Tag: Barriers

MSI Cuts Create Barriers for Indigenous Learners (opinion)

As we start the new year, my leadership team, like many others across the country, is confronting the financial fallout from the Department of Education’s decision to end grant programs for certain minority-serving institutions, including ours. The department has framed its September shift of funds away from MSIs and toward historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges and universities (TCUs) as an expansion of opportunity. Yet as an Indigenous education scholar and a college president, I see it creating new barriers for Indigenous learners. This decision is complex and requires deeper analysis to understand its lasting impacts.

Federal support for Native education is a part of the federal trust responsibility, codified by at least 150 treaties, as well as various statutes and court decisions. Those treaties provide explicit provisions for various services, including education, that were guaranteed to Tribal Nations and their citizens by the United States government in exchange for land. This trust responsibility follows both Tribal Nations and individual tribal citizens. Ultimately, the federal trust responsibility is both a legal and moral obligation.

In 2008, Congress created Native American–serving nontribal institutions (NASNTIs), a new category of MSI, to ensure federal grant support for institutions educating Native students outside of tribal colleges and universities. Only about 12 percent of Native students attend TCUs. Stripping more than $54 million away from the other institutions that serve large numbers of Native students effectively undermines the federal government’s trust responsibility. Furthermore, this funding, which went not to just NASNTIs, but also but to Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander–serving institutions (AANAPISIs) and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian–serving institutions (ANNHs)—typically supported programs open to all students at these institutions who qualified, not just Native learners.

This loss is not abstract. At Fort Lewis College in Durango, Colo., where I am president, 37 percent of our students are Native American, representing more than 128 Tribal Nations and Alaska Native villages. We are the only NASNTI in the state. Recent federal cuts will mean a $2.27 million loss in critical grant support—dollars that have historically funded things like our peer educator tutoring, peer mentoring and summer bridge programs, all essential academic supports aimed at increasing student retention and graduation.

In my role, I meet students every week who tell me that the support they received through these programs gave them the academic confidence to formally enroll or stay in school and a community to belong to on campus. For many students, these programs are the difference between continuing on the track toward graduation or leaving higher education altogether. Cutting this funding pulls away the very safety nets that level the playing field.

Funding the institutions that support these students is also critical for boosting graduation rates, preparing a strong workforce and overall Tribal Nation building. Higher education access and success is a long-standing issue for Native communities, where only 42 percent of Native students graduate within six years, compared to 64 percent nationally, and only 17 percent of Native adults hold a bachelor’s degree. At a time when many communities are facing shortages of teachers, health-care providers and public servants, undermining critical pathways to higher education hurts our economy. Investing in these institutions is not only moral but profoundly practical.

Finally, the decision to reallocate funding away from NASNTIs is especially damaging because it frames Native-serving institutions as competitors with TCUs, instead of partners in the shared mission of educating historically underserved students. There is no question that TCUs and HBCUs have both been woefully underfunded for decades. These institutions serve critical historical and present-day roles, providing access to higher education and meeting community and tribal needs. They deserve robust, sustained federal investment. TCUs, in particular, play an essential role in rural areas and tribal communities. That said, needed investments in these institutions should not come at the expense of the NASNTIs and other MSIs that educate vast numbers of Native students.

By shifting this money, the Department of Education forces communities that are deeply aligned in our commitment to serving Native students and communities to fight for scarce resources, all while the department fails to meet its federal trust responsibility. NASNTIs and TCUs do not succeed at the expense of one another; we succeed together when federal policy recognizes the full breadth of our contributions.

The Department of Education has an opportunity to reaffirm, not retreat from, its responsibility to Native students. That means sustaining investment in TCUs and HBCUs and restoring support for the NASNTIs that educate large numbers of Indigenous learners. When we fund the full ecosystem of Native-serving colleges and universities, we strengthen Native communities and the nation as a whole. True recognition of Native heritage lies in a commitment that honors the promises made and ensures that every Native student has the educational resources to thrive.

Heather J. Shotton is president of Fort Lewis College.

Source link

January 20, 2026
Breaking barriers: what the data tells us about care experienced and estranged applicants
Over the weekend, HEPI published blogs considering whether we are fixing or unmaking universities, and asking why there haven’t been more institution mergers.

This blog was kindly authored by Fiona Ellison, Co-Director, Unite Foundation.

It is the fourth blog in HEPI’s series with The Unite Foundation on how to best support care experienced and estranged students. You can find the first blog here, the second here, and the third here.

Higher education is often described as a transformative experience, but for some students the journey begins with significant barriers. Care experienced and estranged applicants – those who have spent time in care or are studying without family support – face unique challenges that impact their access, retention and success. At the Unite Foundation, we believe that the first step toward creating a more inclusive sector is to understand the data that underpins these challenges. We are grateful to do this in partnership with our long-term donor – Unite Students.

In 2022, Unite Students first undertook their annual applicant index, which sheds light on the experiences of students starting university for the first time. This year, we’ve been able to compare the experiences of ‘traditional’ students with those who identify as either care experienced or estranged. The findings reveal stark differences in financial pressures, mental health, social connection and academic engagement.

Who are we talking about?

Across two years of survey data, 370 respondents identified as care experienced or estranged, compared to 2,981 who did not. These students are not a homogenous group, but patterns emerge: they also reflect a diverse demographic profile. For example, 17.8% of care experienced and estranged applicants identified as transgender, compared to just 2.3% of other applicants. Similarly, 3.8% identified as non-binary (vs 1.6%). These figures highlight the intersectionality of working with this group of students – we know that if you can get it right for care experienced and estranged students you can get it right for all students.

