiative of Communities  Foundation of Texas. In this role, he manages programs that increase access to high-quality educator preparation and works with school districts and higher education partners to strengthen the teacher workforce across the state.

    Source link

  • A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    A new way of addressing the enigma of student engagement

    by Caroline Jones and Leonie Sweeney

    Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory as a Methodological Lens

    Higher education is experiencing post-pandemic challenges which have increased pressure on students in multifaceted and interconnecting ways (Jones & Bell, 2024). Existing research suggests that post-pandemic, students’ mental health and wellbeing has been significantly impacted (Chen & Lubock, 2022; Defeyter et al, 2021; Jones & Bell, 2025; McGiven & Shepherd, 2022; Nunn et al, 2021). This indicates that research into the field of higher education is needed more pro-actively than ever before, especially given the diverse student market.

    Currently there is considerable research in the form of critique of policy trends or evaluation of the effectiveness of changes in practice; however, the PATA theory lens suggests an approach to research centring on the educational psychologies and intricacies of the student and the enigma of student engagement (Buckley, 2018; Jones & Nangah, 2020: McFarlane & Thomas, 2017).

    Our recent article presents the PATA theory as a methodological lens through which higher education student behaviours, characteristics, and demographics can be researched. Furthermore, it provides an explanation of the PATA theory with specific links to student engagement. The idea of the PATA theory was first explored by Jones in 2017 and developed further in 2020 and 2021 in response to recognised issues faced relating to student engagement in widening participation student demographics. This research establishes the theory which can be applied to investigating the complexities of student demographics, with the aim being to develop knowledge and understanding of issues affecting students such as post-pandemic engagement.

    Guidelines from the QAA (2018) state that due to the demographic of the students who attend each institution, student engagement needs to be interpreted and encouraged in response to student/higher education institutional need. Therefore, student engagement can be interpreted in a variety of ways, examining the links between time, energy and other properties invested by HEIs and students with the aims of cultivating the student experience, strengthening educational outcomes, encouraging development and raising student achievement. Positive student engagement can lead to successful student outcomes, lower attrition rates and improved social mobility, demonstrating the importance of research for understanding and investing in student engagement practices.

    The PATA theory sits under the umbrella of alienation theory: it considers the individual student’s psychosocial status (self-concept/self-esteem levels) and has identified links to academic trust levels (Jones, 2021), particularly for students from the widening participation demographics or those who have experienced socio-economic disadvantage, see figure 1.

    Figure 1. PATA Theory (Jones, 2021)

    The PATA theory fits as a methodology within the realms of phenomenology as it enables researchers to present a narrative to represent the phenomena studied to extract significant statements from the data to formulate meaning. Neubauer, Witkop and Varpio (2019, p91) believe it is imperative for the researcher engaging in phenomenological research to be familiar with the philosophical ‘interpretations of human experience’, whilst Morrow, Rodriguez and King (2015, p644) advise that ‘descriptive phenomenology is especially valuable in areas where there is little existing research’. An additional crucial aspect of phenomenology is understanding that social reality has to be grounded in an individual’s encounters in authentic social situations. The focal point of the PATA theory lens research is to understand how students’ psychosocial status affects the academic trust of their higher education experiences and the relationships that arise out of the social exchanges therein, permitting researchers to construe the associations that the participants make.

    This article analyses the PATA theory potential range of research methods that can be employed and used in higher education practice and is supported by three case vignette examples with reflection points.  For example, we would usually see student disengagement relating to activities such as non-attendance, but the PATA theory shows us that the concept of student engagement is much more complex and encourages higher education institutions and professionals to view the issue in a more holistic student-centred way rather than homogenously.

    Additionally, post-Covid there has been a significant rise in the number of students presenting with mental health issues, with students struggling to attend and engage with their programmes of study. Currently, the assessment strategies used by HEIs for capturing student engagement fail accurately to measure both student engagement and sense of belonging. However, using the PATA theory as the research lens would provide a deeper insight into the post pandemic issues faced, by focussing on student alienation and the strengthening of trust between the student and the institution. HEIs could then scrutinise their existing on-campus experiences to aid the re-engagement process, and practice could be adapted to increase the student experience, such as including more pastoral 1:1 support time within the timetable.

