Tag: equity

  • Nicola Rollock: Progress on racial justice and equity in higher education is “artificial”

    Nicola Rollock: Progress on racial justice and equity in higher education is “artificial”

    Nearly seven years ago, in February 2019, UCU published Staying Power, an investigation into the professional experiences of 20 Black woman professors in UK higher education, authored by Nicola Rollock. At the time, the total number of UK Black women professors numbered only 25.

    Against the backdrop of an often highly hierarchical higher education academic culture that assumes capacity for high workloads, and with numerous unwritten codes of conduct, many of Rollock’s respondents documented instances of bullying, racial stereotyping, low-level aggressive behaviour and the constant tacit expectation to prove themselves, leading to feelings of stress, anxiety, exhaustion and burnout. But despite these experiences, they had navigated a career path to professorship, adopting strategies to advance their careers, while absorbing setbacks and blockages strewn in their paths.

    In the intervening years, the conversation about race, equity and higher education intensified. Later in 2019 recent graduates Chelsea Kwakye and Ore Ogunbiyi published Taking up space, which documented their experiences as Black students at the University of Cambridge. In October of that year the Equality and Human Rights Commission published the findings of a national investigation into racial harassment in universities.

    The UK higher education sector was pursuing action on race awarding gaps, and developing the Race Equality Charter to embed anti-racist practice in institutions. Students’ unions campaigned for ethnic and cultural diversity in the curriculum, and for bursaries and additional support to open up pathways for Black students into research careers. Senior appointments were made to spearhead equality, diversity and inclusion, and commitments to change were published. In 2020, Rollock curated Phenomenal women: portraits of Black female professors, a landmark photography exhibition at London Southbank Centre which then went on to be displayed at the University of Cambridge.

    The conversation reached a peak in the wake of the global outcry following the murder of George Floyd in the US in the early months of the Covid-19 pandemic and during the ensuing Black Lives Matter protests. And while it was understood that work on anti-racism was often slow, and under-resourced, there was a sense at the time that some in the sector were prepared both to confront its history and adjust its practice and culture in the present.

    Looking around today, the picture seems much more muted. There’s been political backlash against the Black Lives Matter movement, and against the notion of institutional and structural racism more generally. “Woke” is more frequently heard as a term of criticism rather than approbation. And though 97 institutions have signed up to the Race Equality Charter and work on awarding gaps has been integrated into access and participation policy, the sense of urgency in the national anti-racism agenda has ebbed.

    What lies beneath the cycle

    For Nicola Rollock, who now divides her time between a professorship in social policy and race at Kings College London, and consultancy and public speaking, this cycle is nothing new. Earlier in her career she was commissioned by the Runnymede Trust to investigate the extent to which the recommendations of the Macpherson inquiry (which followed the murder of Stephen Lawrence and the failure of the Metropolitan Police to bring his killers to justice) had been implemented in the decade following its publication.

    Some of the recommendations were relatively straightforward: senior investigating officers (SIOs) should be appointed when there is a murder investigation – tick. Families should be assigned a family liaison officer, when they have experienced a murder – tick,” she says. “But the recommendations pertaining to race – disparities in stop and search, the recruitment, retention and progression of Black and minority ethnic officers – the data had barely moved over the ten year period between 1999 and 2008–9. I was stunned. At the time, I couldn’t understand how that was possible.

    Rollock’s subsequent work has sought to explain why, despite periodic bouts of collective will to action on racism, it persists – and to lay bare the structures and behaviours that allow it to persist even as the white majority claims to be committed to eradicating it. In 2023 she published The Racial Code – a genre-busting tour de force that forensically unpacks the various ways that organisations and individuals perform racial justice in ways that continually fail to achieve a meaningful impact, told through the medium of short stories and vignettes that offer insight into what it feels like to experience racism.

    One story in particular, set in a university committee meeting, at which a Black academic is finally awarded a long-awaited (and inadequate) promotion, and responds in the only way she feels is open to her, offers a particularly forceful insight into the frustration felt by Black women in academia at what can feel like being simultaneously undervalued and expected to be grateful to be there at all. Recurring motifs throughout the book, such as the Count Me In! diversity awards – embraced with enthusiasm by white characters and viewed with deep scepticism by Black ones – demonstrate the ways that while racism may manifest subtle differences across different contexts and industries, it thrives everywhere in shallow and performative efforts to tackle it.

    For Rollock, the choice of fiction as a medium is a deliberate effort to change hearts as well as minds. Though each of the propositions offered in her stories are grounded in evidence; they are, indeed, the opposite of fictional, the story format affords much greater opportunity for fostering empathetic understanding:

    Many of us know the data, we know the headlines, but we don’t know about the people behind the headlines: what is it like to be part of a group that is under-represented? How does it feel to be overlooked for promotion despite possessing the right qualifications and experience? I don’t think we truly understand what it is to fight, to strategise, to manage disappointment predicated on the colour of one’s skin. For me, storytelling is a way of providing that connection. It is a way of giving life to feelings.

    For white readers, The Racial Code offers a glimmer of insight into the experience of marginalisation. And for Black readers, it offers a language and a way of understanding and giving coherence to experiences of racism.

    Where we are now

    Here, Nicola Rollock offers her often sobering reflections on the last six years in response to my prompts – sharing her observations of the same patterns of injustice she has been analysing throughout her career.

    Debbie McVitty: Since 2019–20 we’ve seen a lot of focus on EDI in universities and on racial justice specifically – a number of senior appointments, public commitments, working groups and initiatives. And then, the political backlash, the anti-woke agenda, the attacks on “DEI” – how do you make sense of the period we’ve been through? Has there been “progress”? How should we understand the nature of that progress, if so? And what do we need to be wary of?

    Nicola Rollock: I have long been interested in why change happens at certain moments: what are the factors that enable change and what is the context in which it is most likely to occur. This is largely influenced by my work on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry when, as a young researcher, I believed that we were at a historic turning point when it came to racial justice only to see, in 2009, political commitment subsequently and deliberately wane.

