Tag: Association

American Lung Association urges school radon testing
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

The American Lung Association is urging K-12 schools to prioritize indoor air quality and to test for radon, the second-leading cause of lung cancer in the U.S.

The naturally occurring, odorless, tasteless and colorless radioactive gas can accumulate indoors, entering through cracks in floors, walls and foundations. The only way to determine if a facility has elevated radon levels is through testing, according to the organization. “There is no known safe level of radon exposure,” it says.

“Radon … can accumulate inside schools without anyone knowing,” Harold Wimmer, president and CEO of the American Lung Association, said in a statement. “The good news is that testing for radon is simple and affordable — and schools can take action to fix the problem if levels are high.”

Young children are especially vulnerable to indoor air pollutants like radon because they spend more time indoors and breathe more air relative to their body size than adults, according to a working paper by the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University.

ALA recommends short-term, charcoal-based radon test kits. In its announcement, it shares two national standards facility managers can follow:
- The Radon Mitigation Standards for Schools and Large Buildings (RMS-LB 2018), released jointly by the American National Standards Institute and the American Association of Radon Scientists and Technologists. The standards address specialized techniques and quality assurance processes to mitigate radon in buildings with complicated designs and specialized airflow, which is typical of schools.
- The Radon in Schools standards, developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, recommend that building operators take action if radon levels are at 4.0 picocuries per liter or higher and consider taking action if levels are as low as 2.0 pCi/L.
ALA also recommends a school radon testing guide the Minnesota Department of Health developed.

HVAC status

To assess radon levels during normal conditions, testing must take place while the building’s HVAC system is running, the ALA says in a fact sheet. For the most accurate test results, HVAC maintenance and filter changes must be current, it says.

If testing finds radon levels under 4.0 pCi/L, schools don’t need to test again for five years, according to the ALA fact sheet. But changes that affect the school HVAC system or changes to the building foundation or the surrounding soil could warrant sooner testing because those events can affect radon levels, the organization says.

Many states offer training for school facility managers on how to conduct radon testing, or schools can hire licensed professionals to conduct the tests, according to National Radon Proficiency Program information.

The EPA requires states that are receiving indoor radon grants to maintain and provide the public with a list of radon testing service providers credentialed through their own state programs or through two national radon proficiency programs.
Source link
August 22, 2025
The American Historical Association Comes Close, but Misses

I believe it to be very important for disciplinary bodies to issue statements/guidance on the use of generative AI when it comes to the production of scholarship and the work of teaching and learning.

For that reason, I was glad to see the American Historical Association issue its Guiding Principles for Artificial Intelligence in Education. One of the chief recommendations in the concluding chapters of More Than Words: How to Think About Education in the Age of AI is that we need many more community-based conversations about the intersection of our labor and this technology, and a great way to have a conversation is to release documents like this one.

So, let’s talk.

First, we should acknowledge the limits of these kinds of documents, something the AHA committee that prepared the principles acknowledges up front at the closing of the preamble:

Given the speed at which technologies are changing, and the many local considerations to be taken into account, the AHA will not attempt to provide comprehensive or concrete directives for all instances of AI use in the classroom. Instead, we offer a set of guiding principles that have emerged from ongoing conversations within the committee, and input from AHA members via a survey and conference sessions.”

—AHA Guiding Principles for Artificial Intelligence in Education

I think this is obviously correct because teaching and learning are inherently, inevitably context-dependent, sometimes down to the smallest variables. I’ve used this example many times, but as someone who frequently taught the same course three or even four times a day, I could detect variances based on what seems like the smallest differences, including the time of day a particular section met. There is a weird (but also wonderful) human chemistry at play when we treat learning as a communal act—as I believe we should—but this means it is incredibly difficult to systematize teaching, as we have seen from generations of failed attempts to do so.

Caution over offering prescriptions is more than warranted. As someone who now spends a lot of time trying to help others think through the challenges in their particular teaching contexts, I’m up front about the fact that I have very few if any universal answers and instead offer some ways of thinking about and breaking down a problem that may pave the road to progress.

I cringe at some folks who seem to be positioning themselves as AI gurus, eager to tell us the future and, in so doing, know what we should be doing in the present. This is going to be a problem that must be continually worked.

The AHA principles start with a declaration that seeks to unify the group around a shared principle, declaring, “Historical thinking matters.”

My field is writing and English, not history, but here I think this is a misstep, one that I think is common and one that must be addressed if we’re going to have the most productive conversations possible about where generative AI has a place (or not) in our disciplines.

What is meant by “historical thinking”? From what I can tell, the document makes no specific claims as to what this entails, though it has many implied activities that presumably are component parts of historical thinking: research, analysis, synthesis, etc. …

To my mind, what is missing is the underlying values that historical thinking is meant to embody. Perhaps these are agreed upon and go without saying, but my experience in the field of writing suggests that this is unlikely. What one values about historical thinking and, perhaps most importantly, the evidence they privilege in detecting and measuring historical thinking is likely complicated and contested.

This is definitely true when it comes to writing.

One of my core beliefs about how we’ve been teaching writing is that the artifacts we ask students to produce and the way we assess them often actually prevents students from engaging in the kinds of experiences that help them learn to write.

Because of this, I put more stock in evidence of a developing writing practice than I do in judging the written artifact at the end of a writing experience. Even my use of the word “experience” signals what I think is most valuable when it comes to writing: the process over the product.

Others who put more stock in the artifacts themselves see great potential for LLM use to help students produce “better” versions of those artifacts by offering assistance in various parts of the process. This is an obviously reasonable point of view. If we have a world that judges students on outputs and these tools help them produce better outputs (and more quickly), why would we wall them off from these tools?

In contrast, I say that there is something essentially human—as I argue at book length in More Than Words—about reading and writing, so I am much more cautious about embracing this technology. I’m concerned that we may lose experiences that are actually essential not for getting through school, but for getting through life.

But this is a debate! And the answers to what the “right” approach is depend on those root values.

The AHA principles are all fair enough and generally agreeable, arguing for AI literacy, policy transparency and a valuing of historical expertise over LLM outputs. But without unpacking what we mean by “historical thinking,” and how we determine when this thinking is present, we’re stuck in cul-de-sac of uncertainty.

This is apparent in an appendix that attempts to show what an AI policy might look like, listing a task, whether AI use could be acceptable and then the conditions of acceptance. But again, the devil is in the details.