    Some further practical illustrations of how the PATA theory might influence our understanding or make a difference in practice are:

    • To understand potential psychological barriers to student engagement based on demographics, behaviours and characteristics.
    • To identify success stories of positive engagement where good practice can be disseminated or shared to improve student outcomes.
    • To take a deep dive into higher education practices, course or programmes to find out if there are specific teaching and learning barriers affecting students.
    • Provides time and space to analyse intricate needs of specific demographics; behaviours and characteristics such as impact of low tariff on entry gaps or previous educational experiences.
    • Can lead to bespoke action to address potential equality and inclusion concerns.
    • Can be used as an early intervention tool to support students’ re-engagement potentially contributing to reduced attrition and improvements in social mobility.
    • Can be used to explore wider societal issues that affect engagement

    The PATA theory has its limitations, being a new and emerging theoretical perspective, and is very much open to academic critique. However, this concept does bring new insight to the complexities of the student community, the higher education institutional and political landscapes and could be used as a methodological lens to develop deeper knowledge and understanding of student engagement challenges. Whilst the PATA theory is a complex idea applied to a range of complex student issues, when the phenomenon is understood well, there is the potential to really make a difference to the educational outcomes for students. Furthermore, existing theories do not make connections between psychosocial status and academic trust which is where the PATA theory can contribute to a stronger understanding of the student phenomena.

    The article on which this blog is based is

    Jones, C. S., and Sweeney, L (2025) ‘The Psychosocial and Academic Trust Alienation (PATA) Theory: A new lens to research higher education student phenomena: behaviours, characteristics, and demographics’ Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 6(1), 79–110 https://sehej.raise-network.com/raise/article/view/1240.

    Caroline Jones is an applied social sciences teaching professional with extensive experience working in the children and young people field and lecturing/programme leading in Higher Education. Currently employed as a Tutor based within the Health and Education Faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, having previously been a Lecturer at the University Campus Oldham and at Stockport University Centre. Also an External Examiner for Derby University/Middlesex University and a Peer Reviewer for IETI. Research interests include; leadership and management, social mobility and social policy, risk, resilience and adolescent mental health, young care leavers, widening participation and disadvantage, originator of the ‘psychosocial and academic trust alienation’ (PATA) theory.

    Email: [email protected]. LinkedIn: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/caroline-jones-1bab40b3. Twitter/X: @c_JonesSFHEA. Researchgate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Caroline-Jones-39?ev=hdr_xprf.

    Leonie Sweeney is a teaching professional within the Applied Social Sciences faculty at Manchester Metropolitan University, with many years of experience working within the children and young people sector. Currently employed as a Higher Education Course Leader and Lecturer, delivering Children and Young People and Early Years degree courses. Additionally, is an External Examiner for University of Chichester and University of Sunderland. Research interests include: student engagement, social mobility, widening participation.

    Email: [email protected]

    Author: SRHE News Blog

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

    Source link

  • Why aren’t we addressing inequity of outcomes for postgraduates?

    Why aren’t we addressing inequity of outcomes for postgraduates?

    One of the major trends in UK higher education is the increasing number of postgraduate students.

    There are now as many postgraduate taught students graduating every year as there are undergraduates.

    However, the equity of postgraduate experience and outcomes is almost completely overlooked.

    Modern postgraduates

    The postgraduate population is large and increasingly diverse. Approximately 450,000 students complete a postgraduate qualification in UK higher education institutions every year. 11 per cent of those students have declared a disability. Some 28 per cent of postgraduate taught students with a permanent UK address identify as Global Majority, while 9 per cent identify as Black and 13 per cent as Asian and those proportions are increasing year-on-year. One in three postgraduate taught students pay international fees.

    Whereas 10 years ago most international students were from the EU or China, the diversity of nationalities in postgraduate cohorts is growing. Data on the socioeconomic demographics of postgraduates is not currently available, but it is likely that the increase in students from socioeconomically deprived areas undertaking undergraduate study population is mirrored at masters level. Half of postgraduate students study their programmes on a part-time basis. Excluding those on visas that prohibit working, we can assume that a significant proportion of postgraduates are combining study with paid employment. The diversity of the postgraduate population is therefore considerable.

    Given how widespread inequity of outcomes is at undergraduate level, it would be extraordinary if the outcome gaps we see on the basis of disability, ethnicity and socioeconomic status were not replicated at postgraduate level. They may even be more acute for postgraduates given the higher costs of tuition fees and the increased academic independence required for postgraduate study. Yet there is almost no awareness or activity around equity or outcomes for this huge cohort of students.