The impact of financial pressure on mental health

Financial insecurity is a recurring theme. Over a quarter (27.3%) of care experienced and estranged applicants reported that financial issues affect their mental health, compared to 19.6% of their peers. This is not surprising. Without family support, these students often navigate university life without the safety net others take for granted. We know from HEPI, TechnologyOne and Loughborough University’s Minimum Income Standard for Students that those studying without financial support – e.g. care experienced & estranged students – even with the full maintenance loan, would still need to work over 20 hours at minimum wage to achieve the minimum income standard needed to survive at university.

The implications are clear. Financial stress compounds mental health challenges, which in turn affect academic performance and retention. This was clear from the analysis we did of the Student Academic Experience Survey, which found that 43% of care experienced students and 44% of estranged students have considered withdrawing from university, compared to 28% of their peers.

Whilst the survey doesn’t give us insight into the reasons why, it does provide clues. For example, care-experienced students and estranged students work significantly more hours in paid employment, with care experienced students working, on average, 11.3 hours/week, and estranged students working 11.1 hours/week, compared to 8.8 hours/week for other students.

Social isolation and belonging

University is often marketed as a time of social connection, but for many care experienced and estranged students, isolation is the norm. Only 26.8% said they have someone to turn to in a crisis, compared to 42.3% of other applicants. More than one in five (21.8%) expressed little interest in the social side of university life, almost double the proportion of their peers (11.2%).

Pleasingly, expectations of belonging are similar across groups. 53.2% of care experienced and estranged applicants expected to feel a sense of belonging at university, compared to 54.8% of others. We know through our work supporting the All of Us Community – a space for all care experienced and estranged students to come together and connect with their peers – that creating opportunities for connection to help build that sense of belonging is crucial which is why we offer our ‘Funding for Fun’ small grants pot to facilitate connection between students online and in person across institutions.

Learning challenges and attendance

Academic engagement is another area of concern. Care experienced and estranged applicants are twice as likely to have prolonged absences due to mental health:
- 22.9% missed 5–20 days in the past two years (vs 11.0% of non-care experienced students)
- 21.9% missed more than 20 days (vs 10.1% of non-care experienced students).
They are also more likely to struggle to keep up with their course (27.3% vs 18.8%). We know that this group of students are more likely to be working additional hours to fund their studies and this takes a toll on their ability to commit time to studies.

That’s why, for students who received the Unite Foundation scholarship, we see their progression rates from year 1-2 at the same rate as non-care experienced peers and they graduate at a rate much closer to their non-care experienced peers. They’re not having to work as many hours as their peers, as they have a safe space to live with their rent covered for 365 days a year, for up to 3 years.

This requirement to work to fund their studies shows up in the data – a striking 38.7% of care experienced and estranged applicants report significant work experience, compared to 27% of their peers.

What does this all mean?

The data tells a clear story: care experienced and estranged students face systemic barriers that cannot be solved by goodwill alone. Financial support, mental health provision and inclusive community-building must be embedded in institutional strategies.

For policymakers, this means recognising these students as a priority group in widening participation agendas – not just paying lip service, but embedding and regulating for action. For universities, it means moving beyond access to focus on retention and success – using evidence based solutions, such as the Unite Foundation scholarship to create the conditions to enable care experienced and estranged students to thrive.

If you want to explore how action to address accommodation issues can better support you care experienced and estranged students the Unite Foundation Blueprint framework can support your institution in building a safe and stable home for students, improving retention and attainment outcomes.
Source link
January 12, 2026
Instead of defining Black children by their test scores, we should help them overcome academic barriers and pursue their dreams

by Nosakhere Griffin-EL, The Hechinger Report
January 5, 2026

Across the U.S., public school districts are panicking over test scores.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, or the Nation’s Report Card, as it is known, revealed that students are underperforming in reading, with the most recent scores being the lowest overall since the test was first given in 1992.

The latest scores for Black children have been especially low. In Pittsburgh, for example, only 26 percent of Black third- through fifth-grade public school students are reading at advanced or proficient levels compared to 67 percent of white children.

This opportunity gap should challenge us to think differently about how we educate Black children. Too often, Black children are labeled as needing “skills development.” The problem is that such labels lead to educational practices that dim their curiosity and enthusiasm for school — and overlook their capacity to actually enjoy learning.

As a result, without that enjoyment and the encouragement that often accompanies it, too many Black students grow up never feeling supported in the pursuit of their dreams.

Related: A lot goes on in classrooms from kindergarten to high school. Keep up with our free weekly newsletter on K-12 education.

Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake. We, as educators, must see children as advanced dreamers who have the potential to overcome any academic barrier with our support and encouragement.

As a co-founder of a bookstore, I believe there are many ways we can do better. I often use books and personal experiences to illustrate some of the pressing problems impacting Black children and families.

One of my favorites is “Abdul’s Story” by Jamilah Thompkins-Bigelow.

It tells the tale of a gifted young Black boy who is embarrassed by his messy handwriting and frequent misspellings, so much so that, in erasing his mistakes, he gouges a hole in his paper.

He tries to hide it under his desk. Instead of chastening him, his teacher, Mr. Muhammad, does something powerful: He sits beside Abdul under the desk.

