Tag: students

  • Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Supporting commuter students with the right information

    Commuter student support takes different forms, from student lounges to travel bursaries.

    However, when it comes to something as simple as the information that universities provide to prospective students and current students, it remains stubbornly focused on traditional, residential students.

    As a result, commuters make untenable choices at the applicant stage, find student life difficult to navigate and feel a profound lack of belonging, throughout their student experience.

    Getting it right at the start is as important as throughout.

    What information is out there

    In our research, which we are currently preparing for publication, we talked to commuter students and uncovered the practical impacts of a lack of information. Students suggested that their choice of institution, choice of course and the choice either to commute or relocate may have been different, if they had known about the personal, financial and educational impacts of commuting.

    They didn’t just talk about travel information – bus routes, train times, car parking – which is still important and largely missing from university webpages and prospectuses. They focused more on their need for information to help them to navigate life as a student who commutes.

    Commuter students told us that this absence of information suggested to them that universities don’t see commuters, leading them to feel that they don’t belong and they don’t matter.

    The hidden curriculum

    Our findings suggest that commuters need information in two areas, “rules of the game” and “sense of belonging.”

    These are the terms developed by Dr Katharine Hubbard and colleagues to describe the two domains of the “hidden curriculum” that universities must make explicit, if non-traditional students are to succeed at university.

    Our research sought to address this hidden curriculum for commuter students by developing best practice guidance for information that universities should provide to support commuters in their choices, transition and day-to-day university experience.

    We randomly selected 30 universities from the 147 institutions currently registered in the UK. We entered their website and searched “commuter students.”

    We downloaded and assessed the content and utility of the first four search results and then used Google search to find “university name commuter students” and followed the same method.

    We found that the hidden curriculum for commuters is very real. Very few institutions have information for commuter students. Very few have information available to students pre-application, to enable an informed decision and very few have information specifically to support commuters.

    Those that do, tend to focus on commuters in the negative, discouraging travel to university, in a sustainability context and framing commuting as a challenge and encouraging relocation to halls of residence.

    Getting it right

    But there are universities that are getting it right. Our research identified some best practices.

    Some institutions provide information about being a commuter at every stage of the student lifecycle and for every student touchpoint. Ideally, including a commuter student equivalent for all information, advice and guidance that is provided.

    This is especially important whenever students are making a choice – of institution, course, module, accommodation – and whenever you are providing a service – extra-curricular activities, support and other resources. Not only will this enable informed choice, it will increase the visibility of commuters, which will enhance their sense of belonging.

    It’s also important to be clear about learning and teaching, to enable commuter students to make informed decisions about how possible it is to succeed as a commuter. For example, is attendance mandatory for all taught sessions? How many days a week will students be timetabled to attend and when will they know? Do students have to be able to physically access the library? Do you provide on-commute learning options?

    Institutions should also ensure that information for commuters is easy to find and take a joined-up approach. We found that the best information for students was content like blogs written by commuters chronicling a day in their life, presenting “life hacks” or linking students to a commuter community. These were available via student societies, or the students’ union, which often aren’t linked to from the institution’s webpages.

    Information should be “student first.” For example, ensure that travel information is available to support commuters to access their learning, rather than information about sustainability, or to discourage driving. Most of the travel information that we reviewed was abrasive in its tone, highlighting the inaccessibility of campus to car drivers and focusing on promoting modes that commuters shouldn’t use – this is noble, but it isn’t useful and it adds to the feeling that commuters are not welcome.

    Another example is, rather than linking to your Access and Participation Plan as evidence that you consider the needs of commuters, interpret this and talk directly to them.

    Finally, most of the information that we reviewed highlighted the problematic nature of commuting – but it can be a positive choice. Information provided by students, for students, was especially effective in promoting the benefits of commuting, supporting students to navigate life as a commuter, from a practical and emotional perspective.

    Providing commuters with more honest information about the multiple costs and benefits of being a commuter student, at every stage of the student lifecycle, alongside practical support to help them to overcome these, will support students to succeed. It demonstrates, through information alone, that students are welcome and that they belong.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students, click here to read more.

    Source link

  • Advice from Indigenous students to Indigenous students

    Advice from Indigenous students to Indigenous students

    Navigating student life, especially when entering university or tertiary education for the first time, is no easy feat.

    Students are often dealing with newfound independence, more travel, gruelling schedules, and a shift in priorities, all while trying to develop new skills and knowledge.

    Finding support and motivation during this time is essential, but it means different things to different people.

    In my role as chief executive of Aurora Education Foundation, I work with a number of Indigenous scholars who are studying at some of the world’s most prestigious universities.

    Recently, I asked three of them to share what had helped them get to where they are now and what advice they had for other students just starting their educational journey.

    Lean on your loved ones

    Warumungu woman Mady Wills is currently completing a Master of Science in Developmental Psychology and Psychopathology at King’s College London, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship.

    Mady said the support she received from her loved ones was invaluable along her journey, but almost equally, the doubt she received from others around her motivated her to achieve her best.

    “Reflecting on my educational journey so far, I have a huge amount of gratitude for the support I have received along the way. It hasn’t always been easy, and I have faced moments of doubt – both my own and from others – that challenged my commitment to my dreams,” she said.

    “But sometimes when people doubt you, question you, or make you second guess your dreams, it can actually be the most powerful motivator.

