Tag: Impact

  • Impact can’t be gamed or systematised

    Impact can’t be gamed or systematised

    In a recent Wonkhe blog, Joe Mintz discussed the challenges of policy impact in social sciences and humanities research.

    He highlighted the growing importance of research impact for government (and therefore institutions) but noted significant barriers. These included a disconnect where academics prioritise research quality over early policy engagement and a mutual mistrust that limits research influence on decision-making.

    We have recently published a book on research impact that endeavours to explore the challenges of research impact, and these views chime greatly with us. Our motivation for starting the book project were personal. We have carried out a great deal of impactful research and provided support and training for others wishing to engage in impact. However, we wondered why impact seems to be so poorly understood across the sector, and, we had observed, there was a clear fracture between those who wanted to do impactful research, and institutions who wanted to control the process while not really understanding it.

    Agenda opposition

    There continues to be understandable opposition by some to what has been referred to as “the impact agenda”. One criticism is that impact is something being imposed by government and management that is at odds with the ideology of research. This argument follows that research impact is a market-driven mechanism that pressures academics to demonstrate immediate societal benefits from their research, often at the expense of intellectual freedom and critical inquiry. And a metric driven measurement of research impact may not fully capture the complexity or long-term value of research.

    We can certainly empathise with this perspective, but might suggest that this is, in a large part, due to how impact has manifested in a sector that does not really understand what it can be. In our own experiences we have experienced management “advice” that firstly says do not waste your time doing impact, then, once performance-based research funding becomes attached to it, being told it is very important and your impact needs to be “four star”. And then indifference is replaced with interference and attempts to control, to make sure we’re doing it “properly” and making sure it can be monitored.

    In trying to develop our understanding, we spoke to 25 “impactful” academics, who had objectively demonstrated that their research has high value impact, and a range of research professionals across the sector. It soon became very clear that our own observations were not outliers for those doing impactful research.

    Impact success for those we spoke to came from a personal belief that saw it ingrained in their own research practice – this was something they did because they felt it was important, not because they had been told to. The stakeholders and networks they had, and often spent considerable time building, were their own not their institution’s, and many protected these contacts and networks from institutional interference.

    In most cases, interview subjects said that there was little support from their institutions, they just did the work because they felt it was an important part of their research, and this symbiotic work with stakeholders provided further research opportunities. They could see the value of doing impactful research and felt personally rewarded as a result.

    And many talked of institutional interference, where there was opposition to what they were doing (“you’re not doing impact properly”) and advised from positions of seniority although perhaps not knowledge or, in some cases integrity. They were instructed to do things more in line with university systems, regardless of how poor they might be. There was a clear dissonance between academic identity and management culture, often informed by an “impact industry” where PowerPoints from webinars are disseminated across institutions with little opportunity for deep knowledge becoming embedded.

    Secret sauce

    And many spoke of the research management machine, insisting that they engage with central systems so their work could be “monitored” and having many people around them telling them what to do, but offering no support. This support was often as basic as “do more impact” and “give us the evidence now”. In some cases, threats were made to not submit their case studies should they not follow the “correct process”, even when their work was clearly highly impactful. An odd flex for a senior leader, given QR funding goes to the institution, not the academic.

    While the research that went into this book probably threw up as many questions as answers, one thing was very clear for this work. If it is to be successful, impact cannot be imposed upon academics or centrally controlled, it must originate from the academic’s community and own identity as a researcher. Telling someone to “do some impact because we need another case study” with a year before a REF submission is not good practice; management needs to take time to understand the research academics are doing and explore together how best to support it.

    We are reminded of a comment from one interviewee, who does incredibly interesting and impactful research, and has done for many years. When asked why they do it, they simply said “because I enjoy it and I’m good at it”.

    High quality impact case studies come from high quality research and high-quality impact. This is not something that can be gamed or systematised. Academics need to own impact for it to be successful, and institutions need to respect this.

    Source link

  • Plotting the impact of an international fee levy

    Plotting the impact of an international fee levy

    There’s not many in the higher education sector that would have welcomed any part of the recent immigration white paper.

    The reduction in the graduate route time limit would have been difficult enough. The BCA changes to duties on providers in order to sponsor international students will cause many problems. The possibility of financial penalties linked to asylum claims for those on student visas was as unexpected as it is problematic.

    But it is the levy that has really attracted the ire of UK higher education.

