But what is the hidden impact of accent bias across UK HE? How does it influence students’ academic life, belonging and wellbeing?
The Hidden Impact
In our current research (Tomé Lourido & Snell, under review), we conducted an accent bias survey with over 600 students at a Russell Group University in the North of England. It showed that a significant number of students experience accent-based disadvantages that have a lasting negative impact on their academic life. Negative experiences were most frequently reported by students from the North of England, especially from working-class backgrounds, and students who did not grow up speaking English, especially from minoritised ethnic backgrounds. These include:
Being marked as different or inferior through negative evaluation, miscategorisation and frequent microaggressions, such as having their accent mimicked, mocked and commented on.
Facing barriers to academic engagement and success. Students from these groups report feeling that their contributions in academic settings are not valued because of their accent, which makes them reluctant to participate in class. Some feel pressured to change their accent, adding an additional cognitive burden to in-class participation. These students are disadvantaged because they miss opportunities to develop and refine their thinking through dialogue with others.
Impacts on wellbeing and career aspirations: Due to negative past experiences, some students internalise negative perceptions of their accent, affecting their confidence and wellbeing, and making them reluctant to take up new opportunities or follow certain career paths. This can have a knock-on effect on their mental health.
The accent-based disadvantages reported by students are not simply representative of wider societal prejudices; for many, the university context was unique in highlighting and amplifying these prejudices. Students also recognised that accent bias intersects with other forms of discrimination – class, race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and disability – in complex ways. Thus, we argue that HEIs should turn an analytic lens on themselves and take action to tackle accent bias and related inequities.
From Awareness to Action: A Collaborative Approach
There is work to be done for all of us in HEIs to embrace a true multilingual and multicultural ethos and challenge the idea that there is an idealised type of university student. We must “de-normalise” the microaggressions against students with accents perceived as “regional” or “foreign” and ensure that students from all backgrounds are able to participate in the classroom without feeling out of place. We propose four areas of interdisciplinary and collaborative work across the organisation:
Raise awareness of accent bias and its negative consequences in collaboration with students and student unions. Create a communications campaign, provide targeted student and staff training, engage with career offices and employers.
Tackle accent-based inequities by adopting a good practice statement about linguistic diversity and incorporating action into Equity, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) policy and practice. Include content on linguistic diversity and discrimination in relevant university policies (e.g. mutual respect), strategies, student communications, and training (e.g. induction).
Create a safe report and support route within existing systems for linguistic discrimination, bullying and harassment. Train staff supporting students, including personal tutors, on accent bias and its impact on academic life.
Evaluate the effect of accent bias on students’ success, belonging and wellbeing. Track linguistic diversity. Assess the success of initiatives.
Accent bias remains a largely unaddressed issue in large organisations. HEIs can play a pivotal role in leading a much-awaited societal change.
Addressing accent bias in Higher Education is about breaking down barriers to opportunity and creating an environment in which all students, regardless of their background, can succeed in their studies, secure jobs, and contribute positively to society. By doing so, HEIs will support the employability of their students, a key metric for prospective students when selecting a university, and contribute to economic growth and social mobility.
We encourage senior leaders to take proactive steps to tackle the negative consequences of accent bias and foster a more inclusive and equitable Higher Education system where students from all linguistic backgrounds can thrive.
Personal, social, health and economic (PSHE) education is the school curriculum subject in England dedicated to supporting children’s safety, health, wellbeing and preparation for life and work. When timetabled and taught effectively, it can play a key role in improving young people’s preparedness for life beyond school, including for higher education and the graduate labour market. For instance, PSHE education can provide a safe and dedicated space for young people to learn about sex and relationships, budgeting and time management, among other things that most students will need to navigate more independently – and sometimes for the first time – during higher education.
As the official subject association for PSHE education, and a charity and membership body supporting over 50,000 teachers and schools nationally with resources, training and guidance, the PSHE Association was especially interested in the Higher Education Policy Institute’s (HEPI) recent report, One Step Beyond, which investigated how well the curriculum as a whole prepares young people for life beyond school.
The report, which is based on an analysis of data from a survey of 1,105 undergraduates in England, found that over half of participants wanted to have received more education on personal finances and budgeting (59%) and to have had more opportunities to learn ‘life skills’ (51%) prior to entering higher education. A large minority also wanted to have received more careers education (44%), a topic that PSHE education covers and which, when delivered well, can make a positive difference to young people’s confidence, sense of direction and career trajectories.
Importantly, the report also found that over half (58%) of participants wanted PSHE education to be compulsory until 18. At present, while relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) is compulsory for 16- to 18-year-olds in schools with sixth forms – and our own PSHE education planning guidance runs up to post-16 / key stage 5 – this requirement is not applicable to other settings, including sixth form and further education colleges. Furthermore, existing PSHE education content on economic wellbeing, personal financial education and careers education is optional in all but independent schools. As there is evidence to suggest that these are topics that young people from more affluent backgrounds are more likely to be taught about and discuss with their parents, all of PSHE education, including economic wellbeing, personal finance and careers education, has the potential to contribute towards narrowing social inequalities. And this is what we argue strongly for in our response to the Curriculum and Assessment Review, alongside strengthening the expectation that all young people should benefit from PSHE education up to the age of 18.
The good news is that since statutory RSHE requirements were introduced in 2020, these appear to have made a positive impact. And the findings from the One Step Beyond report support this idea, with half of the participants reporting feeling well prepared for sex and relationships in higher education in 2024 (47%) – almost double the percentage that reported feeling this way three years earlier (27%).
Another aspect of life which PSHE education can help young people to navigate during school, college and higher education is mental health. The One Step Beyond report found that most participants believed that their schools or colleges had done a ‘good’ or ‘excellent’ job of preparing them to plan and manage their workloads (61%); take care of their mental health and wellbeing (56%); and use healthy coping strategies (55%). However, a substantial minority of participants did not feel this way, suggesting that there is room to improve the quality of education that students receive on these topics – and PSHE education can play a crucial role in making this happen.
