Tag: Education

  • In Defense of Distasteful Faculty Speech (opinion)

    In Defense of Distasteful Faculty Speech (opinion)

    Charlie Kirk at Utah Valley University on Sept. 10.

    Trent Nelson/The Salt Lake Tribune/Getty Images

    The assassination of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy that struck at the heart of American democracy. As the faculty adviser for Turning Point USA at Georgia College & State University, I took on that role despite significant ideological disagreements with the organization Kirk founded because I believe so fervently in the value of political discourse—even when that discourse makes us uncomfortable.

    Kirk and I disagreed on virtually every policy issue. His rhetoric often struck me as divisive, and his positions frequently ran counter to my own deeply held beliefs. Nevertheless, I advised the campus chapter of his organization because I passionately believe that universities must be places where competing ideas can clash, where students can hear from voices across the political spectrum and where the marketplace of ideas remains vibrant and open.

    The wave of faculty terminations sweeping across American institutions in response to Kirk’s death represents a dangerous moment for academic freedom and constitutional principles. Educators across the nation have been fired or suspended for social media posts that ranged from celebrating Kirk’s death to making pointed observations about the irony of his rhetoric regarding gun violence being an acceptable price to pay to maintain the Second Amendment. While these comments were often distasteful and insensitive, the rush to punish people for them reveals a troubling disregard for the First Amendment protections that should shield government employees—particularly university faculty—from exactly this kind of viewpoint-based retaliation.

    I’m not defending the wisdom or sensitivity of the statements made about Kirk by those being fired. In point of fact, I believe that most if not all were ill-timed, crude, callous and deeply hurtful to those mourning Kirk’s death. But constitutional principles protect speech that offends, disturbs and challenges our sensibilities.

    For example, in 1987, the Supreme Court decided Rankin v. McPherson in response to a government employee being fired after expressing hope that a potential future assassin would succeed in killing President Reagan. Even though this despicable comment was said in the immediate aftermath of an assassination attempt against the president, the court nevertheless held that it was protected speech. If such an extreme statement merits protection, surely the same is true for similar statements about Kirk in the wake of his assassination.

    The irony here is particularly acute. Conservative activists and politicians who claim to champion free speech principles are now leading coordinated campaigns to silence critics through organized pressure and doxing efforts. Meanwhile, university administrators—those who should be the staunchest defenders of academic freedom—are capitulating to political pressure rather than standing up for constitutional principles. The result is a chilling effect that extends far beyond these specific cases, sending a clear message to faculty everywhere that certain political viewpoints will no longer be tolerated.

    For public university professors like me, this represents an especially troubling erosion of academic freedom. The Supreme Court has long recognized that universities occupy a special place in our constitutional framework as centers of free inquiry and debate. The Pickering balancing test that governs government employee speech also typically weighs heavily in favor of faculty members discussing matters of public policy, precisely because such discourse is central to the university’s educational mission.

    We’re witnessing universities abandon their constitutional obligations to appease a political pressure campaign, one often led by Republican members of government. Universities and school districts are making hasty decisions based on social media pressure rather than carefully considering their legal duties and educational responsibilities. This institutional cowardice not only violates the constitutional rights of individual employees but also undermines the very principles that make American higher education a global leader in research and innovation.

    The legal precedent here is clear, and many of these terminations will likely be reversed through costly litigation. Even so, the damage to academic freedom and democratic discourse has already been done. The message being sent is that political speech—even on matters of clear public concern—can be punished if it offends the right people with sufficient political power.

    This is precisely the moment when our institutions must demonstrate courage in defending constitutional principles. University presidents, school board members and other educational leaders must resist the pressure to sacrifice employees on the altar of political expedience. They must remember that their obligation is not to popular opinion or political movements, but to the Constitution and the principles of free inquiry that make education possible.

    The death of Charlie Kirk was a senseless tragedy that robbed America of a young voice in our political discourse. But if we allow that tragedy to justify the systematic erosion of free speech protections, we will have compounded the damage immeasurably. The best way to honor Kirk’s memory is not through ideological purges, but by recommitting ourselves to the principles of free expression and open debate that he claimed to champion.

    Nicholas Creel is an associate professor of business law at Georgia College & State University and the faculty adviser to the campus chapter of Turning Point USA.

    Source link

  • MacKenzie Scott Donates $70M to UNCF

    MacKenzie Scott Donates $70M to UNCF

    Philanthropist MacKenzie Scott donated $70 million to the United Negro College Fund last week. The funds will be distributed to private historically Black colleges and universities that are UNCF members.

    The $70 million will be spread across 37 member institutions.

    Scott’s donation contributes to UNCF’s goal of raising $370 million (as part of a larger $1 billion capital campaign) for a pooled endowment to be split across its membership. UNCF plans to distribute $5 million to each member and work with universities to raise matching funds, in the hopes of “creating a $10 million stake per institution,” with annual distributions of 4 percent.

    “This extraordinary gift is a powerful vote of confidence in HBCUs and in the work of UNCF,” said Michael L. Lomax, president and CEO of UNCF, in a news release announcing the donation last week. “It provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity for our member institutions to build permanent assets that will support students and campuses for decades to come.”

    Scott’s donation follows a $10 million gift to UNCF in 2020. Scott, the ex-wife of Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, also donated heavily to HBCUs and tribal colleges in 2020, giving away tens of millions of dollars to individual institutions, many of which have historically been underfunded.

    Source link

  • Majority of California Community College Students Lack Basic Needs

    Majority of California Community College Students Lack Basic Needs

    Two in three community college students in California lack reliable access to food or housing, according to a new study.

    The 2025 Real College CA Student Survey, led by the Community College League of California, found that 46 percent of students are food insecure and 58 percent are housing insecure, which is higher than national estimates: The most recent study from the Hope Center at Temple University found that 41 percent of all college students are food insecure and 48 percent indicated housing insecurity.

    Community college students in California reported slightly lower rates of basic needs insecurity in this survey than in 2023, but the number of students needing help remains high.

    “It is important to highlight when trends are moving in the right direction, but also that there’s still a lot of work to do,” Katie Brohawn, director of research, evaluation and development at the Research and Planning Group for California Community Colleges, said in a Sept. 24 webinar.

    Methodology

    Over 76,000 community college students responded to the survey, 3,300 of whom completed it in Spanish. The respondents represented 102 of the 116 institutions in the California Community College system.

    The background: For many community college students, financial and mental health concerns can be among the top barriers to completion.

    “Before students can thrive academically, their basic needs must be met,” said Tammeil Gilkerson, chancellor of the Peralta Community College District in Oakland, during the webinar.

    A fall 2023 study from EdSights found that students at public two-year institutions report the highest levels of financial distress, even though those are among the most affordable institutions across sectors.

    One recent study from the Annenberg Institute at Brown University found that nearly 41 percent of community college students experienced food insecurity and 60 percent reported housing insecurity.

    Compared to their four-year peers, community college students are also more likely to be from low-income families, racially minoritized, first-generation, immigrant and adult learners. Each of these groups faces unique challenges in their persistence and retention in higher education.

    The previous Real College CA survey, administered in 2023, helped college leaders and others in the state identify the role basic needs insecurity plays in students’ academic progress and overall success, particularly as the state was recovering from the COVID-19 pandemic, Gilkerson said.

    “While we are no longer in the height of the pandemic, its ripple effects remain and they collide with record housing costs, persistent inflation in food and basic goods, and continued debates about the role of higher education, equity and access in our society,” Gilkerson said.

    The data: The latest survey found that only 38 percent of students had high food security, while 46 percent had low or very low food security. The most common concerns students identified were worrying about food running out before they can afford to purchase more (52 percent) or being unable to afford balanced meals (49 percent).

    Nearly three in five students said they experienced some level of housing insecurity, and one in five reported being homeless in the past 12 months. While only 8 percent of respondents self-identified as homeless, more said they were couch-surfing (16 percent) or staying at a hotel or motel without a permanent home to return to (6 percent).

    Basic needs insecurity also varied by region and institution across the state, with the highest reported rates of food and housing insecurity at 70 percent and 78 percent, respectively. The report did not identify which colleges had the highest and lowest rates of basic need insecurity.

    Basic needs insecurities disproportionately impact African American and Black students as well as American Indian or Alaska Native students, compared to their peers. Older students (ages 26 to 30), LGBTQ+ students, independent students, Pell Grant recipients, single parents, former foster youth and those with a history of incarceration were also more likely to indicate food or housing insecurity.