    Lack of activity

    At undergraduate level there has been significant progress made in terms of awareness of student outcomes and inequity. Institutional committees and working groups scrutinise split metric data to assess ‘gaps’ in outcomes between demographic groups. Action plans are in place to address inequity of access, continuation, degree completion, degree class awarded and progression. Senior leadership teams monitor progress against established equity key performance indicators. Providers are even bringing in consultancy companies whose sole business is to help institutions understand the language of Access and Participation Plans. Universities are at least talking the talk around improving equity of outcomes, even if progress lags significantly behind this.

    However, none of this activity is replicated for postgraduate students. There isn’t a data dashboard of split metrics for postgraduate student outcomes. We haven’t even established the equivalent of the undergraduate degree classification awarding gap. Why isn’t there an outcome gap focussed on demographic equity of distinctions awarded for postgraduate taught students? Why aren’t we looking at completion rates for postgraduate students through the lens of disability and socioeconomic status?

    Pragmatically, the answer to this question is that the Office for Students has thus far paid little attention to postgraduate student outcomes, let alone equity of outcomes. The Teaching Excellence Framework included undergraduate courses with a postgraduate component (e.g. an integrated masters), but excluded postgraduate taught and postgraduate research provision. Access and Participation Plans are linked to the ability to charge the higher rate of undergraduate tuition fee, so again exclude postgraduate students.

    League table providers also ignore postgraduates. HESA only publish data on postgraduate qualifications awarded, and the publically available data is not broken down by demographic factors other than gender. In the contemporary higher education landscape, what gets measured gets done. If universities are not prioritising postgraduate outcomes, it is because the regulatory landscape allows them not to.

    Entry and equity

    It is also important to note that many masters programmes will now accept students with a lower second class degree. Those same students who were disadvantaged by the awarding gap at undergraduate level are now likely to be the ones struggling with the increased academic requirements at masters level. If a student never got past the hidden curriculum in three years of undergraduate study, what are their chances of overcoming it in a one year masters course?

    Postgraduate programme leaders need to be aware of these issues, and adopt parallel approaches to those managing transition into undergraduate study. They need to design activities and assessments to address disparities in entry qualifications. They need to build the confidence of students who missed out on higher undergraduate grades.

    To really focus on equity at postgraduate level, we also need to address inequity for international students. The regulatory link between APP and the home undergraduate tuition fee means students with any other fee status are excluded. This has the inevitable result that the sector barely considers inequity for international students, but is more than happy to take their fees. This is deeply uncomfortable at undergraduate level, but even more concerning at postgraduate level, where one in three students is international.

    To make change, senior institutional leaders need to see postgraduate outcomes as a priority. In the current landscape, this strategic direction needs to come from the Office for Students. The equivalent data infrastructure developed for undergraduate outcomes needs to be built for postgraduates. Future iterations of the TEF need to go beyond undergraduates and include all students.

    We cannot justify ignoring postgraduates any more. The sector has an ethical responsibility to ensure equity of outcomes for all students, not just those paying the home undergraduate tuition fee.

    Source link

  • Addressing Nursing Student Shortages with Precollege Support

    Addressing Nursing Student Shortages with Precollege Support

    The U.S. is expected to experience a shortage of nurses by 2030, which will only grow as older generations age and health-care needs increase, according to the American Association of Colleges of Nursing.

    One of the contributing factors to this shortfall is a disconnect between the number of students enrolling in nursing school and the projected demand for nursing services. Another is high levels of work-related stress, leading to burnout.

    In August 2023, the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh launched the Pre-Nursing Pathway, a weeklong intensive precollege program that helps students prepare for the academic rigor of the nursing program and connects them with resources. In the pathway, students engage in peer interactions, mentorship and additional time with faculty and staff, allowing them to build emotional resiliency and a network of support.

    What’s the need: Staff at UW-Oshkosh noticed a decrease in qualified applicants to the nursing program and an overall decline in the matriculation of pre-nursing students, said Jessica Spanbauer, director of the center for academic resources.

    Students had large gaps in their foundational science and math concepts as well as a lack of time management and organizational skills, which could be tied in part to remote instruction due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Spanbauer said.

    The university decided to implement a pre-nursing program, in part to boost enrollment of students, but also to ensure students who do attend are successful on their career journey.

    How it works: The program is organized by the Center for Academic Resources and the College of Nursing, but is supported by admissions, the Undergraduate Advising Resource Center, the counseling center, the biology and chemistry departments, residence life, and recreation and wellness.