PSHE education provides opportunities for young people to learn about mental health and develop skills that can support them in taking care of it. For example, through PSHE education, young people can be taught about how to prevent and manage stress, which can aggravate or contribute towards the development of mental health difficulties. This is achieved in a variety of ways. For instance, by providing opportunities for young people to be taught about how to problem solve, develop greater emotional awareness, use healthy coping strategies, maintain good sleep routines and recognise when and how to access support for themselves or others.
After leaving school, such teaching could help young people to navigate further and higher education, which both demand greater independence and present unique opportunities and challenges. Illustrating this, when 136 A-level students were asked to describe their experience of sixth form using three words or phrases, the majority (79%) used at least one term to describe it as challenging and almost half (43%) described it as intense, stressful or overwhelming. Furthermore, across several interview studies, students have consistently described studying A-levels as a ‘massive step up’, a ‘jump’ and ‘a completely different ballgame’, which demands far more self-directed learning and can be an emotionally turbulent experience. It has also been found that experiencing education-related problems is among the main reasons why 16- to 18-year-olds contact Childline. So, PSHE education during school and post-16 education has the potential to support young people and contribute to improving higher education students’ mental health by equipping them with knowledge, understanding and skills that can help them to navigate this stage of education prior to entering it.
To conclude, high-quality PSHE education has the potential to improve young people’s preparedness for many aspects of higher education – social, academic and economic – as well as for life beyond its walls. And it is for this reason that the PSHE Association has argued in response to the Curriculum Review and Assessment Group consultation that personal finance education and careers education should be placed on the same statutory footing as RSHE and for PSHE education, comprising all these elements, to be scheduled as a school curriculum subject in all schools, with at least one timetabled lesson per week.
Findings from the One Step Beyond report indicate that PSHE education has had a positive impact on preparing young people for life beyond school, but that there is significant potential and need to build on improvements since elements of RSHE became statutory. This includes more emphasis on economic wellbeing, careers and mental health, as well as a guarantee that young people in all post-16 education settings can benefit from PSHE education until the age of 18 – not just those in specific settings.
“Greetings! You’ve been added to our journal’s editorial system because we believe you would serve as an excellent reviewer of [Unexciting Title] manuscript …”
You probably get these, too. It feels like such emails are propagating. The peer-review system may still be the best we have for academic quality assurance, but it is vulnerable to human overload, preferences and even mood. A result can be low-effort, late or unconstructive reviews, but first the editors must be lucky enough to find someone willing to do a review at all. There should be a better way. Here’s an idea of how to rethink the reviewer allocation process.
The Pressure on Peer Review
As the number of academic papers continues to grow, so do refereeing tasks. Scientists struggle to keep up with increasing demands to publish their own work while also accepting the thankless task of reviewing others’ work. In the wake, low-effort, AI-generated and even plagiarized reviewer reports find fertile ground, feeding a vicious circle that slowly undermines the process. Peer review—the bedrock of scientific quality control—is under pressure.
Editors have been experimenting with ways to rethink the peer-reviewing process. Ideas include paying reviewers, distributing review tasks among multiple reviewers (on project proposals), transparently posting reviews (already an option for some Nature journals) or tracking and giving virtual credits for reviews (as with Publon). However, in one aspect, journals have apparently not experimented a lot: how to assign submitted papers to qualified reviewers.
The standard approach for reviewer selection is to match signed-up referees with submitted papers using a keyword search, the paper’s reference list or the editors’ knowledge of the field and community. Reviewers are invited to review only one paper at a time—but often en masse to secure enough reviews—and if they decline, someone else may be invited. It’s an unproductive process.
Choice in Work Task Allocation Can Improve Performance
Inspired by our ongoing research on giving workers more choice in work task allocation in a manufacturing setting, it struck me that academic referees have limited choices when asked to review a paper for a journal. It’s basically a “yes, I’ll take it” or “no, I won’t.” They are only given the choice of accepting or rejecting one paper from a journal at a time. That seems to be the modus operandi across all disciplines I have encountered.
In our study in a factory context, productivity increased when workers could choose among several job tasks. The manufacturer we worked with had implemented a smartwatch-based work task allocation system: Workers wore smartwatches showing open work tasks that they could accept or reject. In a field experiment, we provided some workers the opportunity to select from a menu of open tasks instead of only one. Our results showed that giving choice improved work performance.
A New Approach: Reviewers’ Choice
Similar to the manufacturing setting, academic reviewers might also do better in a system that empowers them with options. One way to improve peer review may be as simple as presenting potential referees with a few submitted papers’ titles and abstracts to choose from for review.
The benefits of choice in reviewer allocation are realistic: Referees may be more likely to accept a review when asked to select one among several, and their resulting review reports should be more timely and developmental when they are genuinely curious about the topic. For example, reviewers could choose one among a limited set of titles and abstracts that fit their area of domain or methodological expertise.
Taking it further, publishers could consider pooling submissions from several journals in a cross-journal submission and peer-review platform. This could help make the review process focus on the research, not where it’s submitted—aligned with the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. I note that double-blind reviews rather than single-blind may be preferable in such a platform to reduce biases based on affiliations and names.
What Can Go Wrong
In light of the increased pressure on the publishing process, rethinking the peer-review process is important in its own right. However, shifting to an alternative system based on choice introduces a few new challenges. First, there is the risk of authors exposing ideas to a broader set of reviewers, who may be more interested in getting ideas for their next project than engaging in a constructive reviewing process.
Relatedly, if the platform is cross-journal, authors may be hesitant to expose their work to many reviewers in case of rejections. Second, authors may be tempted to use clickbait titles and abstracts—although this may backfire on the authors when reviewers don’t find what they expected in the papers. Third, marginalized or new topics may find no interested reviewers. As in the classic review process, such papers can still be handled by editors in parallel. While there are obstacles that should be considered, testing a solution should be low in risk.