    In 2020, when George Floyd was murdered, I was simultaneously disturbed by what had happened and attentive to people’s reaction. Many white people described themselves as having “woken up” to the traumas of racism as a result of his death. Books on race and racism rapidly sold out and I couldn’t help but wonder, where on earth have you been, that you’re only waking up now? I – and others who work on these issues – have been sat in meetings with you, in board rooms, universities, in Parliament, have marched on the streets repeatedly making a case for our dignity, for respect, for equity – and it is only now that you decide that you are waking up?

    What happened around Floyd deeply occupied my mind. For a long time, I played with the idea of a film set in a dystopian future where Black communities agree to deliberately sacrifice the life of a Black man or woman every five years to be murdered by a white person in the most horrific of circumstances. The ordeal would be recorded and shared to ensure broad reach and the fact of the crime would have to be unequivocal to ensure that white minds were convinced by the stark racist brutality of what had occurred.

    The aim of the sacrifice? To keep the fact of racism alive in the minds of those who, by and large, have the most power to implement the type of change that racially minoritised groups demand.This dynamic is in itself, of course, perverse: the idea of begging for change that history indicates is unlikely to come in the form that we want. The approach then must be not to beg for change but to enable or force it in some other, more agentic way that centres our humanity, our dignity and wellbeing.

    Moving back to reality, I would argue that there has been a complacency on the part of liberal whites about the prevalence and permanence of racism and how it operates which is why so many were shocked and awakened when Floyd was murdered. This complacency is also endemic within politics. Politicians on the left of the spectrum have not shown sufficient competence or leadership around racial justice and have failed to be proactive in fostering equity and good relations between communities. Those on the right continue to draw on superficial markers to indicate racial progress, such as pointing to the ethnic mix of the Cabinet, or permitting flimsy and dangerous comments about racism or racially minoritised communities to persist.

    Both sets of positions keep us, as a society, racially illiterate and naive and bickering amongst ourselves while the radical right builds momentum with a comparatively strong narrative. We are now in a position where those on the left and the right of the political spectrum are acting in response to the radical right. These are dark times.

    Universities themselves are, of course, subject to political pressure and regulation but even taking account of this, I would argue that the lens or understanding of racial justice within the sector is fundamentally flawed. Too often, universities achieve awards or recognition for equity-related initiatives which are then (mis)used as part of their PR branding even while their racially minoritised staff continue to suffer. Or artificial targets are established as aspirational benchmarks for change.

    This is most evident in the discussions surrounding the representation of Black female professors. In the years following my research, I have observed a fixation with increasing the number of these academics while ignoring their actual representation. So for example, in 2019–20 the academic year in which Floyd was murdered, there were 40 Black female professors in total (i.e. UK and non-UK nationals) within UK universities. They made up just 2 per cent of the Black female academic population. Compared with other reported ethnic groups, Black female academics were the least likely of all female academics to be professors as a proportion of their population.

    Fast forward to the 2022–23 figures which were published in 2024, the most recent year available at the time of this interview. They show that the number of Black female professors increased to 55 but when we look at their representation only 1.8 per cent of Black female scholars were professors – a decrease from 2019–20. And, in both academic years, Black female professors made up the smallest percentage of the female professoriate overall (0.6 percent in 2019-20 and 0.8 percent in 2022-23). In other words, the representation of Black female professors as a group remains relatively static in the context of changes to the broader professoriate. Numbers alone won’t show us this and, in fact, perpetuate a false narrative of progress. It indicates that current interventions to increase the representation of Black female professors are not working – or, at best, are maintaining the status quo – and we are overlooking the levers that really impact change.

    Universities themselves are responsible for this “artificial progress” narrative via their press releases which too many of us are quick to consume as fact. For example, a university will announce the first Black professor of, say, Racially Marginalised Writing and we fall over ourselves in jubilation ignoring the fact that the university and the academic choose the professorial title (it is arbitrary) and, that there is a Black academic at the university down the road who is Professor of Global Majority Writing covering exactly the same themes as their newly appointed peer.

    The same can be said of press releases about appointments of the “youngest” professor within an institution or nationally. We never ask, the youngest of how many or, how do you know, given that official statistics do not show race by age group. Look closely and you may well find that there are no more than say five Black professors at the institution and most were appointed in the last couple of years. Is being the youngest of five a radical enough basis for celebrating advancement? I would suggest not.

    Debbie McVitty: Staying power – like The Racial Code – was powerful in its capturing and articulation of the everyday frustrations and the burdens of being marginalised, but with the clear link to structural and organisational systems that enable those problematic interpersonal relationships and to some extent seem to allow or endorse their hiding in plain sight. How helpful is the concept of “lived experience” as data to prompt institutional change, or in what conditions is it most useful?

    Nicola Rollock: I am fundamentally uncomfortable with the phrase “lived experience.” In the context of race, the term forces underserved groups to pronounce their status – as if for inspection to satisfy the whims of others when the fact is it is those others who are not being sufficiently attentive to inequity. We end up compensating for their failures. My concern with regard to race is that lived experience becomes the benchmark for intervention and standards: it is seen as sufficient that an initiative about race includes or is led by some Black people irrespective of their subject specialism or expertise. The fact that racial justice is a subject specialism is ignored. When we foreground lived experience over subject specialism, the objective is not real change, it is tokenism. I would like to see the subject of racial justice treated with the same degree of rigour and seriousness as we treat, say science or mathematics.

    Debbie McVitty: Another really critical theme across both Staying Power and The Racial Code is agency – the coping tactics and strategies Black women (and men) use to function in what they can often experience as a hostile, toxic cultural environment, whether that’s seeking out allies, being highly strategic and dogged about promotion processes, developing their own analytical framework to help them make sense of their experience, and so on. Covid in particular drove a conversation about work-life balance, wellbeing and compassionate leadership – do you think Black women in academia have been in a position to benefit from any of that? Have the go-to coping strategies changed as a result?

    Nicola Rollock: Universities are not places which foreground well-being. Lunchtime yoga sessions or tips about how to improve work-life balance tend to be rendered meaningless in a context where concerns about financial stability, student numbers, political unrest and national and international performance tables take precedence. So many of us have filled in forms aimed at capturing how we spend our time as academics while being aware that they are performative: they do not reflect the breadth of the activities that really take up our time.