    Both admitted and deposited students are eligible to apply to the program, with special priority given to first-generation students.

    Selected program participants move onto campus a week before classes start for an intensive orientation experience. All students live in one wing of a residence hall together, mentored by two current nursing students, building a sense of community and peer support.

    During their week on campus, students participate in biology and chemistry labs led by professors; attend workshop presentations by advisers, counselors and academic support staff; and explore campus, familiarizing themselves with support resources. The goal is to proactively address knowledge gaps among students early on, enhancing their success and preparing them for the future demands of their profession.

    “By focusing on crucial and relevant concepts, we could ensure that students are well-equipped to excel in their nursing education,” Spanbauer said. “We could help build students’ confidence and encourage students to actively engage in shaping their academic trajectory.”

    Program participants are also offered tours of local hospitals, a Q&A session with nursing students and recent alumni, professional development workshops, and support from financial aid, dining, residence life and the Office of Accessibility.

    “We were fortunate that we had colleagues ready to enhance collaboration across units to further promote a student-focused supportive learning environment where students can thrive,” said Seon Yoon Chung, dean of the college of nursing.

    The impact: The program launched in August 2023 with 15 participants. Ninety percent of those students retained to fall 2024, and they earned an average GPA of 3.1. Eighty percent of the fall 2023 cohort are still in the pre-nursing major or accepted into the nursing program.

    An additional 12 students participated in August 2024 (100 percent of whom retained to spring 2025), and the staff hope to double participation rates this upcoming fall, Spanbauer said.

    Staff collect qualitative data about participants by using surveys and focus groups, as well as insights from faculty and other staff. In the future, longitudinal career-progression data and alumni surveys will help assess the program’s long-term impact, Spanbauer said.

    Campus leaders are also considering ways to enhance recruitment efforts and increase capacity for students through various resources, online modules and flexible scheduling to accommodate more interested students.

    Do you have an academic intervention that might help others improve student success? Tell us about it.

    This article has been updated to correct attribution of a quote to Seon Yoon Chung.

    Source link

  • Resources for Addressing Workplace Conflict

    Resources for Addressing Workplace Conflict

    by Christy Williams | March 5, 2025

    As your institution processes its response to recent executive orders and the reactions of employees and students across campus, increasing workplace tensions may make it more challenging for your HR team to maintain a positive and collaborative environment.

    These challenges are not novel for higher ed HR, but they can be used as a springboard to examine the approaches you’ve used in the past and reimagine how they should — or could — evolve now. So, how can we support each other in our collective need for respectful discourse and civil disagreement? Here are some valuable insights and resources to help you along the way.

    Develop Conflict-Savvy Leaders

    Conflict is an inevitable part of any workplace, and higher ed institutions are no exception. Erica Hines, chief human resources and personnel success officer at Community College of Aurora, recommends that rather than attempting to avoid conflict altogether, we recognize the importance of embracing conflict as an opportunity for growth. And creating a conflict-savvy culture like that begins at the top.

    It’s important for leaders not only to be prepared to address conflict, but also to model that behavior for everyone in your institution — administration, faculty, staff and students.

    As Hines details in her webinar, Developing Conflict-Savvy Leaders, when your institution’s leadership is prepared for conflict, a culture of trust can be built. When leaders are willing to face conflict head-on and focus on finding win-win solutions, fewer issues escalate.

    Train for Conflict Resolution

    It’s not enough, however, for only administration to be conflict-savvy and model civil conversations. Managers and employees should be provided with strategies for de-escalating workplace tensions.

    Tulane University’s conflict resolution program supports its employees with a variety of conflict resolution services, including consultations to learn about their program, coaching to help employees with specific challenges, mediation to help employees through a disagreement, and facilitated conversations led by a professionally trained specialist. Tulane’s HR team believes that “conflict can be a tool for positive change when employees have the resources to build upon their conflict competence.”

    Establish Clear Norms Around Communication and Feedback

    In the Developing Conflict-Savvy Leaders webinar, Erica Hines stresses that employees at all levels need to understand how to give and receive input in a constructive way. One norm she suggests is to use “I” or “my” when offering feedback. For example, “Here’s what I noticed…” or “Here’s what I felt when…” A norm you might establish for receiving feedback could focus on active listening, summarizing what you just heard, and then asking how you can reach a win-win solution. For example, “What would you prefer I do in that situation?” Or “What ideas do you have for managing this situation in the future?”

