Tag: Spaces

  • Next gen learning spaces: UDL in action

    Next gen learning spaces: UDL in action

    Key points:

    By embracing Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles in purchasing decisions, school leaders can create learning spaces that not only accommodate students with disabilities but enhance the educational experience for all learners while delivering exceptional returns on investment (ROI).

    Strangely enough, the concept of UDL all started with curb cuts. Disability activists in the 1960s were advocating for adding curb cuts at intersections so that users of wheelchairs could cross streets independently. Once curb cuts became commonplace, there was a surprising secondary effect: Curb cuts did not just benefit the lives of those in wheelchairs, they benefited parents with strollers, kids on bikes, older adults using canes, delivery workers with carts, and travelers using rolling suitcases. What had been designed for one specific group ended up accidentally benefiting many others.

    UDL is founded on this idea of the “curb-cut effect.” UDL focuses on designing classrooms and schools to provide multiple ways for students to learn. While the original focus was making the curriculum accessible to multiple types of learners, UDL also informs the physical design of classrooms and schools. Procurement professionals are focusing on furniture and technology purchases that provide flexible, accessible, and supportive environments so that all learners can benefit. Today entire conferences, such as EDspaces, focus on classroom and school design to improve learning outcomes.

    There is now a solid research base indicating that the design of learning spaces is a critical factor in educational success: Learning space design changes can significantly influence student engagement, well-being, and academic achievement. While we focus on obvious benefits for specific types of learners, we often find unexpected ways that all students benefit. Adjustable desks designed for wheelchair users can improve focus and reduce fatigue in many students, especially those with ADHD. Providing captions on videos, first made available for deaf students, benefit ELL and other students struggling to learn to read.

    Applying UDL to school purchasing decisions

    UDL represents a paradigm shift from retrofitting solutions for individual students to proactively designing inclusive environments from the ground up. Strategic purchasing focuses on choosing furniture and tech tools that provide multiple means of engagement that can motivate and support all types of learners.

    Furniture that works for everyone

    Modern classroom furniture has evolved far beyond the traditional one-size-fits-all model. Flexible seating options such as stability balls, wobble cushions, and standing desks can transform classroom dynamics. While these options support students with ADHD or sensory processing needs, they also provide choice and movement opportunities that enhance engagement for neurotypical students. Research consistently shows that physical comfort directly correlates with cognitive performance and attention span.

    Modular furniture systems offer exceptional value by adapting to changing needs throughout the school year. Tables and desks that can be easily reconfigured support collaborative learning, individual work, and various teaching methodologies. Storage solutions with clear labeling systems and accessible heights benefit students with visual impairments and executive functioning challenges while helping all students maintain organization and independence.

    Technology that opens doors for all learners

    Assistive technology has evolved from specialized, expensive solutions to mainstream tools that benefit diverse learners. Screen readers like NVDA and JAWS remain essential for students with visual impairments, but their availability also supports students with dyslexia who benefit from auditory reinforcement of text. When procuring software licenses, prioritize platforms with built-in accessibility features rather than purchasing separate assistive tools.

    Voice-to-text technology exemplifies the UDL principle perfectly. While crucial for students with fine motor challenges or dysgraphia, these tools also benefit students who process information verbally, ELL learners practicing pronunciation, and any student working through complex ideas more efficiently through speech than typing.

    Adaptive keyboards and alternative input devices address various physical needs while offering all students options for comfortable, efficient interaction with technology. Consider keyboards with larger keys, customizable layouts, or touchscreen interfaces that can serve multiple purposes across your student population.

    Interactive displays and tablets with built-in accessibility features provide multiple means of engagement and expression. Touch interfaces support students with motor difficulties while offering kinesthetic learning opportunities for all students. When evaluating these technologies, prioritize devices with robust accessibility settings including font size adjustment, color contrast options, and alternative navigation methods.