    I find that Black scholars are often contacted to save failed relationships between white supervisors and Black doctoral students or to offer mentorship and support to Black students and junior colleagues. Then there are reference requests from Black scholars from across the globe who you want to support in the spirit of fighting the system and giving back. And this can be on top of the organisational challenges that you yourself are facing. None of this is documented anywhere. We don’t receive time off in lieu or financial bonuses for this work. It often sits casually under the often uninterrogated banner of “service.” In short, if anyone is interested in work-life balance, they should avoid academia.

    Debbie McVitty: One of the things we have unfortunately learned from the past six years is that engagement with racial justice does tend to ebb and flow and is subject to political winds and whims. What can be done to keep institutional leadership focused on these issues and keep working on building more just institutions? How can racial justice work become more sustainable?

    Nicola Rollock: Public and political commitment to EDI or what we might think of more broadly as equity, tends to move in waves and as a reaction to external pressures or pinch points. This is concerning for several reasons not least because it ignores the data and evidence about the persistence of inequity whether by social class, gender, disability.

    Commitment to advancing racial justice varies depending on one’s racial identity and understanding of the issues. Institutions will only engage with it seriously if they are compelled to do so and if there are consequences for not doing so. We saw this with the awarding gap.

    I would also say, perhaps controversially, that we racially minoritised groups need to more readily accept the history and characteristics of racial injustice. For example, if a white senior leader says they refuse to accept institutional racism, my view is that we should not spend our energy trying to convince them otherwise. We only deplete ourselves and waste time. Instead, look for pinch points or strategic points of intervention which might also work to that senior leader’s interests.

    We must also establish accurate and more stringent goals as our ambitions for racial progress and not allow our desperation for change to lessen our standards. For example, I have spent a considerable amount of time recently working in policing. Whenever something goes wrong around race, there are those who demand the Commissioner’s resignation. Why? Do we really think the next person to be appointed is going to offer a miracle transformation on race? And what influence do we really have on the appointment’s process? I am not opposed to calling for anyone’s resignation but it has to be done as part of a carefully thought through, strategic plan as opposed to being an act of frustration. I am aware however that acts of frustration are better meat for newspaper headlines over my efforts to foreground strategy and radical change.

    There is a further point that your question does not speak to which is the need for self-affirmation and self-care. I think we need to be better at working out what we want for ourselves that is not contingent on our arguing with white stakeholders and which holds on to and foregrounds our dignity, well-being and humanity. This is something I wish I had understood before I entered the workplace and specialised in social policy and race. As much as I love research, it would have probably led to my making different career choices.

    One key way in which I believe this work can be sustained is by paying closer attention to our “Elders” – those academics, activists and campaigners who have already fought battles and had arguments from which we should learn and build upon. I would like to see greater integration and connection with what we plan to do today and tomorrow informed by what happened yesterday.

    Source link

  • Closing Equity Gaps in CTE Programs for Black Students

    Closing Equity Gaps in CTE Programs for Black Students

    Black students enroll in career and technical education programs at rates on par with their peers, but studies suggest they’re overrepresented in service-oriented fields that lead to lower-wage jobs, and less likely to participate in CTE courses in potentially lucrative STEM fields.

    A new research brief, released last week by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, delved into such inequities and explored possible solutions based on qualitative interviews with Black program staff, current and former CTE students, members of workforce development organizations, training providers, researchers, and other CTE experts. The authors argue those voices are especially critical when federal legislation funding the programs—the Strengthening Career and Technical Education for the 21st Century Act, or Perkins V—is poised for reauthorization in fiscal year 2026.

    The report pointed out that in the 2022–23 academic year, Black students made up about 13 percent of high school students and about 15 percent of college students in CTE programs. But a 2020 analysis of CTE data in 40 states by Hechinger Report and the Associated Press found that Black students were less likely than their white peers to enroll in courses focused on science, technology, engineering, math and information technology, and more likely to take classes in fields such as hospitality and human services.

    A 2021 report by the Urban Institute also found that compared to their white peers, Black students in CTE courses had significantly lower grade point averages, lower rates of earning credentials or degrees at their first colleges, and a lower likelihood of finding a job in a related field. On average, Black participants in these programs earned more than $8,200 less than white students six years after starting CTE programs, controlling for the highest degree attained and sector of study. Earnings gaps worsened for Black students in online CTE programs; Black students who enrolled in those earned less than half of what their white peers did, despite having started in the same program in the same year, eventually earning the same degrees.

    “These disparities are major barriers to increasing the earning potential of Black workers and learners and to narrowing the racial wealth divide,” Joint Center president Dedrick Asante-Muhammad said in a news release.

    Lessons Learned

    In interviews with the Joint Center, Black CTE experts shared insights into some of the challenges of providing more equitable CTE programs.

    Some emphasized that Black CTE teachers, and technical instructors in general, are hard to recruit and retain because they can make better salaries working industry jobs in their fields, leaving students without mentors who look like them. In general, the experts raised concerns about CTE instructors lacking professional development, including on culturally responsive teaching.

    The research brief also suggested that Black communities don’t always trust CTE programs because historically, schools funneled Black students into low-quality technical programs. CTE programs hold a stigma for some potential students who still view them as pathways for students of color considered unlikely to attend college rather than a viable career step that doesn’t preclude higher education, the brief said.

    Experts also noted that while Perkins V funds require states to submit a local needs assessment, which involves reviewing enrollment and performance data for CTE students, data collection varies across states and gaps in data too often serve students poorly. For example, the mandatory accountability measures for Perkins V funds require data on CTE concentrators—high school students who finished at least two courses in the same CTE program—but that doesn’t include college students or students who dabble in CTE but don’t qualify as a concentrator.

    Co-author of the brief and Joint Center workforce policy director Kayla Elliott also acknowledged that the Trump administration’s recent decision to shift management of CTE programs from the Department of Education to the Department of Labor creates new uncertainty for the programs.

    “This raises real concerns for the program’s effectiveness and the efficiency of support services for state administrators,” she said in the release. “Some states have already reported waiting months for their Perkins funding with little communication or support from the administration.”

    But CTE experts also said Perkins V funding is flexible in ways that can help support Black students. For example, states can use up to 15 percent of the federal funds to drive innovation and implement new programs. States can also combine Perkins V funding with other funding sources, like the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, which can help states better align CTE programs and workforce development programs. The funds can also be used for career exploration activities to introduce Black students to these programs.