Call to Action
Publishers already have multi-journal submission platforms, making it easier for authors to submit papers to a range of journals or transfer manuscripts between them. Granting more choices to reviewers as well should be technically easy to implement. The simplest way would be to use the current platforms to assign reviewers a low number of papers and ask them to choose one. A downside could be extended turnaround times, so pooling papers across a subset of journals could be beneficial.
For success, the reviewers should be vetted and accept a code of conduct. The journal editors must accept that their journals will be reviewed at the same level and with the same scrutiny as other journals in the pool. Perhaps there could be tit-for-tat guidelines, like completing two constructive reviews or more for each paper an author team submits for review. Such rules could work when there is an economy of scale in journals, reviewers and papers. Editors, who will try it first?
Torbjørn Netland is a professor and chair of production and operations management in the Department of Management, Technology, and Economics at ETH Zurich.
Effective higher education fee management maximizes revenue, reduces losses, and builds confidence with students and parents. However, 65% of institutions lose money owing to obsolete, manual processes (EDUFinance 2024). This is where student fees collection software shines.
Let’s look at 10 data-driven strategies to improve student fee collection software for transparency and efficiency.
Why Modern Student Fees Collection Software Matters
Did you know 37% of college finance teams track fees using spreadsheets, which can lead to errors and miscalculations (Campus Finance Survey, 2024)? Student finance cloud technologies automate complex operations, reduce manual errors, and offer a transparent, real-time financial environment.
How colleges can improve financial transparency in fee payments? 10 proven ways.
1. One seamless student registration and data sync
Create comprehensive student profiles automatically matched with student information systems (SIS) including demographic data, course information, and financial details. Institutions running linked data systems report 23% faster fee processing.
2. Clearly structured fees
Fee breakdowns cause 48% of parents to argue (EdTech Insights, 2023). Flexible fees per department, course, or service offer upfront transparency and easier payments.
3. Channel-wide fee collection automation
Students prefer mobile payments 72% (Higher Ed Payment Trends, 2024). Make websites, mobile apps, and self-service portals accept rapid payments. Automated schools collected fees 27% faster and missed 15% fewer.
4. Fine automation, absenteeism tracking
Establish absenteeism and late payment penalties. Automation has reduced fee defaulters by 19% and ensures regular sanctions without manual follow-up.
5. Role-based security to protect finances
Role-based access control is non-negotiable even if 63% of higher education institutions report financial intrusions (EduCyberReport, 2024). Minimizing fraud and mistakes, only authorised staff should handle fee data.
6. Parent portals for real-time fee visibility
Parents demand more financial participation in their children’s education (82%, ParentPulse Survey, 2024). Parents receive transparent information regarding dues, invoices, and payment schedules via a portal, decreasing late payments.
7. Automatic fee calculations for billing free of errors
Errors in manual fee computation affect institutions’ annual income up to 4%. Calculate fees automatically using pre-defined criteria to guarantee correct, current billing for every student.
8. Waivers, fee concessions, and flexible payment options
Offer waivers, discounts, and flexible payment arrangements without any confusion on the back end. Supporting financially challenged students with structured payment plans resulted in 12% higher retention rates for colleges that have implemented this approach.
9. Automatic fee reminders for on-time payments
According to EduFinance Insights (2024), overlooked reminders account for 43% of late payments. Send automated fee reminders via email, SMS, and push notifications to significantly reduce the number of late payments.
10. Real time financial transparency reports
Access transaction history, income breakdowns, and outstanding amounts instantly. Real-time reporting improved financial forecasting and reconciliation for 89% of finance directors.
The Bottom Line: Future-Proof Your Fee Management with Creatrix Campus
Why let outdated processes drain your institution’s revenue? With Creatrix Campus Fee Management Software, higher education institutions can achieve:
Faster fee collection with automation and mobile payments
Enhanced financial transparency for students, parents, and administrators
Stronger security with role-based access and encrypted data
Real-time insights for smarter, data-driven financial decisions
Ready to transform your fee collection process? Let Creatrix Campus help you boost efficiency, ensure transparency, and future-proof your institution’s financial operations.
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).
In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).
How It Works
The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
They must be anonymous;
They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)
The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.
Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective:
What in this course has helped to improve your learning?
What in this course has hindered your learning?
Is there anything you would like the instructor to change?
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions.
Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses.
After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).
Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)
The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.
In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).
What It Does
The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.
For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).
Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.
Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition.
References
Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journalof Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.
Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.
George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.
Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.
Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook
Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.
Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.
Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.
Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.
Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.
Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.
In general, educators recognize the value of student feedback: it can help us better understand the classroom experience, modify learning activities, or adjust our policies and practices to improve student outcomes. Unfortunately, the most common form of feedback that instructors receive, the mandatory end-of-semester evaluation, is primarily intended to assess faculty rather than the teaching and learning experience. It rarely asks questions focused on student learning. Moreover, it takes place at a point in time that provides no opportunity to make the type of changes that might benefit the students who complete it (George, 2017; Holton, et al., 2016; Kahn, 1993; Medina, 2011; Nilson, 2016).
In contrast, the Midterm Student Feedback (MSF) mechanism, which is generally voluntary, is fundamentally focused on teaching and learning. The MSF asks students simple, direct questions focused on the teaching and learning process in their current course. Put more simply, it asks students to discuss what is and isn’t helping them learn (Dangel & Lindsey, 2014; Nelms, 2015; Payette & Brown, 2018; Ufland, 2020; Veeck, et al., 2016). The students’ feedback is then analyzed and used by the instructor to make any changes that he or she believes will help the students improve their learning outcomes over the course of the rest of the semester (Gooblar, 2017; Harris & Stevens, 2013; McGrath, 2014; Veeck, et al., 2016).