    Maximizing your procurement impact

    Strategic procurement for UDL requires thinking beyond individual products to consider system-wide compatibility and scalability. Prioritize vendors who demonstrate commitment to accessibility standards and provide comprehensive training on using accessibility features. The most advanced assistive technology becomes worthless without proper implementation and support.

    Conduct needs assessments that go beyond compliance requirements to understand your learning community’s diverse needs. Engage with special education teams, occupational therapists, and technology specialists during the procurement process. Their insights can prevent costly mistakes and identify opportunities for solutions that serve multiple populations.

    Consider total cost of ownership when evaluating options. Adjustable-height desks may cost more initially but can eliminate the need for specialized furniture for individual students. Similarly, mainstream technology with robust accessibility features often costs less than specialized assistive devices while serving broader populations.

    Pilot programs prove invaluable for testing solutions before large-scale implementation. Start with small purchases to evaluate effectiveness, durability, and user satisfaction across diverse learners. Document outcomes to build compelling cases for broader adoption.

    The business case for UDL

    Procurement decisions guided by UDL principles deliver measurable returns on investment. Reduced need for individualized accommodations decreases administrative overhead while improving response times for student needs. Universal solutions eliminate the stigma associated with specialized equipment, promoting inclusive classroom cultures that benefit all learners.

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link

  • Ohio State Restricts Decorations in Public Dorm Spaces

    Ohio State Restricts Decorations in Public Dorm Spaces

    Ohio State University has advised resident advisers to restrict all dorm floor and common room decor—as well as welcome programming for incoming students—to “Ohio State spirit themes” to avoid offending or alienating students. That means motifs like “retro video games and SpongeBob” motifs, which one outraged former RA on Reddit said they decorated with, won’t be allowed. 

    The move comes partly in response to SB1, a higher ed law Ohio passed in March that prohibits DEI, requires institutions to “demonstrate intellectual diversity” and mandates institutional neutrality on “controversial” subjects such as climate change, electoral politics, foreign policy, immigration, marriage and abortion.

    “SB1 was certainly a factor, but our goal is to create an open and welcoming environment for all students … including in our residence halls, as we build community throughout our spaces and programming,” Dave Isaacs, OSU communications and media relations manager, said in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed. “And this was discussed with RAs during their orientation for the position.”

    Move-in activities are also required to be Buckeye-themed, including “necklace making and mug decorating,” the statement said.

    Students took to Reddit to pan the new decorating rules, with one commenter posting, “SB1 and university leadership has sucked the life out of literally everything.”

    “There were no comments supporting Ohio State’s decision,” the student newspaper, The Lantern, noted. “However, one user called on students to protest the state and national government over these decisions, rather than Ohio State’s administration.”

    Source link

  • U.S. campuses are no longer safe spaces

    U.S. campuses are no longer safe spaces

    Leslie Ortega is pursuing her second bachelor’s degree in botany at a university in California. She earned her first degree in business administration back in December 2016. That was before U.S. President Donald Trump took office. The experience was much different then. 

    “Obama was president when I was in college from 2012-2016 and I remember how happy everyone was around me,” Ortega said. “There was an oblivious feel to it where we felt safe. Now being in school I notice that there is definitely more fear in classrooms.”

    With Trump in office for a second term, Ortega said she sees a major shift. It is no longer easy to be blind to the realities of how so many lives are changing. 

    “Existing in a world where your neighbor or your favorite food vendor can be snatched off the street on the basis of their skin color and occupation is impossible to hide from,” she said. “This has always been happening even during Obama but we had rose colored glasses when he was in office.”

    As someone who recently graduated two months ago with a bachelor of arts focused in ethnic studies, I have to agree with Ortega. I cannot ignore the current political state of the country, especially as students and universities remain potential targets of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids. 