    The research brief offered recommendations to improve Black student access and outcomes in CTE, including increasing federal funding during the next reauthorization; improving retention and recruitment strategies for Black CTE teachers, including by raising instructor wages; and enhancing data collection standards. The authors also suggested CTE programs better align with workforce development efforts at the state level and do more engagement and outreach to help Black families better understand how these programs can lead to high-earning technical careers.

    Source link

  • Reimagining Education: A Future of Equity, Innovation, and Collaboration – Faculty Focus

    Reimagining Education: A Future of Equity, Innovation, and Collaboration – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Smarter Student Support: Designing Connected Ecosystems That Drive Equity and Completion

    Smarter Student Support: Designing Connected Ecosystems That Drive Equity and Completion

    Across higher education, student support systems are often built for institutions, not for students. As a result, many learners encounter a maze of disconnected services that feel reactive, impersonal, or inaccessible. For students already balancing work, caregiving, and financial pressures, this fragmentation can be the difference between staying enrolled and stopping out. 

    As Chief Academic Officer, I’ve seen how crucial it is to align support structures with academic goals and student realities. Institutions must move beyond piecemeal solutions and instead design holistic ecosystems that prioritize student experience, equity, and completion from the start. That means leveraging data, embracing design thinking, and fostering cross-campus collaboration. 

    Where fragmentation undermines student outcomes 

    Many institutions approach support through isolated units: advising, student success, IT, and academic departments each operating in silos. The result is a disjointed experience for students, where important information is delayed or missed altogether. Without a unified view of the student journey, opportunities for early intervention or personalized support fall through the cracks. 

    This fragmentation disproportionately affects students from historically underserved backgrounds. When support isn’t accessible or timely, those with less institutional knowledge or fewer resources are more likely to disengage. 

    Disconnected systems can lead to: 

    • Missed early warning signs 
    • Delayed or generic interventions 
    • Frustration from navigating multiple systems 
    • Lower retention and completion rates 

    It’s not enough to offer services. It’s crucial to ensure those services are connected, visible, and tailored to real student needs. 

    In my experience, when institutions treat student support as a set of tasks rather than a strategic function, it limits their ability to make meaningful progress on equity and completion. Students shouldn’t have to navigate a patchwork of websites, offices, and policies to get the help they need. They deserve a system that anticipates their challenges and responds in real time. 

    What a connected, learner-first ecosystem looks like 

    A modern support ecosystem begins with data. Institutions need to unify data from across the student lifecycle (from admissions to advising to classroom performance) to create a comprehensive view of each learner. With integrated platforms, faculty and staff can access timely insights to guide interventions and support decisions. 

    At Collegis, we’ve seen how data-powered ecosystems — supported by platforms like Connected Core® — drive measurable improvement in retention and equity. But technology alone isn’t enough. Data needs to be paired with personalization. That means using predictive analytics to identify students at risk and deliver outreach that is relevant, proactive, and human. 

    It’s not about automation replacing connection. It’s about enabling the right kind of connection at the right time. 

    I often ask, “Are support systems designed for students or around them?” A learner-first ecosystem doesn’t just meet students where they are academically. It considers their time constraints, personal responsibilities, and evolving goals. It removes barriers rather than creating new ones. 

    Key elements of a connected ecosystem include: 

    • Unified, actionable student data 
    • Proactive, personalized interventions 
    • Support that reflects real student lives 
    • 24/7 digital services and hybrid options 

    Flexible course scheduling, hybrid advising models, and round-the-clock support aren’t just conveniences. They’re equity tools that recognize the unique needs of today’s student body. 

    Using design thinking to reimagine support systems 

    Design thinking offers a powerful framework for this work. It starts with empathy — understanding the lived experience of students and mapping the friction they encounter in navigating institutional systems. From there, you can co-create solutions that reflect students’ realities, prototype interventions, and iterate based on feedback and outcomes. 

    I’ve found this approach invaluable for aligning innovation with mission. It brings together diverse voices (students, faculty, advisors, technologists) to build support systems that are not just efficient, but equitable. 

    Design thinking allows us to move beyond assumptions. Instead of designing around legacy processes or internal structures, we start with real student stories. This helps us ask better questions and arrive at more inclusive answers. 

    It’s not just about solving problems—it’s about solving the right problems. 

    The role of academic leadership in cross-campus collaboration 

    No single office can transform student support in isolation. It requires a coalition of academic, technical, and operational leaders working in sync. Academic affairs plays a central role in this work, bridging the gap between pedagogy and operations. 

    In my experience, success begins with a shared vision and clear metrics: 

    • What are we trying to improve? 
    • How will we measure progress? 

    From there, we build alignment around roles, resources, and timelines. Regular communication and an openness to iteration keep the momentum going. 

    One of the most powerful things academic leaders can do is model cross-functional thinking. When we approach student success as a collective responsibility, we shift the culture from reactive to proactive. And when data is shared across departments, everyone can see the part they play in helping students succeed. 

    Turning strategy into action

    At Collegis, we’ve partnered with institutions to bring student-centered strategies to life: 

    • Our Connected Core data platform enables the kind of integration that underpins personalized support. 
    • Our deep higher education experience ensures solutions align with academic priorities. 

    We believe in the power of aligning strategy with execution. We don’t just talk about transformation. We build the infrastructure, train the teams, and help institutions scale what works. From data strategy to digital learning design, we act as an extension of our partners’ teams. 

    This work is about more than improving services. It’s about advancing equity, accelerating completion, and fulfilling our mission to support every learner. 

    Designing for what matters most 

    If we want better outcomes, we have to start with better design. That means asking not just what services you offer, but how and why you deliver them. It means shifting from reactive support to intentional, data-informed ecosystems that center the student experience. 

    By embracing design thinking, unifying your systems, and working across traditional boundaries, you can build the kind of support that today’s learners deserve and tomorrow’s institutions require. 

    Student success shouldn’t depend on luck or persistence alone. The most impactful institutions are those that view support not as a service, but as a strategy — one that helps every student reach their full potential. 

    Let’s talk about how to design smarter student support together. 