Mr. Muhammad shows his own messy notebook to Abdul, who realizes “He’s messy just like me.”

In that moment, Abdul learns that his dream of becoming a writer is possible; he just has to work in a way that suits his learning style. But he also needs an educator who supports him along the way.

It is something I understand: In my own life, I have been both Abdul and Mr. Muhammad, and it was a teacher named Mrs. Lee who changed my life.

One day after I got into a fight, she pulled me out of the classroom and said, “I am not going to let you fail.” At that point, I was consistently performing at or below basic in reading and writing, but she didn’t define me by my test scores.

Instead, she asked, “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

I replied, “I want to be like Bryant Gumbel.”

She asked why.

“Because he’s smart and he always interviews famous people and presidents,” I said.

Mrs. Lee explained that Mr. Gumbel was a journalist and encouraged me to start a school newspaper.

So I did. I interviewed people and wrote articles, revising them until they were ready for publication. I did it because Mrs. Lee believed in me and saw me for who I wanted to be — not just my test scores.

If more teachers across the country were like Mrs. Lee and Mr. Muhammad, more Black children would develop the confidence to pursue their dreams. Black children would realize that even if they have to work harder to acquire certain skills, doing so can help them accomplish their dreams.

Related: Taking on racial bias in early math lessons

Years ago, I organized a reading tour in four libraries across the city of Pittsburgh. At that time, I was a volunteer at the Carnegie Library, connecting book reading to children’s dreams.

I remember working with a young Black boy who was playing video games on the computer with his friends. I asked him if he wanted to read, and he shook his head no.

So I asked, “Who wants to build the city of the future?” and he raised his hand.

He and I walked over to a table and began building with magnetic tiles. As we began building, I asked the same question Mrs. Lee had asked me: “What do you want to be when you grow up?”

“An architect,” he replied.

I jumped up and grabbed a picture book about Frank Lloyd Wright. We began reading the book, and I noticed that he struggled to pronounce many of the words. I supported him, and we got through it. I later wrote about it.

Each week after that experience, this young man would come up to me ready to read about his dream. He did so because I saw him just as Mr. Muhammad saw Abdul, and just like Mrs. Lee saw me — as an advanced dreamer.

Consider that when inventor Lonnie Johnson was a kid, he took a test and the results declared that he could not be an engineer. Imagine if he’d accepted that fate. Kids around the world would not have the joy of playing with the Super Soaker water gun.

When the architect Phil Freelon was a kid, he struggled with reading. If he had given up, the world would not have experienced the beauty and splendor of the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

When illustrator Jerry Pinkney was a kid, he struggled with reading just like Freelon. If he had defined himself as “basic” and “below average,” children across America would not have been inspired by his powerful picture book illustrations.

Narrowly defining children based on their test scores is a big mistake.

Each child is a solution to a problem in the world, whether it is big or small. So let us create conditions that inspire Black children to walk boldly in the pursuit of their dreams.

Nosakhere Griffin-EL is the co-founder of The Young Dreamers’ Bookstore. He is a Public Voices Fellow of The OpEd Project in partnership with the National Black Child Development Institute.

Contact the opinion editor at [email protected].

This story about Black children and education was produced byThe Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Hechinger’s weekly newsletter.

This <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-instead-of-defining-black-children-by-their-test-scores-we-should-help-them-overcome-academic-barriers-and-pursue-their-dreams/”>article</a> first appeared on <a target=”_blank” href=”https://hechingerreport.org”>The Hechinger Report</a> and is republished here under a <a target=”_blank” href=”https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.<img src=”https://i0.wp.com/hechingerreport.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/cropped-favicon.jpg?fit=150%2C150&ssl=1″ style=”width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;”>

<img id=”republication-tracker-tool-source” src=”https://hechingerreport.org/?republication-pixel=true&post=114013&ga4=G-03KPHXDF3H” style=”width:1px;height:1px;”><script> PARSELY = { autotrack: false, onload: function() { PARSELY.beacon.trackPageView({ url: “https://hechingerreport.org/opinion-instead-of-defining-black-children-by-their-test-scores-we-should-help-them-overcome-academic-barriers-and-pursue-their-dreams/”, urlref: window.location.href }); } } </script> <script id=”parsely-cfg” src=”//cdn.parsely.com/keys/hechingerreport.org/p.js”></script>

Source link

January 5, 2026
Breaking barriers: advancing ethnic diversity in higher education professional services
This blog was kindly authored by Dr Louise Oldridge, Senior Lecturer at Nottingham Trent University (with research team Dr Maranda Ridgway, Dr David Dahill, Dr Ricky Gee, Dr Stefanos Nachmias, Dr Loyin Olotu-Umoren, Dr Jessie Pswarayi, Dr Sarah Smith, Natalie Selby-Shaw and Dr Rhianna Garrett).

Despite decades of progress in widening participation and diversifying student bodies, UK higher education still faces a stark reality: senior professional services roles remain overwhelmingly white.

Indeed, when the professional body for senior professional services staff (Association of Heads of University Administration – AHUA) embarked on work to ‘shift the dial’ on race, membership had less than 5% global majority colleagues.

While universities champion equality, diversity, and inclusion (EDI), and the sector has developed levers such as the Race Equality Charter (REC), the lived experiences of ethnically minoritised staff highlight systemic barriers that hinder career progression and perpetuate inequality.

A recent research project funded by AHUA and conducted by the Centre for People, Work & Organizational Practice at Nottingham Business School explored these challenges. Drawing on interviews, focus groups, and institutional data, the project studied the career barriers and enablers for ethnically minoritised professionals in senior roles.