    An attack on diverse perspectives

    On top of that, conservatives are actively taking actions that threaten diversity, equity and Inclusion measures and certain subjects like critical race theory. My major, rooted in critical race theory, is deemed controversial by some because it teaches students to critically analyze information and question authority in a sense. Ethnic Studies courses are typically taught to engage people to uncover history from non-white perspectives, unveiling a legacy of imperialism and racism. 

    Actions that make it difficult to teach or learn these concepts are being enacted by people in power who seem to lack consideration for how marginalized communities will be affected. 

    At the California university I attended, two emails from the administration addressed the topic of immigration this past semester. The first was a letter from the interim president back in February 2025 which outlined guidance for university employees and students on how to interact with ICE officers if they ever showed up on campus. 

    It stated that since a large portion of the campus is open to the general public, it is therefore open to federal officers.

    However, ICE agents could not enter areas not open to the public such as residence halls, confidential meeting rooms, employee offices or classrooms while the university was in session. This email also outlined resources students and staff could turn to such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and a new center for “Dreamers” – undocumented people who had been brought into the United States as children. It also explained how to create an immigration preparedness plan. 

    A second email was sent out two months later, with quick guide cards and a link to an immigration resources page on the university website.

    Will campus be an unsafe haven?

    It is currently summer. How the university will actually respond if ICE were to show up on campus is really up in the air. It is one thing to voice concern and another to actually intervene in the face of injustice to protect targeted individuals. 

    While I will not return to campus this fall, I have no doubt that it will be students and staff of color who will ultimately serve as the first line of defense. Given how the university has responded in the past to student activist efforts, I would not be surprised if the campus administration did little should ICE arrive. 

    Across the country, university students have watched the detainment of student activists by ICE agents. Merely advocating against Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people in Gaza, has been deemed a crime worthy of detention and deportation.

    These detainees included Mohsen Mahdawi and Mahmoud Khalil from Columbia University and Rumeysa Ozturk from Tufts University. Khalil spent more than three months in detention before his release on 20 June. 

    The arrests of students simply for speaking out angers students like Ortega. 

    “It is infuriating to hear about student’s visas being revoked for their stance on supporting Palestine during a presidency that criminalizes opposition to the status quo,” Ortega said. “[This is] referring to anyone that critiques American ideology, the military complex or simply the American flag.”

    Arrests in the City of Angels

    Los Angeles has seen a surge of undocumented immigrants being arrested. According to the Los Angeles Times, nearly 2,800 people have been picked up by masked ICE agents on the streets, at job sites, Home Depot parking lots and even outside immigration court hearings since 6 June 2025.

    Across the country these numbers could rise. In July, the U.S. Congress passed a national budget called the “Big Beautiful Bill” which will greatly increase the number of ICE agents and detention centers. 

    I view this bill as a way to cement discrimination against immigrants into the U.S. legal framework. We are already seeing the rapid construction and opening of detention centers such as Alligator Alcatraz in Florida – a tent city that can hold up to 3,000 people 

    According to public and internal data from the U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency, as collected by NBC News, more than 56,000 people were being held in ICE detention centers as of 1 Aug. 2025.

    All this has created a state of fear. I spoke to someone who lives in California and currently holds a student visa holder. I’m not identifying the person because of fear that doing so will make them a target. The student recently earned a master’s degree in education and is currently in the admission process to a teaching credential program. 

    “There’s a culture here [in the U.S.] that when they hear that you don’t have a social security number, they stop helping you as if you were a pariah,” the person said. “I couldn’t work on campus, I lost a lot of opportunities because I didn’t have a social security number. Sometimes I could get stipends or fellowships but it was because of people who understand immigrants.”

    Silencing of student activism

    They now have a work visa and hope to get permanent residency, but given all the threats the current presidential administration has made to student visa holders, they wonder about their prospects. 

    “The silencing of the student activists is sending a message to everyone that if you dissent, if you protest, if you do not agree with what’s going on right now, then there will be consequences,” they said. 