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link

  • Responsible AI Adoption: Empowering Educators While Safeguarding Equity

    Responsible AI Adoption: Empowering Educators While Safeguarding Equity

    Artificial intelligence is reshaping classrooms nationwide. Experts share how schools can adopt AI responsibly, ensuring equity, ethics, and human-centered teaching remain at the forefront.

    A partner in learning

    Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant promise — it’s here, and schools are grappling with how best to use it. For educational leaders, the question is not whether to use AI, but how to adopt it responsibly.

    Dr. Joseph Rene Corbeil, Professor of Educational Technology at The University of Texas Rio Grande Valley, reminds us of Arthur C. Clarke’s famous line: “Any teacher that can be replaced by a machine should be.” To him, AI can ease repetitive tasks like practice feedback, freeing teachers to do what machines cannot — mentor, inspire, and connect.

    His colleague, Dr. Maria Elena Corbeil, emphasizes that responsible adoption must be “curious and intentional.” She encourages faculty to experiment openly with AI alongside students, showing that technology is a partner in learning, not a shortcut.

    But both caution against widening divides. “If left unchecked, AI could create a two-tiered system where those who can afford premium tools gain an advantage,” Rene warns. Maria Elena points to unequal access to devices, internet, and faculty support as critical barriers.

    AI use shaped by classroom realities

    For Yanbei Chen, a Ph.D. student at Syracuse University, responsible adoption must also account for culture, language, and diverse learning needs. In her courses, students use AI image generators to visualize inclusive classrooms — an exercise that enhanced creativity while sparking dialogue about equity and accessibility.

    Equity also drives the work of Dr. Veronika Abramenka-Lachheb, Assistant Professor at Boise State University and Director of the LENS Lab. She argues that responsible adoption begins with respect for learner privacy, autonomy, and agency. Her call to action for schools is to create values-based guidelines rooted in classroom realities, not one-size-fits-all policies.

    Qiu (Stephen) Wang, Professor of Measurement and Research Methodology at the University of South Florida, likens AI to “handing scissors to a kindergartner.” Useful, yes — but only with oversight. In his graduate classes, students use AI for brainstorming, then critique its outputs against pedagogy, learning both creativity and skepticism.

    Across perspectives, one theme stands out: AI should amplify human teaching, not replace it. Responsible adoption means prioritizing equity, ethics, and transparency, ensuring technology empowers every learner while keeping human judgment at the heart of education.

    Source link

  • Championing Equity in Workforce Development

    Championing Equity in Workforce Development

    Kioshana LaCount Burrell

     At 9:30 p.m., when most working mothers are winding down for the day, Kioshana LaCount Burrell is just getting started. After putting her three children to bed in their Columbus, Ohio home, the 38-year-old Ph.D. student settles into what she calls “The Quiet Hour Critiques” — her dedicated time for scholarship that has earned her recognition as a Rising Graduate Scholar.

    “I get up in the morning, get the kids ready for school, go to work all day, or go to class,” Burrell explains. “Then I come home, I do mom things until about 9 or 9:30, and then once the kids go to sleep, I’m able to focus on scholarship and my studies.”

    This demanding schedule reflects the determination that has defined Burrell’s journey from a small town in Northeast Alabama to the halls of The Ohio State University, where she’s pursuing a doctorate in workforce development with a focus that could reshape how America serves its most vulnerable populations.

    Growing up biracial in Gadsden, Alabama — located in a county of 30,000 people — Burrell witnessed inequality firsthand within her own family. As the oldest of four children with a white mother and Black father, she observed how her grandparents “came from similar backgrounds, but their socioeconomic outcomes were markedly different for what appeared to be no other reason than race.” 

    These early observations planted seeds that would later bloom into a career dedicated to dismantling systemic barriers. After completing her undergraduate degree at Alabama State University and earning her MBA at Faulkner University, Burrell entered the workforce development field in 2014, eventually landing in Columbus through federal contract work. 

    “I’ve been a career coach or doing career development stuff for about 15 years,” she says. But it was her experience working at the Gadsden Job Corps Center—her very first professional role—that crystallized her understanding of systemic inequity.

    Over her 15 years in workforce development, Burrell has traveled the country and encountered the same troubling pattern: programs inadequately modified for neurodivergent participants. This frustration led Burrell to pursue a Ph.D., recognizing that academic credentials would provide the platform and credibility needed to drive systemic change.

    “Some people listen to you a little bit differently when you can show that, no, actually, I am a subject matter expert in this,” she notes pragmatically.

    Her research focuses particularly on neurodivergent individuals of color — a population facing compounded challenges. 

    “We know that in all populations, Black kids and brown kids tend to get the short end of the stick. And when it is compounded by them also having an intellectual cognitive disability or just being different, the outcomes and the numbers are even worse,” she adds. 

    Dr. Donna Y. Ford, a renowned expert in gifted education and multicultural issues and a distinguished professor of education at The Ohio State University, has become a key mentor in Burrell’s academic journey. The two connected when Burrell took Ford’s anti-racist education course last spring. 

    “Kio is a very motivated and impressive student who is dedicated to having a positive impact on those she works with,” Ford observes. “Her commitment reminds me of my own—devoted to equity and justice for all, but especially individuals who have been marginalized.”

    Under Ford’s mentorship, Burrell is working on groundbreaking research that applies Ford’s Bloom-Banks matrix for multicultural education to special education contexts — an application that hasn’t been explored before. “I’m really excited to get to look at her work in a new and different way, and she’s been just super supportive,” Burrell says.

    Pursuing a Ph.D. while working full-time and raising three children requires careful orchestration. Burrell works for Ohio State University — a strategic choice that provides both tuition benefits and the health insurance her family needs. Living with Crohn’s disease adds another layer of complexity to her already demanding schedule.

    Despite starting her Ph.D. program just last year, Burrell is already making impressive progress. She’s on track to finish her coursework within the next year and has already written three chapters of her dissertation — a remarkable pace that speaks to both her dedication and the clarity of her vision.

    Burrell’s post-graduation plans reflect her commitment to institutional change rather than traditional academic paths alone. While she’d “love to be in a classroom” and “really flourish in an educational environment,” her sights are set on administrative roles that could reshape how higher education approaches workforce development. 

    “I really feel there’s a lot of opportunity for institutions of higher education to make a pivot towards a more intentional way of pursuing workforce development,” she explains. Whether as a director of workforce development programs or working within student disability services, her goal is to “figure out how to better incorporate individuals who have cognitive disabilities or intellectual disabilities into the mainstream classroom.”