How It Works
The are several different forms of MSF that can be employed to attain feedback on the student learning process. For the purposes of clarity and simplicity, we feel that two are worth discussing here: the Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID) and Bare Bones Questions (BBQ). While these methods vary in terms of the time and resources required to conduct them, all MSFs share certain key elements:
They must be conducted at a point in the semester when students have had enough time to become familiar with the course pedagogy, yet still early enough for meaningful changes to be made;
They must be a voluntary effort to improve learning, as opposed to an evaluation mandated by the institution;
They must be anonymous;
They must be conducted, analyzed, conveyed to the instructor, and discussed with the students in a timely fashion, usually within a week (Ufland, 2020).
Small Group Instructional Diagnosis (SGID)
The SGID is a collaborative form of MSF that requires the cooperation of a facilitator, typically a teaching and learning specialist or a trusted colleague. The process requires about thirty minutes of class time, so it is fairly efficient.
Before the evaluation, the facilitator and the instructor identify three or four open-ended questions to structure the MSF. The questions should encourage students to focus on the learning experience, not on the instructor. We’ve found the following questions effective:
What in this course has helped to improve your learning?
What in this course has hindered your learning?
Is there anything you would like the instructor to change?
On the day of the MSF, the instructor should introduce the facilitator and encourage students to be honest in their feedback, then leave the room. The facilitator then provides an overview of the process, divides students into groups of five to eight students, and asks them to discuss the three questions.
Once students have worked through the questions together, the facilitator reconvenes the full group and elicits responses. The facilitator records all the responses for the class but also takes note of those points that seem to represent a consensus. The facilitator asks follow-up questions as needed to understand the context in which the responses are being offered. If the suggested questions above are used, the third can serve to synthesize responses.
After the session, the facilitator writes a brief report synthesizing feedback from the class. The facilitator can use their judgment here: not all feedback needs to be shared, since the goal is to provide contextualized, actionable feedback. One way to achieve this more easily is to focus on those views that emerged as consensus points across the class. Indeed, one of the benefits of the MSF is that unhelpful feedback can be filtered out before the instructor sees it (Ufland, 2020). The facilitator may also provide a short, immediate “act now” list of items to the instructor and provide a more detailed report subsequently. This can enable the instructor to have an immediate discussion of the feedback with students, which is critical to the success of the model (Weimer, 2016).
Bare Bones Questions (BBQ)
The BBQ is a highly simplified form of midterm feedback that requires considerably less time than the more formal SGID. It also may be conducted without the assistance of a facilitator and can be effective in very small classes.
In this mode, the instructor provides written or digital copies of the questions – we suggest those listed above – to students near the end of a class session. The students then meet in small groups, compile their own responses, and elect one student to send the results to the faculty member. Once the students’ responses have been received the process of analysis continues in the same manner as that of an SGID (Ufland, 2020).
What It Does
The MSF has several clear benefits. For instructors, it provides nuanced, detailed feedback at a point in the semester when change is still possible. This feedback helps the instructor better understand the students’ experience and provides information about how to improve both the class environment and the learning process. Further, it helps build greater rapport between the instructor and students, as it shows students that the instructor values their input on the learning experience (Harris & Stevens, 2014; Holton, et al., 2016; McGrath, 2014). It also provides documentation both of teaching effectiveness and ongoing work to improve teaching effectiveness.
For students, it provides a forum to discuss their shared learning experience in the course and to identify shared challenges. Inasmuch as the instructor can make suggested changes, it can also enhance their learning experience. Perhaps most importantly, MSF provides a means of empowering students in the teaching and learning process. By providing students with an opportunity to collectively share their views and potentially effectuate change, students are given the chance to become active partners in the teaching and learning process and, in so doing, help improve their own learning outcomes (Berk, 2005; Harris & Stevens, 2013; Holton, et al., 2016; Kite, et al., 2015; Warner & Simmons, 2015).
Peter Ufland is Associate Professor of History at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His latest research focuses on evaluation of history course syllabi in higher education and whether they conform to the best practices of teaching and learning.
Christian Aguiar is Assistant Professor of English at the University of the District of Columbia Community College. His research focuses on multimodal and collaborative assessments, approaches to teaching writing, and the experiences of first-generation and low-income college students in first-year composition.
References
Berk, Ronald A. “Survey of 12 Strategies to Measure Teaching Effectiveness.” International Journalof Teaching and Learning 17 (2005), no. 1: 48-62.
Dangel, Harry and Lindsey, Peter. “What are Students (Really) Telling Us?” The Journal of Faculty Development 28 (2014), no. 2: 27-33.
George, Phillis L. “Reimagining the Student Evaluation: Using Democratic Frameworks in College Teaching and Learning.” In Willermet, Cathy, et al., Promoting Social Justice through the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning. Indiana University Press, 2017.
Harris, G.L.A. and Stevens, Danielle D. “The Value of Midterm Student Feedback in Cross Disciplinary Graduate Programs.” Journal of Public Administration Education 19 (2013), no. 3: 537-558.
Holton, Doug, Hajara Mahmood, Kathyrn Cunningham, Miriam R. Diamond, Mary Wright, CRLT, University of Michigan, Maha Bali, Susan Brown, Eulises Dominguez. Midterm Student Feedback Guidebook. (2016) https://bit.ly/msfguidebook
Kahn, Susan. “Better Teaching Through Better Evaluation: A Guide for Faculty and Institutions.” To Improve the Academy 12 (1993), no. 1: 111-126.
Kite, Mary E., Prabin C. Subedi, Kinsey B. Bryant-Lees. “Student Perceptions of the Teaching Evaluation Process.” Teaching of Psychology 42 (2015), no. 4: 307-314.
Nilson, Linda B. Teaching at its Best: A Research-Based Resource for College Instructors, 4th ed. Jossey-Bass, 2016.