    They said they used to be politically active, but no longer feel safe to do so here, or at least to the same degree. 

    “There’s an executive order that says that the first thing they’re going to look at about you is your social media, so you cannot even post about what you think, what you defend,” they said. “You cannot talk about the ongoing genocide anymore, because then, all the money that you have invested in changing your migratory status will be thrown to the trash. You give all your money, that’s dispossession without violence, you make this enormous sacrifice and then you don’t want to lose it, right, so you are forced, you are silenced.”

    I am choosing to censor the person’s name for the sake of their own safety and wellbeing, I can’t help but wonder if doing so represents yet another way immigrants are silenced. 

    Fighting desensitization

    All of this is to say that being a person of color and a student during this presidential administration has been exceptionally difficult. That’s particularly true for someone like Ortega, who attends school in a predominantly White area.

    “It is emotionally and mentally draining to be focusing on your safety existing on a campus that doesn’t support you if you choose to wear a keffiyeh or a patch in opposition of a felon as a president,” Ortega said. 

    I recognize that as a person of color, I might not have the same advantages as someone who is White. As an American citizen though, I have some sense of protection in speaking up. But it is my Mexican and Guatemalan heritage that fuels my fight. 

    My existence is a result of immigration; I would not be where I am today if it were not for my family members who chose to come to the United States.

    While it can be easy to become desensitized, especially with a new devastating headline every day, I urge others to hold onto some sense of hope by leaning into community resistance. Only by letting go of the belief that “this doesn’t personally affect me, so I don’t care” can we truly begin to dismantle systems of power.

    Only seven months have passed since Trump returned to the presidential office. As he continues to carry out his seemingly racist agenda that targets anyone who is low-income, disabled, queer or non-White, university campuses that are supposed to be havens for learning and connecting with new ideas, are now filled with fear and suspense.

    Questions to consider:

    1. Why are increasing numbers of university students in the United States afraid to speak out?

    2. Why do you think the author feels she doesn’t have the same protections as a U.S. citizen as someone who is White?

    3. Do you think that people who want to study in another country should be able to do so? 

     

    Source link

  • Safety must shape policy on single-sex spaces

    Safety must shape policy on single-sex spaces

    As a campaigner focusing on gender-based violence within higher education, I am extremely concerned about the consequences for trans and non-binary people of the recent Supreme Court judgement on the meaning of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010.

    Crucial work is being done by trans activists and their allies to challenge this judgement, including a proposed judicial review. In the meantime, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) has been consulting on its guidance, and higher education institutions are discussing the implications of the judgement.

    Given that any further legal case will take some time to come to fruition, it is crucial that decisions being made around trans and non-binary people’s access to spaces within higher education are informed by good quality evidence.

    This evidence – which comes from a wide range of international studies, as outlined below – shows clearly that trans and non-binary people face much higher risks in relation to sexual harassment and assault than cis people, both men and women. This fact is entirely missing in the consultation version of the guidance.

    My response to the consultation has outlined these issues. But this point needs to be taken into account by all HEIs currently considering how to implement the Supreme Court judgement. This piece aims to give evidence and wording to help staff to do so.

    Research context

    Trans and non-binary people are much more likely than cis people, including cis women, to be subjected to sexual harassment and violence. This is a well-established fact, evidenced by national studies of 180,000 students in the US; 8000 students in Ireland; and 43,000 students in Australia, as well as studies focusing on staff-student sexual misconduct (p.277) or on specific disciplines; and studies across campuses and that compare different sexual and gender minority groups.

    For example a survey of over 43000 students in Australia published in 2022 found that trans students were more than twice as likely as cis women to have been subjected to sexual violence in the past year, and also significantly more likely to be subjected to sexual harassment, as detailed in the figure below.

    In addition, non-binary and trans people may often experience sexual harassment that intersects with harassment on the basis of their gender identity. For example, in a large national survey of sexual harassment and violence in Ireland with responses from 7901 students, 45% of non-binary students described being subjected to sexualised comments related to their gender identity.