    The journey (whatever this looks like, be it career, high school, TAFE or Uni) is not meant to be a smooth one, and it’s important to remember that encouragement doesn’t always come in the form of praise. Sometimes, scepticism fuels resilience.

    “For me, each challenge, doubt or difficult moment strengthened my determination to work harder, to prove my capabilities, and to demonstrate what is possible. All I would say to anyone even considering taking this step – submitting that scholarship application or researching that course abroad – do it.”

    Build stamina

    For Wardandi Noongar woman Danielle Kampers, developing stamina was key to her success. Danielle is studying a Master of Science in Oceanography at the Scripps Institute of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship.

    Danielle said one piece of advice about cultivating stamina and resilience changed her outlook on her education journey and set her up with the tools she needed to succeed.

    “When I started my science degree it filled me with enthusiasm to address significant challenges in marine environments and explore the wonders of scientific inquiry,” she said.

    “One piece of advice that stayed with me was the importance of ‘stamina’ – it’s crucial for a fulfilling and productive career in science. Cultivate resilience, manage stress effectively, stay flexible, maintain a positive outlook even during tough times and the rest will work out for itself.

    “Additionally, don’t hesitate to ask for help when needed, support and kindness are passed along and often come back around when you need it most.”

    Focus on what you can control

    Warumungu man Ethan Taylor, who is currently studying at the University of Oxford to complete a Doctor of Philosophy in Politics, with a Roberta Sykes Scholarship, said that while hurdles are bound to happen on any journey, remaining focused on your goal was most important.

    “I would encourage other aspiring Indigenous scholars to stay driven and focus on what’s in their control. If something doesn’t work out, that’s okay – keep moving,” he said.

    “Hard work will never guarantee you success in academic or scholarly pursuit, but it will certainly put you in the best position to be successful.

    “If you’re a humanities or social science student like me, keep focussing on the fundamentals of scholarship in this area: reading and writing. Keep reading widely in your field and keep eliciting feedback in your writing.

    “Keep thinking and developing your ideas, even in the face of apparent rejection or failure. At the end of the day, by mastering these fundamentals and learning how to articulate yourself better, you’ll end up becoming someone who can’t be ignored or overlooked.”

    Leila Smith is the founder and chief executive of the Aurora Education Foundation.

    Source link

  • Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Three in five students see themselves customers of their college 

    Public confidence in higher education is declining. Even students, most of whom say they’re getting a quality education, question the value of a degree with respect to affordability. Such doubts increase higher education’s vulnerability to the threats it’s currently facing. All this evokes the long-running debate over whether higher education can be viewed as a public good. And when revisiting that debate, it’s instructive to know what students expect from their college or university—specifically, whether they consider themselves not just students but also customers.

    In Inside Higher Ed’s first-ever Survey of College and University Student Success Administrators, released last fall, 71 percent of administrators said that undergraduates at their institution consider themselves customers (most of these administrators also agreed that parents of students consider themselves customers).

    But what do undergraduates themselves say? According to a new analysis of IHE’s annual Student Voice survey with Generation Lab, nearly the same share of students—65 percent—consider themselves customers of their institution in some capacity, defined in the survey as expecting to have their needs met and be empathized with because they are paying tuition and fees.

    Some 41 percent of the survey’s 5,025 two- and four-year student respondents say they see themselves as customers both in their classes and across campus. Another 13 percent consider themselves customers only in their classes, while 11 percent view themselves as customers only outside of class, when interacting with staff and administrators across campus.

    Methodology

    Nearly three in 10 respondents (28 percent) to Inside Higher Ed’s annual Student Voice survey, fielded in May in partnership with Generation Lab, attend two-year institutions, and closer to four in 10 (37 percent) are post-traditional students, meaning they attend two-year institutions and/or are 25 or older. The 5,025-student sample is nationally representative. The survey’s margin of error is 1.4 percent.

    Respondents include over 3,500 four-year students and 1,400 two-year students. Sixteen percent are exclusively online learners, and 40 percent are first-generation students.

    Top-line findings from the full survey are here and the full data set, with interactive visualizations, is available here. The main annual survey asked questions on academic success, health and wellness, the college experience, and preparing for life after college.

    How satisfied are students as customers of their institution? When those who do not identify as customers (n=1,744) are asked to wear that hat for a moment, nearly half (45 percent) say they’re somewhat satisfied with their institution. Another quarter (23 percent) are very satisfied. The rest are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied (19 percent), somewhat unsatisfied (9 percent), or very unsatisfied (3 percent).

    What about students who do identify as customers (n=3,280)? The satisfaction numbers are very similar, but this group is slightly less likely to have high satisfaction; 45 percent, the plurality, are somewhat satisfied with their institution and an additional 18 percent are very satisfied. Twenty percent are neither satisfied nor unsatisfied, some 13 percent are somewhat unsatisfied and very few (4 percent) are very unsatisfied.

    The results are relatively consistent across sector and a swath of student characteristics. However, two-year college students are less likely than four-year college students to say they consider themselves customers both in classes and when interacting with staff and administrators outside of class, at 35 percent versus 43 percent, respectively.

    The higher-education-as-public-good debate typically centers on whether higher education meets the common criteria for a public good: nonexcludability, meaning it’s accessible to everyone, and nonrivalry, meaning one person’s use of the good the doesn’t limit others’ ability to use it.