The diversity gap in professional services leadership

University leadership teams have diversified in some areas, for instance among governors, students, and even vice-chancellors, but senior professional services remain largely homogenous.

Recruitment practices, opaque progression pathways, and institutional norms continue to privilege whiteness and middle-class values, leaving talented individuals from minoritised backgrounds sidelined.

With limited institutional data available for the study, it revealed that while representation among lower-grade professional services roles has improved, senior positions tell a different story.

Unlike academic colleagues, there is a stark shift in career management for professional services staff, with our research finding that many institutions are unequipped to track the career trajectories of professional service staff.

Lived experiences: authenticity, masking, and emotional labour

The qualitative insights from interviews and focus groups paint a vivid picture of what it means to navigate professional services as a person of colour. Participants spoke candidly about the emotional labour involved in “code-switching” (altering language, appearance, or behaviour to fit dominant norms) and “masking” aspects of identity to avoid judgment or exclusion.

One participant reflected: “I felt I had to disappear… to succeed, I needed to be someone else.” Others described being labelled as “diversity hires” or facing regular microaggressions that impacted confidence and wellbeing.

Intersectionality compounds these challenges. Participant responses indicated that race intersected with gender, class, disability, and caring responsibilities, creating layered barriers that are often invisible to policy-makers. Women of colour, for instance, reported being undermined due to both race and gender, while those with disabilities faced inflexibility and a lack of empathy.

Performative EDI and the need for structural change

In a blog on the REC for Advance HE, Patrick Johnson calls for institutions to make an authentic commitment to dismantling racial barriers for staff. Institutions can use data to expose disparities and perceptions of the operating culture and environment.

As Patrick notes, it is important that challenges are acknowledged openly and specific actions put in place in response.

That said, participants in this research questioned the depth of their organisation’s commitments. EDI initiatives were described as performative and focused on optics rather than outcomes. As one interviewee put it:

We talk about EDI when we’re going for awards, but it’s not part of our everyday practice.

This disconnect between rhetoric and reality highlights a critical gap: policies alone cannot dismantle systemic inequities.

Ultimately, what is needed is leadership from those in roles which can challenge the structural issue, redefine what it means to be ‘professional’, develop clear career pathways, transparent promotion processes, and accountability mechanisms that move beyond tick-box exercises. REC is a starting point for supporting this process, but cannot be seen either as a panacea or an end in itself.

Five pathways to change

The report offers a roadmap for transformation, organised into five thematic areas:
1. Structural reform and policy change
  Clarify career pathways for professional services staff, audit recruitment practices, embed accountability into EDI policies and ensure progression routes are transparent – such as providing an understanding of ‘typical’ career histories for leadership roles.
2. Representation and inclusion
  Increase diversity at senior levels through targeted development and sponsorship. Avoid tokenism by ensuring ethnically minoritised staff have meaningful influence, not just visibility. This could include clearer succession planning.
3. Development, support, and research
  Invest in mentoring, coaching, and executive development programmes tailored to professional services. This reflects both formal support staff networks and more informal collectives, alongside committing to longitudinal research to track progress. For example, creating an informal network of colleagues across the sector.
4. Cultural change and co-creation
  Move beyond compliance-driven EDI to authentic engagement. Challenge assumptions about professionalism and leadership, and co-create inclusive cultures with staff. This could mean redefining what institutions view as ‘professional(ism)’.
5. Sector-level collaboration and accountability
  Coordinate efforts across professional bodies, share best practice, and ensure transparent reporting. Diversity must be a collective responsibility, and could include sector-wide knowledge exchange, clear metrics and outcomes.
From awareness to action

The report calls for dismantling what research team member Rhianna Garrett describes as ‘the architecture of whiteness’, which underpins institutional norms. This means rethinking recruitment, valuing professional services as integral to university success, and creating spaces where ethnically minoritised staff can thrive without compromising their identity.

As one focus group participant put it:

We recognise there is an issue, but I don’t think we really understand what to do about it – and a big part of that is because things are so white.

For AHUA, and other sector professional service organisations, this report is a call for the sector to deliver systemic, sustained change. The question is not whether higher education can afford to prioritise diversity in professional services leadership; it is whether it can afford not to. It informs our next steps in a Theory of Change workshop to identify meaningful actions moving forward.

As Dr Andrew Young, Chief Operating Office, The London School of Economics and Political Science, and AHUA project sponsor states:

The evidence in this report should make all of us in higher education uncomfortable. Change will only happen when we stop celebrating statements of intent and start measuring outcomes.
Source link
December 5, 2025
More Barriers on the Horizon for International Students

The potential policy changes could give international students another hoop to jump through, further burdening consulates and embassies.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | tarras79/iStock/Getty Images

The Trump administration is planning to limit how long international students can remain in the U.S., likely mirroring a plan proposed at the end of Trump’s first term with the same name, advocacy groups and immigration attorneys say.

The regulations are expected to replace “duration of status,” a 1991 rule that allows international students to remain in the country as long as they are enrolled at a college or university. In 2020, the administration proposed limiting that time to just four years—a period shorter than most Ph.D. programs and shorter than the average student takes to complete a bachelor’s degree—though it would have allowed students to apply for extensions. Students from certain countries, including those the administration said were state sponsors of terrorism and those with high overstay rates, would have been afforded just two years.