    Toilets have been identified as a particularly risky space for trans and non-binary children at school.

    A recent US study analysed a survey of 3673 transgender and nonbinary US adolescents in grades 7 to 12. They found that – while trans and non-binary students were already more likely to experience sexual assault than cis students – this risk was increased by a large amount where they are not allowed to use toilets that match their self-identified gender (this included policies where trans and non-binary students had to use alternative facilities such as staff bathrooms).

    Transgender boys and girls, as well as nonbinary students assigned female at birth, whose restroom and locker room use was restricted, were more likely to have experienced sexual assault in the past 12 months compared with those without restrictions and the largest increased risk (149%) was among transgender girls.

    This study – with an unusually large sample of trans and non-binary students from across the US – shows the significantly heightened risk that trans and non-binary youth are subjected to sexual assault as a result of bathroom usage policies.

    This is not a negligible amount of risk. The study’s focus on youth is particularly important – in the UK context, more than a third (35 per cent) of trans and non-binary people report having started transitioning by age 18 and two-thirds (67 per cent) by age 25. Therefore, schools and higher education institutions are a key site where trans and non-binary people’s safety needs to be considered.

    These research findings are not currently reflected in the EHRC guidance, as outlined below.

    How the EHRC guidance needs to change

    At points in the current (consultation) version of the EHRC guidance, women’s “safety” is used as a justification for providing single-sex services for cis women only. For example, in point 13.3.4:

    When considering the benefits of offering a separate or single-sex service, the service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should think about whether women’s safety, privacy and / or dignity would be at risk in the service if it was shared with men.

    Considered in light of the evidence presented above, it is concerning that women’s safety is discussed but there is no mention of the safety of trans and non-binary people. Trans and non-binary people face the greatest risk to their safety and dignity (as sexual harassment is by definition a violation of dignity) if compared to the current practice where trans women use women-only facilities.

    Trans and non-binary people’s safety is significantly more compromised by the use of single sex spaces than cis women’s. But the guidance is entirely silent on the risks that trans and non-binary people face if single-sex spaces are limited to cisgendered women and men respectively.

    Similarly, section 13.5 discusses “relevant considerations when deciding whether the exclusion of trans people from a separate or single-sex service is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim” but does not mention trans and non-binary people’s increased risk of sexual harassment and assault.

    Throughout the guidance, where arguments are made about considering cis women’s safety or perceived safety in relation to single-sex services, the same arguments also need to be made – and indeed are heightened – in relation to trans and non-binary people. This means that HEIs, in considering provision of single-sex spaces, must also consider the ways in which trans and non-binary people’s risk of sexual assault and harassment is heightened when they are excluded from spaces that match their gender identity.

    HEIs considering their provision of space could draw on the finding from the US study of trans and non-binary high school students, discussed above. This study found that offering alternative provision trans and non-binary students, for example whereby they would use the staff toilets (which are single toilets) instead of the student toilets, still correlated with increased risk of sexual assault for trans and non-binary students.

    Harassment on the basis of gender reassignment

    The other area that the EHRC guidance needs to consider more carefully is the risk of harassment on the basis of gender reassignment. In 13.5.6 the consultation version of the guidance discusses the circumstances that might be considered when making decisions on trans or non-binary people’s use of single sex spaces. The relevant text reads (trigger warning: transphobia):

    13.5.6 A legitimate aim for excluding a trans person from a separate or single-sex service for their own biological sex might be to prevent alarm or distress for other service users. Whether it is reasonable to think that the presence in that service of the trans person will cause alarm or distress will depend on all the circumstances, including the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex. For this reason, a service provider (including a person providing a service in the exercise of public functions) should only consider doing this on a case-by-case basis. [my emphasis]

    The suggestion that service providers should consider “the extent to which the trans person presents as the opposite sex” as part of their consideration of circumstances on a case-by-case basis is highly problematic.