    In this sense, counting students as customers of higher education hurts the public good argument: How can one be a customer of a public good? And concerns about a creeping customer service dynamic in higher education have long worried scholars, including the authors of a 2010 paper in the International Journal for Educational Integrity arguing that a facile customer service model of higher education undermines the instructor-learner relationship by reducing it to transactional, vendor-vendee connection—one in which the institution meets the student’s expressed needs in exchange for payment. (Think grade inflation and more.) The name of that paper kind of says it all: “The Customer Isn’t Always Right: Limitations of ‘Customer Service’ Approaches to Education, or Why Higher Ed Is Not Burger King.”

    But is thinking of students as customers—and students thinking of themselves as customers—a universally bad thing?

    Alternative Models

    Various scholars have proposed alternatives to the customer service model of higher education.

    Student as client: Scholar Keith B. Murray, for instance, proposed in a December Inside Higher Ed opinion piece that it’s better to think of students as clients. Whereas vendors need to appeal to customers via a product at an attractive price point, he wrote, in “client-type transactions, exchange of time, effort and money by the consumer is predicated on one party’s professional expertise and advice.” Typical client-based vendor examples include “physicians, dentists, financial advisers, tax preparers, accountants, veterinarians, therapists and professors,” he added.

    Faculty and staff as stewards: Scholar Jeffrey Vetrano, in responding to Murray’s piece, also in Inside Higher Ed, advocated for a stewardship framework.

    “Faculty and staff at institutions of higher education are stewards of both our students and their educations. As such, we take personal responsibility for granting them every opportunity to succeed, by maintaining strong ethics as identified in Murray’s article. As stewards, every action we take is for the care and development of our students, and we strive for much more than a client/vendor relationship.”

    Luke Hobson, an instructional design leader and online lecturer with his own education podcast and blog, actually encouraged institutions to think of students as customers last year, citing these five reasons:

    • Focus on quality
    • Responsiveness to needs
    • Enhanced accountability
    • Market competitiveness
    • Feedback loop for continuous improvements

    Summing up all these points, Hobson wrote in a blog post that the “most significant factor” here was to “emphasize caring. A business cares about their customers. Without them, they can’t survive.” Moreover, he said, “The greatest educators I can think of share this trait in that they cared. They were passionate. They were there for the students and to see them succeed. They could all have different styles of teaching, but at the end of the day, they served their students. It’s this mentality that will keep students engaged in the learning environment.” Indeed, existing research links instructor caring to student trust and sense of belonging, both of which are associated with student success. Quality nonclassroom student support services also promote student success.

    Hobson also wrote that it’s “crucial to maintain a balance. Education is not a typical consumer good, and the primary goal of a university should be to educate and foster intellectual development, not just to satisfy customer demands. Students are coming to learn because they don’t have all the answers. They want to get better and they are seeking the expertise from the institution. The focus should be on helping them to reach their goals.”

    ‘Polarizing’ Idea

    A year later, Hobson recalls that post being his most polarizing ever, based on the feedback he got (some loved it, others hated it). But while he acknowledges the concerns of his peers—that, for example, a customer-focused model could hurt student autonomy by shifting the responsibility for learning onto institutions—his own views haven’t changed.

    Reviewing the Student Voice data, Hobson imagines that students who describe themselves as customers believe they’re “paying for the ultimate learning experience,” defined by a “comprehensive blend of academic rigor, personalized support and opportunities for professional and personal growth.”

    In this light, students expect “the best the university has to offer, including engaging faculty interactions, meaningful assignments, timely feedback and an overall environment that fosters intellectual and practical development,” he continues. They also “anticipate that this education will serve as a pathway to their future goals and aspirations. The effort they invest in their learning, they hope, will directly correlate to the outcomes they receive,” in the form of knowledge, skills or career opportunities.

    This model has parallel benefits for institutions, Hobson adds, in that it encourages a focus on quality, including in online education; responsiveness to student feedback and a general feedback loop for continuous improvements to the learning environment; accountability for delivering “value for tuition and aligning institutional actions with expectations for academic rigor and integrity”; and market competitiveness by virtue of providing exceptional experiences.

    Jhenai W. Chandler, vice president for research and policy at NASPA-Student Affairs Administrators in Higher Education, who also reviewed the Student Voice data, says she understands the impulse to think about students as customers or even clients. And she’s recently been on the student side of this conversation, helping two people close to her choose a college based on their very different needs and wants: Chandler’s own mother returned to community college to advance specific career goals, while her high school daughter is exploring colleges based on their ability to deliver a well-rounded education both in and outside the classroom.

    Still, Chandler worries that framing the student as customer can sometimes reinforce “harmful misconceptions about the nature of higher education, particularly in a time when our field is under political scrutiny.”

    Instead of using terms such as “client” or “customer,” “we need to focus on a more meaningful conversation about the value we provide and the outcomes we generate for students and society,” she says. Higher education’s value is “rooted in evidence that shows how students’ lives and communities improve after degree completion, whether it’s an associate, bachelor’s or graduate degree. We have a responsibility to communicate this impact effectively—through data, outcomes and success stories—to students, parents, industry leaders and policymakers.”

    Chandler adds this: “Language and terminology can often be our worst enemies in this conversation, as the terms we use are not always understood outside of the academic world. We need to be intentional about the way we communicate, especially as we navigate misconceptions about what students expect from us.”

    What do you think students who view themselves as customers—in classes or of their institution as a whole—expect from professors and/or administrators or staff across campus? Are the expectations typically reasonable ones? Tell us about it.