For example, “Ask generative AI to identify or summarize key points in an article before you read it” is potentially acceptable, without explicit citation.

But when? Why? What if the most important thing about a reading, as an aspect of developing their historical thinking practice, is for students to experience the disorientation of tackling a difficult text, and we desire maximum friction in the process?

Context is everything, and we can’t talk context if we don’t know what we truly value, not just at the level of a discipline, or even a course, but at the level of the experience itself. For every course-related activities, we have to ask:

What do we want students to know?

and

What do we want students to be able to do?

My answers to these questions, particularly as they pertain to writing courses, involve very little large language model use until a solid foundation in a writing practice is established. Essentially, we want students to be able to use these tools in the way we likely perceive our own abilities to use them productively without compromising our values or the quality of our work.

I’m guessing most faculty reading this trust themselves to make these judgments about when use is acceptable and under what conditions. That’s the big-picture target. What do we need to know and what do we need to be able to do to arrive at that state?

Without getting at the deepest values, we don’t really even know where to aim.

Source link

August 22, 2025
Speech therapy association proposes eliminating ‘DEI’ in its standards

Scores of speech therapists across the country erupted last month when their leading professional association said it was considering dropping language calling for diversity, equity and inclusion and “cultural competence” in their certification standards. Those values could be replaced in some standards with a much more amorphous emphasis on “person-centered care.”

“The decision to propose these modifications was not made lightly,” wrote officials of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) in a June letter to members. They noted that due to recent executive orders related to DEI, even terminology that “is lawfully applied and considered essential for clinical practice … could put ASHA’s certification programs at risk.”

Yet in the eyes of experts and some speech pathologists, the change would further imperil getting quality help to a group that’s long been grossly underserved: young children with speech delays who live in households where English is not the primary language spoken.

“This is going to have long-term impacts on communities who already struggle to get services for their needs,” said Joshuaa Allison-Burbank, a speech language pathologist and Navajo member who works on the Navajo Nation in New Mexico where the tribal language is dominant in many homes.

In a written statement after this story published, a spokesperson for the association stressed that the proposed changes have not been finalized, and said that member feedback is currently under review.

“ASHA remains steadfast in our belief that all health care services should be non-discriminatory and address the needs of every individual,” the spokesperson added. She characterized the proposed changes as “an evolution, not a retreat,” and noted that person-centered care aims to ensure “clinicians are equipped to deliver services tailored to each person’s context, including their lived experience, language background, cultural identity, and home environment.”

Across the country, speech therapists have been in short supply for many years. Then, after the pandemic lockdown, the number of young children diagnosed annually with a speech delay more than doubled. Amid that broad crisis in capacity, multilingual learners are among those most at risk of falling through the cracks. Less than 10 percent of speech therapists are bilingual.

A shift away from DEI and cultural competence — which involves understanding and trying to respond to differences in children’s language, culture and home environment — could have a devastating effect at a time when more of both are needed to reach and help multilingual learners, several experts and speech pathologists said.

They told me about a few promising strategies for strengthening speech services for multilingual infants, toddlers and preschool-age children with speech delays — each of which involves a heavy reliance on DEI and cultural competence.

Embrace creative staffing. The Navajo Nation faces severe shortages of trained personnel to evaluate and work with young children with developmental delays, including speech. So in 2022, Allison-Burbank and his research team began providing training in speech evaluation and therapy to Native family coaches who are already working with families through a tribal home visiting program. The family coaches provide speech support until a more permanent solution can be found, said Allison-Burbank.

Home visiting programs are “an untapped resource for people like me who are trying to have a wider reach to identify these kids and get interim services going,” he said. (The existence of both the home visiting program and speech therapy are under serious threat because of federal cuts, including to Medicaid.)

Use language tests that have been designed for multilingual populations. Decades ago, few if any of the exams used to diagnose speech delays had been “normed” — or pretested to establish expectations and benchmarks — on non-English-speaking populations.

For example, early childhood intervention programs in Texas were required several years ago to use a single tool that relied on English norms to diagnose Spanish-speaking children, said Ellen Kester, the founder and president of Bilinguistics Speech and Language Services in Austin, which provides both direct services to families and training to school districts. “We saw a rise in diagnosis of very young (Spanish-speaking) kids,” she said. That isn’t because all of the kids had speech delays, but due to fundamental differences between the two languages that were not reflected in the test’s design and scoring. (In Spanish, for instance, the ‘z’ sound is pronounced like an English ‘s.’)

There are now more options than ever before of screeners and tools normed on multilingual, diverse populations; states, agencies and school districts should be selective, and informed, in seeking them out, and pushing for continued refinement.

Expand training — formal and self-initiated — for speech therapists in the best ways to work with diverse populations. In the long-term, the best way to help more bilingual children is to hire more bilingual speech therapists through robust DEI efforts. But in the short term, speech therapists can’t rely solely on interpreters — if one is even available — to connect with multilingual children.

That means using resources that break down the major differences in structure, pronunciation and usage between English and the language spoken by the family, said Kester. “As therapists, we need to know the patterns of the languages and what’s to be expected and what’s not to be expected,” Kester said.

It’s also crucial that therapists understand how cultural norms may vary, especially as they coach parents and caregivers in how best to support their kids, said Katharine Zuckerman, professor and associate division head of general pediatrics at Oregon Health & Science University.

“This idea that parents sit on the floor and play with the kid and teach them how to talk is a very American cultural idea,” she said. “In many communities, it doesn’t work quite that way.”

In other words, to help the child, therapists have to embrace an idea that’s suddenly under siege: cultural competence,

Quick take: Relevant research

In recent years, several studies have homed in on how state early intervention systems, which serve children with developmental delays ages birth through 3, shortchange multilingual children with speech challenges. One study based out of Oregon, and co-authored by Zuckerman, found that speech diagnoses for Spanish-speaking children were often less specific than for English speakers. Instead of pinpointing a particular challenge, the Spanish speakers tended to get the general “language delay” designation. That made it harder to connect families to the most tailored and beneficial therapies.

A second study found that speech pathologists routinely miss critical steps when evaluating multilingual children for early intervention. That can lead to overdiagnosis, underdiagnosis and inappropriate help. “These findings point to the critical need for increased preparation at preprofessional levels and strong advocacy … to ensure evidence-based EI assessments and family-centered, culturally responsive intervention for children from all backgrounds,” the authors concluded.