    The best form of defence

    On one level it is simply a tax – on the income from international student fees, which is one of a vanishingly few places from which universities can cross-subsidise loss-making activity like research and teaching UK-domiciled students.

    Yes, the funds raised are promised variously to “skills and higher education” or just “skills”, and the suggestion seems to be that the costs will be passed on entirely to international students via rises in tuition fees. There’s not any real information on the assumptions underpinning this position, or credible calculations by which the proportion of students that may be deterred by these rises and other measures has been estimated.

    But details are still scant – the government has, after all, only promised to “explore” the introduction of a levy – and used the idea of a six per cent levy on international tuition fees as an “illustrative example”. We have to look forward to the Autumn statement (not even the skills white paper – remember joined-up, mission-led, government?) for more – and do recall that the white paper is a consultation and responses need to be made in order to finesse the policy.

    Thinking about impact

    There’s no reliable way to assess the impact of this policy with so little information, but we do know a lot about the exposure of each university to the international market.

    For starters here’s a summary of provider income from overseas fees since 2016–17 – both for individual providers and (via the filters) for the sector as a whole.

    [Full screen]

    The story has been one of growth pretty much anywhere you care to look – with only limited evidence of a cooling off in the most recent year of data. Some institutions have trebled their income from this source over the eight years of available data, with particular growth in postgraduate taught provision.

    In considering the financial impact of a potential levy I have used the most recent (2023–24) year of financial data – showing the total non-UK fee income on the vertical axis and the proportion of total income represented by the value of the levy on the horizontal. By default I have modelled a levy of six per cent (you can use the filter to consider other levels).

    [Full screen]

    Who’s up, who’s down?

    In the majority of large universities the cost of levy is equivalent to around two per cent of total income. In the main it is the Russell Group that sees substantial income from international fees – the small number of exceptions (most notably the University of Hertfordshire and the University of the Arts London) would see a levy impact of closer to three per cent of total income.

    What we can’t realistically model is university pricing behavior and the impact on recruitment. Universities generally charge what the market will stand for international courses – and this value is generally higher for providers that are better known from popular league tables.

    Subject areas and qualifications also have an impact (the cost of an MBA, for example, may be higher than a taught creative arts masters – a year of postgraduate study may cost more than a year of an undergraduate course), as does the country from which students are arriving (China may be charged more than India, for example).

    Some better off universities in the middle of the market may choose to swallow more of the cost of the levy in order to increase their competitiveness for applicants making decisions on price – this would put pressure on the currently cheaper end of the market to follow suit as well as direct competitors, and may lower the overall floor price for particular providers (though, to be fair, private providers are still better positioned to undercut should they have access to funds from investment or other parts of the business).

    There is an obvious impact on the quality of the provision if providers do cut the amount of fee income – and this as well could have an impact on the attractiveness of the whole sector. For more hands-on courses in technical or creative subjects, provision may become unviable overall – surrendering the soft power of influence in these fields.

    A starting point

    It’s not often that we see a policy proposal on university funding launched with so little information. Generations of politicians have learned that university funding policy changes are the equivalent of poking a wasps nest with a sharp stick – it may be something that needs doing but the short term pain and noise is massive.

    It could be that it is a deliberate policy to let the sector (and associated commentariat) go crazy for a month or so while a plan is developed to avoid the less desirable (for ministers) consequences. But the idea that international students will gladly pay more to support an underfunded sector is one that has been at the heart of university activity for decades – the only real change here is that the government feels it can put some of the profits to better use than some of our larger and better-known providers.

    In all of this there appears to have been little consideration of the fairness of putting extra costs onto the fees of international students – particularly where they personally don’t see any value from their additional spend. But this has been an issue for a good few years, and it seems to have taken the possibility of a tariff (which could be considered unfair to cash-strapped universities too) to drive this problem further up the sector’s agenda.

    Source link

  • Head Start turns 60: Alumni reflect on lifelong impact of early learning

    Head Start turns 60: Alumni reflect on lifelong impact of early learning

    In the six decades of Head Start’s existence, it has served nearly 40 million children and their families. But supporters and alumni are quick to point out that the program for children from low-income families provides more than preschool opportunities. 

    “It is more than child care and early learning, it’s a lifeline for children and families in our communities who face the steepest hills to climb to achieve success in school and in life,” said Yasmina Vinci, executive director for the National Head Start Association, during a call last month with hundreds of supporters and advocates. The association represents program leaders, children and families. 