    The data also points to a correlation between students’ grades and their rates of basic needs insecurity. While students at all levels had some degree of food or housing insecurity, those earning grades lower than B’s were much more likely to indicate they lacked essential resources.

    “If we really are dedicated to improving the academic success of students in our colleges, it’s the basic means that we need to meet. Because if we don’t do that, it doesn’t matter how wonderful a student you are, you’re not going to be able to succeed at the rate that you would otherwise,” Brohawn said.

    Not every student is aware of or utilizing campus resources that could address these challenges; over one-third of respondents said they were unaware of basic needs supports at their college, and only 25 percent had accessed the Basic Needs Center. Among students who used resources, most did so to obtain food.

    Identifying solutions: Over the past five years, California has made strides to better support learners with basic needs insecurity, recognizing housing challenges as a significant barrier to student success.

    The state launched a rapid rehousing program to support learners at public institutions including the CCC, California State University and University of California systems. A 2022 bill began requiring colleges to stock discounted health supplies, such as toiletries and birth control, addressing students’ basic needs in a new way.

    A pilot program also provides cash to financially vulnerable students at California colleges, including those who were formerly incarcerated, former foster youth and parents.

    The report’s authors recommended providing targeted interventions for vulnerable populations and enhancing accessibility and awareness of supports, as well as advocating for systemic changes, such as increased funding for basic needs initiatives or policies that provide living wages and affordable housing for students.

    Source link

  • Students, Alumni Rally to Keep Cut Affinity Programs Alive

    Students, Alumni Rally to Keep Cut Affinity Programs Alive

    For years, Black students gathered at the University of Cincinnati’s African American Cultural and Resource Center for its traditions, including the Tyehimba Black Graduation Celebration and Akwaaba, a welcome event for new students, among other programs. This year, the AACRC, at least as it once existed, is gone. It’s been rebranded “the Cultural Center” after an Ohio law banned diversity, equity and inclusion activities at public colleges and universities in March.

    But Black students and alumni wouldn’t let the center’s traditions and resources die. Black seniors celebrated their graduations at an event held off campus. Freshmen gathered for Akwaaba, organized by students and funded by alumni, who created a foundation to sustain the AACRC’s programming. The United Black Student Association and other student groups have committed to putting on programs throughout the year that were previously handled by AACRC staff.

    “Regardless of these changes, there is no policy that can be written that can outlaw OUR spirit, OUR ability to mobilize, OUR right to congregate,” the United Black Student Association wrote on Instagram. “They cannot outlaw our ability to gather, to build, to resist, and to love. Our legacy is not theirs to give or take.”

    Amid an escalating anti-DEI movement, students, alumni and off-campus advocates are hustling to fill the gaps left by shuttered and rebranded identity centers, DEI offices and programs across the country. Students and outside organizations, like the Native Forward Scholars Fund, hosted their own affinity group graduations this year as campuses started to cancel such events. Three student clubs broke off from the University of Utah to avoid the state’s limits on public university programs, forgoing university funding. Some students and alumni involved in these efforts say they feel a renewed pressure and responsibility to provide the services colleges are shedding as institutions are caught in the crosshairs of state DEI bans and the Trump administration’s sweeping anti-DEI campaign.

    How do we make lemonade out of a lemon?”

    —Harlan Jackson, president of the Cincy Cultural Resource Center Foundation

    The Cincy Cultural Resource Center Foundation, the nonprofit founded to continue Black student programming at University of Cincinnati, was born out of that sense of duty among alumni. Some graduates involved in the effort spent years pushing for the creation of the African American Cultural and Resource Center and took pride in watching its programs expand and flourish.

    “We can’t just stand idly by and just allow something this negative and something this backward to happen at the university,” said Harlan Jackson, president of the foundation and former president of the United Black Association in the late 1980s. “I’m really proud of the diverse community that’s showing up and acknowledging that we’re going to take this on.”

    The foundation now has weekly meetings with Black student leaders to determine how best to support their needs, and alumni leaders plan to put three students on the foundation’s board. Students emphasized to alumni that continuing the center’s events and traditions is their top priority, so the foundation is funding these programs, with hopes to also fund student scholarships in the future.

    So far, alumni have raised “well over” the roughly $5,000 needed to run Akwaaba and parents’ weekend, with plans to raise half a million dollars within the academic year, said Byron Stallworth, the foundation’s secretary.

    Stallworth, who was president of the United Black Association in 1991 when the AACRC opened, said the idea of alumni and students taking the reins is catching on beyond University of Cincinnati as well—three University of Cincinnati alumni, parents of students at other colleges and universities, have asked him questions about how they could start similar efforts to sustain Black student life on their children’s campuses.

    “This is a universal problem,” he said, and alumni elsewhere “are aware of what we’re doing.”

    Jackson noted that while the rebranding of the AACRC hits close to home, programs and centers dedicated to supports for women and LGBTQ+ students have also suffered cuts because of the Ohio anti-DEI legislation.

    He hopes other Ohioans “can look to this model, and we can determine … How do we connect? How do we share? How do we learn? How do we build bridges and partnerships to continue to support the young people developing themselves in the state of Ohio?” he said. “That’s what it’s all about.”

    Pressures New and Old

    Even with such support, students fighting to keep programs alive without university backing hasn’t necessarily been easy.

    Isaac Makanda, co-head of the juvenile justice and political action committee for University of Cincinnati’s NAACP chapter, said students and alumni can’t completely make up for the loss of the African American Cultural and Resource Center. He described running into a Black first-year on campus who didn’t know about Akwaaba or other events happening for Black students on campus. He believes that’s because the new students are without a hub.

    When Makanda was a freshman, the AACRC sent out emails telling incoming Black students about events and programs, he said. This student “had no idea about any of these things that were going on because those resources were taken away from him.”

    Some student groups have also had to hustle for funding to keep their events running. The Pacific Islander Student Association, which cut ties with the University of Utah alongside the Black Student Union, lost its student group funding in the separation. PISA used to receive at least $5,000 annually from the university, so that loss was a “major hit,” said Mayette Pahulu, vice president of the group.

    But she and other student leaders felt it was worth it to have full control over their programming after Utah’s anti-DEI bill became law last year. They didn’t want to be limited by the new strictures on public universities, “whether that be talking about certain subjects, encouraging our members to have their own rights … to host socials that are specific to our heritage, cultures and ethnicities,” Pahulu said. “We would rather lose the funding than our members lose a safe space.”

    Now the group raises its own money. PISA student leaders have an ongoing GoFundMe campaign and seek out sponsors for event costs, including the nominal fees required for outside groups to host programs on campuses.

    We would rather lose the funding than our members lose a safe space.”

    —Mayette Pahulu, vice president of the Pacific Islander Student Association at the University of Utah

    Pahulu said the students’ new responsibilities have pros and cons. On one hand, she and other student leaders find themselves pushing hard, with less support, to engage students who are feeling unwelcome on campus amid changes wrought by Utah’s anti-DEI legislation. On the other hand, she believes the new connections they’ve had to make with other student groups, community organizations and businesses to sustain their work could bode well for PISA’s future.

    “Even though we’ve taken kind of the short end of the stick, having to scramble around to find these organizations, we’ve honestly started to build a bigger community and network,” she said. “I think in the long run, it will benefit us … We’re working with representatives to get these supports put in place so that the longevity and the sustainability of our organizations can outlast—no matter how drastic the changes may be politically.”

    Jackson, the University of Cincinnati alum, said in a similar vein that he’s proud to see students and alumni making the best of the raw deal they’ve been given.

    As universities strip away programs at the behest of state lawmakers, “all they’ve done is put more burden on the students,” Harlan said. At the same time, “it gives them opportunity to network with the community, more opportunity to do planning and budgeting, more opportunity to lead in terms of putting together programs and executing programs.” The question is “How do we make lemonade out of a lemon?”

    Keisha Bross, director of race and justice at the NAACP, said student organizations—like Black student unions, NAACP chapters and the group of Black sororities and fraternities known as the Divine Nine—have always provided supports and programming for Black students in areas where universities have failed to do so. These groups “stepping in” to fill unmet needs is their “legacy,” she said. But she doesn’t believe the work students are doing, and have historically done, should allow universities to “get off easy” for cutting back programs dedicated to their success.