That rule was withdrawn after President Joe Biden entered office. But the Trump administration is poised to propose it once again, based on a submission to the Office of Management and Budget. The Department of Homeland Security has yet to release details about the potential change, but a pending rule change with the same name as the 2020 proposal was sent to OMB in late June and approved Aug. 7. However, according to OMB’s website, the rule is now under review once again for unknown reasons. Neither OMB nor DHS responded to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment. Until OMB signs off, DHS can’t publicly release the plan and take public comments.

The anticipated proposal comes amid the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on international students, which included the sudden and unexplained terminations of students’ records in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System, the database that tracks international students, in March and April. The administration has also taken steps to make it more difficult for prospective students to receive F-1 visas, including reviewing all applicants’ social media profiles.

Incoming international students, meanwhile, are struggling with long delays for visa interviews as a result of federal layoffs and a pause in student visa appointments this spring, leading to concerns that international enrollment could drop this fall semester. Changing duration of status, advocates say, would only gum up the works even more, giving international students another hoop to jump through and further burdening consulates and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

“This is not just one particular proposed rule or change in policy; it fits within a number of policy changes that we’ve experienced throughout the past eight months that the administration has been in control,” said Jill Allen Murray, deputy executive director for public policy at NAFSA, the association for international education professionals. “Many of those interact with each other and make it much more difficult for international students to take the steps that are necessary to come to the United States and study, and this would be yet another challenge for students.”

A ‘Regulated Population’

Why is the administration looking to eliminate duration of stay? If its reasoning is the same as in 2020, it is aiming to reduce fraud and visa overstays.

International students are indeed one of very few nonimmigrant categories allowed to stay in the U.S. indefinitely, giving them special flexibility so they can finish their studies. But Samira Pardanani, associate vice president of international education and global engagement at Shoreline College, argued that doesn’t mean there’s any reason to believe duration of status leads students to be more likely to overstay.

“This is a very, very regulated population … there’s a lot of follow-up schools do with regards to helping students maintain their status, and there are a lot of record-keeping and reporting requirements for schools,” Pardanani said. “Duration of status is something that has been, in my opinion, working well.”

Murray also noted that the F-1 visa overstay rate reported by the government is not necessarily reliable, by DHS’s own admission.

Another policy aimed at streamlining the visa process for nonimmigrant visitors, including international students, is also on the chopping block. On Sept. 2, the Trump administration will end interview waivers for many nonimmigrant groups, including international students. Those waivers, which started during the COVID-19 pandemic, allow certain individuals whose visas have expired but who have maintained their lawful nonimmigrant status to renew their visas without an in-person consular interview.

The duration of a visa depends on the country and can range from a few months to several years. Thanks to interview waivers, an international Ph.D. student whose visa had expired could visit home in the summer, easily renew their visa without an in-person appointment and return the next semester without issue. But now, they would have to return to the consulate in their country even for a routine visa renewal.

Pardanani said she did not think the elimination of interview waivers was inherently problematic, but “right now, when there’s already a lot of visa backlogs and students are not getting visa appointments … it’s going to have a deeper impact in students and on universities and colleges.”

Source link

August 20, 2025
NCCU Receives $500K Grant to Study Career Barriers Facing Young Men in Research Triangle

NDr. Tryan McMickensorth Carolina Central University has received a $500,000 grant from the Walton Family Foundation to launch a research initiative addressing the systemic barriers that prevent young men in the Research Triangle region from accessing career pathways and educational opportunities.

The two-year study, titled “Understanding Education as a Career Choice for NC Research Triangle Youth,” will focus on what researchers term “opportunity youth” – young men between ages 18 and 24 who have become disconnected from both education and employment systems. Despite broader national gains in educational access, this demographic continues to face significant obstacles that contribute to high dropout rates and limited postsecondary success.

Dr. Tryan McMickens, professor of higher education and coordinator of NCCU’s higher education administration program, will lead the initiative alongside Dr. Jim Harper II, professor of history and associate dean of the School of Graduate Studies. Their research team will include faculty members, six graduate students from the higher education administration and history programs, and a dedicated project manager. Dr. Jim Harper II

“I am thrilled that the Walton Foundation has chosen to invest in NCCU faculty to advance research on postsecondary attainment among boys and young men,” said Dr. Ontario Wooden, NCCU provost and vice chancellor for academic affairs. “This support highlights the importance of this critical area and empowers our faculty to deliver meaningful, evidence-based results. I eagerly anticipate the insights and impact this work will bring.”

The research aims to move beyond simply identifying problems to developing concrete solutions through research-based interventions, community engagement, and policy recommendations. The project will culminate in a two-day conference planned for 2026, where findings and potential interventions will be shared with stakeholders across the region.

McMickens brings extensive expertise in higher education access and the experiences of Black male students to the project. His research centers on college mental health and historically Black colleges and universities, and he authored Black Male College Students’ Mental Health: Providing Holistic Support in Higher Education. Harper’s scholarship focuses on African and African American education and innovative uses of technology for public engagement with history. He co-authored With Faith in God and Heart in Mind: A History of Omega Psi Phi Fraternity, Inc.

The Research Triangle region, encompassing Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill, represents one of the nation’s most concentrated areas of higher education institutions and technology companies. However, the economic opportunities created by this educational and technological hub have not been equally accessible to all young people in the region, particularly young men from underserved communities.