    When teams have a shared understanding of how to navigate difficult conversations, they can address issues proactively instead of letting them escalate. By integrating these practices into daily interactions, you can cultivate an environment where open dialogue and mutual respect thrive.

    Prioritize Professionalism and Civility

    Creating a culture of professionalism is the foundation of a kinder campus. As Jennifer Parker, assistant director of HR operations at the Colorado Community College System, highlights in her article, A Kinder Campus, professionalism is more than just following policies. Professionalism is how faculty, staff and administrators treat one another daily. Respect, integrity and ethical conduct should guide every interaction, ensuring that civility remains a cornerstone of your culture.

    Beyond professionalism, Parker emphasized the role of active listening and empathy in conflict resolution. When employees take the time to truly listen and seek to understand different perspectives, they’re not just resolving disputes — they’re “building bridges of trust.” Demonstrating empathy during difficult conversations helps diffuse tension and encourages constructive dialogue. When you prioritize professionalism, you create an environment where trust and collaboration flourish.

    From Conflict to Meaningful Conversations

    Addressing workplace conflict isn’t just about resolving disputes — it’s about creating an environment where open dialogue is encouraged, and employees feel heard and supported. Because of this, conflict resolution training shouldn’t be a one-time event, but an ongoing practice woven into workplace culture. While difficult conversations may never be easy, the more everyone practices, the more natural those conversations become. By setting clear expectations, proactively guiding discussions, and championing a culture of respect, you can help transform workplace tensions into opportunities for growth and collaboration.

    Related CUPA-HR Resources

    Developing Conflict-Savvy Leaders — This CUPA-HR webinar explores how HR can help leaders address conflict head-on, thus minimizing the need for HR intervention down the line.

    Ushering in the New Wave of Conflict Resolution: Tulane University’s Restorative Approach — This article details the launch of Tulane University’s conflict-resolution program.

    A Kinder Campus: Building an AI-Powered, Repeatable and Fun Civility Training Program — This magazine article outlines how the Colorado Community College System created a campaign to address incivility on their campuses.

    Civility in the Workplace Toolkit — This HR toolkit provides practical strategies for fostering respectful communications and managing workplace conflicts.

    Managing Difficult Conversations Toolkit — This HR toolkit provides basic strategies that can be widely used as starting points for many challenging conversations.

    Next Steps: A Practical Guide for Ensuring Access and Opportunity for All Employees — This CUPA-HR blog post offers considerations for ensuring that you are providing equal access and opportunity for all.

    Resilience and Psychological Safety: Navigating Uncertainty — This blog post explores how resilience and psychological safety can be particularly useful in times of change and uncertainty.



    Source link

  • Collaboration is key when it comes to addressing harassment and sexual misconduct

    Collaboration is key when it comes to addressing harassment and sexual misconduct

    In all of the noise about the OfS’s new regulation on harassment and sexual misconduct there’s one area where the silence is notable and disappointing – sector collaboration.

    Back in 2022, the independent evaluation of the OfS statement of expectations on harassment and sexual misconduct made a clear recommendation that OfS and DfE “foster more effective partnership working both between HE providers and with those external to the sector. Now, having published details of the new condition E6 and the accompanying guidance, this seems to have been largely forgotten.

    There’s a nod to the potential benefit of collaboration in OfS’s analysis of consultation responses, but it only goes as far as to say that providers “may wish to identify collective steps” – with little explanation of what this could look like and no intention or commitment to proactively support this.

    This feels like a significant oversight, and one that is disappointing to say the least. It’s become clear from our work with IHE members that collaboration needs to be front and centre if we have any hope as a sector of delivering in this area. Without it, some providers – especially smaller ones – will not be able to meet the new requirements, creating risk and failing to achieve the consistency of practice and experience that students expect. This feels even more true given the current context of widespread financial insecurity. Any new regulation ought to be presenting mechanisms and incentives to collaborate – and reduce costs in doing so.

    Working together for a stronger sector – or only sometimes?

    The silence around collaboration is also surprising, given that in other spheres it is seen to be – and in many cases is – the solution to institutions meeting regulatory requirements and student expectations. John Blake’s latest speech on a regional approach to access and participation is just one example of this. There is implicit recognition that in this era of “diminishing resources”, working together is the solution. There’s also the recognition that partnership working needs funding – more on that later.