    Head Start serves children from various backgrounds

    In the mid to late 1960s when Head Start began, about 75% of the children served were not White, which is similar to these demographics from fiscal year 2023.

    “If we want to build a healthier, freer and more fair America, we have to start by giving every child a real shot, regardless of circumstances at birth, a head start in life, and that’s why programs like Head Start matter,” Vinci said.

    The call was held to rally opposition to an anticipated request from the Trump administration to eliminate Head Start in the fiscal year 2026 budget request. However, despite those reports, the program was not dropped in the top-line FY 2026 budget proposal released May 2. A more detailed budget proposal is expected within the next month.

    The Trump administration has been cutting spending across federal agencies to reduce what it considers waste and to give states more fiscal authority. Some Republicans in Congress and other critics have called Head Start unsafe and ineffective at boosting children’s academic performance.

    But NHSA and other Head Start supporters point to research and anecdotal stories demonstrating positive academic, social and economic returns from the long-time program

    When President Lyndon B. Johnson announced the launch of Project Head Start on May 18, 1965, he said rather than it being a federal effort, the program was a “neighborhood effort.”

    Head Start funded enrollment grew over past 60 years

    In recent years, the COVID-19 pandemic contributed to dips in funded enrollment.

    Today, Head Start serves nearly 800,000 infants, toddlers and preschool children a year. More than 17,000 Head Start centers operate nationwide. A companion Early Head Start program provides prenatal services.

    As the 60th anniversary approached, K-12 Dive spoke with three women who spent their preschool years in Head Start programs in the 1970s. They reminisced about supportive teachers, tasty meals and favorite songs. They also shared how that educational foundation impacted their life journeys, including how they still hold connections to the program.

    Sonya Hill has vivid memories of attending Head Start as a preschooler in the 1970s in Orlando, Fla. Now director of the same program, she’s pictured greeting children after speaking to Orlando government officials about the services on Oct. 8, 2024.

    Sonya Hill

    Sonya Hill

    Sonya Hill’s connection to Head Start has been a full-circle experience — from her participation as a child living in Orlando, Florida, in the 1970s to her role today as director of the area’s same Orange County Head Start program. 

    Hill, 52, has vivid memories of her own Head Start experience. One of her favorite activities was when all the children held onto the ends of a colorful parachute. They would shake it and run under it. Another special moment came when her father, who worked in a bakery, visited her class for a special event featuring community helpers — and brought doughnuts for all the students. 

    Her favorite teacher, she said, was Shirley Brown. 

    Years later, right after graduating from South Carolina State University with a degree in social work in 1994, Hill was waiting to be interviewed for a job at a Head Start program. Somehow she hadn’t made the connection that this was the same program she had attended as a child. And then Brown walked around the corner.

    “I hugged her so hard. It was the same feeling of hugging her when I was in her Head Start classroom, and I couldn’t believe it,” Hill said. 

    Hill got the job, and for the past 30 years, she has worked in various roles there, eventually being named director in 2016.

    As leader of the program, she travels to the Florida state capital and to Washington, D.C, to advocate for Head Start services, telling lawmakers about former students who have gone on to college and careers.

    “I’m just thinking this is a program that has impacted so many people across the United States, but I know firsthand that Head Start works,” Hill said.

    She credits her childhood Head Start experience with helping her become the first in her family to graduate college and also to earn a master’s degree.

    Her family — which she notes extends today from her grandmother to children of her nieces and nephews — is “extremely proud” of her, Hill says, and she doesn’t take that lightly. “I know I have a lot of responsibility to my family, to my community,” Hill said. “Head Start truly gave me my foundation, and that’s why I’ve stayed here, because I owe so much to the program, and I get to see firsthand how it’s changed lives.”

    Toscha Blalock remembers enjoying the routines in the Head Start program she attended in the 1970s in western Pennsylvania. She is currently the chief learning and evaluation officer at Trust for Learning.

    Toscha Blalock

    Toscha Blalock

    As a young child growing up in the small town of Monessen, Pennsylvania, Toscha Blalock’s home life was fun and welcoming, but hectic. She lived with nine relatives, including her mother, Gloria Anderson, who had Blalock when she was a teenager. As the youngest, Blalock remembers the adults and her cousins caring for her by braiding her hair and playing games with her. Even at a young age, her family labeled her “the smart one.”