Carr is a fellow at New America, focused on reporting on early childhood issues.

Contact the editor of this story, Christina Samuels, at 212-678-3635, via Signal at cas.37 or [email protected].

This story about the speech therapists association was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.

The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

Join us today.

Source link

July 9, 2025
National Junior College Athletic Association Head Coaches Reveal Athletic Equity is Present

Dr. Riann MullisImagine going through a typical work week without a colleague or coworker inserting an analogy or anecdote from sports into the conversation. Regardless of the reason, from comparison to training, or overcoming adversity, “Collegiate athletics have been a part of the American culture since the 1800s” (Lewis, 2013). Sports significantly influence colleges and universities nationwide, acting as a driving force for institutional culture. The National Junior College Athletic Association (NJCAA) is no stranger to cultivating a positive environment for student-athletes. The association has been providing student-athletes with opportunities to compete in collegiate athletics since 1938 (NJCAA, 2025). Community college athletics traditionally have not received the majority of attention from national media; however, discussion is crucial at this foundational level, especially for the more than 45,000 NJCAA student-athletes pursuing academic and athletic opportunities each year.

Mainstream media’s focus on ticket sales, influential athletes, and comparisons of athletic experience have contributed to a heightened sense of awareness of athletics at all levels. A significant change for athletics occurred more than 50 years when President Richard Nixon signed Title IX of the Education Amendment (Title IX) into law in 1972 (Valentin, 1997). “Implementing Title IX requires institutions to provide equal athletic opportunities for members of both sexes and to accommodate students’ athletic interests and abilities effectively” (U.S. Department of Education [USDE], 2020b).

Dr. Jennifer Spielvogel The ability to conceptualize the similarities and differences of sports becomes critical to recognize what is considered fair opportunities and experiences for student-athletes. This informs the concept of athletic equity. Though major progress has been made since the enactment of this law, questions remain as to what equity looks like in athletics (Jensen, 2022).

In a recently published study, “The Assessment of Athletic Equity by Head Men’s and Women’s Coaches in the National Junior College Athletic Association”, (Mullis, 2024) head coaches from a variety of NJCAA sports at Division I (DI) and Division II (DII) institutions were surveyed and interviewed to glean their opinions pertaining to implementation and best practices of athletic equity. Questions focused on observations, opportunities, and experiences.

The NJCAA head coaches’ opinions about athletic equity initially focused on facilities, scholarships, and travel provided for teams. They were asked to assess the level of agreement on a 4-point Likert (1932) scale ranging from 4 (strongly agree) to 1 (strongly disagree) and the mean (M) was calculated for each question. The head coaches assessed facility equity (M = 2.8), scholarship equity (M = 2.8) and travel equity (M = 3.2) at prominent levels, indicating equity is present. The survey data also were disaggregated by team, with no significant differences found from head coaches of men’s and women’s teams in any sport. Further, the coaches agreed that equity is present for all teams at their institutions.

In the study, head coaches also rank ordered the importance of six distinct coaching roles: advisor, advocate, fundraiser, leader, mentor, and role model. All 192 survey respondents were consistent in ranking leader as the most significant role. The coaches were confident about their relationships and impact on the student-athletes. Most impressively, when interviewed, none of the coaches mentioned wins and losses. Rather, their focus, shared with enthusiasm, highlighted the importance of each of their identified roles and their overwhelming responsibility to advance athletic equity through fair experiences and opportunities for their student-athletes.

Collectively, the head coaches conveyed enhanced advocacy accountability for their athletes and teams. Case in point, when coaches were asked in the interviews if they had a responsibility to advocate for athletic equity, an NJCAA DII women’s basketball coach confidently expressed:

Yes. Absolutely. If I do not advocate for my kids [women’s basketball student-athletes], who is going to do that? That is my job. My goal is to make sure they are getting the same treatment the same opportunities that every other sport, whether it be male or female, is getting on campus.

With similar conviction, when posed the question if he considered himself responsible for advocating for athletic equity, a DII softball coach sharply stated, “No question.” In the interviews many coaches indicated that campus athletic directors and presidents should be involved and aware of athletic needs. From their perspective, there is a need for effective collaboration and communication, as the administration’s decisions can significantly impact the advancement of athletic equity.

The assessments and opinions from NJCAA DI and DII head coaches offer a never-before-seen insight into athletic equity implementation at the NJCAA level. Continuing the conversations around the best practices of athletic equity through the voice of the coaches is imperative for the future of collegiate athletics. Implementing progressive ideas such as campus forums, shared documentation, and open discussion around the student-athlete and how to best provide equitable experiences for everyone involved will lead to the continuation of athletic equity at the two-year college level.

Dr. Riann Mullis serves as Athletic Director and Title IX Coordinator at Neosho County Community College (KS).

Dr. Jennifer Spielvogel serves as Professor of Practice, Community College Leadership Program, Department of Educational Leadership, at Kansas State University.

The Roueche Center Forum is co-edited by Drs. John E. Roueche and Margaretta B. Mathis of the John E. Roueche Center for Community College Leadership, Department of Educational Leadership, College of Education, Kansas State University.

References:

Jensen, M. (2022, June 23). What would starting Title IX from scratch look like? Philadelphia Inquirer. https://www.inquirer.com/college- sports/title-ix-anniversary-polls-issues 20220623.html

Lewis, G. (2013). The beginning of organized sport. American Quarterly, 22(2), 222–229. https://history.msu.edu/hst329/files/2015/05/ LewisGuy-TheBeginning.pdf

Likert, R (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Retrieved May 4, 2025 from https://archive.org/details/likert-1932/ page/14/mode/2up

Mullis, R. (2024). The assessment of athletic equity by head Men’s and Women’s coaches in the national junior college athletic association (Order No. 31489530). Available from Dissertations & Theses @ Kansas State University; ProQuest One Academic. (3097398397). Retrieved from https://er.lib.k-state.edu/ login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations- theses/assessment-athletic-equity- head-men-s-women/docview/3097398397/ se-2

National Junior College Athletic Association. (2025). About. History. Retrieved May 4, 2025 from https://www.njcaa.org/about/history/ index

U.S. Department of Education. (2020b). Intercollegiate athletics policy: Three part test – part three. https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/ list/ocr/docs/title9-qa-20100420.html

Valentin, I. (1997). Title IX: A brief history. 25 years of Title IX. WEEA Digest. Women’s Educational Equity Act Resource Center at EDC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED414271

Source link

June 13, 2025
Connecting Universities in a Divided World: International Association of Universities’ Mission

There are a lot of transnational associations of universities out there. Some are meant to advance specific political goals, like the European Universities Association. Others exist simply to support their members without engaging in lobbying or political work, such as the African Association of Universities, whose former president, Ernest Aryeetey, was a guest on the show last year.