Payette, Patricia R., and Marie Kendall Brown. “Gathering Mid-Semester Feedback: Three Variations to Improve Instruction.” IDEA Paper No. 67, IDEA Center, https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED588349
Ufland, Peter. “Empowering Students and Improving Learning Through Midterm Student Feedback.” The Cross Papers (2020), no. 23.
Veeck, Ann, Kelley O’Reilly, Amy MacMillan, Hongyan Yu. “The Use of Collaborative Student Evaluations to Provide Actionable Results.” Journal of Marketing Education 38 (2016), no. 3: 157-169.
Warner, Janis and Aneika Simmons. “Giving Voice to Students: A Preliminary Analysis of Midterm Evaluations and Procedural Justice.” Academy of Educational Leadership Journal 19 (2015), no. 1, 71-79.
Today’s higher education requires financial efficiency. Outdated accounting processes cause financial inefficiencies in 73% of higher education institutions, according to a 2024 EDUCAUSE analysis. Right software can fix that. Here are 7 benefits of utilizing the best college accounting software, backed by numbers, automation, and improved decision-making.
Why College Accounting Systems Need Improvement
College economics are more complicated than ever due to shifting enrollments, diversified revenue streams, and escalating operational expenditures. Reports confirm that up to 30% of administrative time is wasted on manual accounting, resulting in errors, lost income, and lost productivity. Automation for college accounting is no longer optional—it’s game-changing.
How Colleges Can Improve Financial Efficiency with Accounting Software. 7 Advantages
1. Usability—simplify complex financial processes
Do you know 43% of institutions prioritize user-friendliness when purchasing accounting software? The finest solutions enable non-financial workers to manage accounts using intuitive dashboards, drag-and-drop features, and automated reporting.
2. Flexibility and scalability—grow without financial limits
Many institutions have 12% yearly enrollment fluctuations, making scalability important. The ideal software expands with your organization as you add programs and revenue streams. Cloud-based upgrades minimize downtime, ensuring operations.
3. Custom reporting – faster data-driven decision making
Real-time reporting, according to 67% of officials in higher education, greatly enhances financial decision-making. Imagine being able to instantly have thorough knowledge on grant distributions, operating expenses, and tuition rates, therefore enabling leadership to act on facts rather than speculation.
4. Reliability – Bid farewell to mistakes and lost data.
Errors in manual accounting can cost organizations up to 5% of their yearly budget, an intolerable loss. Reliable accounting systems guarantee accurate, real-time tracking of payments, debts, and financial projections. For better processes, it also easily interacts with other campus administration systems.
5. Automate and synchronize data to reduce administrative tasks
Accounting automation reduced administrative tasks by 40%. Colleges can distribute resources faster, speed up approvals, and eliminate human error-related income leakage with synchronized data across admissions and payroll systems.
6. Security – Guard private financial information
Given 63% of higher education institutions having attacked recently, financial security is not negotiable. Modern accounting systems guarantee that your financial documents are untouchable by illegal hands by means of role-based access, encrypted data storage, and automatic backups.
7. Efficiency — Save time, cut costs, increase revenue
Saving time makes money. Academic institutions with accounting automation collect fees 25% faster and spend 18% less. Monitoring finances on the go using mobile and cloud capabilities reduces overhead and improves transparency and cash flow.
The Bottom Line
Choice of college accounting software is about developing a smarter, faster, and more robust financial ecosystem, not just convenience. The appropriate software helps universities maximize financial efficiency and future-proof operations through automation, real-time analytics, and cost reductions.
Has your college been trapped in outmoded accounting? We must embrace intelligent automation-powered financial efficiency. Contact team Creatrix Campus today!
Student retention is one of the most critical challenges faced by colleges and universities. While recruitment is essential to maintaining a thriving institution, keeping students engaged and enrolled until they complete their programs is just as vital. Why is that?
High dropout rates can impact institutional reputation, funding, and overall student satisfaction. As an education marketer, ask yourself: how can you create an experience that ensures students feel supported and motivated to stay the course? You’re in luck because today, we’re discussing the answer to this question at length.
Understanding the factors contributing to student retention in higher education is the first step toward building effective marketing strategies that help students persist through their academic journey. From engagement initiatives to personalized support systems, there are various approaches you can take to increase student retention and position your institution as one that truly cares about student success. Let’s explore ten of them together!
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Understanding Retention Marketing
What is retention marketing? Retention marketing is the strategic use of targeted campaigns, communication, and engagement initiatives that keep current students enrolled and actively involved in their educational journey. Unlike traditional marketing, which focuses on acquiring new students, retention marketing is about maintaining student satisfaction and addressing concerns before they result in attrition.
Investing in retention marketing helps schools build stronger student relationships, providing the necessary support to ensure academic persistence. Now let us explore key college student retention strategies to incorporate into your marketing plan.
Source: HEM
1. Personalizing Communication to Address Individual Student Needs
One of the most effective ways to retain students is through personalized communication. Today’s students expect tailored messaging that speaks directly to their needs, challenges, and aspirations.
Automated email campaigns, segmented messaging, and personalized advising can go a long way in making students feel seen and heard. Implementing AI-driven chatbots and predictive analytics can help anticipate student concerns before they escalate, allowing your institution to intervene at critical moments.
2. Creating a Strong Sense of Community and Belonging
Feeling connected to a campus community is a key driver of student success. Institutions that foster a sense of belonging through student organizations, mentorship programs, and social events tend to see higher levels of college student retention.
Marketing teams can contribute by showcasing stories of engaged students and alumni, creating social media groups, and facilitating virtual and in-person networking opportunities that keep students feeling involved.
Example:Here, Nichol’s College demonstrates its commitment to student belonging with a dedicated Instagram for making its current students feel at home. In addition to fostering belonging in your classrooms, clubs, and offices, to improve retention through your digital marketing efforts, it’s essential to champion each student’s role as a valued member of your community in posts and site content.
