Tag: education

Colleges and universities are wellsprings of data, both inside the classroom and outside, but not every campus stakeholder has the skills and knowledge to access and understand the available data.

Faculty, staff and administrators at Portland State University in Oregon can learn how to harness data and engage in evidence-based decision-making by participating in a new campuswide initiative, the Student Success Data Champions Program.

The short-term program helps employees understand available data, its limitations and their responsibility in reporting student outcomes to help them be better informed in their ideas and work.

What’s the need: While Portland State has experts in data sourcing and analysis, others across campus are not yet equipped with the tools and wherewithal to use institutional data, despite the importance of data in student success work, explains Erica Wagner, vice provost of student success. “Student success is often seen as the responsibility of all campus employees. However, we frequently rely on anecdotes from a small number of students about their experiences.”

As an Asian American Native American Pacific Islander–serving institution (AANAPISI) and Hispanic-serving institution, Portland State is also dedicated to equity in its work, which comes from disaggregating data and understanding how different identities participate in institutional systems.

How it works: An invitation was sent to all faculty, staff and administrators in fall 2023, and the program launched with a one-hour kickoff in December. From 70 applications, 20 individuals were selected and 19 participated.

“The selection process included representation from across campus (position type, cross-organizational units, vertical depth, minoritized backgrounds of all kinds, etc.), applicability to their work, demonstration of curiosity regarding student success and what they hoped to get out of the program,” Wagner says.

Stakeholders attended four two-hour, in-person workshop sessions from January to March, delivered by staff members from the office of assessment and research, institutional research and planning, and the office of student success. Program leads developed content with a focus on equitable data use, Wagner says.

Each session exposed attendees to existing campus data and resources that all faculty and staff can use, including institutional data sets maintained by institutional research and business intelligence solutions offices or completed student surveys.

“We did this to ensure that we were modeling a process that the participants could use once they went back to their regular offices and their day jobs, where they would not have the same kind of immediate support they enjoyed during the program,” Wagner says. “We also knew that relying on existing data would mean the institutional burden of supporting the program would be lower.”

Participants learned to utilize Excel, Tableau and Portland State’s internal reporting tool, Cognos, and how to connect data sources together.

During the term, participants were encouraged to read the book From Equity Talk to Equity Walk: Expanding Practitioner Knowledge for Racial Justice in Higher Education, which was provided to each person and referenced during workshop sessions.

Embedded in the program were five coaches—data professionals who work across campus. These coaches helped refine participants’ technical skills such as pivot tables, merging data and other Excel functionalities, as well as how and where to access data.

Participants also contributed to a larger research project, working across departments and divisions in the university to utilize existing data to understand student success at Portland State. The cohort was divided into five smaller groups, each supported by a coach, and the research groups met over the three months of the program.

At the end of the program, research groups presented their findings in a 90-minute wrap-up session, which was open to campus stakeholders to ask questions and engage.

The impact: Postsurveys showed participants had a better understanding of and confidence in using student data for decision-making and were applying skills to their jobs or sharing their new skills with colleagues. A month after the program ended, one individual created a presentation for their coworkers to highlight the tools they learned. Another participant now encourages colleagues to explore existing data rather than creating a new survey to send to students.

Wagner and her team plan to continue the program in the upcoming academic year and are investigating licensing the program so other institutions could duplicate it.

DIY: For another institution looking to model the initiative, Wagner offers four pieces of advice.

1. Focus on winter term. Applications for the program opened in the fall, and a kickoff event introduced program members to each other prior to the start of the winter term. All programming took place during the winter term, and final presentations took place the first week of spring, which accommodated the various schedules of stakeholders.
2. Create a budget. For 20 participants and five coaches, Wagner recommends a budget of $40,000 to $60,000 to provide stipends for those involved as well as other incentives such as catering, event space and equipment, to make the experience worthwhile.
3. Building community. Even after the program ended, participants indicated they wanted to continue to meet periodically to learn about new data sources, hone skills and support one another in addressing student success concerns.
4. Work across campus. In the selection process, program leads were intentional about getting a mix of different roles and responsibilities present, which opened up cross-campus dialogue and helped individuals expand their network within the institution.