But the oldest of all these associations is the International Association of Universities (IAU), based in Paris and created by UNESCO in 1950. I had the pleasure of attending their annual meeting in Tokyo last November—a unique opportunity to see global higher education, in all its glorious diversity, reflected in a single room.

While I was there, I asked their Secretary-General, Hilligje Van’t Land, to join us on the show. Graciously, she agreed, leading to today’s podcast.

My chat with Hilligje revolved mainly around two issues. First, the state of global higher education—spoiler: it’s been better. And second, the challenges of maintaining an association across a membership spanning over 100 countries.

How do you keep an organization relevant across institutions with such different capacity levels, facing such different problems in vastly different external environments? And at the global level, can universities even be considered a single community?

Hilligje, who has one of the most interesting vantage points in global higher education, brings sharp insights to these big questions. And so, without further ado, let’s turn it over to Hilligje.

The World of Higher Education Podcast
Episode 3.23 | Connecting Universities in a Divided World: International Association of Universities’ Mission

Transcript

Alex Usher (AU): Hilligje, I’m not sure all our viewers, listeners, or readers are familiar with the history of the International Association of Universities. I know it was founded in 1950, but how has it evolved since then? And what does your membership look like geographically?

Hilligje Van’t Land (HVL): Yes, well, my name is indeed HVL, and I’m the Secretary-General of this wonderful organization, the International Association of Universities.

As you mentioned, it was founded in 1950 under the auspices of UNESCO, and its secretariat is based in Paris. I point that out because it’s one of the most common questions I get—where are you based?

At the same time, we represent a truly global higher education community, with universities from 130 countries across five continents.

How has it evolved over time? In the beginning, the association was largely led by universities from the Global North, working to rebuild the world after World War II on a foundation of shared values—values that would help create peace among people through higher education. And today, that vision still underpins much of what we do. Our goal is to bring together voices from around the world to collaboratively shape a collective vision of what universities can stand for, ultimately helping societies develop toward something better.

So what does our membership look like? We have 600 engaged members who contribute financially to the association, and it’s an incredibly diverse group of universities spanning all five continents. That diversity is central to our mission—not just representing one group, but bringing together many perspectives.

AU: We often think of university associations in terms of rectors’ conferences, where their primary job is to lobby—whether at a national level or through organizations like the European Universities Association. The International Association of Universities (IAU) obviously doesn’t have that kind of function. So is it more about universities speaking to each other? What exactly is its role in the global higher education ecosystem? Who is it speaking to beyond just its membership?

HVL: That’s a very good question—sorry if my English stumbles sometimes!

Indeed, we are a truly global association of universities, but without a specific regional or local resonance. For example, the European Universities Association engages with the European Commission, the Arab Association of Universities works closely with ministries across the Arab world, and American universities are involved in national-level associations that influence policy, like the Association of American Universities (AAU). In Africa, university associations work closely with the African Union.

Our role is to bring these voices together, encouraging universities to collaborate globally in ways that contribute to transforming the world. From where we sit, we advocate to the United Nations and UNESCO, influencing policy decisions within global agenda-setting bodies affiliated with UNESCO.

Right now, we are approaching the end of the UN Agenda 2030. A new global agenda will have to be developed because we are far from achieving the current goals. Yet, those goals have played a crucial role in bringing universities together around essential topics. As we look ahead, universities worldwide will help shape this next agenda, ensuring higher education continues to be a key driver of global progress.

AU: One thing that struck me when I attended your meeting in Tokyo last November—an amazing gathering, by the way—was how difficult it must be to create an institutional agenda that speaks to universities from such different parts of the world. How can I put it? Institutions in Australia, Indonesia, and Somalia—where I think you even had a delegate from Somaliland—are all dealing with vastly different domestic challenges. Given that universities are so deeply embedded in their national contexts, how do you find themes that resonate across all of them? How do you create a common agenda that works for everyone?

HVL: It’s both a challenge and an opportunity, Alex.

When institutions are deeply embedded in their national dynamics, it can be difficult to see beyond them. But without looking outward, how can they truly make the case for what they do? Staying in an echo chamber or only engaging in national-level discussions limits the ability to develop informed policies. That’s why bringing in diverse voices from the global higher education community is so important—it enriches conversations at institutional, national, and regional levels.

The agenda we co-develop with our board is then put to the IAU membership every four years for discussion at the global level. Are these the right topics to focus on? Yes or no? From there, a strategy is developed, and universities engage by seizing opportunities for responsible and meaningful internationalization.

For example, universities rally around themes like fair and inclusive leadership, the role of higher education in sustainable development, and, since COVID, the global conversation on digital transformation in higher education. A major focus now is open science and AI—how do these shape the future of universities?

And while institutions may come from Somaliland, Ghana, Colombia, Reykjavik, or Paris, they often grapple with similar questions. University rectors and policymakers worldwide are asking themselves the same things. By facilitating global leadership meetings, we create spaces where these shared concerns resonate and where new perspectives can emerge.

AU: You’ve mentioned the three big areas that IAU works in—sustainability, internationalization, and digital transformation. You also have those large surveys and studies that go out every couple of years. How do you engage institutions in these areas? What are universities doing in each of these three areas with IAU, and what are they getting out of it?

HVL: Fair and inclusive internationalization—one of the key topics that resonates strongly, even within the name International Association of Universities—translates into at least 10 different ways for universities to engage.

For example, just yesterday, we hosted a webinar on what responsible internationalization means today. Does it mean closing borders and fencing off countries that are perceived as threats to our intellectual work? Or, on the contrary, is responsible internationalization an opportunity to connect universities globally around key topics and foster international research collaborations? These collaborations are critical for addressing global challenges like climate change and crises in their many forms.

So, these discussions are one way we engage institutions. We also offer a service called HEIAS (Higher Education Internationalization Strategies Advisory Service), which helps universities refine their internationalization approaches.