The Walton Family Foundation, established by descendants of Walmart founders Sam and Helen Walton, focuses its philanthropic efforts on three primary areas: improving K-12 education, protecting rivers and oceans along with their communities, and investing in Northwest Arkansas and the Arkansas-Mississippi Delta. The foundation also supports projects reflecting individual family members’ personal interests.

The timing of this research initiative comes as higher education institutions nationwide are examining their role in addressing broader social and economic inequities, particularly those affecting young men of color who face disproportionate barriers to educational and career advancement.

Source link

July 30, 2025
First-Year Registration Barriers Impact Student Success

An estimated 57 percent of college students cannot complete their degree on time because their institution does not offer required courses during days and times—or in a format, such as online—that meet their needs, according to data from Ad Astra.

A recently published study from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that female students are more likely than their male peers to be shut out of a college course, which can have long-term implications for their success and outcomes.

The findings point to the role course shutouts can play in students’ major and career choices, with those unable to enroll in science, engineering, math or technology courses in their first term less likely to attempt a STEM course at any point during college.

The background: A common way for colleges to navigate budget cuts is to reduce course offerings or academic majors. But that can increase the number of students who are unable to enroll in, or find themselves shut out of, courses they want to take. Students at community colleges in particular are less likely to remain enrolled if they face a shutout, choosing instead to take zero credits that term or to transfer.

Federal funding cuts by the Trump administration have ramped up some institutions’ existing budget woes, requiring them to reduce program offerings. Some groups have advocated for minimizing costs via course sharing, which allows students to meet requirements and earn credits for their home institution while enrolling in a shared online course.

Methodology: The research, authored by faculty from Purdue and Brigham Young Universities, analyzed registration processes at Purdue in fall 2018, when first-year students were enrolled using a batch algorithm. Researchers considered a student shut out of a course in their first year if their primary request was not met or the student enrolled in a different, secondary course instead.

The data: Among the 7,646 first-year students studied, only 49 percent received their preferred schedule, meaning 51 percent were shut out from at least one of their top six requested courses. Eight percent of shutouts made it into their course eventually, according to the report.

Of the 241 courses that were oversubscribed, required English and communications courses were most likely to shut students out; the other overbooked courses represented a variety of subject areas.

The effects of a student not taking a preferred course in the first term were seen throughout their academic career. First-year students who were initially shut out from a course were 35 percentage points less likely to complete the course while enrolled and 25 percentage points less likely to ever enroll in a course in the same subject.

While a student’s first-term GPA was not impacted by the shutout, by senior year, students had a GPA two hundredths of a point lower compared to their peers who enrolled in their preferred classes. The study also found that each course shutout led to a 3 percent decrease in the probability of a student graduating within four years, which is economically meaningful but statistically insignificant.

Registration barriers also made it less likely that students would choose STEM majors, which researchers theorize could be due to a lack of substitution options to meet major prerequisites. Each shutout a student faced in a STEM course decreased the probability that a student majored in STEM by 20 percent.

The impact was especially striking for female students. For each course a female student was unable to enroll in during her first year, her first-semester credits dropped by 0.4, cumulative GPA by 0.05 and the probability of her majoring in a STEM field by 2.9 percentage points. The long-term effects extended into life after college: A shutout female student’s probability of graduating within four years dropped 7.5 percent and had an expected cost of approximately $1,500 in forgone wages and $800 in tuition and housing costs.

“In contrast, for male students, shutouts do not have a significant effect on credits earned, cumulative GPA, choosing a STEM major or on-time graduation,” researchers wrote.

Male students who didn’t get into their top-choice courses first semester were more likely to switch to a major in the business school and have a higher starting salary as well. “At this university, men are 19 percent more likely than women to major in business and this entire gender gap can be explained by course shutouts,” researchers wrote.

Researchers therefore believe finding ways to reduce course shutouts, particularly in STEM courses, can improve outcomes for women and others to widen the path to high-return majors.

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

Source link

June 25, 2025
Removing Credit Transfer Barriers Key to Improving Higher Ed Completion Rates

Dr. Andrew J. SeligsohnHigher education in the United States has come under increasing scrutiny — but not always for the right reasons. Critics claim that colleges and universities award degrees with little economic value, limit ideological expression on campus, and operate primarily for their own financial interests, rather than as institutions of shared public value. While much in this narrative is false, it nonetheless affects the public’s attitude toward higher education and individuals’ decisions about pursuing a postsecondary degree, which may be detrimental to their economic interest.

When these critiques are made in bad faith, we should counter them with facts about the value of college attainment. It remains true for example, that a college degree is likely to yield a significant boost in earnings. Nonetheless, anyone who cares about higher education must also ask why these arguments resonate so deeply with the public. Where real frustrations are fueling legitimate skepticism, addressing those concerns can both improve higher education’s reputation and enhance its value for students, families, and society. Since the experiences that give rise to frustration and receptivity to attacks on higher education are personal experiences, it pays to drill down into the particulars to figure out what’s going on.

In that spirit, Public Agenda, in partnership with Sova and the Beyond Transfer Policy Advisory Board, set out to deepen our collective understanding of learner experiences with the credit transfer process. We knew from research on enrolled students that transfer was a source of pain for many learners. But we didn’t know how many people were affected, how much it mattered to them, and how it shaped their views of higher education more broadly. With support from ECMC Foundation, we fielded a national survey of adult Americans that interrogates transfer experience and outcomes.