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

Efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusion on college campuses are increasingly under fierce attack. In April, the University of Texas at Austin laid off dozens of employees formerly working on DEI initiatives in response to a new state law. Similar bills restricting DEI in higher education have been introduced in more than 25 states and have become law in 14. Duke University recently discontinued race-conscious scholarships, as have nearly 50 other colleges and universities. An overall shift away from DEI efforts is gaining momentum, with more than 150 institutions rolling back or eliminating their DEI programs in the past year and a half.

This backlash not only undermines efforts to create inclusive academic environments but also threatens to perpetuate inequities in critical areas such as university asset management, where diversity is sorely lacking and urgently needed. Institutional leaders must recognize that embracing diversity in asset management is a strategic advantage that can enhance financial performance and bring substantial benefits to their investment portfolios.

At many colleges and universities, the fear of anti-DEI fervor has spread within administrative and faculty circles, including in campus investment offices, where financial experts determine which outside firms will manage university endowments. Nationally, these endowments have assets totaling more than $800 billion. While higher education institutions strive to foster diverse communities of students and faculty members, few have promoted diversity among the firms that manage their endowment dollars—a continuing issue I’ve explored in previous articles.

The lack of diversity among asset managers for college and university endowments is part of a larger problem in the investment sector. In 2021, the Knight Foundation sponsored a study conducted by Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner and others, that found that only 1.4 percent of U.S.-based assets under management are controlled by firms owned by women and minority group members. Crucially, the 2021 study also showed that diversely owned firms match the financial performance of nondiversely owned peer firms. And, in fact, a recent study published by Boston Consulting Group found diverse firms may actually outperform peers.

Despite those and other studies showing that diverse-owned firms generate competitive returns, college and university investment teams are often still reluctant to hire them.

This spring, the Stern Center for Business and Human Rights at New York University, where I work; the Knight Foundation; and the Global Economics Group released a report assessing the degree to which universities are working with diversely owned asset management firms. We asked the investment offices at 50 of the largest private and public universities to share their roster of outside asset managers. While several institutions had relatively strong records of working with firms owned by women and minority group members, others reported low percentages of assets under management with diverse-owned firms. Most disappointing was that 24 of the 50 schools were unwilling to share their data.

A few of the institutions that opted out of our study cited the 2023 U.S. Supreme Court ruling invalidating the use of affirmative action in admissions at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. Others cited legal actions such as the American Alliance for Equal Rights lawsuit against the venture firm Fearless Fund, which had been offering a grant specifically to businesses owned by Black women. Still others cited the increasingly contentious political debates around environmental, social and governance, or ESG, standards more broadly.

The plaintiffs successfully argued in the Supreme Court affirmative action case against Harvard and UNC that the admissions process at those two universities violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In light of the court’s ruling, it is understandable that universities are treading cautiously. However, we are not recommending any favoritism or the use of quotas. We are proposing that university investment offices simply provide equal opportunities for women- and minority-owned firms to compete on a level playing field for university contracts.

We also want to highlight the need for college and university investment offices to identify any policies they have in place that disadvantage diversely owned firms. For example, policies regarding requests for proposals often require firms to demonstrate that they have managed a minimum amount in assets to be considered. In practice, this could disproportionately exclude Black-owned investment firms, which are less likely to have raised sufficient funds from friends and family to meet the minimums due to the generational wealth gap that impacts Black Americans.

This is not just about ensuring equal opportunity. Colleges and universities can avoid missing out on high-performing talent and improve their overall returns by addressing such blind spots in their manager-hiring processes. These corrections should be treated as a business priority, and senior staff and resources should be allocated accordingly.

As a starting point, college and university investment offices need to track the percentage of their assets under management with diverse-owned firms. This measurement should not be undertaken with an eye toward setting numerical targets, but rather toward keeping diverse, high-performing firms in the mix. The goal is not to guarantee contracts but to allow women- and minority-owned firms to compete for business.