Source: Nichols College | Instagram
3. Offering Robust Academic Support Services
Academic challenges are one of the leading reasons students drop out. By promoting tutoring centers, academic coaching, and faculty office hours, your institution can reinforce its commitment to student success. Marketing these services effectively ensures students know where to get help when needed. Outreach campaigns can highlight real student success stories, demonstrating the impact of these resources.
Beyond traditional support, schools can integrate technology-driven solutions such as virtual tutoring and on-demand academic workshops. Proactively reaching out to students who show signs of struggling, such as declining grades or low attendance, can also prevent academic disengagement.
Additionally, faculty can offer structured study groups or mentoring programs to ensure students receive guidance outside of class hours. By fostering a strong academic support network, institutions can significantly improve student persistence and overall satisfaction.
Example: Discover the robust academic support system available to students at UC Berkeley. On their website, they make it clear that they are committed to meeting the learning needs of every student. Below, you’ll see an array of academic resources tailored to different subgroups of the Berkeley student body. Low-income, underrepresented, first-generation, and students with disabilities are acknowledged and supported to reach their full potential.
Source: UC Berkeley
In addition, UC Berkeley leverages technology to serve its students through the AIM platform, specifically tailored to learners with disabilities. AIM, pictured at the bottom, is an accessible Student Information System designed to facilitate communication between students and faculty, streamline the process of requesting accommodations, and centralize the management of their information.
To boost retention, make sure students know how you support their learning. Make it as convenient and inclusive as possible for students to access your resources.
4. Providing Career Development Opportunities Early On
Students often enroll in college with long-term career aspirations in mind, yet many feel uncertain about how to achieve their goals. By integrating career services from day one, schools can help students see a clear pathway from education to employment. Internship programs, networking events, and job placement support should be at the forefront of marketing efforts. When students perceive that their investment in education will lead to tangible career outcomes, they are more likely to persist.
To enhance engagement, institutions should provide hands-on career workshops, alumni networking events, and mentorship opportunities that connect students with professionals in their fields of interest. Career counselors can conduct personalized career assessments to help students identify potential career paths that align with their strengths and interests.
Additionally, integrating career-focused coursework, such as resume-building sessions and mock interviews, can help students feel more confident about their job prospects post-graduation. Schools that establish strong employer partnerships can also facilitate job placement programs, internships, and co-op opportunities that give students real-world experience while still in school, reinforcing their motivation to stay enrolled and complete their studies.
Example:In this video, AAPS, an institution that mainly appeals to graduate students who are focused on starting or developing their careers, markets its career services which include: access to career and employment experts, resume writing support, and interview workshops.
Source: Academy of Applied Pharmaceutical Sciences | YouTube
Their marketing shows how effective the career services at AAPS are, citing their 100% employer satisfaction rate and a solid 88% graduation rate. As you promote your career services, be sure to provide tangible results because that’s what your prospects and current students are looking for.
5. Focus on Student Engagement Initiatives
Student engagement plays a crucial role in student retention, as engaged students are more likely to complete their programs and feel a strong connection to their institution. Schools must take proactive steps to foster engagement through meaningful initiatives that encourage academic, social, and extracurricular involvement.
One way to drive engagement is by creating dynamic student events, such as leadership workshops, cultural festivals, and career networking opportunities. These events provide students with valuable connections, skills, and a greater sense of belonging, reducing feelings of isolation and disengagement.
Another highly effective strategy is gamification, where game design elements, such as rewards, leaderboards, and challenges, are integrated into academic and extracurricular activities. For instance, you could introduce a points-based system that rewards students for attending classes, participating in discussions, or completing extra-curricular workshops.
Social media engagement is another powerful tool. Schools can create dedicated student communities on platforms like Discord, LinkedIn, or Instagram where students can connect, share experiences, and support one another. Institutions that regularly post interactive content, student highlights, and live Q&A sessions see stronger student participation.
Additionally, peer mentorship programs help students build support networks that enhance their academic and personal experiences. New students, especially freshmen, often struggle with the transition to college life. Pairing them with experienced peers who can guide them through academic and social challenges creates a sense of stability and reassurance, leading to increased persistence.
Finally, experiential learning opportunities, such as service-learning projects, research collaborations, and internships, allow students to see the real-world value of their education. When students feel that their coursework directly impacts their future career prospects, they are more likely to remain engaged and committed to completing their studies.
Example: As part of their Student Life Program, the University of Toronto offers Mentorship and Peer Programs to increase student engagement, keeping them invested in both their studies and social lives at U of T, in turn, supporting student retention. In this video, they make the voices of their student body heard, allowing them to express just how the Mentorship and Peer Support programs at U of T have impacted their education. When promoting your student engagement initiatives, try to leverage student testimonials for better relatability and credibility.
Source: U of T Student Life | YouTube
6. Utilizing Data-Driven Insights to Address Student Challenges
Predictive analytics and student data tracking allow institutions to identify at-risk students and intervene early. By analyzing factors such as attendance, engagement levels, and academic performance, schools can proactively reach out to students who may be struggling. Automated alerts and personalized advising sessions ensure students receive timely support tailored to their individual needs.
In addition to tracking academic performance, you can use data insights to improve curriculum design and support services. For example, if a large number of students are struggling with a specific course, faculty can adjust the syllabus, provide supplemental learning materials, or offer additional tutoring sessions.
Schools can also analyze patterns of student engagement in extracurricular activities and campus events to determine what initiatives are most effective in fostering a sense of community. By using data to refine support systems continuously, institutions can create a proactive, student-centric approach that minimizes dropouts and maximizes success.
7. Enhancing Financial Aid Awareness and Support
Financial difficulties are one of the biggest reasons students leave college before completing their programs. Many students are unaware of the full range of financial aid options available. Your school’s marketing team can provide students access to vital scholarships, grants, and payment plans. Institutions should regularly communicate financial aid opportunities through social media, email campaigns, and student portals to alleviate financial stress and keep students enrolled.