    It’s also surprising given that OfS has made clear that both providers in any academic partnership are responsible for compliance with the new condition, including where there’s a franchise arrangement. This seems like an open door for collaborative approaches, given that over half the providers on the register do not have their own degree awarding powers. However, as usual, it is unclear what this means in practice. There is no reference in the regulation to how the OfS would view any collaborative efforts, or examples of what this might look like in practice.

    Academic partnerships make logical collaborators

    IHE’s recent project on academic partnerships demonstrates the potential of such arrangements for collaboration that benefits both providers and their students. Our research found a number of innovative models where awarding institutions facilitated collaboration with and between their academic partners in areas including shared learning opportunities and use of shared platforms.

    There’s a clear opportunity here when it comes to staff training. All institutions need to have staff who are “appropriately trained”. Training in areas such as receiving disclosures and conducting investigations benefits from group delivery – where staff can learn from each other. A small provider might only have one or two staff who require it, meaning they are unlikely to draw much benefit from this. It would also make such training prohibitively expensive. It’s likely to need to be delivered by an external organisation (to ensure the “credible and demonstrable expertise” required) and such solutions aren’t scaled to an institution with just a handful of relevant staff. Awarding institutions sharing such group training would solve this – and also benefit shared processes in that staff across both institutions have the same level of knowledge and competence.

    A further benefit of shared training would be that partners could share staff when investigations need greater independence than a small provider can offer. This could be staff from the awarding partner, or another academic partner. This would effectively bring together useful knowledge of institutional context, policies and processes with the necessary external objectivity to run a credible investigation.

    Another opportunity for collaboration is in shared online reporting tools. These can be an effective way of encouraging disclosure, but such systems are often not scaled for small institutions. As well as being more cost-effective, sharing these could lead to greater confidence of students reporting in the independence of tool and the process that follows.

    Think local – for everyone’s sake!

    Regional or local collaboration is the other area with the potential to benefit students, providers, and other services supporting those who experience harassment or sexual misconduct.

    Local or regional collaboration on reporting and investigation can support disclosure by creating more independence in the system. The independent evaluation spoke specifically of this, recommending the facilitation of

    formal or informal shared services, such as regional support networks, and in particular regional investigation units or hubs.

    And it would enable more effective partnerships with external support services. Rather than every provider trying to establish a partnership with a local service (putting a greater burden on groups who are often charities or not-for-profits), group collaborations could streamline this. This needs to include all types of provider, including small providers and FE colleges delivering HE. This would be more efficient, reduce unhelpful competition for the limited resource of the service, and ensure that all students have access to these support services irrespective of their place of study.

    Where there aren’t local services, providers could pool resource and expertise to develop and deliver these. This would reduce competition for specialist staff in the same geographic location, and again ensure parity of support for students across providers.

    It’s important that such collaborations involve all parts of the sector, including small providers – with the burden of their participation reflective of their smaller size. This is vital to ensure that collaborative models are cost effective for everyone.

    Getting it right on student engagement

    Collaborative approaches are also going to be critical to make sure we get it right on student engagement. The OfS expectation is clear that providers work with students and their representatives to develop policies and procedures. But what happens when an institution doesn’t have an SU, or a formal representative structure, or the necessary experience in student engagement to do this? There’s a risk that it won’t be done properly or be done at all.

    We need to consider how we facilitate students to support each other to engage in co-production. This could include sharing staff or exploring the development of local student union services that bring in smaller providers or FE colleges without the means to partner with students in the way that is needed.

    Making it happen

    The sort of collaboration outlined above will need more than just the goodwill of institutions to make it happen. It needs regulatory backing, with more explicit recognition of the value of these approaches and guidance on what this might look like in practice. We also need to recognise that it’s costly.

    Catalyst funding, like that provided back in 2019, would represent far better value to the sector than asking individual providers to fund collaboration. The risk is that without it, the burden of developing a system that works for all students at all providers will be left to the smallest institutions who need these collaborative options the most. Funding would also boost evaluation and resource sharing across the sector. It could consider the benefits of collaborative approaches between awarding and teaching institutions as well as regional structures which ensure a greater parity of support across providers large and small.

    Somewhere on this path to regulation we lost the perspective that harassment and sexual misconduct is a societal issue. What we do now to educate, prevent harm to and support students will have a lasting impact on the future as students become employees, employers, parents and educators themselves. It is not a task to be shouldered alone.

    Source link