    “We cannot allow colleges to make these really traumatic decisions that are hurting student populations and their leadership, and then just say, ‘Oh well,’” Bross said. “We need to continue to hold universities accountable, because they have a responsibility to the students that they serve. Universities have and should be providing these resources to their students, 100 percent.”



    Source link

  • Head or Heart? How do applicants make decisions about higher education?  

    Head or Heart? How do applicants make decisions about higher education?  

    The blog was kindly authored by Jenny Shaw, Director of Higher Education External Engagement at Unite Students.  

    Thousands of new undergraduates are taking their first steps into higher education, but what has brought them there? Have they weighed up all the evidence, or have they followed their heart? The answer is, of course, much more complicated. 

    The Unite Students Applicant Index, in partnership with HEPI, has tracked the experiences of prospective students since 2022, and this year we asked applicants to tell us, in their own words, why they chose their first-choice higher education provider. An initial analysis seemed to hint at the Teaching Excellence Framework’s influence on international students, but a subsequent deep-dive using inductive coding found a more complex and sometimes surprising story that reveals applicants’ desires, concerns and ambitions. 

    Academic excellence 

    International applicants tended to use terms such as academic excellence, good quality teaching or that the provider was best or excellent for a specific field of study. Some expressed their admiration of academic staff: expert faculty; very excellent teaching team. A few Chinese students described their chosen provider as zhuānyè, translated as ‘professional’ but which also implies specialist expertise. 

    While a few UK students talk positively about teaching in general, for example great academics; good education, their comments more often refer to a specific course. Frequent comments such as top rated for my course or it’s good for psychology suggest that subject-level rankings hold more weight than overall teaching quality. 

    Additionally, about one in four international applicants, though a much smaller proportion of those from the UK, are primarily motivated by overall reputation or prestige. International applicants tend to cite the fame of their chosen university and its place in international or UK rankings. UK applicants tend to be less specific, for example good uni; its reputation and they sometimes use the Russell Group as a signal of high reputation. They also rely on word of mouth or their own perception: I’ve heard good things; It seemed the best.  

    Another common motivation for provider choice is linked to the course of study, independent of course quality. This theme includes the availability of specific or niche course, the structure or content of a course, or a provider that offers an appealing range of courses. For a few international applicants, the provider has been recommended to them for a specific subject discipline.  

    Location, location, location 

    UK applicants have similar motivations, but their choice is more likely to be contingent on location. This could take the form of having to choose the best option that is commutable: It has forensic psychology as a study choice and it isn’t too far from home; or the course being a co-equal motivator alongside the location: I like the course and the city. 

    Location more broadly is a major motivation for UK applicants both as a primary and a secondary factor. For some, this is driven by the need to find a provider that is within commuting distance. But the theme also includes the choice of a particular location among UK applicants that reflects their own priorities and lifestyle preferences. This is in line with the growing importance of independence as a motivator: elsewhere in the survey almost 3 in 10 cite becoming more independent as a top motivator for going into higher education. While location can be a motivator for international applicants it is much less common and can be linked to personal recommendations or links to family and friends. 

    A few applicants were motivated by the supportiveness of a provider. This included being diverse which we know from the Living Black at University report can be important to applicants from racially minoritised groups. Having good support for international students was also mentioned. A few spoke about mental health or disability support, or just the perception of the university and its staff being understanding or lovely. 

    Employability is a surprisingly rare motivator. While other survey questions show the importance of employability generally, it’s surprisingly absent as a reason to choose a specific provider. When cited, it usually relates to the university’s offer or services around employability skills. Only occasionally it relates to the university’s track record of graduate employment. 

    Vibe check 

    However, a more common theme is the nebulous ‘vibe’, a theme that covers a range of emotionally-driven motivations. This may be a particular aesthetic on campus, sense of good fit or a lifestyle preference, and is surprisingly popular as a primary factor as well as being a secondary consideration in combination with other motivations. You may recognise it as a factor in your own higher education choices – I certainly do. 

    When it comes to the vibe, international applicants have a greater tendency to reference culture and perceptions of reputation: It has a long history and some beautiful buildings; Because it suits my style and it one of the best universities; The building is full of cultural atmosphere. They also express less specific sentiments such as: Great atmosphere; Because it is my ideal university.  

    UK applicants are more likely to say the university feels like a good fit or a comfortable place: It had a very welcoming feel; It looks like somewhere I’d fit in. They also express reasons that are less specific: Quite lowkey; I like the vibe; It’s soooooo cute. This may be a reflection of the importance of belonging in the student experience, and the higher levels of anxiety about belonging found among UK applicants elsewhere in the survey. 

    However, the last word should go to the applicants, both UK and international, who simply loved their chosen provider.  

    “This was my first choice because it has always been my goal and dream.” 

    “I love it!” 

    For them, this was reason enough. 

    You can read more from the Applicant Index at this link. 

    Source link

  • The Wonkhe HE staff survey – how good is work in higher education?

    The Wonkhe HE staff survey – how good is work in higher education?

    As financial pressures continue to bear down on higher education institutions across the UK, there is a visible impact on higher education staff, as resources shrink, portfolios are rationalised, and redundancy programmes are implemented. These are definitively tough times for the sector and its people.

    One way this plays out is in the industrial relations landscape, with unions balloting for industrial action, as well as, on some specific issues, advancing joint work with employers.

    But there is a wider, arguably more nuanced, lens to bring to bear, about how the current circumstances are reshaping staff experiences of working in higher education, and what options are available to those with responsibility for leading and supporting higher education staff.

    When the Wonkhe team came up with the idea of running a national survey for higher education staff we knew from the outset that we would not be able to produce definitive statements about “the HE staff experience” derived from a representative sample of responses. There is no consensus over how you would define such a sample in any case.

    The best national dataset that exists is probably found in UCEA publications that combine institutional staff experience survey datasets at scale – one published in 2024 titled “What’s it really like to work in HE?” and one in May this year diving into some of the reported differences between academic and professional staff, “A tale of two perspectives: bridging the gap in HE EX.”

    Instead we wanted to, firstly, ask some of the questions that might not get asked in institutional staff surveys – things like, how staff feel about their institution’s capacity to handle change, or the relative importance of different potential motivating factors for working in HE, or, baldly, how institutional cost-cutting is affecting individuals. And secondly, as best we can, to draw out some insight that’s focused on supporting constructive conversations within institutions about sustaining the higher education community during challenging times.

    We’ll be reporting on three key areas:

    1. “Quality of work” – discussed further below
    2. Professional motivations, the relative importance of different motivators for our sample group, and the gap between the level of importance afforded key motivators and the extent to which respondents believe they actually get to experience these in their roles – DK has tackled that subject and you can read about his findings here
    3. Views on institutional change capability – coming soon!

    We’ve not covered absolutely everything in this tranche of reporting – partly because of time pressures, and partly because of format constraints. We have a fair bit of qualitative data to dive into, as well as the third area of investigation on institutional change capability all still to come – watch this space.

    The methodology and demographics bit

    We promoted the survey via our mailing list (around 60,000 subscribers) during July and August 2025, yielding a total of 4,757 responses. We asked a whole range of questions that we hoped could help us make meaningful comparisons within our sample – including on things like nationality, and type and location of institutions – but only some of those questions netted enough positive responses to allow us to compare two or more good-sized groups.

    Our working assumption is that if there was a group of around 500 or more who share a particular characteristic it is reasonable to compare their responses to the group of respondents who did not have that particular characteristic. We have conducted analysis of the following subgroups:

    • Career stage: Early career (n=686), mid career (n=1,304), and late career (n=2,703)
    • Those with an academic contract (n=1,110) and those with a non-academic contract (n=3,394) – excluding some other kinds of roles/contracts
    • Time in higher education: five years or fewer (n=908); 6-10 years (n=981); 11-20 years (n=1,517) and more than 20 years (n=1,333)
    • Working arrangements: on-site (n=988); working from home or remotely (n=475); and flexible/hybrid (n=3,268)
    • Leadership role: respondents who said they have formal management or leadership responsibility in their current role for projects, programmes, resources, or people (n=3,506), and those who did not (n=1,214)

    And we also looked at the following identity characteristics:

    • Gender: men (n=1,386) and women (n=3,271)
    • Sexuality: those who identified as gay, lesbian, bisexual or queer (n=654) and those who did not (n=4,093)
    • Ethnicity: those who identified as being of a minoritised ethnicity (n=247) and those who did not (n=4,444)
    • Disability: those who identified as being disabled (n=478) and those who did not (n=4,269)

    In one case – that of respondents who identified as being of a minoritised ethnicity – our sample didn’t meet the threshold for wholly robust analysis, but we found some differences in reported experience, which we think is worth reporting given what we already know about this group of staff, and would caution that these findings should be viewed as indicative rather than definitive.