Example: Unfortunately, many students leave their education behind due to their financial situations. Surely, some of these students are unaware of the financial assistance options available to them. To boost student retention, let your community know you can help them invest in their futures. Here, Queen Beauty Institute promotes its financial aid programs on social media, letting students know that support is available should they need it.
Source: Queen Beauty Institute Instagram
8. Promoting a Flexible and Inclusive Learning Environment
Flexibility is key to student retention in higher education, particularly for non-traditional students balancing work, family, and school. Online learning options, hybrid models, and asynchronous coursework can make higher education more accessible. Schools should highlight these flexible learning opportunities in their marketing materials, emphasizing how they accommodate diverse student needs and lifestyles.
In addition to offering different learning formats, you can provide adaptive scheduling options that allow students to select courses that fit their personal and professional commitments. Some colleges have introduced weekend or evening classes to serve students with full-time jobs or family obligations. Additionally, having a robust support system for online students, such as virtual study groups, 24/7 tech support, and faculty office hours, ensures they receive the same level of engagement as in-person learners.
Another important aspect of fostering inclusivity is providing accessible resources for students with disabilities. Ensuring that digital learning platforms are compatible with screen readers, offering captioned lecture videos, and creating inclusive classroom environments can greatly enhance the learning experience. You can also implement specialized advising services to assist students in navigating academic and personal challenges, further reinforcing your commitment to diversity and inclusion.
Example:Here, the Academy of Learning Career College introduces students to its Integrated Learning System, an educational resource designed to put students “in the driver’s seat of their learning experience”. It fosters flexibility and was created with many learning styles and neurodiversity in mind. Make it known how your school aims to meet students where they are.
Source: The Academy of Learning Career College | YouTube
9. Encouraging Faculty-Student Engagement
Professors play a crucial role in retaining students. Meaningful connections between students and faculty members can significantly impact a student’s decision to persist in their studies. Your marketing team can facilitate this by spotlighting faculty members in newsletters, creating video content featuring faculty mentorship stories, and promoting faculty office hours as a key resource.
Institutions can also encourage faculty to take an active role in student success by implementing early intervention programs. If a professor notices a student struggling, they can reach out with personalized support or recommend tutoring services. Additionally, fostering a culture of open communication through regular check-ins, discussion forums, and one-on-one mentorship opportunities helps build trust and rapport between faculty and students.
Another approach is incorporating faculty-led engagement opportunities such as research projects, community outreach programs, and interdisciplinary collaborations. When students work closely with faculty on meaningful academic projects, they feel more invested in their studies and are less likely to disengage. Schools that promote faculty involvement as a cornerstone of student support will see stronger connections, higher levels of academic motivation, and improved retention rates.
10. Establishing Clear Pathways for Student Success
Students are more likely to stay enrolled when they clearly understand their academic roadmap. Schools should provide structured academic pathways, regular progress check-ins, and advising support to help students navigate their journey efficiently. Marketing teams can assist by crafting student success stories highlighting how structured pathways have helped past students graduate on time and achieve their goals.
In addition to offering clear course sequences, institutions can provide academic planning workshops that help students map out their degree completion plan. Schools should also ensure that students have easy access to academic advisors who can guide them in selecting courses aligned with their career goals. By integrating digital tools such as degree audit software, students can track their progress and receive real-time updates on their academic standing.
Offering flexible course options, such as summer sessions or online alternatives, can further help students stay on track and avoid delays in graduation. When students feel they are making steady progress, they are more likely to stay motivated and complete their degrees successfully.
How to Improve Student Retention With a Comprehensive Marketing Strategy
How to improve student retention? A comprehensive marketing strategy should involve consistent engagement with students through multiple touchpoints, addressing common concerns before they lead to dropout. By implementing strategic communication, financial aid awareness, community-building initiatives, and academic support, you can foster an environment where students feel valued and encouraged to complete their education.
At Higher Education Marketing, we specialize in crafting tailored marketing strategies that attract students and keep them engaged throughout their academic journey. HEM specializes in student retention strategies that drive measurable success. Let’s craft a marketing plan that keeps students engaged from enrolment to graduation. that fosters long-term student success.
Struggling with enrollment?
Our expert digital marketing services can help you attract and enroll more students!
Frequently Asked Questions
Question: What is retention marketing?
Answer: Retention marketing is the strategic use of targeted campaigns, communication, and engagement initiatives that keep current students enrolled and actively involved in their educational journey.
Question: How to improve student retention?
Answer: A comprehensive marketing strategy should involve consistent engagement with students through multiple touchpoints, addressing common concerns before they lead to dropout. By implementing strategic communication, financial aid awareness, community-building initiatives, and academic support, you can foster an environment where students feel valued and encouraged to complete their education.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Facility managers that lead an effort to upgrade their school’s HVAC system can help students miss less school, get into less trouble and perform better on standardized math tests, researchers at the State University of New York at Albany suggest.
Attendance improved by 2% and suspension rates dropped by 7% in K-12 schools after they improved their heating and ventilation systems, researchers say in a paper, “The Effects of School Building HVAC System Conditions on Student Academic and Behavioral Outcomes.”
Math outcomes improved, too — by 4% after the heating system was replaced and by 3% after the cooling system was replaced. There was a similar improvement in math scores when the heating system was improved.
“We conclude that investments made now to improve school HVAC systems can benefit not only student comfort and well-being, but also enhance educational opportunity,” say the researchers, Lucy Sorensen, Moontae Hwang and Marzuka Ahmad Radia of the State University of New York at Albany.
The researchers say the improvement in absentee levels likely stems from cleaner air flowing through the system. “Improvements in school ventilation system conditions could reduce the spread of infectious diseases … thereby decreasing missed days of school due to sickness,” they said.
The improvement in math performance likely stems from more comfortable room temperatures, which helps aid focus, but it also likely plays a role in fewer suspensions. The authors cite other research beyond K-12 that finds criminal behavior goes down as temperatures improve.