    For others considering graduate school while juggling family and career responsibilities, Burrell’s advice is characteristically direct: “Just do the thing.”

    Her approach centers on backward planning from a clear vision. 

    “I want you to think about what kind of life you want five years from now, ten years from now,” she tells the students she coaches. “Figure out what it is that you want to do, and then once you have that clear thing in mind, it is easier to figure out the path to get there.” 

     

     

     

     

    Source link

  • Equity Gaps in Academic Advising

    Equity Gaps in Academic Advising

    Recently published research has found equity gaps in the impact of academic advising support on various student groups. While students from racial minorities are more likely to meet with an adviser compared to their white peers, they’re less likely to see improvements in their GPA or graduate on time.

    The research points to a need for improved advising processes, not just in increasing access to and knowledge of academic advising, but in developing holistic student support programs, said lead author Hua-Yu Sebastian Cherng, vice dean for research and equity at New York University’s Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development.

    The background: Academic advising is a critical part of student retention and progression, but not every student receives the support. A 2023 survey by Tyton Partners found one-third of student respondents were not aware of academic advising on campus, despite 98 percent of college employees saying the resource was available to their students.

    Similarly, a spring 2023 survey by Inside Higher Ed and College Pulse found, when asked what types of assistance students had received during academic advising, 8 percent of students said they had received no assistance since starting college. Additionally, 5 percent of respondents said they had never met with an academic adviser. Twenty-three percent of respondents said they have to set up meetings with an academic adviser if they’d like to meet, and 10 percent of all respondents said it was difficult to get an appointment with their academic adviser.

    The study: Hua-Yu’s study evaluated data from a large public research institution (total enrollment of 80,000) between 2017 and 2021, considering students’ grades, graduation rates, demographics and the number of appointments made with advisers.

    To ensure relevant comparisons, researchers matched students in the same school or academic program because advising requirements and processes varied by school, Hua-Yu said.

    Across the university, nonwhite and international student groups met with advisers more frequently than white domestic students, disrupting commonly held notions about who is aware of and using services on college campuses, Hua-Yu said.

    But the impact of advising was not affected by the frequency of appointments. Rather, despite meeting with advisers less frequently than minoritized students, white students were more likely to have higher GPAs compared to their white peers who didn’t meet with an adviser. White students’ frequency of meeting with an adviser also correlated with their graduation rates, the only racial or ethnic group that saw benefits in this way.

    “This is really damning evidence that advising is not doing what it’s supposed to be doing,” Hua-Yu said.

    Even among students with undeclared majors, where this institution felt it had a gold standard of advising supports and resources, data showed similar patterns: White students had better outcomes after meeting with advisers, despite their nonwhite peers having more meetings.

    Continuing-generation students were more likely to see benefits from advising appointments, compared to their first-generation peers, and low-income students who met with an adviser had slightly higher graduation rates compared to their higher-income classmates.

    The why: Hua-Yu theorizes that institutional messaging encouraging students to take advantage of advising could have been effective, resulting in more students having appointments with their advisers. But if marginalized students have complex concerns or are looking for advice on which path to choose, they are more likely to walk away from appointments without all the information they need or feeling like they don’t belong.

    A 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab found 75 percent of students said they had at least some trust in academic advisers on campus; 20 percent said they didn’t have much trust in them.

    First-generation students were 7 percent less likely to meet with an adviser and less likely to graduate, compared to their continuing generation peers, the IHE survey found.

    According to Hua-Yu, continuing-generation students are less likely to seek advice on changing their major when talking to staff, compared to their first-generation peers, because they have other support systems that can offer that insight. Instead, they’re using advising appointments to address logistical and bureaucratic impediments to reaching their goals, he noted.

    Building better: The findings, Hua-Yu emphasized, do not fault advisers but rather underline concerns with academic advising structures and staffing issues at colleges and universities across the country. A 2024 report by Tyton Partners found high caseloads and adviser burnout and turnover are some of the top challenges for the field.

    Advisers have caseloads as high as 400 students, which can limit their ability to engage with students intentionally and address their concerns at a deeper level, Hua-Yu said. Instead, leaders at institutions should recognize that quality advising can make a substantial difference in student outcomes and, in turn, advocate for resources and support to improve advising experiences.

    Hua-Yu called for more training for advisers on how to work with students in a specific program of study, as well as with a variety of student identities. Academic advisers cannot become social workers or mental health professionals, but improving how advisers are onboarded and supported can make substantial differences, Hua-Yu said.

    Advisers can also be given a set of questions to encourage more meaningful relationships with students during advising appointments, such as asking about students’ lives, their goals and their support systems.

    What’s next: Using the same data set, Hua-Yu and his team plan to investigate the use of flags or kudos within the advising system to see how early intervention could affect student success.

    The researchers are also exploring the role of gender on advising supports; initial results show white male students are less likely to engage in advising compared to other student groups.

    Incidentally, the data set covers a period of remote instruction during the COVID-19 pandemic, so Hua-Yu and his team are exploring shocks to advising processes and supports after spring 2020. So far, researchers noted there were more advising meetings taking place, just remotely, and these advising appointment levels remained higher than pre-pandemic.

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

    Source link

  • These 6 guidelines can improve equity in literacy, report says

    These 6 guidelines can improve equity in literacy, report says

    Giving students equitable access to high-quality instruction and resources for becoming proficient readers will help inspire a love of reading and give them ownership in their own literacy development, according to a report from EdTrust. 

    States are making progress in promoting evidence-based reading, but more needs to be done for all students to become skilled and engaged readers, said Shayna Levitan, a P-12 policy analyst at EdTrust and author of the report. EdTrust is a nonprofit that promotes educational equity for students of color and students from low-income families.

    “Every student has the right to read and to learn to read using rigorous, diverse instructional materials and the most effective instruction,” said Levitan in a July 29 statement.

    Disappointing reading proficiency in recent years — as measured by exams like the National Assessment of Educational Progress — has led to many states adopting evidence-based reading policies such as science of reading frameworks. According to the Council of Chief State School Officers, most states had some type of law or policy addressing pre-K-12 literacy initiatives as of March 2024.