    In some cases we have combined subgroups to make larger groups – for example we’ve grouped various academic roles together to compare with roles on other kinds of contracts. In others we’ve ignored some very small (usually n=3 and below) groups to make for a more readable chart; for this reason we don’t often show all responses. And although our response rates are high you don’t have to refine things much to get some pretty low numbers, so we’ve not looked at intersections between groups.

    We have reported where we found what we considered to be a meaningful difference in response – a minimum of four percentage points difference.

    The financial context

    88 per cent of respondents said their institution has taken material steps to reduce costs in the last 12 months, offering a background context for answers to the wider survey and the assurance that the thing we are looking at is definitely staff views against a backdrop of change.

    51.6 per cent said they personally had been negatively affected by cost reduction measures, while 41.9 per cent said the personal impact was neutral. This suggests that while cost reduction may be widely viewed as negative, that experience or the views that arise from it may not be universal.

    Of those that said they had been negatively affected we found no meaningful differences among our various comparator groups. Leaders and those later in their career, were as likely to report negative impacts as those without leadership responsibilities or earlier in their career, suggesting that there is little mileage in making assumptions about who is more likely to be negatively impacted – though of course we did not try to measure the scale of the impact, and we’re mindful we were talking to people who had not lost their jobs as a result of cost-saving measures.

    The one exception was between those on academic contracts, of whom nearly two third (65.3 per cent) reported negative impacts, and those on non-academic contracts, of whom the number reporting negative impact was closer to half (47.4 per cent). This difference gives important context for the wider findings, in which those on academic contracts are consistently more likely to offer a negative perspective than those on non-academic contracts across a range of questions. This tallies to some degree with the national picture explored in UCEA’s “Bridging the gap” report in which academics were more likely to report challenges with workload, work-life balance, and reward and recognition, than professional staff – though higher levels of work satisfaction.

    Regretting and recommending HE

    We asked whether, taking into account what is known about other available career paths, whether respondents feel that choosing to work in HE was the right decision for them – two thirds said yes (66.9 per cent) while 23.8 per cent were unsure. Only 9 per cent said no.

    Those approaching the end of their career were more likely to agree (74.3 per cent) compared to those mid-career (65 per cent) or early career (61.2 per cent). Those with leadership responsibilities were also slightly more likely to agree, at 68.2 per cent, compared to 62.3 per cent for those without leadership responsibilities.

    Those on academic contracts were slightly less likely to agree, at 60.8 per cent compared to 68.9 per cent for those on non-academic contracts.

    However, the real divide opens up when we looked at responses to our follow up question: whether respondents would recommend a career in higher education to someone they cared about who was seeking their advice. A much smaller proportion of our sample agreed they would recommend a career in HE (42.2 per cent), with much higher rates of “unsure” (32.1 per cent) and “no” (24.5 per cent) – most likely reflecting the impact of current challenges as compared to people’s longer-term lived experience.

    For the recommend question, the career-stage trend reverses, with those approaching the end of their careers less likely to say they would recommend a career in HE (39.2 per cent) compared to 41.6 per cent for those mid-career and 50.4 per cent for early career respondents.

    There was a substantial difference by role: only 25.7 per cent of those on academic contracts would recommend a career in HE, compared to 46.9 per cent of those on non-academic contracts.

    We did not find any differences by gender, ethnicity, disability, or sexuality on either confidence in the decision to work in HE or willingness to recommend it as a career.

    Quality of work

    One of the great things about higher education as an employment sector is that there are lots of ways to be employed in it and lots of different types of jobs. What one person values about their role might be quite different from what another person appreciates – and the same for the perceived downsides of any given role.

    So rather than trying to drill down into people’s reported experiences based on our own probably biased views about what “good work” looks and feels like, we turned to the idea of “quality of work” as a guiding framework to look at respondents’ experiences and perceptions. We asked 16 questions in total derived from this 2018 Carnegie UK-RSA initiative on measuring job quality in the UK which proposes seven distinct dimensions of work quality, including pay and conditions, safety and wellbeing, job design, social support, voice, and work-life balance.

    We also kept in mind that, while support, safety and wellbeing at work are foundational conditions for success, so is effective performance management and the opportunity to apply your skills. In the spirit of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs we clustered our questions broadly into four areas: safety, security, and pay/conditions; the balance between support and challenge; relationships with colleagues; and “self-actualisation” incorporating things like autonomy and meaningfulness.

    For each question, respondents were offered a choice of Strongly disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly agree. Here we report overall levels of agreement (ie Agree and Strongly Agree)

    You can see the full findings for all our comparator groups in the visualisation below.

    [Full screen]

    Headlines on quality of work and interaction with willingness to recommend

    You can see all the workings out below where I’ve gone through the results line by line and reported all the variations we could see, but the TL;DR version is that the quality dimensions that jump out as being experienced comparatively positively are physical safety, good working relationships with colleagues, and meaningfulness of work. Two key areas that emerge as being experienced comparatively negatively are feeling the organisation takes your wellbeing seriously, and opportunities for progression – the level of agreement is startlingly low for the latter.

    We compared the various quality dimensions against whether people would recommend a career in higher education for the whole sample and found that across every question there was a direct correlation between a positive response and likelihood to recommend a career in HE – and the inverse for negative responses. We think that means we’re asking meaningful questions – though we’ve not been able to build a regression model to test which quality questions are making the largest contribution to the recommend question (which makes us sad).

    [Full screen]

    Going through the various comparator groups for the quality of work questions we find that there are three core “at risk” groups – one of which is respondents of a minorised ethnicity, which comes with caveats regarding sample size. Another is those on academic contracts, and the third is disabled respondents. These groups did not consistently respond more negatively to every question on quality of work, but we did find enough differentiation to make it worth raising a flag.

    So to try to see whether we could find some core drivers for these “at risk” groups, we plotted the response to the “recommend” question against the responses to the quality questions just for these groups. At this point the samples for disabled and minoritised ethnic responses become just too small to draw conclusions – for example, under 100 respondents who identified as being of a minoritised ethnicity said they would not recommend a career in HE.

    However, over 400 of those on academic contracts said they would not recommend a career in HE, so we compared the answers of that group to those of respondents on non-academic contracts who also would not recommend a career in HE (just shy of 700 respondents). Interestingly for a number of the quality questions there was no differentiation in response between the groups, but there was noticeable difference for “reasonable level of control over work-life balance”, “able to access support with my work when I need it”, and “opportunities to share my opinion” – in the sense that among the group that would not recommend HE the academic cohort were more likely to give negative responses to these questions, giving a modest indication of possible priority areas for intervention.

    We also found that those who had worked in higher education for five years or fewer were frequently more likely to report agreement with our various propositions about quality work. While there’s clearly some overlap with those early in their career they are not entirely the same group – some may have entered HE from other sectors or industries – though early career respondents do also seem to emerge as having a slightly more positive view as well, including on areas like emotional safety, and wellbeing.

    Safety, security and pay and conditions

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • I feel reasonably secure in my job
    • I am satisfied with the pay and any additional benefits I receive
    • I feel physically safe at work
    • I feel emotionally safe at work

    On job security, overall two thirds (66.3 per cent) of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that they feel reasonably secure in their job. Those on academic contracts reported lower levels of agreement (57.8 per cent). Those who said they had been employed in higher education for five years or fewer reported higher levels of agreement (71.4 per cent). Respondents who identified as disabled reported slightly lower levels of agreement (61.9 per cent).

    On satisfaction with pay, conditions and additional benefits, overall 63.8 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied. Those on academic contracts reported lower levels of agreement (56.3 per cent). Those who identified as having a minoritised ethnicity had the lowest levels of agreement of all our various comparators (53.1 per cent), and were twice as likely to strongly disagree that they were satisfied with pay and benefits than those from non-minoritised ethnicities (15.2 per cent compared to 7.9 per cent). Those who identified as disabled had lower levels of agreement (54.6 per cent agreement) compared to those who did not consider themselves disabled (64.9 per cent agreement)

    On physical safety, the vast majority of respondents (95.8 per cent) agreed or strongly agreed they feel physically safe at work with very little variation across our comparator groups. While the overall agreement was similar between men and women, notably men were more likely to register strong agreement (66.3 per cent) than women (51.9 per cent).