    But the family struggled financially, she said. Her mother, who had negative experiences as a student during desegregation efforts, sought out the area’s Head Start program for her daughter, determined that she would have a better education.

    As a Head Start student in the 1970s, Blalock loved reading books. She also enjoyed the school day routines of learning, meal time and napping. By the time Blalock was ready for kindergarten, she was reading above her age level. In 1st grade, when she wasn’t included in the highest level reading group, Blalock’s mother spoke to school administrators, and the young student moved to the higher level group.

    “There were a lot of experiences like that in the school. There was a challenging racial dynamic in the town, and I think that spilled into how children were treated,” said Blalock, 53.

    In high school, Blalock was one of only two Black students in her 89-student graduating class enrolled in college prep classes. 

    Source link

  • How Changes in NCAA Athletics Impact Everyone on Campus, The Key

    How Changes in NCAA Athletics Impact Everyone on Campus, The Key

    College athletics has fundamentally changed in the last two decades. With students earning thousands—sometimes millions—for their name, image and likeness and changing teams with greater ease via the transfer portal, athletics have transformed from amateur levels to something more akin to a professional sports league.

    The imminent ruling on the $2.8 billion House settlement case stands to bring about even more change for the sector.

    In the latest episode of The Key, Inside Higher Ed’s news and analysis podcast, Editor in Chief Sara Custer speaks with Karen Weaver, an adjunct assistant professor in the graduate school of education at the University of Pennsylvania, about what the new landscape means for everyone on college campuses, not just those in the athletic department.

    “College athletics have played a critical role in higher education for over 100 years,” said Weaver. “The problem is that the money that has come into so much of college athletics at the highest level is just astronomical.”

    With coaching salaries well into the millions and eight-figure investments into athletics facilities, the campus starts to look and feel differently, she said. “I think that has an impact on everybody.”

    Meanwhile, ensuring athletes have academic success is further complicated when they can change institutions to pursue more lucrative deals, she said.

    “The transfer portal has created an enormous burden on academic counselors and faculty when athletes are supposed to make normal progress toward a degree—all of that is very confusing now,” she said.

    Weaver explained what policy shifts mean for the future of Olympic teams as well as Division II and III programs. In light of rumors that President Trump plans to sign an executive order to regulate payments for name, image and likeness, Weaver suggested collective bargaining would be a more comprehensive solution to the legal and financial complexities of the current state of affairs.

    “I understand collective bargaining with students is tough, I get that, and it’s messy … but it’s still a legitimate outlet to try to address all of these issues and it needs to be talked about more.”

    Listen to the full episode here.

    Source link

  • Understanding the Impact of Workplace Incivility in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Understanding the Impact of Workplace Incivility in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Understanding the Impact of Workplace Incivility in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Understanding the Impact of Workplace Incivility in Higher Education – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • How it Could Impact Schools Nationwide – The 74

    How it Could Impact Schools Nationwide – The 74


    Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    This story was originally reported by Nadra Nittle of The 19th.

    “A direct assault on the Texas public education system.”

    That’s how social justice groups like the Texas Freedom Network are describing the passage of a bill that would create a $1 billion school voucher program in the state. The Texas House passed Senate Bill 2 early Thursday, with support from Gov. Greg Abbott, who has championed school vouchers. These taxpayer-funded subsidies divert money away from public schools, allowing families to use them to cover their children’s tuition at private or religious schools.

    “This is part of a coordinated strategy to dismantle public education statewide and nationally, since Donald Trump literally called Republicans and told them that they had to vote yes on this voucher scheme,” said Emily Witt, spokesperson for the Texas Freedom Network, a grassroots organization of religious and community leaders. “Republicans have done a very coordinated job of framing this as something that it’s not. It’s certainly not ‘choice.’ It’s going to really devastate a lot of public schools and rural communities here in Texas.”

    The voucher bill’s passage has been characterized as a win for both Abbott and Trump. Abbott tried unsuccessfully to get voucher legislation passed in 2023. Trump, in January, issued an executive order directing the education secretary to explore ways to route federal funding to states and families interested in school choice initiatives, which give students the option to attend their preferred public, private, charter or religious school. Critics of vouchers, a controversial way to facilitate school choice, worry that they take away valuable resources from public schools. They also argue that private schools may exclude students with disabilities or who are LGBTQ+ or have LGBTQ+ parents. Students from low-income or rural areas may also struggle to access private school, as may those from certain ethnic groups or religious backgrounds. The voucher program does not guarantee students admission to private schools.