    Source link

  • Nassau Community College punishes students, but won’t tell them why

    Nassau Community College punishes students, but won’t tell them why

    Email Nassau Community College now and tell them due process is not optional

    If actions speak louder than words, then Nassau Community College has made its stance crystal clear: it is not a fan of the First Amendment. This New York institution has an astounding track record of disregarding the rights of students and faculty, but even FIRE was shocked by the brazen lawlessness of NCC’s recent actions against two student leaders.

    The students, NCC Board of Trustees student member Jordon Groom and Academic Senate student chair Grant Peterson, were punished for alleged discrimination and harassment. While these are serious charges, the college fatally undermined the credibility of its sanctions by violating the most basic tenets of due process in doling out its discipline. 

    Groom and Peterson both found themselves embroiled in NCC’s broken disciplinary system late last year. NCC administrators initially told them that other students filed complaints against them for “discrimination” and “harassment,” but did not provide any further information. Now both students are left with no recourse, as they wonder how their due process rights could have been so badly violated by their local community college. 

    Last November, Peterson received formal notification of two complaints against him from NCC. But “formal” doesn’t mean it gave him any idea of what he allegedly did wrong — NCC just told him that complaints existed.

    Peterson was left to use his imagination about the substance of the allegations until Dec. 2, when he met with an NCC administrator, who finally allowed him to see the complaints. The complaints cited a number of instances of Peterson using strong language — like telling another student, “You have no idea what you’re talking about, once again,” or calling an administrator an “idiot.” Doing so was alleged to have been discrimination and harassment.

    Importantly, however, the college forbade Peterson from obtaining a copy of the complaint. NCC expected him to review the complaint — one that cited numerous alleged instances and charged him with high-stakes policy violations — and provide a substantive response to those allegations in the same meeting. There was no opportunity to provide a written defense or conduct a substantial review of the complaint. This was the sum total of Peterson’s “hearing.”

    Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. 

    Groom never received formal notification of any complaints. He got an inkling that something was amiss only when he was asked to leave a meeting of the Nassau Board of Trustees in December because of an active investigation—which was news to him.

    Days later, he met with the same administrator as Peterson. Only this time, the administrator told Groom the complaint against him had been found meritless and had been closed, without offering any specifics. Great news, right? Wrong.

    On Jan. 22, NCC informed both Peterson and Groom they had both been found responsible for discrimination and harassment. The college suspended Peterson from all club and organizational leadership roles for the remainder of the academic year — including from his role as student chair of the NCC Academic Senate. Whatever it was Groom did, he was required to complete a training module. There was no mention of an appeals process.

    Obvious and basic principles of due process include:

    • Timely and adequate written notice of charges
    • A hearing process that includes the right to present evidence in your defense
    • A right to appeal

    NCC’s failure to provide even these basic requirements doesn’t even pass the “laugh test.” Sitting Peterson down for the first time with a stack of allegations and demanding he defend himself, now, is manifestly unjust. Groom didn’t even get to see the allegations against him before being found guilty, and was given outright misleading information to boot.

    FIRE wrote NCC on Feb. 7, explaining how badly the college compromised its disciplinary process by neglecting the basic tenets of due process: 

    Simply put, NCC’s procedural abuses have now muddied the waters so severely that they have adversely affected everyone even peripherally involved in the case except NCC administrators. NCC subjected the complainants’ concerns to a broken process. It subjected Peterson and Groom to disciplinary measures without any chance to properly respond to the substance of the complaints — without any due process.

    Accusations of discrimination and harassment are supposed to be taken seriously. This kind of total neglect of basic standards screams that it’s not being taken seriously at NCC.

    The college responded to us two weeks later, effectively declining to substantively engage with our concerns. With no appeals process available, Peterson and Groom have no internal recourse for this discipline. 

    Due process protections, when properly followed, ensure fairness in proceedings and outcomes that can be trusted by all participants in the justice system. Someone needs to tell that to NCC. As we told the college in our letter, “NCC’s failure is comprehensive and total.” The damage this will do to the college and its students down the road still remains to be seen.

    Source link

  • Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74

    Senate Advances Bill to Ban Corporal Punishment on Disabled Oklahoma Students – The 74


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

    OKLAHOMA CITY – A bill that would ban schools from using corporal punishment on students with disabilities passed the Senate on Tuesday despite concerns it removes local control and could go against parental wishes.

    The state Department of Education has already prohibited the practice, but Senate Bill 364 seeks to codify into state law a ban against deliberately causing pain by using physical discipline on students with federally protected disabilities.

    “I have never, ever, ever met a parent of a disabled child call for the beating of their child to make them better,” said Sen. Dave Rader, R-Tulsa, the author.

    Rader said some of the protected disabilities include deafness, emotional disturbance, intellectual disability, visual impairment or an orthopedic injury.

    It defines corporal punishment as the deliberate infliction of pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline.

    Rader said corporal punishment could not be used by a school even if a parent agreed to it.

    “Perhaps the parent of the child, in most cases, knows best what that child is going to respond to and how the child is going to perform his or her duties in the classroom,” said Sen. Warren Hamilton, R-McCurtain, who voted against the bill.

    A U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 1977 allows corporal punishment usage in schools, but leaves it to states to set their own rules.

    Traditionally, Oklahoma lawmakers have left those decisions to local districts, but the state Department of Education quietly barred the practice on children with disabilities starting in the 2020-21 school year. A 2017 law also prohibits the practice on children with the most “significant cognitive disabilities.”