    On emotional safety the picture is more varied. Overall 72 per cent agreed or strongly agreed they feel emotionally safe at work. Those who reported being earlier in their career reported higher levels of agreement (78.6 per cent), as did those who reported having worked in the HE sector for five years or fewer (78.6 per cent). Those with academic contracts reported lower levels of agreement (61.62). Those who identified as having a minoritised ethnicity had lower levels of agreement (62.7 per cent) and were more than twice as likely to strongly disagree they feel emotionally safe at work than those who are not minoritised (14.2 per cent compared to 6.1 per cent).

    Balance, challenge, and performance

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • The work I do makes appropriate use of my skills and knowledge
    • I have a reasonable level of control over my work-life balance
    • My organisation demonstrates that it takes my wellbeing seriously
    • My organisation demonstrates that it takes my performance seriously

    On using skills and knowledge 79.2 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that their work makes appropriate use of their skills and knowledge. There was very little variation between comparator groups – the one group that showed a modest difference was those who reported being disabled, whose agreement levels were slightly lower at 75.3 per cent.

    On control over work-life balance, 80.7 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they have a “reasonable” level of control. Those who had worked in higher education for five years or fewer were more likely to agree (87.2 per cent). 86.5 per cent of those who work from home agreed, compared to 74.4 per cent of those who work on campus or onsite, and 81.7 per cent of those who have hybrid or flexible working arrangements. Those who reported having leadership responsibilities had lower levels of agreement (78.9 per cent) compared to those who did not (85.9 per cent).

    The biggest difference was between those on academic contracts (66 per cent agreement) and those on non-academic contracts (85.3 per cent agreement). There were also slightly lower scores for disabled respondents (74.7 per cent compared to 81.2 per cent for non-disabled respondents) and for minoritised ethnicities (76.6 per cent compared to 81 per cent for non-minoritised ethnicities).

    On wellbeing, 57.8 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that their organisation demonstrates that it takes their wellbeing seriously. This was higher for early-career respondents – 60 per cent agreement compared to 57.9 per cent for those in mid-career, and 55.5 per cent for those approaching the end of their career. Agreement was higher for those with five years or fewer in higher education at 68.4 per cent agreement, compared with 54.5 per cent for those with more than 20 years’ experience.

    Those on academic contracts were substantially less likely to agree with only 39.7 per cent agreement that their organisation demonstrates that it takes their wellbeing seriously. Disabled respondents were also much less likely to agree than non-disabled respondents, at 47.7 per cent and 59 per cent respectively. Those working from home reported slightly lower levels of agreement, at 52.6 per cent.

    On performance, 63.1 per cent of our sample reported that their organisation demonstrates that it takes their performance seriously. This was slightly higher for those who had five years or fewer in higher education, at 69.6 per cent. Again, there was a difference between those on academic contracts with 57.8 per cent agreement and those on non-academic contracts, with 64 per cent agreement. Disabled respondents were slightly less likely to agree (58 per cent agreement) than non-disabled (63.8 per cent agreement).

    Relationships with colleagues

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • I am able to access support with my work when I need it
    • I am given sufficient opportunities to share my opinion on matters that affect my work
    • For the most part I have a good working relationship with my colleagues
    • I generally trust that the people who work here are doing the right things

    On accessing support, 76.2 per cent of our sample agreed they are able to access support when they need it. There was higher agreement among those early in their career at 81.3 per cent, and similarly among those who had worked five years or fewer in HE, at 82.8 per cent. There was lower agreement among those on academic contracts: 62.3 per cent agreement versus 80.5 per cent for those on non-academic contracts. Those from a minoritised ethnicity had lower agreement at 70.6 per cent, as did disabled respondents at 67.4 per cent.

    On opportunities to share opinion, 70.4 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they were given sufficient opportunities to share their opinion on matters that affect their work. There was a small difference between those who held a leadership role and those who did not, at 71.9 per cent and 66 per cent agreement respectively. Again, those on academic contracts had lower levels of agreement, at 58.2 per cent compared to 73.9 per cent for those on non-academic contracts. Disabled staff also had lower agreement at 60.9 per cent.

    On working relationships, cheeringly, 96.1 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they have good working relationships with their colleagues. While this held true overall across all our comparator groups regardless of leadership roles, working location, personal characteristics or any other factor, notably those of a minoritised ethnicity strongly agreed at a lower rate than those who did not identity as being from a minoritised ethnicity (39.6 per cent strong agreement compared to 48.3 per cent).

    On trust, 70.8 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that they generally trust the people they work with are doing the right things. This was very slightly lower among those who work from home or remotely, at 65.9 per cent. Agreement was lower among those on an academic contract, at 61.6 per cent, compared to 73.4 per cent of those on a non-academic contract. Agreement was also lower among disabled respondents, at 63.8 per cent.

    “Self-actualisation”

    The four statements we proposed on this theme were:

    • My current job fits with my future career plans and aspirations
    • I am comfortable with the level of autonomy I have in my job
    • There are sufficient opportunities for progression from this job
    • The work I do in my job is meaningful

    On career plans, 76.1 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that their current job fits with their future career plans and aspirations. Those who said they work from home or remotely had slightly lower levels of agreement at 69.3 per cent. Those who said they do not have any kind of leadership role had slightly lower levels of agreement at 69.4 per cent.

    On autonomy, 82.5 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed they were comfortable with the level of autonomy they have in their job. Those with an academic contract had very slightly lower levels of agreement at 77.9, compared to 83.8 per cent agreement among those on non-academic contracts. Those of a minoritised ethnicity had lower levels of agreement at 73.9 per cent, as did disabled respondents, at 75.9 per cent agreement.

    On progression, a startling 29.5 per cent agreed or strongly agreed that there are sufficient opportunities for progression from their current position. There was a modest difference between those with leadership roles, 31.1 per cent of whom agreed, compared to 25 per cent of those without a leadership role. Those on academic contracts had higher levels of agreement at 38.5 per cent, compared to 26.8 per cent of those on non-academic contracts.

    On meaningful work, 86.1 per cent of our sample agreed or strongly agreed that the work they do in their job is meaningful. Those who work from home or remotely had very slightly lower levels of agreement at 77.9 per cent but otherwise this held true across all our comparator groups.

    Aspiration to lead and preparedness to lead

    We asked about whether respondents aspire to take on or further develop a leadership role in higher education, and if so, whether they are confident they know what a path to leadership in higher education involves in terms of support and professional development. These questions are particularly relevant given the generally negative view about opportunities to progress held by our survey respondents.

    [Full screen]

    Overall, 44.5 per cent of our sample said they aspire to take on or further develop a leadership role. Curiously, this was only slightly higher for those who already have some level of leadership responsibility, at 48.3 per cent. This can be explained to some degree by differentiation by career stage: 58.8 per cent of early career respondents aspired to take on or develop leadership roles, as did 50.9 per cent of mid-career respondents.

    Aspiration to lead was higher among those identifying as lesbian, gay, or bisexual at 52.6 per cent compared to 43.2 per cent for those who did not. Aspirations were also higher among respondents of a minoritised ethnicity, at 54.5 per cent, compared to 43.8 per cent among those not of a minoritised ethnicity.

    We also asked respondents whether they are confident they know what a path to leadership involves in terms of support and professional development, where we found some important variations. Confidence about pathways to leadership was lower among early career respondents, at 22.8 per cent agreement, and even mid-career respondents confidence was lower than the numbers reporting they aspire to leadership, at 36.6 per cent.

    While there was no difference in aspiration between respondents on academic contracts and those on non-academic contracts, those on academic contracts were more likely to say they are confident they know what a path to leadership involves, at 50.3 per cent compared to 34.8 per cent.

    While there was no difference in aspiration between men and women respondents, women were slightly less likely than men to report confidence in knowing about the path to leadership, at 37.5 per cent compared to 42 per cent. Those who identify as lesbian, gay or bisexual, those of a minoritised ethnicity, and disabled respondents were also slightly less likely than their comparator groups to express confidence, despite having expressed aspiration to lead at a higher rate.

    These findings around demographic difference suggest that there remains some work to be done to make leadership pathways visible and inclusive to all.

    We’ll be picking up the conversation about sustaining higher education community during tough times at The Festival of Higher Education in November. It’s not too late to get your ticket – find out more here.