    The approval of a voucher program in the nation’s second most populous state could create a ripple effect across the United States, where the voucher movement has gained momentum in recent years in places like Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and Wisconsin — often with the help of billionaire backers. The Texas bill next goes to the state Senate, where lawmakers in each chamber are expected to work out the disparities in their voucher plans such as how much money participants should get and which participants should be prioritized.

    “It is absurd for Gov. Abbott and his pro-voucher allies to claim that a diversion of $1 billion in tax funds to private schools over the next budget cycle will not hurt our underfunded public schools, where the vast majority of our students will remain,” Ovidia Molina, president of education labor organization the Texas State Teachers Association, said in a statement. “That voucher drain will increase to $3 billion by 2028 and more than $4 billion by 2030 if this voucher bill becomes law, the Legislative Budget Board projects.”

    Texas Gov. Greg Abbott sits before President Donald Trump arrives to speak at an education event and executive order signing in the East Room of the White House in Washington, Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Ben Curtis/AP Photo)

    In Texas, most students attend public schools, with an estimated 6 percent enrolled in private schools. Rural communities overwhelmingly attend public schools because of the dearth of private schools in such areas. Accordingly, voters in the country have typically opposed school vouchers, perceived as vehicles to help families in cities send their kids to private school. Even with the school voucher program, experts do not expect private schools to be inundated with new students from public schools.

    “Most kids are still going to have to be served by public schools,” Witt said. “We do know that in other states where vouchers have passed, that most of the kids using those vouchers already were in private schools.”

    While vouchers have been promoted as a way to help low-income families choose a quality education for their children, the subsidies often aren’t large enough to cover the tuition and fees associated with a private school education. The school voucher program the Texas House just approved is generous, as it will give families who qualify up to about $10,000 per child. The average K-12 private school tuition in Texas is over $11,000, with tuition for schools that specialize in special education topping $19,000 and elite institutions reaching as high as $40,000. Parents would need to make up the difference for tuition costs that vouchers don’t cover, a move critics of the subsidies say is out of reach for disadvantaged families.

    “So it’s still going to benefit mostly wealthy families,” Witt said. “Let’s say that it does cover the cost of tuition. It’s not going to cover extracurriculars. It’s not going to cover transportation. Private schools are not required to offer free transportation to and from school like public schools are, and they also don’t have to accept every child.”

    Religious institutions, she said, could turn away students who don’t belong to the faith affiliated with the school. A private school could accept a student with a disability only to discharge them later if the school doesn’t have the resources to educate that child or is no longer interested in doing so.

    “They could essentially reject a child that they feel just doesn’t meet the culture of their school,” Witt continued. “That could be because a child comes from a low-income family. It could be because they’re not White. It could be because they’re LGBTQ or their parents are LGBTQ or not married.”

    Private schools also don’t have to use standardized tests, like the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), used in public schools to track student progress. The GOP-run Texas House, she said, rejected an amendment that would have required private schools to use standardized testing to measure student outcomes just as public schools do.

    “I don’t know how we’ll see if this program works and how it benefits kids, especially kids with disabilities,” she said.

    House Republicans tabled 44 amendments to the legislation, including one that would have led to a referendum on school vouchers in November, effectively blocking voters from deciding the issue.

    The bill is an additional blow as public schools slash programs and raise class sizes under a budget crunch, Molina said in her statement.

    “Texas already spends more than $5,000 less per student than the national average, ranking Texas 46th among the states and the District of Columbia,” she said. “The school finance bill also approved by the House will not come close to ending the state’s financial neglect of public education. The House’s $395 increase in the basic allotment, which hasn’t been increased in six years, will provide only a third of what is needed to cover districts’ losses from inflation alone.”

    Supporters of the voucher program may not be happy with it a year from now, Witt predicts. In 2022, Arizona passed its universal school voucher program. It covers expenses related to private school tuition, homeschooling and related academic needs, but now the program faces a backlash as the costs associated with it have led to questions about oversight and funding for public schools.

    “Republicans have sold people a lie,” Witt said. “They’ve said repeatedly that it won’t harm public schools, and there’s just no way that it won’t. And I do think that’s their goal. I genuinely think that their goal is to eliminate public education, and this is the first step there. A year from now, people are going to see that the neighborhood schools in their communities are shuttering or having to cut resources for students, and they’re going to be really upset. And I think that there’s going to be hell to pay at the ballot box.”