Additionally, we maintain a network of internationalization associations, including NAFSA in the U.S., EAIE in Europe, and the African Association for Internationalization. By bringing these voices together, we co-develop statements that universities can adopt, ensuring that key topics remain at the forefront of global discussions.

On sustainability, we created the Global Cluster on Higher Education and Research for Sustainable Development. This initiative invites universities worldwide to champion specific Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) while ensuring their projects remain interconnected. The goal is not to work in silos but to collaborate and co-create solutions to pressing challenges—whether water issues, gender inequality, or unsustainable urban development.

These efforts lead to research projects, joint initiatives, and meaningful impact across the global higher education community.

AU: Hilligje, you held that meeting in Tokyo last November, which I mentioned earlier. What do you think were some of the main takeaways from that event? What did you learn about how universities are coping with the challenges of the 2020s?

HVL: The 2020s—universities are coping with everything that comes their way, I would say.

One of the major takeaways was something you might not expect: the theme itself—University Values for the Future in a Changing World. When planning the conference, we had many discussions with the program committee. People said, We need to talk about AI. We need to talk about sustainability. We have to discuss the financial sustainability of universities because that’s what institutions are struggling with.

And I said—many organizations are already tackling these topics specifically. Let’s focus on values. Where do values stand today? What values do we need to cultivate to build a meaningful, impactful higher education system for the future?

As you saw at the conference, we had an unusually large group of university leaders attending—more than in previous years. We brought together leadership from universities worldwide to discuss the values they stand for, each from their own unique perspectives.

What this told me is that IAU has a unique opportunity to rally around topics that other organizations aren’t addressing. And these conversations are essential.

We received a lot of feedback—messages and even letters—from participants saying these discussions were eye-opening. They allowed universities to develop new collaborations, whether by inviting each other to campuses or by looking at institutional challenges through a different lens.

So the key takeaway? These conversations are crucial if we want to shape the future of higher education differently. Of course, IAU will continue to address the pressing issues on universities’ daily agendas, but leaders are also craving more space for these deeper discussions—discussions that are vital yet often overlooked.

AU: At the meeting, one session in particular stood out to me—the one led by Fanta Aw from NAFSA in the United States. A lot of participants from North America, Australia, and other OECD countries came in very concerned about university values, feeling that they were under threat. This was just a week or two after the U.S. elections, so people were thinking about issues like that, as well as the rise of movements like Alternative für Deutschland in Germany and what these political shifts could mean for universities.

What struck me, though, was the response from universities in other parts of the world—particularly in Asia and Africa. It wasn’t outright pushback, but more of a gentle chiding. Their message was, We live with these challenges all the time. From IAU’s perspective, that’s just another example of how institutions come from vastly different contexts. How do you bridge these experiences within IAU? How do you ensure that both perspectives are heard?

HVL: Well, those perspectives were very much present on that panel, and the discussion continued long after the session ended.

It’s important to recognize that these challenges aren’t confined to a single region or a divide between so-called “developed” and “developing” countries. In fact, I’d like to discard that terminology altogether—many of the countries we traditionally label as developing have advanced in ways that often surpass others.

The key takeaway is that these conversations are essential. Just because one university or country is newly experiencing pressures from policymakers, threats to academic freedom, or restrictions on institutional autonomy doesn’t mean these issues are new globally. For some institutions, this is an everyday reality.

But these challenges must be debated openly. If the future of higher education is one without institutional autonomy and academic freedom, what kind of education system are we building? What happens if governments dictate which topics can be discussed on campus, replace rectors at will, or shut down academic departments based on political agendas?

These issues need to be confronted head-on. From these discussions, the conversation must be taken further—to the United Nations, to UNESCO policymaking forums, and to global decision-makers. If we don’t address them now, the future could be even bleaker than it already appears in many parts of the world.

AU: A couple of weeks ago, we had American author Ben Wildavsky on the show. Of course, he wrote The Great Brain Race 15 years ago, and we invited him to discuss that book because it presented such an optimistic view of higher education—one where globalization would bring everyone closer together.

But looking around the world today, I find myself questioning the future of globalization and internationalization. IAU is deeply tied to a version of internationalization—maybe not the one Ben was promoting, but still a vision of global academic collaboration. If globalization really does roll back over the next four or five years, what do you see as IAU’s role?

HVL: Globalization is a complex phenomenon, with many facets—and it’s often questioned because it brings challenges alongside opportunities. Increasingly, it also comes with fear.

What IAU fosters, however, is global cooperation. Cooperation starts at the institutional level, extends to national and regional levels, and then reaches the global stage. But cooperation is never a given—it must be nurtured carefully, strategically, and consistently.

Just yesterday, during our Futures of Higher Education webinar series—which now includes 75 recorded sessions available on our website—we hosted Ayesha Maikundi, the new Vice Chancellor of the University of Abuja. She was asked about responsible internationalization and what globalization means today.

She raised an important point: We send the best and brightest into the world, but they rarely come back. Some return as expats, contributing to higher education in their home countries occasionally, but not in a sustained way. The challenge of brain drain remains significant.

While brain gain and brain circulation are often discussed—though, of course, brains don’t literally circulate on their own—the real issue is ensuring meaningful global academic connections. Different models have been used over time, but we need to continuously rethink how we facilitate these exchanges.

For example, not every system is easy to engage with—Nigeria, as Ayesha noted, presents logistical challenges. But beyond that, there are many places around the world that remain overlooked, not because they lack value, but because we fail to recognize them as worthy academic destinations.

That’s why global collaboration and mobility must be continuously worked on—strategically, deliberately, and persistently—to strengthen the international higher education ecosystem.

AU: Beyond issues like globalization and state intrusion into university decision-making, from your vantage point, what are the other major trends shaping higher education globally today? Are we seeing a convergence of concerns at the university level? In other words, are institutions becoming more similar—more isomorphic, so to speak? Or, at a global level, are we seeing more diversification among institutions?

HVL: Universities are institutions with many, many faces.

There are certainly harmonization processes underway in different parts of the world. In Europe, for instance, you have the European Higher Education Area and the Bologna Process, along with ministerial meetings aimed at creating greater alignment among institutions.

But the goal isn’t to make every university the same. In Europe, the aim is to embrace diversity while fostering better dialogue and collaboration across institutions. A similar trend is slowly emerging in Asia as well.