    Source link

  • Exploring the motivation and satisfaction of higher education staff

    Exploring the motivation and satisfaction of higher education staff

    For all the criticisms leveled at the sector as a group of employers, the number of staff working in higher education keeps on growing.

    Understanding why they choose to work in higher education, what they value about their work, and how well the organisation they work for lives up to their expectations can help inform questions about what matters the most when resources are tight – pay and conditions are obviously important but people work in HE for a whole range of reasons, and not all of those expectations require resource to meet.

    In our summer staff survey we gathered nearly 5,000 responses on these topics from people who currently work in or around the sector. We don’t make any claims that this is a representative sample – we can’t say with certainty what the sector as a whole feels but comparing similar groups of staff (for example by contract type) with each other yields fascinating insights and points the way towards understanding this fundamental issue.

    For our motivation question bank we presented a range of possible motivations as follows:

    • Working in an organisation whose values I share
    • Opportunities for learning, development and professional growth
    • Working alongside and collaborating with like-minded colleagues
    • The generosity of the pay and benefits package
    • Having the autonomy to focus on the work that is important to me
    • Having a level of flexibility about where and when I work
    • My physical working environment and the resources I have access to within it
    • Receiving recognition for my hard work and contribution
    • Knowing the work I do makes a positive impact – on students, on the advancement of knowledge, on my community
    • Working in an organisation that I am confident is generally well run, and achieving its objectives
    • Having opportunities to engage in activities that enhance community connection eg networks, clubs and groups, volunteering, public lectures etc

    Then we asked people whether they felt each was an “important” motivation, and whether they were “happy” with their organisation’s performance against each one. A “yes” answer means that someone was happy, or agreed something was important.

    We’re not running any fancy statistics here, but our working assumption is that a difference of more than four percentage points between different groups is interesting and notable enough to report on. This would vary by the size of the groups in question.

    Two sectors?

    We don’t know for sure (it isn’t data that we collect via HESA for the population) but there’s as many professional and support services staff as there are academics. And the former are far more likely to have experience working outside higher education – from the responses to our staff survey we see that around 80 per cent of our professional and support staff had worked outside the sector, compared to 64 per cent of academics, though those numbers might be lower in both instances had we specifically excluded casual work such as temporary work while studying.

    The cliché of the unworldly professor in an ivory tower is clearly being left in the past – but the kinds of roles done by professional services staff are in demand right across the economy. On the face of it is far easier for them to find work elsewhere, and given the state of the sector, you’d assume this might be better paid.

    Given this, it was surprising to see that while 68.8 per cent of academic respondents cited pay and benefits packages as something that was important to them, nearly three quarters of professional and support staff found this area of the working experience important.

    In asking these kinds of questions you almost don’t expect people to say they are happy with their pay and benefits – so more than 40 per cent of our professional services respondents doing so is notable. After all, we hear enough from the various sector professional associations about the difficulty of recruiting and retaining skilled staff in a variety of key roles.

    [Full screen]

    Relative importance

    Of all the suggested motivations for working in higher education, only two were not selected as important by more than 80 per cent of respondents: pay and conditions (73.5 per cent) and having opportunities to engage in activities that enhance community connection (41.4 per cent) – the latter scoring significantly lower than every other suggestion.

    The three most important motivations selected were “knowing the work I do makes a positive impact” (87.5 per cent), “Working alongside and collaborating with like-minded colleagues” (86.9 per cent) and “Working in an organisation I am confident is generally well run” (84.5 per cent).

    Looking at the areas where there was the largest gap between those who said something was important to them and those that agreed they are happy with the extent they get to experience it in their working lives, by far the largest gap relates to confidence the organisation is run well and is achieving its objectives, only 31.7 per cent saying they are happy with this, a gap of 52.8 percentage points.

    The next highest gap relates to recognition: whereas 80.4 per cent of respondents said receiving recognition for their hard work and contribution was important, only 33.3 per cent said they were happy with this – a gap of 47.1 percentage points.

    The third highest gap was in opportunities for learning, development and professional growth: whereas 83 per cent of respondents said this was important, only 44.3 per cent said they were happy with this, a gap of 38.7 percentage points.

    Free as in freedom

    Academic respondents were far more likely to cite autonomy to focus on the work that is important to them as a key motivating factor (86.7 per cent), but the number is still high for other staff (79.6 per cent), whereas professional services staff (83.5 per cent) were slightly more likely than academics (79.9 per cent) to cite flexibility in when and where they work.

    Staff of all kinds are reasonably happy (c.65 per cent) with the levels of flexibility on offer. Clearly the experiences of Covid-19, and perhaps the drive for providers to rationalise estates – swapping offices for desks, or regular desks for hot desks – is also having an impact. You might expect that women would be more likely to value flexibility in working and you would be right – 84.8 per cent of women in our sample said this was important to them, compared to 76.5 per cent of men. However, similar proportions of men and women (around 65 per cent) reported being happy with the amount of flexibility on offer.

    In terms of autonomy – the ability that a member of staff has to focus on work that is important to them – a little under half of both academic and professional staff were happy with what was on offer. It is worth bearing in mind that autonomy is always limited in some way in any role; for example, marking and exam boards pretty much need to happen when they do.

    Value judgement

    Despite frequent accusations of cultural relativism, a strength of universities is their values. Intriguingly, 60 per cent of professional services staff by just 45 per cent of academics were happy with the way that this manifests – despite similar levels of importance (85.8 per cent for academics, 82.7 per cent for professional) being placed on sharing the values of the organisation one works for.

    If we think back to the idea that professional services staff would be more likely to work in other sectors, this does make sense. Values, and the sense of having a positive impact (86 per cent said this was important to them), are clearly going to be key motivations to work in a sector where perhaps pay and conditions don’t stack up.

    An amazing 90 per cent of academic staff said that knowing that the work they did has a positive impact (on students, the advancement of knowledge, and/or on their community) was important to them. But just 53 per cent of academics and of professional staff saw this in practice. To be fair, this was one of the best performing motivations in our survey – but it is interesting that staff are no longer seeing the good that higher education does, especially when it is becoming so important to make this case culturally and with the government.

    Recommend to others

    It’s easy to get disheartened when you think about the staffing needs of higher education providers and how they are met. Although academics are clamouring to work in the UK sector, it feels like the terms and conditions are worsening and newer staff – in particular – are getting a raw deal. With professional staff, the fact that many specialisms can get better paid work elsewhere has some wondering about the quality of the staff we are able to recruit.

    We asked all of our respondents whether they would recommend working in the sector to someone they cared about – and perhaps surprisingly three-quarters said “yes” or “maybe”. And there was very little difference between those making “yes”, “no”, or “maybe” on any of the motivation axes we discuss above (those who said “yes” were very marginally less likely to say pay and benefits were important to them).

    However those that were more likely to recommend the sector to others were significantly happier with every aspect we examined. In contrast more than 80 per cent of those who would not recommend working in the sector were not happy with the amount of recognition they got for their hard work and contribution, and more than 85 per cent felt that their organisation was not run well. Recommendation is generally considered a good proxy for job satisfaction, and this survey seems to bear that out.

    What people want to change

    We asked respondents to say more where they had identified a gap between something they consider to be important, but the degree to which they are happy with the extent they actually experience that.

    There were comments on workload and wellbeing, small-scale or systemic failures to offer recognition for achievement and, particularly from those in professional services, a desire for greater recognition, and development and/or progression opportunities. Some commented that the economic environment makes these asks more difficult.

    But in terms of messages for leaders there is a lot about communication and consultation – a sense that the people who work in the sector understand the financial problems the university faces but want to be told the truth about them and be constructive in helping to solve them.

    Clearer lines of communication and wider consultation on significant changes.

    Greater dialogue with leaders when major decisions are made which impact the way in which I can carry out my role and an opportunity to demonstrate my expertise to build trust in my decision making.

    Clear, transparent and timely sharing of strategy and the impact of the changes to come from the changes.

    Another challenge is on the perceived values driving strategy and tactics – there’s a sense that management decisions are perceived as being short term, and that it is financial expediency rather than an underlying (and shared) purpose that is informing decisions.

    There’s also commentary on issues around execution of strategy – the sense that while plans are spoken about they are not always put into practice or cascaded down the institution, or become snarled in bureaucracy.