    During the 2017-18 school year, over 20% of  corporal punishments in Oklahoma schools were administered on disabled children, according to federal statistics.

    Other forms of discipline are available, Rader said. The bill does not prohibit parents from using corporal punishment, Rader said.

    Previous efforts to ban the practice have proven controversial. A similar effort last year cleared the state Senate, but died in the House.

    Sen. Shane Jett, R-Shawnee, said Tuesday that banning the practice in schools amounts to “a top down socialist aligned ideological, unilateral divorce between parents’ ability to collaborate with their local schools to establish a disciplined regimen.”

    He also said it “is a violation of scripture,” and cited Proverbs 22:15 which he said says “folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.”

    “There are going to be times when we walk through the valley of the shadow of death, we won’t have to fear evil because your rod and your staff comfort me,” Rader responded.

    Sen. Dusty Deevers, R-Elgin, said there could be negative consequences to removing a partnership between parents and local administrators and forcing the removal of a historically necessary and important disciplinary tool for order.

    “This is not a blanket ban,” Rader said.

    The vote was 31-16.

    The measure moves to the House for possible consideration.

    Oklahoma Voice is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oklahoma Voice maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Janelle Stecklein for questions: [email protected].


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

    Source link

  • TheDream.US Celebrates a Decade of Transforming Immigrant Students’ Lives

    TheDream.US Celebrates a Decade of Transforming Immigrant Students’ Lives

    Gaby PachecoTheDream.US, the nation’s largest college and career success program for undocumented immigrant students, has released its 10-year impact report, highlighting remarkable achievements despite significant challenges faced by Dreamers across the United States.

    Since its founding in 2014, the organization has provided more than 11,000 college scholarships to undocumented students attending nearly 80 partner colleges in 20 states and Washington, D.C. The report, titled “From Dreams to Destinations: A Decade of Immigrant Achievements and the Future Ahead,” details how these students have excelled academically and professionally despite facing substantial barriers.

    “In our wildest dreams, we could not have imagined the outcome,” write co-founders Don Graham, Henry Muñoz, and Carlos Gutierrez in the report. “TheDream.US has enrolled 11,000 students in close to 80 Partner Colleges. 76% of those who chose four-year colleges have graduated.”

    The organization’s scholars have consistently outperformed national averages, with a 92% first-year persistence rate and a 76% graduation rate for National Scholarship recipients, compared to the 88% and 72% national averages, respectively. Even more impressive, Opportunity Scholarship recipients, who must relocate to attend one of five partner colleges in states that offer in-state tuition, achieve an 85% graduation rate.

    Most of TheDream.US scholars arrived in the United States at a very young age – the median age of arrival is just 4 years old. They come from more than 120 countries, with 86% from Latin America, and pursue degrees primarily in high-demand fields: 28% in science, math and technology; 23% in business; 19% in social sciences; and 16% in health and medicine.

    The report highlights a concerning shift in the immigration landscape over the past decade. When TheDream.US launched, most scholarship recipients had protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Today, 75% of scholars are fully undocumented without work authorization, as court decisions have ended new DACA enrollments.

    Despite these challenges, the organization’s 4,000+ alumni have found ways to thrive. Among those with work authorization, 93% are employed full-time or in graduate school six months after graduation. Many work for major companies including Apple, Microsoft, Bank of America, and JPMorgan Chase, with over half working in business, healthcare, and education.

    Gaby Pacheco, the organization’s President and CEO, embodies the impact of educational opportunity. Once an undocumented student herself who was incorrectly told she couldn’t attend college, Pacheco now leads the organization after a journey that included walking 1,500 miles from Miami to Washington, D.C., spearheading the campaign that paved the way for DACA, and helping pass in-state tuition legislation in Florida.

    “Like the more than 11,000 TheDream.US Scholars we have supported, I grew up in this nation, attended its schools, and received the gift of education thanks to believers in my potential,” Pacheco writes. “Like me, I know our Scholars and our 4,000 Alumni have a lot to offer—if given continued opportunities to help our nation thrive.”

    Looking ahead, TheDream.US plans to continue supporting Dreamers’ access to higher education while also providing immigration and legal resources, preparing scholars for careers as employees or entrepreneurs, and advocating for permanent protections and legal pathways.

    The report concludes with a call for continued support, emphasizing that investment in Dreamers’ education benefits not only the students but also strengthens America’s communities, competitiveness, and economic vitality.

    Source link

  • Nepali students could shun India amid row over student’s death

    Nepali students could shun India amid row over student’s death

    A 20-year-old technology student was found dead in her hostel room at Odisha’s private deemed university, KIIT, allegedly after facing harassment from a fellow student.

    The incident sparked campus protests, forcing hundreds of students to leave after KIIT closed sine die for all Nepali international students on February 17.

    Though KIIT vice-chancellor Saranjit Singh issued a public apology later and action was taken against security officials and staff accused of abusing and physically harming protesting Nepali students, only a small percentage of students have returned. 

    With Nepali students comprising 28% of India’s international student population, the largest share, the recent incident has raised concerns that many students from Nepal might cancel their plans to study in India.

    “Students might reconsider their decision to study in India, and this incident could drive a policy shift in student recruitment. Obtaining an No Objection Certificate (NOC) might become mandatory for those aspiring to study in India, and a government-level grievance handling system could be introduced to address student concerns,” BK Shrestha, CEO, Study Global, a Kathmandu-based education consultancy, told The PIE News. 