Now, if you look at the United States—it’s technically one country, but in reality, it has so many states, so many systems, and so many different kinds of universities within those systems. That diversity is significant.

This is why, right from IAU’s founding in 1950, we began developing the World Higher Education Database. At the time, it included just 50 universities. Today, we track and document over 21,000 institutions worldwide, mapping entire higher education systems in order to foster better understanding and appreciation of their differences.

In the end, this work also feeds into UNESCO’s Global Convention on the Recognition of Higher Education Qualifications, which aims to improve system compatibility. Harmonization is important in the sense that it allows students and scholars to navigate different systems more easily and become true global citizens.

If systems are entirely disconnected—with different academic calendars, study periods, and structures—it creates barriers. So yes, harmonization is happening, but there is no one-size-fits-all model. Universities will remain distinct, and that’s the beauty of it.

AU: So, maintaining harmonization while preserving diversity—that could be one of the major global trends over the next 15 to 20 years. How do you see IAU evolving over the next 10 to 15 years as sustainability, internationalization, and digital transformation continue to accelerate? Will you stick with these three focus areas, or do you anticipate new priorities emerging? And will new ways for institutions to collaborate globally develop as well?

HVL: I’m convinced that this will remain a movable feast, to borrow a phrase—because universities are never static. Their interests and priorities evolve over time.

We host International Conferences annually, but every four years, we hold a General Conference where we elect a new board and bring together the global higher education community to define our next strategic plan.

Right now, we have four priority areas—though leadership is a major focus as well. These priorities may shift over time, as they have in the past. While the core mission remains, new challenges continue to emerge.

For instance, we need to address the massification of higher education, as more people around the world seek university degrees. We must also consider the commodification of higher education, which is becoming an increasing concern. At the same time, there is a strong push for skills-based education, which we try to balance by advocating for the continued importance of the humanities.

Another tension that remains unresolved is collaboration versus competition—how universities navigate national interests while engaging in global partnerships. The rise of digital education also raises new questions about what it means to be a university in a rapidly changing world.

In terms of IAU’s membership, we currently have 600 institutions that financially support our vision and mission. But many more universities align with our values and participate in our initiatives.

Looking ahead 10 years, where do I see IAU? Well, in an ideal world, I’d love to see 21,000 universities as members—creating a truly global dialogue, not just about the future of higher education, but about how universities shape society itself.

Because ultimately, we’re not just looking inward—we’re asking what universities contribute to the world.

AU: Hilligje, thank you so much for joining us today.

HVL: You’re welcome.AU: And before we wrap up, I’d like to thank our excellent producers, Tiffany MacLennan and Sam Pufek, as well as you—our viewers, readers, and listeners—for tuning in. If you have any questions or comments about today’s episode, please reach out to us at [email protected]. And don’t forget to subscribe to our YouTube channel so you never miss an episode of The World of Higher Education. Join us next week when our guest will be Dendev Badarch, a professor at the Mongolian University of Science and Technology. He’ll be with us to discuss the future of higher education in Mongolia. Bye for now.

*This podcast transcript was generated using an AI transcription service with limited editing. Please forgive any errors made through this service. Please note, the views and opinions expressed in each episode are those of the individual contributors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the podcast host and team, or our sponsors.

This episode is sponsored by Studiosity. Student success, at scale – with an evidence-based ROI of 4.4x return for universities and colleges. Because Studiosity is AI for Learning — not corrections – to develop critical thinking, agency, and retention — empowering educators with learning insight. For future-ready graduates — and for future-ready institutions. Learn more at studiosity.com.

Source link

March 13, 2025
Education association sues Trump admin over DEI guidance

Legal challenges to the Education Department’s guidance ordering colleges to rescind all race-based programming are piling up.

A week after the American Federation of Teachers sued the Trump administration over the guidance, the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit that seeks to restrain the department from enforcing the Feb. 14 letter.

Similar to the AFT lawsuit, the NEA argues that the letter and its threat to cut federal funding would hamper public schools’ function as “the nation’s ‘nurseries of democracy.’” The NEA lawsuit was filed in the New Hampshire federal district court, while the AFT’s challenge is in Maryland district court.

“The Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for … fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” Becky Pringle, president of the NEA, said in a news release. “We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons.”

NEA alleges that the Dear Colleague letter “imposes vague and viewpoint discriminatory prohibitions,” “invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” and causes “substantial, irreparable harm.”
The NEA wants the court to declare the letter contrary to constitutional rights and place a permanent restraint on the department, preventing it from enforcing the letter’s orders.

Source link

March 6, 2025
Registrars assembling – the history of the Association of Heads of University Administration

Many will not have seen this rather wonderful short history of AHUA, the Association of Heads of University Administration, published in 2024 and written by John Hogan, who retired as registrar at Newcastle University in 2022.

Having been involved in AHUA for 18 years to the end of 2024, including 11 years on the executive and a couple of years as Honorary Secretary, I thought I had seen quite a lot in terms of the association’s development. However, as this report shows, I really did not know the half of it and my contributions were genuinely minor alongside the achievements of those who went before.

In development

The origins of what is now AHUA date back, in formal records at least, to a “Registrars’ Conference” in 1939, just before the outbreak of war. It was attended by ten people representing seven different universities (with apologies from two more) and chaired by the registrar of Durham University, William Angus (later secretary at the University of Aberdeen from 1952 to 1967 and referred to by his previous colleagues as “Aberdeen Angus,” apparently).

Extract from the minutes of the 1939 Registrars’ Conference

While some of the issues discussed were very much of the time, such as air raid precautions, others have contemporary resonance such as ensuring inclusion of students on the electoral register. Admittedly this was a slightly different situation given that there were university constituencies at that time and there were real concerns about institutions’ ability adequately to count potential electors. Other issues though seem very familiar including student health, international students, admissions qualifications and student fees.

As the organisation developed as the Conference of Registrars and Secretaries (CRS), after the war it became UK-wide and spent considerable time in the 1960s discussing and dealing with an expanded HE sector such that it had 23 UK universities in membership by then.

As noted in John Hogan’s report – and as is evident from the photographs from conferences in the 60s through to the early 90s – it was a hugely white male-dominated organisation for many years, reflective of university administrations at that time.