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon has said literacy education is her No. 1 priority. 

    The EdTrust report recommends these six principles for states to advance equity in literacy:

    • Ensure instruction and curricula are evidenced-based. State literacy policies and implementation efforts should support schools with the adoption, implementation and continuation of evidence-based and culturally affirming instructional practices.
    • Have materials that connect to students’ identities and interests. Students who don’t see themselves authentically portrayed in learning materials are less likely to feel engaged and motivated to read, which can hinder their development of complex reading skills. 
      EdTrust points out that efforts at the state and federal levels to restrict literature that reflects a variety of student cultures and experiences is “undercutting access to high-quality education, to the detriment of students’ literacy development.”
    • Tailor supports to students’ unique needs. Schools should provide early, targeted and differentiated interventions to students who require additional supports. Resources and interventions from qualified educators should be focused on multilingual learners, students with dyslexia and struggling older readers.
    • Begin literacy education at birth. States need to invest in high-quality and culturally responsive early education and family literacy programs. These supports can help young children gain pre-literacy skills.
    • Put resources toward supporting teachers. Teachers should have strong educator preparation supports, continuing professional development and on-the-job assistance so they are able to use evidence-based literacy instruction and interventions.
    • Don’t sideline families. Partnering with families can benefit students’ literacy skills development. This includes providing families accurate information about their child’s reading progress.

    Source link

  • DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    DEI Skepticism Threatens to Derail Japan’s Gender Equity Push

    Japan needs to admit that long-running efforts to address gender inequality in higher education aren’t working, experts say, with antidiversity sentiment spreading from the U.S. and threatening to gain traction.

    Despite government policies spanning nearly two decades, women remain severely underrepresented across Japanese universities, particularly in science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

    As of 2022, women made up just 26.7 percent of faculty nationwide and fewer than half of all students, with even starker disparities in senior academic roles and male-dominated disciplines.

    Sayaka Oki, a professor at the University of Tokyo, described the situation as “terrible.”

    “Gender equality doesn’t really exist here,” she added.

    As of 2022, only 11 percent of professors at Oki’s university were female, with particularly low representation in engineering. In undergraduate programs in physics and engineering, women typically make up only about 15 percent of the student population.

    “The gender imbalance starts at the student level and gets worse in higher positions,” she said. The university has launched repeated initiatives that have attempted to address the problem and has reported that it has “steadily increased the number of women in faculty positions.”

    Since 2006, Japan’s government has implemented a “goal and timetable” policy aimed at increasing women researchers in natural sciences, setting numerical hiring targets every five years.

    However, these targets have remained largely unchanged because the proportion of women earning doctoral degrees—the main feeder for research roles—has not significantly increased.

    Ginko Kawano, professor of gender equality at Kyushu University, said that, “after nearly two decades, the policy has not produced significant results, and it appears we are now at a turning point in terms of policy design.”

    Kawano noted recent government encouragement for universities to adopt admission quotas for women in STEM to improve applicant numbers.

    Yet “while this sends a positive message that women are welcome in these disciplines, it is unlikely to serve as a fundamental solution to the underlying issues,” she said.

    She also acknowledged strong opposition from students and faculty: “Institutions that choose to introduce this system should clearly explain the reasoning behind it.

    “At the same time, it is crucial for university faculty to have access to the information and knowledge necessary to evaluate the merits and drawbacks of such quotas.

    “For example, they should be aware of the historical exclusion of women from science, and recognize the persistent bias that suggest[s] women are not suited for STEM fields—biases that continue to shape the choices women feel able to make,” Kawano said.

    Adding to the complexity is a political environment increasingly wary of diversity initiatives.

    Kawano warned that antidiversity sentiment similar to that in the U.S. could gain traction in Japan, although opposition to gender equality policies has existed independently for years.

    Akiyoshi Yonezawa, professor of higher education in the Global Strategy Office at Tohoku University, highlighted demographic pressures pushing universities toward diversity.

    “Since around 1990, the number of 18-year-olds has continuously declined and is expected to continue until at least 2040,” he said.

    In response, women and international students have been framed as essential for sustaining Japan’s knowledge economy.

    Yonezawa criticized how diversity initiatives in Japan are often framed: “DEI initiatives in Japanese universities and society tend to be promoted as a ‘catch-up’ Western mindset rather than intrinsic value formation through daily experience. This makes DEI activities in Japan’s higher education fragile in the long term when faced with controversy.”

    Institutional barriers also persist. Oki described how her university’s collegial governance system complicates efforts to implement top-down diversity policies and secure funding, which often comes with centralized control conditions.

    “To access the fund, we’re required to adopt a more top-down management style,” she said. “That’s difficult because our university traditionally follows a collegial governance model.”

    Oki agreed that there was a risk that international developments had made the situation potentially more difficult—particularly in the U.S., where things like the ban on affirmative action had made colleagues “more cautious about what might happen here.”

    Source link

  • Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    Reputation Is Revenue: Why Brand Equity Matters in Higher Ed

    If you’re a university leader today, you’re juggling a lot: enrollment challenges, tightening budgets, shifting student expectations, and the rise of non-traditional competitors. Amid all this, one asset might not be getting the attention it deserves — your university’s brand.

    No, not just your logo or tagline. We’re talking about brand equity — the value your institution holds in the minds of students, parents, alumni, faculty, employers, and the public. It’s about reputation, trust, recognition, and connection. And in a competitive market, it matters now more than ever.

    What is brand equity in higher education?

    Think of it this way: Brand equity is what people think and feel when they hear your university’s name. It’s the difference between being someone’s first-choice school versus just another option.

    It shows up in the pride alumni feel when they wear your sweatshirt, the confidence prospective students have when they see your graduates succeed, and the trust employers place in your credentials. It’s shaped by every experience — from the way your website tells your story, to how your faculty engage in the classroom, to the tone of your communications during a crisis.

    It’s what drives alumni to give, students to enroll, and faculty to choose you over other institutions. When a university has strong brand equity, people trust it, recognize it, and feel loyal to it. That kind of reputation can spark a ripple effect of positive influence across an entire institution.

    Understanding the impact of brand equity across an institution

    Brand equity touches every dimension of institutional life, influencing how people experience, perceive, and engage with your university across the student and stakeholder journey. Let’s take a look at its impact in six key areas.