    Greater consistency, both between faculties and also on strategic planning. At the moment there are so many different initiatives that, while we talk about working smarter, the opposite is actually the case.

    We need a clear strategy as to how we are going to get through the next couple of years which needs to be properly communicated. At the moment it feels like we are stuck in a vortex of chaos, with school level projects being put on hold whilst we wait for university level decisions, but the months go by and no meaningful direction or plan seems to be in place.

    Better delegation and direction from above, more collaboration across the institution as a whole but also with core departments where the work intercepts with others work, creating a network of colleagues in those core teams.

    A key takeaway is that the kind of organisational complexity in decision-making that has long been tolerated in higher education may not serve staff well when resources are stretched and bandwidth is low. Complexity may serve various legitimate organisational purposes but it can also cut staff off from understanding what’s happening, and what they personally need to do about it. It also creates a lack of consistency as multiple messages emerge from different quarters.

    But also, while we were specifically focused on areas for improvement, it’s worth adding that a good few comments gave a general thumbs up – their working environment was clearly motivating them in the right ways – and that shows that it can be done.

    The biggest risk of an exercise like this one is to suggest that where there is discontent or concern, that it is attributable to the wider environment, and not something that can be addressed or mitigated. While there’s clearly very little scope in most institutions to roll out shiny new initiatives, most comments suggest that some attention to hygiene factors – praise, involvement, honesty – could make a difference in sustaining staff motivation during these trying times.

    We’ll be picking up the conversation about sustaining higher education community during tough times at The Festival of Higher Education in November. It’s not too late to get your ticket – find out more here.

    Source link

  • Texas Tech System Ends Class Discussions of Trans Identity

    Texas Tech System Ends Class Discussions of Trans Identity

    The Texas Tech University System has ordered all faculty to refrain from classroom discussions of transgender identity, The Texas Tribune reported.

    In a letter to the leaders of the five universities in the system, Texas Tech Chancellor Tedd Mitchell wrote that the institutions must comply with “current state and federal law,” which “recognize only two human sexes: male and female.“ He cited Texas House Bill 229, which defines sex strictly as determined by reproductive organs, a letter from Texas governor Greg Abbott directing agencies to “reject woke gender ideologies,” and President Trump’s January executive order—which is not a federal law—declaring the existence of just two genders.

    “While recognizing the First Amendment rights of employees in their personal capacity, faculty must comply with these laws in the instruction of students, within the course and scope of their employment,” Mitchell wrote.

    The move follows a confusing week at Angelo State University—part of the Texas Tech System—where a new set of policies first seemed to prohibit faculty from engaging in any sort of pride displays but ultimately limited discussion and content only related to trans identity.

    Mitchell’s letter provided little guidance for faculty about how to implement the new policy, suggesting it presents certain challenges.

    “This is a developing area of law, and we acknowledge that questions remain and adjustments may be necessary as new guidance is issued at both the state and federal levels,” he wrote. “We fully expect discussions will be ongoing.”

    Source link

  • Building and rebuilding trust in higher education

    Building and rebuilding trust in higher education

    Trust is fundamental to all of our relationships, and it is vital for meaningful relationships.

    It can be an anchor in uncertain times, as explored in this special edition of the International Journal of Academic Development. Within higher education, trust underpins our diverse institutional relationships with students, and their families, friends and supporters; colleagues, regulatory bodies, employers, trade unions, students’ unions, prospective students and schools, international partners as well as local communities and many other groups. These individual interactions combine to build a complex matrix of relationships in which trust originates, takes form or develops.

    Or sometimes, it doesn’t. Uncertainty and complexity can stifle relationships, suppressing trust as partners hold back or withdraw, leading to a crisis in confidence. A lack of trust can derail any relationship, well intended institutional narrative or strategy.

    Having trust often means believing that you matter in some way to a person, or to the people working in an organisation, or system, enough for them to care about your experiences and feelings. It’s possible to trust without being highly engaged, but it’s difficult to get engaged without having trust.

    Trust matters in higher education because universities are there to support individuals to achieve their goals, whether these are in teaching or research. Those individuals need to feel that people and systems are designed to include and support them. Trust has to be earned and it can easily be lost. Reflecting on the many challenges for the UK higher education sector and the multifaceted priorities and constraints it will be impossible to meet the expectations and aspirations of our students, colleagues and partners unless there is trust at every level.

    When we encounter media articles like this one from the Guardian, we are asked to consider the possibility that trust in the whole system of higher education is beginning to fail – perhaps a consequence of massification and a loss of faith in education for its own sake, rather than as a passport to a shrinking pool of traditional jobs. We need to talk about why higher education remains worthwhile, and how we can work together to maintain trust in it and to ensure that students feel their own value as part of its systems.

    Nurturing relationships

    When we build trust we are also building partnerships. When we recognise an institution as trustworthy, we are frequently noting that it delivers on what it has promised and that it values relationships with its stakeholders; it holds itself accountable. And it is not just about the large-scale sector wide challenges, it is also about considering how we build trust through the average everyday experiences of our diverse student and colleague communities.

    Creating trustful spaces in the classroom is one element of this. Teachers’ perception of trust-building has shown that trust is based on teachers’ care and concern for students as much as on their subject knowledge and teaching ability. Research on how students in engineering perceive trust-building efforts also shows that they value attention to them as individuals most highly. They also use their trust in the institution to mitigate perceived problems with individual colleagues or services, believing that the university, or their department, makes student-centred decisions with respect to recruiting and training lecturers and professional services staff, and accepting that occasionally, they may not find an individual teacher trustworthy.

    Trust and accountability also underpin meaningful cultural change in uncomfortable spaces and sensitive areas. When we trust each other we can have difficult conversations and begin to accept the existence of hidden barriers across our diverse colleague and student groups. Inside the university, teams must trust each other, empathising with each other’s views and values – 2024’s report from AdvanceHE and Wonkhe showed that trust is paramount when leading strategic change in challenging times. Because of this, trust underpins institutional sustainability; particularly within a sector that is currently responding to rising costs and income constraints.

    Nurturing relationships through difficult choices about resources and provision requires a fine balance, transparency, and accountability if trust is to be maintained and difficult decisions explained. Few people would continue a relationship in which trust has broken down or with someone or something that they would describe as untrustworthy, but many of use will recognise the situation where this has happened and all parties feel powerless to rebuild the trust.

    What can individuals and leaders do?

    Trust can be expressed in many forms: You can trust me, I trust you, you can trust yourself, you can trust each other. Within a complex array of opportunities and challenges which call for attention, HE institutions will benefit from finding the most appropriate strategies, performance indicators and (regulatory) endorsements which will create trust and accountability in their provision to build their reputation. As leaders, how do we show colleagues that we trust them? How do we encourage others to show that they trust us? What do we do to ensure that we are trustworthy?

    At a larger scale, a trustworthy research partner shares ideas, makes it easy to distribute funding between institutions, invites contributions from stakeholders, colleagues working in the field, and students. A trustworthy community partner supports students and employees from the local area, ensuring that they feel welcome and valued, and uses local services. A trustworthy internationalised university supports cultural diversity and makes both moving to and working with research and teaching easier by explaining practical and organisational differences. By considering how long-term relationships are built and maintained, we can develop a track record of ‘quality’ provision and demonstrate that they are ‘worth it’ to students, colleagues, funders, regulatory bodies, employers and other partners.

    When trust in leaders or institutions is lost, the response is often rapid and drastic, with changes in staff and policies having the potential to create further turbulence. As the research with students showed, trust in institutions and systems can survive individual lapses. Maybe a first step should always be to try to rebuild relationships, making oneself, the university, or the system slightly vulnerable in the short term as we work to show that higher education is a human activity which may sometimes not work out as planned, but which we believe in enough to repair.

    We can work at all kinds of levels to build and foster trust in our activities. Public engagement has the power to counter hostile narratives and build trust and so does effective partnership work with our local communities, students and Students’ Unions. Working together, listening to and valuing our partners’ perspectives enables us to identify and mitigate the impacts of challenges and take a constructive and nuanced approach to build both trust and inclusive learning communities. If we are to tackle our current pressing sector challenges and wicked problems such as awarding gaps when trust in public institutions is low, it has never been more important to collaborate with our partners, be visibly accountable and focus on equity.

    So how can we work together to offer a holistic view of the benefits and value that focusing on trust building can bring? We are keen to build a community of practice to systematically strengthen trust across the HE sector. Join us to develop a trust framework which will explore environments that increase or decrease trust across stakeholder groups and consider how to encourage key trust behaviours such as sharing, listening, and being accountable in a range of professional contexts.