Fortunately, much has changed in composition since then. Structures in universities were rather different in those days too although for the whole membership, regardless of title, a core duty was acting as a confidential source of advice and support for the vice chancellor. Further elements identified in the 1960s which continue to be a part of many AHUA members’ roles include leading a significant portfolio of university services and advising the university’s statutory bodies and other senior officers. Relative to today numbers were tiny – only around 400 administrative staff in 1953 rising to a still modest figure of around 1,900 by 1973, although both of these numbers exclude what were deemed “clerical” posts.

It is also interesting to note that, under the auspices of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals (CVCP), a number of registrars were heavily involved in the establishment of the Universities Central Council on Admissions (UCCA) in 1961. This body, reformed as the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service – UCAS – in 1993, was for many years notable as an example of a genuinely efficient and effective shared service in supporting university admissions (although its governance structure and mission has changed somewhat since then).

Topical matters

In determining conference topics members were consulted via paper questionnaires on the issues of the day (although, entertainingly, this process generated a big bureaucracy which had to be scaled back). In 1964, responses were sought on the following:

What information was held in student records, the ratio of secretarial to academic staff, the operation of telephone systems, the appointment of supervisors for higher degrees, amongst many other matters.

Moreover, the records uncovered by the author show some problems are perennial:

The fraudulent publication of degree certificates was a concern at the 1948 Conference. Student behaviour, and car parking both featured in 1962. Pressure to change the academic year from October–September to January–December was first acknowledged in 1965. Nearly all universities had considered the possibility and rejected it.

Excitingly, IT became a white-hot topic in the 1960s and there were discussions over the national coordination of student records – this led to a working party involving the UGC and the Royal Statistical Society. As I recently noted here, the issue has not gone away…

As Hogan notes, the records of proceedings appear generally cordial, although:

The occasional acerbic comment was captured in the minutes. Ernest Bettenson, (Registrar of the University of Durham 1952 then of University of Newcastle upon Tyne 1963–1976) expressed the view that the 1972 “…White Paper was like Mrs Thatcher (its author as Education Minister) – well set out and attractive, but somehow unlovable.

Beyond these formal matters, conferences also included cultural and social events including a formal dinner which, I am astonished to learn, was black tie until 2006 (thankfully that stopped before I joined in the following year). Other features which have, mercifully, not survived include the spouses’ programme, golf sessions and alcohol sponsorship (no fewer than three distilleries were sponsors for the 1995 conference in Aberdeen).

Grappling with the issues

CRS operations became a bit more business-like towards the end of the 1970s with the establishment of a standing steering committee and the appointment of a business secretary. Following the significant cuts in funding from 1981–82 the focus of discussions was very much on the consequent organisational challenges and, as Hogan notes:

More horizon-scanning can be identified in CRS’s discussions during the 1980s than previously. William Waldegrave, then Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the Department of Education and Science, predicted mergers across the so-called binary line, between universities and polytechnics, within the following ten years, when he spoke to the Conference in 1983.

Plenty of contemporary echoes there. The Jarratt Report (1985) on management efficiency divided opinion in the CRS, with some supportive and others more sceptical or indeed scathing. Apparently, Jim Walsh, registrar at the University of Leeds, was particularly vocal:

…warning members that he would oppose any attempt to turn the Conference into a kind of “Jarratt Enforcement” agency and distributing a criticism of the proposals under the title “A Load of Old Cobblers?”

It is reassuring that CRS members struggled with its name back in the late 1980s in the same way as successors have ever since. It was accepted that “the name ‘conference’ was unhelpful, and ‘association’ was more attractive except for the resulting acronym – ARS.”

However, before that issue could be resolved the CRS had to grapple with the more serious issue of the impact of the ending of the binary line. While almost every established university in 1992 had a registrar or secretary, the structures in the newer universities was much more varied meaning that it took some time to come to a full settlement on who would be eligible to join an expanded organisation.

And then, of course, a new name was required. ARS was off the table so the “Association of University Heads of Administration” or the “Association of Heads of University Administration” were the preferred options. CVCP was consulted and it seems some vice chancellors were unhappy with the title on the basis that they saw themselves as the head of the administration. Anyway, a decision was made and the name and abbreviation everyone struggles to pronounce to this day was agreed upon.

You’ve come a long way

Hogan goes on to note the broader engagement of AHUA and its member with regulators and other sector agencies from the late 1990s onwards as well as the importance of its regional groupings and the key role played by full-time professional staff support from 2001 (Catherine Webb served as Executive Secretary from 2006 to 2024, providing vital continuity and vast expertise). Policy concerns at executive meetings and conferences throughout the last two decades have included governance, statute changes, pensions, the need for better regulation and a reduction in the regulatory burden.

Other significant developments in the recent period have included development programmes, for new and aspiring registrars, growing the association’s communications and influencing activities, developing the national Ambitious Futures graduate training programme (which sadly ended as a consequence of the pandemic) and a reciprocal mentoring programme between staff of colour and AHUA launched. All were driven forward by a (much missed) former chair, Jonathan Nicholls, who also sought to establish AHUA as the “go-to” professional organisation in the sector.

AHUA, as Hogan’s history shows, has come a long way but remains a key UK-wide sector organisation with a slightly more diverse membership than in the past, but there is still some way to go there. It’s an organisation of which I hugely valued being a part and it is great to read this short but comprehensive report on AHUA’s origins and development.

AHUA Spring Conference 2024 at the University of Leeds

Source link

February 21, 2025
ALP 2023: Another Successful Association Leadership Program Is in the Books – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | July 26, 2023

This blog post was contributed by Jennifer Addleman, member of CUPA-HR’s Southern Region board of directors and HR director at Rollins College.

And that’s a wrap on CUPA-HR’s 2023 Association Leadership Program (ALP) in Omaha, Nebraska! On July 13-14, leaders from CUPA-HR’s national, regional and chapter boards, as well as CUPA-HR’s corporate partners, gathered to discuss higher ed HR challenges, share successes, make connections and build relationships. I was fortunate to attend as a representative from the Southern Region board, and my mind is still reeling from two full days of content and networking with talented HR leaders from across the country. Here are some of my takeaways:

Lead with positivity, start with a win, and end with gratitude.

So much is happening on the regulatory and legislative front that will affect higher ed and the labor and employment landscape, and CUPA-HR is serving as the voice of higher ed on these issues with lawmakers.