    Though an NOC is mandatory for Nepali students wishing to study abroad, the open border and close ties between Nepal and India allow many Nepali students to study in the country without obtaining one.

    Despite this privilege, the Nepal government could restrict students from obtaining an NOC to study at institutions in Odisha if the KIIT incident is not resolved in a “justifiable and legal way,” according to Nepal’s Ministry of Science, Education, and Technology.

    Though India and Nepal have shared historically deep relations, the past decade has been marked by tensions, including allegations of a blockade on goods to Nepal, border disputes, and Nepal’s efforts to strengthen relations with China. 

    The recent incident at KIIT has only added fuel to the fire, prompting the Nepal Embassy in India to send officials to the campus to meet with agitating Nepali students. 

    Obtaining an NOC might become mandatory for those aspiring to study in India, and a government-level grievance handling system could be introduced to address student concerns
    BK Shrestha, Study Global

    Meanwhile, Nepal’s opposition and human rights body have urged the Indian government to conduct a “fair investigation” and ensure the safety of Nepali students.

    “The Nepalese government, including the Prime Minister and relevant ministries, took immediate action through the embassy, ensuring the safety of students,” said Mukesh Dhamala, member of education council, Confederation of Nepalese Industries. 

    “However, this incident has created diplomatic tensions, raised questions about the accountability of educational institutions, and sparked broader discussions about student welfare policies in host countries.”

    According to Dhamala, the student’s death has led to Nepali students and parents being more cautious, with a significant increase in inquiries about safety measures at Indian institutions.

    “Future students and parents may hesitate to choose Indian institutions unless there are strong safety measures in place,” stated Dhamala. 

    Moreover, domestic universities in Nepal have stepped up by offering returning students a chance to continue their studies. 

    Purbanchal University has announced that students reluctant to return to KIIT can continue their remaining courses at its affiliated colleges.

    “Any student who has returned to Nepal without completing their studies can continue through credit transfer,” the university stated, adding that students must meet the required criteria.

    Meanwhile, officials at Tribhuvan University, Nepal’s oldest and largest institution, have also expressed readiness to accommodate such students. 

    Many prospective students from Nepal are now rethinking their plans to study in India amid the row at KIIT. 

    “All of this has massively increased safety concerns for Nepalese students, especially female students. In fact, several of my friends have already canceled their upcoming admissions to very reputable Indian institutions because they no longer feel safe,” stated Sandesh Pokhrel, a Kathmandu-based student, who is planning to pursue his post-graduation studies abroad. 

    With many returning students from KIIT alleging that the university failed to take action against the accused despite the deceased student’s prior complaints, academic counsellors like Pragya Karki argue that stakeholders in Nepal should serve as the first point of contact for their students. 

    “KIIT’s initial response to the student’s case has been deeply concerning and raises serious questions about its commitment to student safety and well-being,” said Karki, an academic counsellor at Ullens School. 

    “We must go beyond just listening – we are advocates, allies, and a vital support system for students in distress. Proactive outreach is key: creating safe spaces, educating students on their rights, on how to recognise emotional distress, and ensuring they know where to seek help.”

    According to Dhamala, the recent incident has underscored the need for dedicated student support teams, ideally with Nepali staff, to address the concerns of Nepali students. He also emphasised the importance of Embassy monitoring on campuses to ensure their well-being.

    As part of its recent initiative, Nepal Rising, market entry firm Acumen brought many of its partner institutions from the UK, US, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Malaysia to Nepal. 

    The goal was to better understand and improve the Nepali student experience, a critical move in light of the KIIT incident.

    “A structured pre-departure program is key, equipping students with insights into academics, culture, finances, and well-being. Many of our partner universities already offer culturally tailored orientation programs, mentor-mentee buddy systems, and Nepalese student clubs, ensuring a smoother transition,” stated Ritu Sharma, director, partner success, UK, Ireland, and ANZ, Acumen. 

    “A strong support system, including career workshops and mental health services, is vital for long-term success.”

    As per a report by ICEF, in the past five years, approximately one in every five Nepali students pursuing higher education chose to study abroad.

    Nepal’s outbound mobility ratio was 19% in 2021, compared with less than 2% for China and India, this despite the country being vastly smaller in population compared to its giant Asian neighbours. 

    Pushpa Raj Joshi, a senior scientist and neurobiologist at Martin-Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Germany, who writes monthly columns for The Kathmandu Post – a leading publication in Nepal – criticised the country’s lack of a “forward-thinking education policy.” 

    He argued that this drives many Nepali students to study abroad in large numbers, leaving them vulnerable and unprepared due to insufficient information.

    “This unfortunate incident underscores the urgent need for Nepal’s education authorities to reevaluate policies affecting students’ safety, dignity, and future abroad. More importantly, strengthening academic institutions is essential to retaining our students,” stated Joshi. 

    “Lack of seats in universities across Nepal and fewer post graduation courses have been age-old problems in Nepal, which prompts students to go to India or elsewhere.”

    As Nepal grapples with its policies around education, the recent incident is far from being resolved as the investigation into the B.tech student’s death intensifies. 

    The state government of Odisha has summoned four more KIIT officials for questioning, with the institute stating that it is “committed to a safe and uninterrupted learning environment for all students.”