“More comfortable temperatures could help to prevent student misbehavior, given the well-known link between, for instance, heat and criminal behavior,” they said.
For their findings, the researchers looked at data over multiple years from a building condition survey conducted by the New York State Education Department. The percentage changes in performance are to a standard deviation. The findings were published in November and are available from Brown University’s Annenberg Institute.
Native American student enrollment has been on the decline for the past decade, dropping 40 percent between 2010 and 2021, a loss of tens of thousands of students. Of the 15.4 million undergraduate students enrolled in fall 2021, only 107,000 were American Indian or Alaska Native, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.
Researchers argue that the small population is not as small as it seems, however, due in part to federal practices of collecting data on Native populations, according to a new report from the Brookings Institute, the Institute for Higher Education Policy and the Urban Institute.
Federal measures of race and ethnicity in postsecondary education data undercount the total population of Native American students, in part due to insufficient sampling, lack of data on tribal affiliation and aggregation practices that erase Native identities, researchers wrote.
“For too long, Native American students have been severely undercounted in federal higher education data, with estimates suggesting that up to 80 percent are classified as a different race or ethnicity,” Kim Dancy, director of research and policy at IHEP, told Inside Higher Ed. “This chronic data collection failure renders Native students invisible in federal data systems and prevents clear assessments of the resources necessary to support student success.”
In May 2024, the federal government announced new standards for collecting data on American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) populations, which would improve the inclusivity and accuracy of data for students from these groups.
The Obama administration introduced similar changes in 2016, but they were never implemented under the first Trump administration in 2017. Researchers worry a similar pattern may follow under the second Trump administration.
“The second Trump Administration has demonstrated reluctance to prioritize data transparency, which could further jeopardize these efforts and stall progress,” Dancy said. “Without strong implementation of these standards, Native students will continue to be overlooked in federal policy decisions.”
“It is critical that the Trump administration allow the revised SPD 15 standards to remain in effect, and for officials at ED and elsewhere throughout government to implement the standards in a way that provides Native American students and communities with the same high-quality data that all Americans should be able to access,” report authors wrote.
Data Analysis at Risk
The Education Department has canceled dozens of contracts in recent weeks, tied to the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency. Many of these contracts related to student data analysis in both K-12 and postsecondary education.
State of play: Degree attainment for Native Americans is bleak, according to data presently available. Twenty-six percent of Native American adults in the U.S. hold an associate degree or higher, and only 16 percent hold a bachelor’s degree or higher, according to 2024 data from the U.S. Census Bureau. In comparison, bachelor’s degree attainment by all other races is higher: 20 percent for Latino, 25 percent for Black, 38 percent for multiracial, 40 percent for white and 61 percent for Asian American students.
Of the 58 percent of American Indian/Alaska Native students who enrolled in higher education beginning in 2009, over half (55 percent) didn’t earn a credential. In 2023, the National Student Clearinghouse Research Center reported six-year completion rates had fallen two percentage points among Native Americans, to 47.5 percent—21 percentage points lower than their white peers and 27 percentage points lower than Asian students in the 2016 cohort.
Data collection is not the only barrier to Native student representation and completion in higher education, researchers wrote, “but until data on Native American students are more accurate, accessible, and meaningful, it will prove difficult to address these issues,” which include affordability, disparities in access and retention, and a lack of culturally informed wraparound services.
Digging into data: Data collection at the U.S. Department of Education has several problems that disadvantage Native students more than other groups, according to the report. Native student data is often “topcoded” as Hispanic or Latino, essentially erasing Native student identities, filed under “more than one race” without further detail, or coded without tribal affiliation or citizenship.
While topcoding students as Latino or Hispanic or categorizing learners as more than one race applies to all racial categories, Native American individuals are categorized this way at a higher rate than any other major group, which diminishes their representation.
Additionally, ED independently makes decisions to not disaggregate or provide detailed data on racial and ethnic subgroups, such as topcoding Latino or Hispanic students, that is not modeled at other federal agencies, such as the Census Bureau and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The last time the Office of Management and Budget revised data-reporting processes for colleges and universities, which allowed individuals to identify as more than one racial group, final implementation took place in the 2010–11 academic year.
In the decade and a half since, Native American student enrollment has declined, and researchers say, “The limitations of ED’s student data made it challenging to discern whether this decline represented an actual change in enrollment trends or was due to the new reporting practices’ undercounting of Native college students.”
A lack of data impacts institutions, tribes and others tracking student outcomes, reducing opportunities to support learners, and the challenges may perpetuate continued misperceptions of Native students’ journeys through higher education.
New policies: In 2024, OMB created new federal standards around collecting data on race and ethnicity that would enhance data collection when it comes to Native populations. Federal agencies are required to create plans for implementation by September 2025 and be in full compliance by March 2029, leaving the Trump administration responsible for implementation of the revised standards.
OMB outlined three approaches for agencies on how they might consider presentation of aggregated data on multiracial populations:
Alone or in combination, which includes students who identify with more than one racial or ethnic group in all reporting categories.
Most frequent multiple responses, reporting on as many combinations of race and ethnicity as possible that meet population thresholds.
Combined multiracial or multiethnic respondents into a single category.
This third option would be most harmful to Native students, because it would perpetuate undercounts, researchers caution, and therefore policymakers should avoid it.
Moving forward, report authors recommend ED and Congress collect and publish disaggregated data on Native American students, partner with tribal governments to increase data transparency and provide guidance and resources to institutions to improve their quality of data.
“We encourage the Education Department to continue seeking input from Native communities, including voices that have been historically excluded from policy-development efforts,” Dancy said. “Accurate data alone won’t eliminate the structural inequities Native students face. But without the data, we cannot begin to dismantle the inequities.”
Get more content like this directly to your inbox every weekday morning. Subscribe here.