    1. Enrolling new students

    Choosing a college is a huge decision for students and their families. Today’s students are more informed than ever and expect an institution that’s respected, innovative, and committed to their success.

    That’s where your brand can make an impact. If your university has a strong, positive reputation, you’re more likely to make their shortlist. Schools with solid brand equity are seen as high-quality, forward-thinking, and worth the investment, which makes all the difference in a world where competition is fierce and the landscape is changing fast.

    2. Attracting top faculty

    It’s not just students who care about a school’s reputation — faculty and academic leaders do too. A strong, well-respected brand sends a clear message: This place is serious about excellence, values academic freedom, and encourages innovation.

    It’s not just about prestige — top talent also wants to be somewhere that fosters genuine, supportive relationships with students. A respected brand signals a vibrant academic culture where everyone’s invested in each other’s success.

    3. Fostering alumni pride

    When a university has strong brand equity, it’s not just about reputation — it’s about the sense of pride and connection it creates. Alumni who feel proud of their alma mater are more likely to stay involved, whether that means attending events, volunteering, or giving back financially.

    A strong brand also helps foster a lasting sense of community and belonging well beyond graduation. In short, when your brand is trusted and respected, alumni remain engaged — and they’re more likely to support the institution not only with their resources but by recommending it to future students within their networks.

    4. Securing strategic partnerships

    Whether you’re aiming to partner with major companies, secure government grants, or build global collaborations, having a strong brand can be a significant factor. Organizations want to work with universities they respect, trust, and recognize as leaders in their field.

    When your university’s brand is strong and clear, opportunities that are imperative to your institution open up more quickly. Meanwhile, lesser-known schools often struggle to get noticed. Building a strategic and strong brand is your best way to stand out and secure meaningful partnerships that benefit your students and your bottom line.

    5. Staying resilient amid market disruption

    Higher education is under pressure from various directions shifting demographics, financial constraints, and evolving expectations. A strong brand is essential to stay resilient and relevant.

    When controversy, crises, or big changes hit, your brand becomes your safety net. People are far more likely to give you the benefit of the doubt if they already respect and trust you. That reputation can be the difference between weathering the storm and facing long-term damage.

    6. Boosting visibility through rankings

    While rankings aren’t everything, they do influence perception. Many ranking systems factor in peer reputation, which is directly tied to your brand. The same goes for media coverage. The stronger your brand, the more likely you are to be recognized as a thought leader and trusted voice in the field.

    Ready for a Smarter Way Forward?

    Higher ed is hard — but you don’t have to figure it out alone. We can help you transform challenges into opportunities.

    Practical tips for building brand equity that lasts

    University leaders can’t afford to view brand as merely a marketing function— it’s so much more than that. Brand must be seen as a strategic asset embedded in everything from big-picture planning to day-to-day decisions. It’s part of how you attract students, build partnerships, and earn trust.

    So how can you turn brand equity into a competitive advantage for your institution? Here are a few key moves to get started:

    1. Know what you stand for

    Start with a clear sense of who you are and what makes your school unique. What do you want people to feel when they think of your institution? Your brand promise should reflect your values, vision, and personality — and it should feel real, not like something cooked up in a boardroom.

    2. Take time to truly know your audience

    What matters most to your students, parents, alumni, and faculty? What are they proud of, and what do they wish were better? Take time to listen — through surveys, conversations, and social media — and use those insights to shape your strategy and message.

    3. Tell one clear, consistent story

    Your brand shows up everywhere: your website, your campus tours, your social media posts, even how your staff answers the phone. Make sure that story feels authentic, easy to understand, and consistent across every touchpoint. Developing comprehensive brand guidelines, share them widely across the institution, and conduct regular audits to ensure every touchpoint reinforces a unified, memorable experience for all audiences.

    4. Get your people involved

    Your brand isn’t just a logo — it’s how people talk about your institution and the trust they place in it. That means faculty, staff, students, and alumni all have a role to play. Keep them in the loop, give them the tools to share your story, and make them feel like part of the bigger picture. Want to get more people talking about — and proud of — your school? Make it easy for them. Share what’s happening through newsletters and social media and provide your community with tools that help them show off their connection. When faculty, staff, students, and alumni feel informed, celebrated, and included, they’re more likely to stay engaged — and more likely to brag about being part of your institution.

    5. Make sure the experience matches the message

    If you’re promising innovation, inclusivity, or career readiness, you better be delivering that on campus, in the classroom (both online and in person), and beyond. Brand equity grows when expectations match real experiences. That’s why creating a seamless website experience is so important — it directly impacts how much trust students place in your institution and it’s offerings.

    6. Get the word out (strategically)

    Raising awareness isn’t just about marketing louder — it’s about marketing smarter. Use the right mix of channels, from digital ads and social media to speaking opportunities for university leaders. And don’t forget about earned media and storytelling that highlights real student success. Do this by building a strategic content plan that aligns messaging across platforms, targets the right audiences, and consistently showcases the impact your institution makes.

    7. Keep a pulse on your reputation

    What are people actually saying about your school? Check in regularly using surveys, online reviews, social listening, and even informal feedback. This will help you spot issues early and see what’s working.

    8. Be prepared to evolve

    Higher ed is changing fast, so your brand needs to be flexible. Stay grounded in your core values, but be open to shifting your tone, visuals, or messaging as your audience and the world around you change.

    Build a brand with a lasting legacy and immediate impact

    In an age of increasing competition and shifting student expectations, brand equity is no longer a luxury — it’s a leadership priority. With students having endless options, donors getting more selective, and reputations spreading instantly, your brand equity can be a serious competitive edge.

    Investing in a strong, authentic, and trusted brand can lay the foundation for long-term success. The institutions that thrive in the years ahead will be those that treat their brand as a central part of their overall strategy instead of a marketing afterthought.

    Because in higher ed, your brand isn’t what you say it is — it’s what people believe it to be. And that belief? That’s your brand equity.

    Ready to strengthen your institution’s brand equity? Explore how a strategic marketing approach can help you stand out and thrive. Let’s talk!

    Innovation Starts Here

    Higher ed is evolving — don’t get left behind. Explore how Collegis can help your institution thrive.

    Source link