    This suggestion seems to invite harassment on the basis of gender reassignment, i.e. service providers are invited to pass judgement on whether a trans person “passes” or not; as this judgement is being made on a case-by-case basis, the service providers are required to assess the gender presentation of a particular individual.

    This is likely to have the effect of creating an intimating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment – i.e. harassment on the basis of gender reassignment – for the person being considered. Furthermore, judgements about how a person of any sex should “present” also puts other groups at risk such as butch cis women and femme cis men, and I could not find any mention of intersex people throughout the consultation.

    Implications for higher education institutions

    The high prevalence of sexual violence and harassment faced by trans and non-binary students is particularly relevant in light of the Office for Students’ new regulatory requirements for higher education institutions to address harassment and sexual misconduct.

    Firstly, this regulation includes the requirement to address harassment on the basis of gender reassignment, so the example identified above would contravene the OfS requirements. Second, the regulatory requirements state that each provider will need to understand its student population and the extent to which its students may be likely to experience harassment or sexual misconduct in order to properly address these issues

    As such, higher education institutions in England have obligations under the new regulations to ensure that any steps they take following the Supreme Court judgement take into account the heightened risk of sexual harassment and violence faced by trans and non-binary students (and indeed staff).

    Next steps

    In considering any steps in response to this judgement, HEIs would do well to consider this guide from Gendered Intelligence. Drawing on a legal opinion from the Good Law Project, they make a distinction between single sex spaces or services, i.e. those designated for a group of people (women or men) using the (new) Equality Act 2010 definition of sex; and single gender spaces or services designated for a group of people (women or men) that are trans inclusive. As they note:

    …there is no automatic individual or collective right to ‘single sex’ provision or spaces’ under the Equality Act; this is only justifiable when it is a ‘proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim’.

    HEIs also have obligations under the Public Sector Equality Duty (PSED) which aims to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity, and foster good relations. This duty of course applies to all protected characteristics and therefore the evidence presented above of trans and non-binary people’s increased risk of sexual harassment and assault should be considered within PSED implementation. The fundamental point is that “a service for all women does not have to say that it is a single sex provision.”

    It’s important to note that this opinion is likely to be significantly more progressive than those produced by HEIs’ own legal advisers, assuming the latter are primarily concerned with protecting the institution against legal risk. Nevertheless, this means there is a significant amount of space for activism; this judgement reveals how provision of single-sex or single-gender services is a political choice that depends in a large part on the relative power of different voices or groups in arguing their case.

    However, for staff who are attempting to navigate this terrain via policy, a further crucial consideration is put forward by Gendered Intelligence:

    a policy must be implementable and the very act of writing a policy and considering its implementation will establish that taking a trans exclusionary approach around single sex services and spaces will prove to be impossible in practice. Conversely, taking a trans inclusive approach is more practical and workable in reality.

    This is because “there is no evidence or documentation that anyone can provide that proves definitively that they are cisgender. It would not only be pointless to try, but potentially highly intrusive and inappropriate”. It could be that the practicalities end up guiding policy implementation as much as the legal or political arguments.

    Taken as a whole, the Supreme Court judgement, and the EHRC’s interpretation of it, risks making trans and non-binary people even more unsafe by revealing their identities when it may not be safe to do so, and by creating a climate where targeting them for abuse on the basis of their identities is more acceptable. As a result, the figures given above on the prevalence of sexual violence and harassment against trans and non-binary people are likely to grow even larger.

    Source link

  • Social capital and the degree awarding gap: spaces, places and relationships

    Social capital and the degree awarding gap: spaces, places and relationships

    • Amira Asantewa is Director of Programmes, Grit Breakthrough Programmes
    • Reuel Blair is Lead Diversity Programmes Coordinator at the Centre for Student and Community Engagement, Nottingham Trent University

    Progress on the Black-white degree awarding gap has gone into reverse.  Figures published by Higher Education Student Data (HESA) in autumn 2024 show that in 2022/23 the difference in the percentage of Black students and white students getting a first- or upper-second-class degree went up to 21.4 percentage points (pps) – from 19pps in 2021/22 and 17.6pps in 2020/21.