Dr. Lara CouturierThe findings were striking, and they should serve as a call to action for institutions of higher education. Nearly 4 in 10 respondents reported that they had tried to transfer credit toward a college degree or credential. This included credits earned at a previous college or university, as well as credits earned from nontraditional sources. In fact, more than a third attempted to transfer credits earned from workplace training, military experience, industry certification, vocational or trade school, or other prior learning. With more households feeling the cost of inflation and needing to upskill to survive in this economy, and more higher education institutions facing enrollment declines, we should be finding ways to develop more on-ramps and clear the path to a college degree.

Unfortunately, the survey revealed that Americans who attempt to transfer encounter convoluted paths, often losing credit hours, money, and motivation along the way. One in five respondents reported having to repeat a class they had already taken because their credits didn’t transfer. Thirteen percent reported running out of financial aid as a result of having to repeat courses. And, most concerning, 16% reported that they gave up on pursuing a college degree or credential because the process of transferring was so difficult. It’s clear difficulties with transfer are not only inconveniences — they’re significant financial burdens and barriers to completion.

We also sought to understand how these direct experiences shape individuals’ broader attitudes toward higher education. We found it profoundly troubling that 74% of respondents who had tried to transfer credit agreed with the statement that two- and four-year higher education institutions care more about making money than about educating students. In fact, respondents who had tried to transfer credit were more likely to hold this jaded view than those who had attended college but had not transferred or those who had no prior experience with higher education. So while some of the current attacks on higher education may be in bad faith, it should not be surprising that they find a receptive audience among so many Americans who recall feeling personally misled.

We know, then, that credit transfer needs reform — but what exactly does that look like? Public Agenda also surveyed Americans about potential interventions, and the results are promising. First, when asked what should happen to a college with a track record of not accepting many credits for transfer, Americans felt public accountability would be more helpful than heavy-handed punitive approaches. Fifty-four percent of Democrats and 47% of Republicans agreed that institutions should have to make a plan to improve credit transfer rates. Conversely, just one-third of Republicans and Democrats thought colleges should lose their funding. But what might go into a plan for improvement? Our survey found broad support among Republicans, Democrats, and independents for a variety of policies intended to make it easier for students to transfer credits. Support is notably strong for requiring that students have free and easy access to their transcripts, credentials, and degrees; requiring institutions to create public databases with transfer information; and requiring that prospective transfer students are quickly told how many credits will be accepted.

The benefits of a better transfer process are clear and compelling. Students would face fewer obstacles to completing their degrees, leading to higher graduation rates, better individual economic outcomes, and broader prosperity. Just as importantly, higher education would rebuild trust with the public by showing that institutions are committed to serving students—not just collecting tuition dollars. And the benefits of this renewed trust extend beyond the higher education system. The perception that public institutions don’t care about ordinary Americans is a key element of the challenge our broader democracy is facing. Since the education system is a direct way many people interact with our government, restoring confidence that higher education works for all Americans can further inspire faith in public institutions.

If we ignore issues like the broken credit transfer system, skepticism about higher education will continue to fester. Worse, more students may give up on college altogether, missing out on opportunities for personal and professional growth—all of which ultimately erodes our democracy. Pushing back against misinformation isn’t the only way to defend higher education; we must acknowledge and address the real barriers students face. Credit transfer is an experience shared by many with cross-partisan support for reform—now is the time to act. Reforming the transfer process won’t solve every challenge facing higher education, but it’s a clear and necessary step toward improving the system for the good of both students and institutions themselves.

Dr. Andrew J. Seligsohn is president of Public Agenda, a national research-to-action organization. Dr. Lara Couturier is a partner at Sova, a higher ed advocacy organization.

Source link

June 20, 2025
Breaking Barriers: Dr. Charles Lee Isbell Jr. Brings Vision for Inclusive Excellence to Illinois

Dr. Charles Lee Isbell Jr.In a move that signals both continuity and transformation in higher education leadership, Dr. Charles Lee Isbell Jr. has been named the 11th chancellor of the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, bringing with him a distinguished record of academic innovation and an unwavering commitment to expanding access in STEM fields.

The appointment, announced by University of Illinois System President Tim Killeen, represents more than just a leadership transition. It marks the arrival of a scholar-administrator whose career has been defined by his efforts to democratize technology education and create pathways for underrepresented students in computing and artificial intelligence.

Isbell, currently serving as provost at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, will formally assume his new role on August 1. The 56-year-old computer scientist brings more than two decades of experience in higher education leadership to one of the nation’s premier public research institutions.

What sets Isbell apart in the landscape of academic leadership is his dual expertise in cutting-edge technology and social justice advocacy. As a Fellow of both the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence and the Association for Computing Machinery, his technical credentials are impeccable. Yet it’s his work as a nationally recognized advocate for broadening participation in STEM fields that may prove most transformative for Illinois.

“His efforts to create more inclusive academic pathways have influenced national conversations on the importance of making a way for all to access, contribute to and benefit from technology education,” the university noted in announcing his appointment, highlighting work that has garnered attention from major national publications.

This focus on inclusion comes at a critical time for higher education, as universities nationwide grapple with questions of access, affordability, and representation in rapidly evolving technological fields. Isbell’s approach has been to build bridges rather than barriers, recognizing that the future of computing depends on drawing talent from all corners of society.

Isbell’s innovative approach to education was perhaps most visible during his tenure at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where he spent 20 years climbing the academic ranks. As dean of the College of Computing, he helped transform the program into one of the largest and most diverse computing programs in the nation—a testament to his ability to scale inclusive excellence.