    KIIT has not yet responded to questions from The PIE News.



    Source link

  • Woman admits stealing $5 mil from ED via fake students

    Woman admits stealing $5 mil from ED via fake students

    A North Carolina woman will face up to 20 years in prison after admitting that she scammed the Department of Education out of $5 million in financial aid, USA Today reported. 

    Cynthia Denise Melvin pleaded guilty Wednesday to conspiring with dozens of “straw students” through an elaborate, seven-year scheme, federal court records show. Melvin applied to colleges on the students’ behalf, submitted the Free Application for Federal Student Aid for them, and even went so far as to impersonate the students so it appeared they were attending class and completing assignments, according to charging documents. All the while, she pocketed any leftover aid dollars, giving a small portion to the individuals she was impersonating.

    Melvin was charged with conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In addition to her time in prison, she will face three years of supervised release and be required to pay a $250,000 fine, as well as restitution.

    The scam is among the biggest “straw student” schemes in years, according to a USA Today review of Department of Justice news announcements.

    Source link

  • The Office for Students reviews TEF… again

    The Office for Students reviews TEF… again

    The Office for Students has been evaluating the last iteration of the Teaching Excellence Framework (TEF), which happened in 2023.

    The 2023 TEF was a very different beast to previous iterations, focusing more on qualitative (submissions from providers and students) evidence and less on the quantitative experience and output measures. But to be clear, this work does not appear to assess the impact or likely effects of these changes – it treats the 2023 exercise very much as a one off event.

    We get an independent evaluation report, written by IFF research. There’s the findings of a survey of students involved in preparing the student submissions (aspects of which contribute to a student guide to evidence collection for TEF), findings from a survey of applicants (conducted with Savanta), and an analysis of the estimated costs to the sector of TEF2023. The whole package is wrapped up with a summary blog post, from OfS TEF supremo Graeme Rosenberg.

    Of all this, the blog post is the only bit that touches on what most of us probably care about – the future of the TEF, and the wider idea of the “integrated quality system”. Perhaps predictably, OfS has heard that it should

    “build on the elements of the TEF that worked well and improve on areas that worked less well for some providers.

    The top-line summary of everything else is that OfS is pleased that TEF seems to be driving change in institutions, particularly where it is driven by student perspectives. There’s less confidence that the TEF outcomes are useful for prospective students – the regulator wants to explore this as a part of a wider review of information provision. And while institutions do find TEF valuable, the cost involved in participation is considerable.

    How much does TEF cost then?

    It cost OfS £3.4m, and the mean estimate for costs to the wider sector was £9.96m. That’s about £13.4m in total but with fairly hefty error bars.

    What else could the taxpayer buy for £13.4m? There’s the much-needed Aylesbury link road, an innovation hub in Samlesbury near the new National Cyber Force headquarters (promising jobs paying upwards of £3,000 according to the headline), or enough money to keep Middlesbrough Council solvent for a while. In the higher education world, it’s equivalent to a little under 1,450 undergraduate annual tuition fees.

    The sector numbers come from a survey involving 32.3 per cent of providers (73: 52 higher education providers, 21 FE colleges) involved in the 2023 TEF conducted in September and October 2024 (so significantly after the event). It looked at both staff costs and non-staff costs (stuff like consultancy fees).

    As you’d probably expect, costs and time commitments vary widely by institution – one provider spent 30 staff days on the exercise, while for another it was 410 (the median? 91.6). Likewise, there was variation in the seniority of staff involved – one institution saw senior leaders spend a frankly astonishing 120 days on the TEF. Your median higher education provider spent an estimated £37,400 on the exercise (again, huge error bars here). It is asserted that Gold rated providers spent slightly more than Silver rated providers – the data is indicative at best, and OfS is careful not to assert causality.

    We also get information on the representations process – the mechanism by which providers could appeal their TEF rating. The sample size here is necessarily tiny: 11 higher education providers, 8 colleges – we are given a median of £1,400 for colleges and £4,400 for higher education providers.

    Was it worth it?

    The picture painted by the independent IFF evaluation is positive about the TEF’s role in driving “continuous improvement and excellence” at providers. The feeling was that it had encouraged a greater use of data and evidence in decision making – but in some cases these positive impacts were negligible given the volume of the input required. Students were also broadly positive, citing limited but positive impacts.

    The evaluation also made it clear that the TEF was burdensome – a large drain on available staff or student resource. However, it was generally felt that the TEF was “worth” the burden – and there was a broad satisfaction about the guidance and support offered by OfS during the process (although as you might expect, people generally wanted more examples of “good” submissions – and the “woolly” language around learning gain was difficult to deal with, even though the purpose was to drive autonomous reflection on measures that made sense in a provider context).

    One of the big 2023 cycle innovations was a larger role for the student submission – seen as a way to centre the student perspective within TEF assessment. This wasn’t as successful as OfS may have hoped – responses were split as to whether the process had “empowered the student voice” or not – the bigger institutions tended to see it as replicating pre-existing provider level work.

    Students themselves (not many of them, there were 20 interviews of students involved in preparing the submissions) saw this empowerment as being limited – greater student involvement in quality systems was good, but largely the kind of things that a good provider should be doing anyway.

    But the big question, the overall purpose, really needs to be whether TEF2023 raised the value of the student experience and outcomes. And the perspective on this was… mixed. Commonly TEF complemented other ongoing work in this area, making it difficult to pick out improvements that were directly linked to TEF, or even to this particular TEF. Causality – it’s difficult.