The CUPA-HR Knowledge Center continues to be a go-to resource for all things higher ed HR. In addition to HR toolkits that are constantly being updated or added, you’ll also find DEI resources, e-learning courses, a job description index, CUPA-HR’s Higher Ed HR Magazine and more. If you haven’t checked out the Knowledge Center lately, I encourage you to do so!

We in higher ed HR are doing important work — what we do matters, and we are impacting lives.

CUPA-HR continues to do valuable work in data collection and research — our data is the platinum standard! Learn more about CUPA-HR’s research in the Research Center (find the link in the menu on the CUPA-HR home page).

We must continue to make mental health a priority. As HR practitioners, we often prioritize taking care of others, but we should not be ashamed to take care of ourselves first! Find resources in the Mental Health and Health and Well-Being Knowledge Center toolkits.

You can walk to Iowa from Omaha! Who knew!

Sharing some quality time with higher ed HR peers from across the country, commiserating about and discussing strategies to overcome our biggest challenges, and meeting new people and making new connections is what CUPA-HR’s Association Leadership Program is all about. If you’re considering exploring volunteer leadership opportunities within the association, do it! You won’t regret it — in fact, you’re guaranteed to learn and grow, and have a great time doing it!

Share This Article:
Source link
July 26, 2023
Dean Hoke Appointed President and CEO of the American Association of University Administrators – Edu Alliance Journal

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. – March 21, 2023 — Dean Hoke, of Bloomington, Indiana, has been chosen to serve as the next President and Chief Executive Officer of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA), currently based in Glen Mills, Pennsylvania. His appointment is effective July 1st when the current President & CEO, Dan L. King will retire after nineteen years of service in that position.

A highly successful and internationally recognized higher education administrator, Mr. Hoke first affiliated with the Higher Colleges of Technology in the United Arab Emirates in 2009 as Head of Marketing and Institutional Development; that experience was followed by four years at Khalifa University with the UAE Advanced Network for Research and Education. In 2014 he became Co-Founder in a new educational management consulting firm, Edu Alliance Ltd. based in the UAE; three years later Edu Alliance Group opened its US office in Bloomington serving as the Managing Partner.

Mr. Hoke has extensive experience in the fields of higher education, marketing, communications and e-Learning. He has held a number of senior higher education administrative positions; and co-founded the Connected Learning Network, a provider of online educational services for educational institutions. In the field of broadcasting he served as an executive and CEO of four public broadcasting stations, and executive vice president of a cable network. He currently serves on the Advisory Board of the School of Education of Franklin University in Ohio and is a member of the Advisory Board of Higher Education Digest. He recently served as president-elect for the United States Distance Learning Association and chaired the Global Partnership Committee.

Mr. Hoke currently produces and co-hosts the podcast series Higher Ed Without Borders. He holds a B.A. degree from Urbana University and an M.S. degree from the University of Louisville. He also completed the Executive Management Program at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.

AAUA Board of Directors chairperson William Hill, assistant dean of the College of Education at Wayne State University, said, “Mr. Hoke is, without a doubt, the best person to step up and take over the executive administration of this organization. His background and his wide range of experiences will be useful. Moreso, his enthusiasm for leading AAUA to new programming ventures which should lead to expanded membership is contagious!”

When interviewed, Mr. Hoke remarked, “It is a great honor to be selected as the AAUA’s next President and CEO. I am grateful to the Board for their unanimous support and to Dan King, who has led the organization for several years.”

He continued, “AAUA sees a high percentage of administrators leaving the higher education profession. They are frustrated over the lack of opportunities for advancement, work challenges, and readily available professional development. The AAUA board of directors and I will work with our membership to build new and innovative professional development programs and services which will address a higher level of training and increase retention of our higher education administrator colleagues.”

Departing chief executive, Dan King remarked, “I had planned to leave my AAUA responsibilities over two years ago but my departure was delayed by the COVID pandemic. The delay turned out to be fortuitous because it was during this time that I developed a closer professional tie with Mr. Hoke and was able to recruit his candidacy for this position. AAUA is ready for new direction, and Mr. Hoke has the perfect combination of personality, vision and enthusiasm to lead it to new heights. I look forward to watching the association improve and grow.”

Source link

March 21, 2023
Association Leaders Gathered to Learn, Laugh and Launch a New Year at the 2022 ALP! – CUPA-HR
by CUPA-HR | July 20, 2022

CUPA-HR’s Association Leadership Program (ALP) has taken place every July for more than two decades, bringing together chapter, region, and national board members; association staff; key corporate partners; and other invited guests. After two years of meeting only virtually, these leaders were finally able to meet again in person last week.

“We’re Still Standing!”

The HR challenges of the past two years have included leading emergency COVID-19 response, exploring a new frontier of flexible work, and addressing unprecedented talent recruitment and retention challenges. Through it all, higher ed HR professionals have been on the front lines, adapting and transforming the workplace with resourcefulness, leadership and strategic insights.

To celebrate that strength and resilience, CUPA-HR president and CEO, Andy Brantley, and national board chair, Jay Stephens, kicked off the two-day meeting with Elton John’s “I’m Still Standing” playing in the background and issued an irresistible photo challenge for attendees. (Be sure to check out the photos posted to Twitter with the hashtag #cupahr22.)

Building Knowledge and Connection

The ALP’s highly interactive program included:
- tips for managing chapters and developing a leadership pipeline
- updates on CUPA-HR’s work on Title IX and other public policy imperatives
- a practical overview of CUPA-HR’s DEI Maturity Index and new Research Center
- a discussion of winning strategies for higher ed’s post-pandemic war for talent
- a presentation on cultivating trauma-informed practice in higher education leadership
Beyond the programming, however, what attendees valued most about the event was the opportunity to validate their campus experiences in conversations with peers, rekindle the motivation behind their work, and take away great ideas for transforming their HR teams and their institutions in ways big and small.

Interested in Taking Your Professional Development Further?

CUPA-HR’s volunteer leaders have committed to advancing the profession and the mission of CUPA-HR. They understand the complexities of higher ed HR, and they want to enhance the knowledge and skills they need to lead their institutions into the future.

Are you ready to take that next step in developing your leadership skills, shaping the profession, and gaining one-of-a-kind access to successful practices and HR professionals from across the country? Then CUPA-HR leadership — in a chapter, at the region level, or even on the national board of directors — might be right for you. Learn more about how you can get involved.

Share This Article:
Source link
July 20, 2022