    If you are interested, get in touch and let us know what trust in higher education means to you: Claire Hamshire Rachel Forsyth. Claire and Rachel will be speaking on this theme at the Festival of Higher Education on 11-12 November – find out more and book your ticket here

    Source link

  • The Grand Irony of Nursing Education and Burnout in U.S. Health Care

    The Grand Irony of Nursing Education and Burnout in U.S. Health Care

    Nursing has long been romanticized as both a “calling” and a profession—an occupation where devotion to patients is assumed to be limitless. Nursing schools, hospitals, and media narratives often reinforce this ideal, framing the nurse as a tireless caregiver who sacrifices for the greater good. But behind the cultural image is a system that normalizes exhaustion, accepts overwork, and relies on the quiet suffering of an increasingly strained workforce.

    The cultural expectation that nurses should sacrifice their own well-being has deep historical roots. Florence Nightingale’s legacy in the mid-19th century portrayed nursing as a noble vocation, tied as much to moral virtue as to medical skill. During World War I and World War II, nurses were celebrated as patriotic servants, enduring brutal conditions without complaint. By the late 20th century, popular culture reinforced the idea of the nurse as both saintly and stoic—expected to carry on through fatigue, trauma, and loss. This framing has carried into the 21st century. During the COVID-19 pandemic, nurses were lauded as “heroes” in speeches, advertisements, and nightly news coverage. But the rhetoric of heroism masked a harsher reality: nurses were sent into hospitals without adequate protective equipment, with overwhelming patient loads, and with little institutional support. The language of devotion was used as a shield against criticism, even as nurses themselves broke down from exhaustion.

    The problem begins in nursing education. Students are taught the technical skills of patient care, but they are also socialized into a culture that emphasizes resilience, self-sacrifice, and “doing whatever it takes.” Clinical rotations often expose nursing students to chronic understaffing and unsafe patient loads, but instead of treating this as structural failure, students are told it is simply “the reality of nursing.” In effect, they are trained to adapt to dysfunction rather than challenge it.

    Once in the workforce, the pressures intensify. Hospitals and clinics operate under tight staffing budgets, pushing nurses to manage far more patients than recommended. Shifts stretch from 12 to 16 hours, and mandatory overtime is not uncommon. Documentation demands, electronic medical record systems, and administrative oversight add layers of clerical work that take time away from direct patient care. The emotional toll of constantly navigating life-and-death decisions, combined with lack of rest, creates a perfect storm of burnout. The grand irony is that the profession celebrates devotion while neglecting the well-being of the devoted. Nurses are praised as “heroes” during crises, but when they ask for better staffing ratios, safer conditions, or mental health support, they are often dismissed as “not team players.” In non-unionized hospitals, the risks are magnified: nurses have little leverage to negotiate schedules, resist unsafe assignments, or push back against retaliation. Instead, they are expected to remain loyal, even as stress erodes their health and shortens their careers.

    Recent years have shown that nurses are increasingly unwilling to accept this reality. In Oregon in 2025, nearly 5,000 unionized nurses, physicians, and midwives staged the largest health care worker strike in the state’s history, demanding higher wages, better staffing levels, and workload adjustments that reflect patient severity rather than just patient numbers. After six weeks, they secured a contract with substantial pay raises, penalty pay for missed breaks, and staffing reforms. In New Orleans, nurses at University Medical Center have launched repeated strikes as negotiations stall, citing unsafe staffing that puts both their health and their patients at risk. These actions are not isolated. In 2022, approximately 15,000 Minnesota nurses launched the largest private-sector nurses’ strike in U.S. history, and since 2020 the number of nurse strikes nationwide has more than tripled.

    Alongside strikes, nurses are pushing for legislative solutions. At the federal level, the Nurse Staffing Standards for Hospital Patient Safety and Quality Care Act has been introduced, which would mandate minimum nurse-to-patient ratios and provide whistleblower protections. In New York, the Safe Staffing for Hospital Care Act seeks to set legally enforceable staffing levels and ban most mandatory overtime. Even California, long considered a leader in nurse staffing ratios, has faced crises in psychiatric hospitals so severe that Governor Gavin Newsom introduced emergency rules to address chronic understaffing linked to patient harm. Enforcement remains uneven, however. At Albany Medical Center in New York, chronic understaffing violations led to hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines, a reminder that without strong oversight, even well-crafted laws can be ignored.

    The United States’ piecemeal and adversarial approach contrasts sharply with other countries. In Canada, provinces like British Columbia have legislated nurse-to-patient ratios similar to those in California, and in Quebec, unions won agreements that legally cap workloads for certain units. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service has long recognized safe staffing as a matter of public accountability, and while austerity policies have strained the system, England, Wales, and Scotland all employ government-set nurse-to-patient standards to protect both patients and staff. Nordic countries go further, with Sweden and Norway integrating nurse well-being into health policy; short shifts, strong union protections, and publicly funded healthcare systems reduce the risk of burnout by design. While no system is perfect, these models show that burnout is not inevitable—it is a political and policy choice.

    Union presence consistently makes a difference. Studies show that unionized nurses are more successful at securing safe staffing ratios, resisting exploitative scheduling, and advocating for patient safety. But unionization rates in nursing remain uneven, and in many states nurses are discouraged or even legally restricted from organizing. Without collective power, individual nurses are forced to rely on personal endurance, which is precisely what the system counts on.

    The outcome is devastating not only for nurses but for patients. Burnout leads to higher turnover, staffing shortages, and medical errors—all while nursing schools continue to churn out new graduates to replace those driven from the profession. It is a cycle sustained by institutional denial and the myth of infinite devotion.

    If U.S. higher education is serious about preparing nurses for the future, nursing programs must move beyond the rhetoric of sacrifice. They need to teach students not only how to care for patients but also how to advocate for themselves and their colleagues. They need to expose the structural causes of burnout and prepare nurses to demand better conditions, not simply endure them. Until then, the irony remains: a profession that celebrates care while sacrificing its caregivers.

    Sources

    • American Nurses Association (ANA). “Workplace Stress & Burnout.” ANA Enterprise, 2023.

    • National Nurses United. Nursing Staffing Crisis in the United States, 2022.

    • Bae, S. “Nurse Staffing and Patient Outcomes: A Literature Review.” Nursing Outlook, Vol. 64, No. 3 (2016): 322-333.

    • Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Union Members Summary.” U.S. Department of Labor, 2024.

    • Shah, M.K., Gandrakota, N., Cimiotti, J.P., Ghose, N., Moore, M., Ali, M.K. “Prevalence of and Factors Associated With Nurse Burnout in the US.” JAMA Network Open, Vol. 4, No. 2 (2021): e2036469.

    • Nelson, Sioban. Say Little, Do Much: Nursing, Nuns, and Hospitals in the Nineteenth Century. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2001.

    • Kalisch, Philip A. & Kalisch, Beatrice J. The Advance of American Nursing. Little, Brown, 1986.

    • Oregon Capital Chronicle, “Governor Kotek Criticizes Providence Over Largest Strike of Health Care Workers in State History,” January 2025.

    • Associated Press, “Oregon Health Care Strike Ends After Six Weeks,” February 2025.

    • National Nurses United, “New Orleans Nurses Deliver Notice for Third Strike at UMC,” 2025.

    • NurseTogether, “Nurse Strikes: An Increasing Trend in the U.S.,” 2024.

    • New York State Senate Bill S4003, “Safe Staffing for Hospital Care Act,” 2025.

    • San Francisco Chronicle, “Newsom Imposes Emergency Staffing Rules at State Psychiatric Hospitals,” 2025.

    • Times Union, “Editorial: Hospital’s Staffing Violations Show Need for Enforcement,” 2025.

    • Oulton, J.A. “The Global Nursing Shortage: An Overview of Issues and Actions.” Policy, Politics, & Nursing Practice, Vol. 7, No. 3 (2006): 34S–39S.

    • Rafferty, Anne Marie et al. “Outcomes of Variation in Hospital Nurse Staffing in English Hospitals.” BMJ Quality & Safety, 2007.

    • Aiken, Linda H. et al. “Nurse Staffing and Education and Hospital Mortality in Nine European Countries.” The Lancet, Vol. 383, No. 9931 (2014): 1824–1830.

    Source link