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • Wellesley Non-Tenure-Track Strike May Impact Class Credits

    Wellesley Non-Tenure-Track Strike May Impact Class Credits

    Hours after Wellesley College’s non-tenure-track faculty went on strike last Thursday, students received word that they might receive only half credit for courses taught by the professors on strike.

    The college attributed the decision to federal regulations on how much instruction students must receive per credit hour, noting that if the strike ends quickly, students will be able to return to their classes and get full credit. In the meantime, they were told they could sign up for other classes, taught by tenure-track faculty, for the last four weeks of the semester. That would allow them to continue to earn full credit hours, which is especially important for students who need to maintain full-time status for financial aid, athletics or visa-related reasons.

    According to college spokesperson Stacey Schmeidel, only about a third of non-tenure-track faculty members’ classes could be affected by this change; the remaining two-thirds met frequently enough during the first 10 weeks of the semester that they had already reached the required minimum number of instructional hours. Over all, she said, about 30 students out of the 2,350 enrolled at the women’s college are currently at risk of dropping below full-time status, though hundreds opted to switch into new classes to ensure they receive the number of credits they planned on for this semester.

    But students and faculty union members have questioned the college’s solution, noting that students may struggle to find replacement courses that fit their schedule or that they have the necessary prerequisites for.

    “Imagine being a student entering into a class that only has four weeks left,” said Jacquelin Woodford, a chemistry lecturer and organizing committee member for the faculty union, Wellesley Organized Academic Workers. “It’s such a weird plan that could all be avoided if the college just bargained with us and settled the contract.” Woodford also noted that striking faculty members had not been informed before Thursday about this plan and still haven’t received formal communication from the institution about what is happening with their classes.

    Non-tenure-track faculty at Wellesley began unionizing almost a year ago in an attempt to obtain higher wages and better job security. Union organizers say the institution has come back with only bare-bones offers.

    On March 25, administrators offered non-tenure-track faculty 2.75 percent annual raises for the duration of the contract and proposed adding an additional course to their teaching loads, for which they would be paid an additional $10,000. But union members argue that $10,000 is equivalent to what they are already paid for teaching an extra course.

    “The College’s proposal makes working overtime the new, required norm,” wrote Erin Battat, senior lecturer in the writing program and a member of the bargaining committee, in an email to The Wellesley News, the college’s student paper. “We had hoped that Wellesley was serious about their claims to care about averting a strike, but their actions at the bargaining prove otherwise.”

    WOAW’s latest proposal, meanwhile, includes a revised salary scale that would see some NTT faculty with more than 18 years at Wellesley earn over $170,000 a year—25 percent more than full professors with the same amount of experience. Wellesley has countered that the proposed pay scale, which would afford faculty raises of 54 percent in the contract’s first year, is untenable.

    The union voted in February to authorize a strike.

    “We called for a strike authorization vote to encourage Wellesley to make substantial progress towards our key priorities. Our goal is to negotiate a fair contract that will be ratified by our members,” said one bargaining committee member, Christa Skow, senior instructor in biological sciences, in an update on WOAW’s website at the time.

    Pizza and Ponchos

    Students have been supportive of the strike despite its impact on their courses, said Woodford, noting that they have joined the picket lines at the motor and pedestrian entrances to campus over the past several days.

    “They’ll come and go between their courses. They’re so kind; they’ve been sending us food and pizza and they brought us ponchos today for the rain,” she said, noting that tenured colleagues, alumnae and Massachusetts state politicians have also come out to support them.

    The next bargaining session will take place on Tuesday, and union organizers questioned why the institution was unwilling to bargain any earlier than five days into the strike. In an email, Schmeidel said the college and the union had, prior to the strike, mutually agreed to a session on April 3; after the strike began, Wellesley offered to move the session to today, April 1.

    She also said that the union had rejected the college’s proposal to work with a mediator.

    “The College feels that the union’s refusal to go to mediation and to instead call for a strike is arbitrary and premature,” she wrote.

    For some students, it’s unclear what the next few weeks will bring. Jeanne, a freshman who asked to have her last name withheld, is currently taking a writing course impacted by the strike. She said she received an email from the dean of first-year students saying that those in the course would receive full credit, but students should nevertheless attempt to keep up with the syllabus as much as possible. She doubts she’ll be able to, though, as the materials she needs for the next paper haven’t been posted for students to access online yet.