    Across the sector, institutions are responding. Access and Participation Plans have been signed off.  Work towards achieving Race Equality Charter marks is underway. Faculties and departments are decolonising curricula, diversifying assessment modes, tackling the lack of Black representation in the staff body and the postgraduate community.

    While there are debates about the way the sector analyses and addresses the awarding gap, what we do know is there is, as yet, little to say about what works in UK universities. However, evidence from our work with students of Black Heritage that suggests social capital is key.

    Black leaders

    It was back in 2019 that Nottingham Trent University and Grit Breakthrough Programmes co-designed with students the Black Leadership Programme (BLP) – a mix of community-building activities, mentoring, inspirational speakers and work with both employers and global institutions. Centrepiece workshops are delivered by Grit: breakthrough programmes.

    Six years on and an independent TASO-funded evaluation found strong statistical evidence of impact on final year grades and that these higher grades were likely to have been caused, not by increased academic engagement, but instead by increased motivation, social capital and sense of belonging. 

    This reinforced the findings of the independent evaluation of Grit’s Black Leaders and Students of Colour programme across seven universities, which suggested that students were able to apply skills and confidence from having expanded networks and engagement in new experiences, to their academic lives. And the students tell us what this looks like.

    Spaces for Black students

    Students talk about the importance of access to Black spaces. This space, this community, is a place where Black students are not, as Anike from Liverpool John Moores University puts it, ‘self-censoring to make myself palatable to white people.’ Instead, it is where ‘I can get into the conversations I always wanted to have, feel free to talk about what’s important to me.’

    Research describes how Black-affirming campus spaces are vital for Black student academic success and supporting Black student inclusion and well-being. Kwaku from Nottingham Trent University describes the value of ‘a space where there isn’t the weight of always being different. I want a space to connect with people, people who I can talk to about how I am feeling, what I am going though, and who I know would understand.’

    So social capital is also about belonging. Zelena from Bath Spa University describes wanting ‘to belong to a community of people we can all turn to, to draw strength from, to look up to and connect with.’

    Identity and representation

    It is about identity. Students tell us about the importance of ‘realising the value of my own upbringing, my heritage, my culture… that it is not something to be left behind or discarded… I want to explore and appreciate who I am and what I am.’ As Gemma from the University of Greenwich says, it’s about ‘finally claiming my identity. Becoming proud of being Black.’ University is a time for building a new independent life, figuring out who you really are and how your evolving identity fits in this new space. And there is a strong correlation between identities and deeper approaches to learning.

    It is about representation, both in the messaging about opportunities and in the ability of those delivering them to relate to the racial identity and cultural backgrounds of the students. Or, as Kane from Nottingham Trent University says, ‘it’s about how we have the right to be noticed, feel heard, to see that my voice, my opinion matters.’

    And social capital is also about wanting to make a difference, making a contribution. Afreya from the University of Manchester describes ‘helping other people who are feeling the same as I was. Going out of my way to be visible, showing how anyone just like me, can be successful.’

    Students are very clear about social capital: ‘I made friends from the programme. I’ve joined societies… I’ve been a course rep and a Student Ambassador… I’ve been part of a project supporting young Black learners in schools in the city…’

    They are very clear about its value: ‘It gave me strength… I’ve been relentless in seizing every opportunity available… I work more efficiently… harder and smarter… I feel that the university has an interest in nurturing Black talent and my growth and development.’

    So, alongside all the institutional plans, strategies and initiatives, there also have to be the spaces, places and relationships for Black students to be their full, authentic, very best selves and, just like their white peers, grow the social capital to thrive and succeed in their time at university and beyond.