His most groundbreaking achievement at Georgia Tech was the launch of the university’s Online Master of Science in Computer Science program, the first of its kind offered at scale by a leading research university. The program broke new ground in making graduate-level computer science education accessible to students who might otherwise be excluded by geography, work schedules, or financial constraints.

This innovation in educational delivery demonstrates Isbell’s understanding that true accessibility requires not just opening doors but reimagining how those doors function. The success of the Georgia Tech program has since influenced online graduate education across the country, proving that rigorous academic standards and broad accessibility need not be mutually exclusive.

Killeen’s enthusiasm for Isbell’s appointment centers on his “clear, creative and inspiring vision for what public higher education can and should be.”

“He brings a deep understanding of not only technology and its fast-evolving, far-reaching impacts, but also the vast range of disciplines that are integral to any great university and our society,” Killeen noted, emphasizing Isbell’s appreciation for the interconnectedness of academic disciplines.

This interdisciplinary perspective may prove crucial as Illinois faces the challenges common to public research universities: maintaining excellence while expanding access, securing adequate funding while controlling costs, and preparing students for a rapidly changing economy while preserving the liberal arts traditions that create engaged citizens.

Isabell said that he is excited to take the helm of a university with more than 56,000 students and nearly 13,000 faculty and staff.

“It’s the honor of a lifetime to be appointed to the role of chancellor and I’m deeply grateful to President Killeen and the Board of Trustees,” Isbell said upon his appointment. “I’m energized by this chance to serve the citizens of Illinois and advance the mission of learning, discovery, engagement and economic development.”

Source link

June 5, 2025
With better coordination we can break down barriers to academic policy engagement

How can universities best support the UK’s research base to deliver better outcomes for people? This is becoming an ever more urgent challenge for our sector, in the context of a changing geopolitical landscape and the desire of the UK government for research and innovation to better serve the public good.

One route to deriving greater public benefit from academic research lies in research better connecting with and informing public policy development. Recent years have seen a growing number of universities establishing policy units – at least 46, at the last count, and almost certainly more now. There has also been increased investment in policy-focused activity from research funders, for example, Research England’s Policy Support Fund, UKRI policy fellowships, and ESRC investments to increase policymaker engagement with research. New mechanisms to strengthen evidence use, such as government areas of research interest and parliamentary thematic research leads, have been introduced, alongside an increased focus on building capacity for evidence use across sub-national government.

Through the Covid-19 pandemic, we saw the myriad ways in which research evidence informed policy to deliver benefits for people, whether understanding and treating the disease, informing the public health response, or mitigating the wider social impacts.

You can’t always get what you want

“Academic-policy engagement” is becoming increasingly mainstream, as part of universities’ wider knowledge exchange or civic engagement strategies. However, considerable barriers to engagement between academic researchers and policymakers remain. These include significant cultural differences, lack of incentives and investment, mismatched timescales and approaches, lack of access to academic research, and difficulties in parsing an ever-growing volume of information.

Policymakers often express a desire for a streamlined, “one stop” interface with academics to enable them to quickly and easily reach the right expertise at the right time. Given such barriers, this is much easier said than done.

Too often, where interaction does happen, it is short-term, ad hoc, dependent on individual contacts, and enabled through fixed-term funding rather than sustainable approaches. Many institutions lack both the capacity and the necessary capabilities to respond to policy needs.

There is no systematic mechanism for policymakers to engage with universities in order to identify and access the expertise they need, or for universities and researchers to identify policy needs, still less provide a coordinated response. This means that policymakers do not necessarily have access to the best evidence, only that which is most readily available.

What is now required is a serious focus on establishing a more systematic and sustainable approach. Such an approach requires organisational capacity and individual capability, alongside greater collaboration and coordination across the academic-policy ecosystem.

The policy connection cavalry is here

This is where the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) comes in. Established in 2018 UPEN is a voluntary network of over 120 universities, research centres, and policy organisations across the UK, currently hosted at UCL. Our university members comprise diverse institutions, from large, research-intensive to small, specialist institutions, across all parts of the UK. UPEN provides an interface between all areas of academic research and public policymaking, with strong relationships with the UK’s four national legislatures and 25 government departments and growing links with local and regional policymakers.

UPEN has until now been powered by the contributions of our members: both financial and, crucially, time. With a new funding award from Research England and ESRC, we now have the opportunity to build a national “connective infrastructure” which can respond to growing policy demand, at multiple levels of government, for academic expertise and evidence.

Enhancing UPEN’s ability to provide this interface will enable us as a sector to work in a more coordinated and efficient way. It will also foster greater diversity in academic-policy engagement by ensuring a greater breadth of evidence and voices are heard. And it will build on previous UKRI investments to underpin stronger collaboration and collective action to harness the full potential of the university research base.

Our new programmes of work will focus on three key areas. First, supporting universities to strengthen their academic engagement with public policy by enhancing individual and organisational capabilities. Second, strengthening place-based approaches to academic-policy engagement. Third, developing a national knowledge brokerage function to mobilise academic expertise to respond at the point of policy need.

The UK government is grappling with multiple complex and cross-cutting policy challenges – from bolstering a weak economy, to improving energy security and sustainability, to tackling problems with the health service, to addressing housing needs. It is time for us, as a sector, to better leverage the knowledge of universities to address these challenges in order to deliver better outcomes for citizens across the UK.

Source link

June 4, 2025