    Still, she said she is in favor of the strike, noting that WOAW has been transparent with the students about what the stoppage will entail since much earlier in the semester.

    “[WOAW] had been speaking about negotiations with the college since I arrived on the campus last semester,” she said. “They’ve been very clear with the students that they believe their treatment is unfair and they’ve been working with the college for a while now to get the situation fixed.”

    In an FAQ about how Wellesley will handle the strike, the institution said it is still figuring out how grading will be impacted by the half-credit courses and noted that it may be necessary to include a transcript note for anyone impacted. It said the same about making up any content students may lose out on as a result of the strike.

    “Department chairs and faculty are thinking seriously about any course content that may not have been covered and how to make up for this in a future semester,” the FAQ says.

    Source link

  • Conversations on the Future and Impact of Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Conversations on the Future and Impact of Small Colleges – Edu Alliance Journal

    Small colleges have long played a significant role in shaping American higher education. They may not make national headlines every day, but their impact on students, communities, and the broader landscape of learning is undeniable. That’s why Kent Barnds and I, Dean Hoke, created Small College America. Its mission is to present critical discussions at the forefront by interviewing small college higher education leaders, policy experts, and innovators. The podcast delves into the evolving role of small colleges, their economic impact, innovative strategies for sustainability, and how they can continue to provide a highly personalized educational experience.

    Each episode explores the distinctiveness of small colleges—through conversations with presidents, provosts, foundation leaders, and changemakers who are deeply engaged in the work of shaping the future. We focus on the real issues small colleges face—from enrollment shifts and financial pressures to mission clarity, leadership, and collaborative innovation.

    Why is now the perfect time for this podcast? Higher education faces unprecedented challenges, and small colleges, with their adaptability and personalized approaches, offer valuable lessons and innovative solutions critical to the broader education landscape.

    Our most recent episodes include:

    • Wendy Sherman Heckler and Chet Haskell – From Otterbein University and Antioch University, respectively these two leaders discuss their groundbreaking collaboration known as the Coalition for the Common Good. It’s a bold new model for partnership between mission-driven institutions focused on shared values and long-term sustainability.
    • Eric Lindberg—Executive Director of the Austin E. Knowlton Foundation in Cincinnati, Ohio, shares insights into the Foundation’s commitment to supporting small colleges, reflects on his own liberal arts experience, and outlines how strategic philanthropy can strengthen institutional resilience.
    • Dr. Paaige Turner, Provost and Executive Vice President at Aurora University discusses her transition into the role after serving as Dean at Ball State University. She brings a fresh perspective on leadership, regional relevance, and the evolving communication needs of today’s students.

    Upcoming Guests:

    We’re excited to welcome several new voices to the podcast in upcoming episodes:

    • Charles Kim, retired Managing Director at Kaufman Hall and former head of its Higher Education division, now serves on the boards of Augustana College and Westminster College.
    • Scott Wiegandt, Director of Athletics at Bellarmine University, who helped lead the university’s move from NCAA Division II to Division I.
    • Karin Fischer, senior writer for The Chronicle of Higher Education and author of the Latitudes newsletter, brings deep insight into the global and domestic challenges facing small colleges.
    • Steve Bahls, President Emeritus of Augustana College and national expert on shared governance, discusses how collaboration can lead to institutional agility and long-term success.
    • Matthew Ward, Vice President of Enrollment Management at California Lutheran University.
    • Liz Nino, Executive Director of International Enrollment at Augustana College.
    • Dr. Marco Clark, President of Holy Cross College at Notre Dame, Indiana.

    Whether you’re a small college president, a prospective student, an alum, or simply someone passionate about the future of higher education, we invite you to join us. Each episode of Small College America is a chance to learn, reflect, and engage with the people who are shaping this vital sector.

    Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform or listen directly at https://www.podpage.com/small-college-america/. We hope you’ll tune in. If there’s a story or college you think we should feature, let us know.

    Small colleges are changing higher education—be part of the conversation.

    Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy, and a Senior Fellow with the Sagamore Institute. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean, along with Kent Barnds, is a co-host for the podcast series Small College America. 

    Source link

  • Impact of Technology on Student Retention Report

    Impact of Technology on Student Retention Report

    Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.

    Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.

    Source link