    On 5th June at Nottingham Trent University, Grit Unleashed will take a deep dive into the university experience for Black students and Students of Colour across the UK in a day co-designed and co-delivered by student participants. For more details email [email protected]

    Source link

  • Five New Well-Being Spaces on College Campuses

    Five New Well-Being Spaces on College Campuses

    Personal well-being—particularly related to mental health—is one of the greatest threats to persistence among college students.

    Forty percent of students say mental health has “a great deal” of impact on their ability to focus, learn and perform academically, according to a May 2024 Student Voice survey by Inside Higher Ed and Generation Lab. Additionally, 19 percent of respondents believe their physical health impacts their academic success a great deal.

    Colleges and universities are responding to this growing need for support; a 2024 Inside Higher Ed survey of college presidents found that 70 percent of respondents had invested in wellness facilities or services to promote overall well-being among students in the past year.

    But students aren’t entirely satisfied with the offerings on their campuses; only 46 percent of Student Voice respondents rated the quality of campus health and wellness services as good or excellent.

    Inside Higher Ed compiled five examples of new support resources universities are offering to improve student well-being and, in turn, their retention and graduation. Many focus on students’ self-regulation through meditation and reflection, tools that can help them manage physical and socio-emotional health.

    1. University of Texas, Dallas: Brain Recharge Station

    In a small room located in the Eugene McDermott Library and Center for Brain Health, students are encouraged to take “brain breaks,” or short, intentional pauses to prime themselves for more focused, deeper thinking.

    The room can only be used by one person at a time, and visitors are encouraged to turn off devices and set aside reading materials during this break.

    1. San Diego State University, Imperial Valley: Student Wellness and Success Center

    The SDSU, Imperial Valley, administration cut the ribbon on a new wellness and success center in March, creating dedicated space for counseling and health services—as well as career, veterans’, student success and retention services. The goal is to offer holistic support in a one-stop shop. Imperial Valley is a commuter campus, with student housing under construction, making these resources particularly helpful for those living and studying in the area.

    Counseling center services include crisis intervention, assessment and short-term therapy. The health center provides low- or no-cost medical services including preventive care, immunizations and psychiatric treatments.

    1. Clemson University: Wellness Zone

    Clemson’s Fike Recreation Center is home to the Wellness Zone, a private room that an individual or group of students can reserve to engage in various activities. Created as a virtual fitness space, the room includes a touch-screen TV and zero-gravity chairs. Students can participate in self-paced yoga, stretching, mindfulness, breath work and meditation, as well as traditional exercises guided by an instructor on the TV.

    1. Indiana University, Bloomington: Wellness House

    IU repurposed an old sorority house on campus to centralize mental and physical health service offices, combining Student Wellness, Substance Use Intervention Services and the Collegiate Recovery Community offices under one roof.

    In addition to staff offices, the new Wellness House also features reservable spaces for campus groups and four rooms where students can relax and meditate. Each room has a different theme and features; for example, the Fireplace Room is focused on studying and unwinding, whereas the Quiet Room has flexible seating such as beanbags and pillows for greater relaxation.

    The goal is to provide an entry point for students who may be overwhelmed, potentially connecting them with relevant offices located in the Wellness House while they engage in other activities.

    1. Yale University: The Good Life Center

    In 2021, Yale opened the doors to its Good Life Center, a space for unwinding and destressing; this year the university doubled the size of the space to accommodate more students.

    The expansion includes five more themed rooms: the tree house, music room, game room, sensory room and balance room. Each offers wellness activities and features related to its theme, such as musical instruments, mini basketball hoops and sound-absorbing chairs.

    The sensory room was designed in collaboration with Student Accessibility Services to provide specialized furniture and resources for students of all needs and abilities.

    Do you have a wellness intervention that might help others promote student success? Tell us about it.

    Source link