    If we are going to have a big, expensive, exercise like TEF it is important to point to tangible benefits from it. Again, evidence isn’t quite there. About half of the providers surveyed used TEF (as a process or as a set of outputs including the “medals” and the feedback) to inform decision making and planning – but there were limited examples of decisions predicated on TEF offered. And most student representatives were unable to offer evidence of any change as a result of TEF.

    Finally, I was gratified to note that coverage in “sector publications like Wonkhe” was one key way of sharing good practice around TEF submissions.

    The value to applicants

    Any attempt within the sector to provide a better experience for, or better outcomes for students is surely to be welcomed. However, for a large and spendy intervention the evidence for a direct contribution is limited. This is perhaps not surprising – there have been numerous attempts to improve student experience and outcomes even since the birth of the OfS: by the regulator itself, by other sector bodies with an interest in the student experience (the Quality Assurance Agency, Advance HE, the sector representative bodies and so forth) and autonomously by institution or parts of institutions.

    Somewhat curiously, the main evaluation document has little to say about the realisation of TEF’s other main proposed benefit – supporting applicants in choosing a provider to study at. Providers themselves are unsure of the value of TEF here (feeling that it was unlikely that applicants would understand TEF or be able to place due weight on the findings of TEF) though there is some suggestion that a “halo effect”, drawing in part from the liberal use of logos and that job lot of gold paint, could help present a positive image of the provider. It is a hell of a reach, but some noted that the fact that institutional marketing and recruitment efforts used TEF and the logos presents evidence that someone, somewhere, thinks it might work.

    The thing to do here would be to ask applicants – which OfS commissioned Savanta to do on its behalf as a separate exercise. This research was based on six focus groups covering 35 prospective students aged between 17 and 20 and applying to England. In four of these groups, participants had heard of the TEF – in two they had not – and in every case the applicants had ended up applying to silver rated universities.

    This is backed up by what initially looks like a decent survey instrument – a big (2,599 respondents, covering various existing online panels, and weighted via the use of quotas on age, gender, ethnicity and post fieldwork by provider type, mode of study, domicile, and neighbourhood participation marker) survey conducted in April and May of 2024. The headline finding here is that 41.7 per cent of applicants (n=798) had seen TEF ratings for any university they had looked at.

    Somewhat mystifyingly, the survey then focuses entirely on the experience of those 333 applicants in using the TEF information, before asking whether applicants may think TEF would be important in applying to university of the whole sample (52.2 per cent reckoned they would be important, despite a fair number of these applicants not having even noticed the ratings).

    Can I just stop here and say this is a weird methodology? I was expecting a traditional high n survey of applicants, asked to rate the importance of various factors on application choices, ideally with no prompting. This would give a clearer picture of the current value of TEF for such decisions, which is what you would expect in evaluation. That’s not to say that the focus groups or a specific awareness or use survey wouldn’t be a valid contribution to a proper mixed methods analysis – or as a means of generating a survey instrument for wider use.

    Even so, participants in the focus groups were happy to list the factors that affected their choices – these included the obvious winners like location, course content, and graduate outcomes, plus a “significant role” for the cost of living. Secondary (less important) factors included university reputation, teaching quality, and other personal preferences. Though some of these factors are covered within the TEF exercise, not one single applicant mentioned TEF results as a primary or secondary factor.

    For those that had heard of TEF it was seen as a “confirmatory tool rather than a decisive factor.” Applicants did not understand how TEF ratings were determined, the criteria used, or what the meaning of – say – gold rather than silver meant when comparing providers.

    The focus groups chucked the supplementary information (panel statements, submissions, the data dashboard) at applicants – they tended to quite like the student statements (viewing these as authentic), but saw the whole lot as lengthy, overcomplicated, and lacking in specificity.

    I enjoyed this comment on the TEF data dashboards:

    I feel like there is definitely some very useful information on this page, but it’s quite hard to figure out what any of it means.

    On the main ratings themselves, participants were clear that gold or silver probably pointed to a “high standard of education,” but the sheer breadth of the assessments and the lack of course level judgements made the awards less useful.

    There was, in other words, a demand for course specific information. Not only did applicants not mention Discover Uni (a government funded service that purports to provide course level data on student outcomes and the student experience), the report as a whole did not mention that it even existed. Oh dear.

    Unlike IFF, Savanta made some recommendations. There needs to be better promotion of the TEF to applicants, clearer ratings and rationales, and a more concise and direct presentation of additional information. Which is nice.

    What to make of it all

    Jim will be looking at the student submission aspects in more detail over on the SUs site, but even this first reading of the evaluation documents does not offer many hints on the future of the TEF. In many ways it is what you would expect, TEF has changed mainly when OfS decided it should, or when (as with the Pearce review) the hand of the regulator is forced.

    While providers are clearly making the best of TEF as a way to keep the focus on the student experience (as, to be clear, one stimulus among many), it is still difficult to see a way in which the TEF we have does anything to realise the benefits proposed way back in the 2015 Conservative manifesto – to “recognise universities offering the highest teaching quality” and to allow “potential students to make decisions informed by the career paths of past graduates.”

    Source link

  • Beyond Syllabus Week: Creative Strategies to Engage Students from Day One – Faculty Focus

    Beyond Syllabus Week: Creative Strategies to Engage Students from Day One – Faculty Focus

    Source link