As we’ve tried to do with our latest study, an initial goal needs to be disclosure of baseline data that will accurately chart progress over time among peer institutions. Shared data also allows colleges and universities, and various stakeholders across those institutions, to have conversations rooted in numbers so we can evaluate which practices lead to desired outcomes.

None of these actions cross the line into what the Supreme Court defined as improper consideration of race. We have a long way to go in ensuring that all talented asset managers, regardless of race or gender, are given equal consideration. But it is the responsibility of college and university presidents, chief investment officers and board chairs to clearly articulate the business imperative of addressing and promoting the diversity of their asset management firms.

The House of Representatives on Thursday narrowly advanced a measure to block the Biden administration’s new regulations overhauling Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which in part provide greater protections for LGBTQ+ students.

Thursday’s vote along party lines is the latest step in Republicans’ fight with the Biden administration over the Title IX rule, which replaced Trump-era regulations. On the House floor, GOP lawmakers lambasted the changes, which are set to take effect Aug. 1, as “unlawful” and “radical.” At the state level, 26 Republican attorneys general are fighting the rule and have already secured temporary injunctions to block the regulations in 14 states.

The House effort invokes the Congressional Review Act, which allows Congress to overturn a federal rule within 60 days. Under the act, a simple majority of lawmakers in the House and Senate can vote to stop the administration from carrying out a rule, though a CRA resolution is subject to a presidential veto. The resolution of disapproval is unlikely to move forward in the Democratic-controlled Senate. The White House “strongly opposes” the measure and said President Biden would veto it.

In addition to rolling back the latest rule, the resolution would prevent the department from issuing substantially similar regulations in the future.

The Title IX rule creates new protections for pregnant and parenting students, makes it easier for students to report sexual harassment, and requires colleges to take prompt and effective action in responding to those reports, among other changes. Additionally, the regulations clarify that the sex-based discrimination prohibited under Title IX includes discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. It’s that change that’s prompted most of the pushback against the rule, with Republicans arguing it undermines the original intent of the gender-equity law.

“Unlike Democrats, Republicans know what a woman is, and we know Title IX was written to protect the rights of women,” Speaker Mike Johnson said in a statement. “Today, House Republicans stood with American women and girls to override the Biden administration’s radical revision of Title IX that hurts women, undermines women’s rights, allows men to compete in women’s sports, and threatens the safety of women’s-only spaces.”

Republicans and others have argued the discrimination ban would require schools to allow men into women’s locker rooms and bathrooms, while Democrats counter that the provision allows transgender individuals to use facilities consistent with their gender identity.

“By adding ‘gender identity’ to Title IX’s protected classes, the radical left and the Biden administration will tear down women’s sports and eliminate safe and private spaces for girls,” said Representative Virginia Foxx, the North Carolina Republican who chairs the House education committee, in remarks on the House floor. “The rule puts a man’s perceived feelings of femininity on par with actual womanhood rooted in biological sex.”

Foxx and others also argued that the regulations would “strip women and girls of athletic opportunities” that Title IX has historically provided.

“The Biden Title IX rule will be the end of girls’ sports,” said Representative Mary Miller, an Illinois Republican and co-sponsor of the resolution. “The prospect of this is sickening, and parents across this country are horrified. We must pray for a return to the Trump administration policies that protected our girls.”

Representative Suzanne Bonamici, an Oregon Democrat on the House education committee, repeatedly noted during the floor debate Wednesday that the new Title IX rule doesn’t concern athletics. Instead, the Biden administration is working on a separate set of regulations on transgender students’ participation in sports. That rule, initially set to be released in April, is still in the works. It was recently moved to the agency’s “long-term actions” agenda, signaling a further delay in the process.

“Colleagues across the aisle keep talking about athletics because they don’t want to admit the truth behind this resolution,” Bonamici said. “This resolution is an attempt to undermine nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ students. LGBTQ+ students, including transgender students, deserve to go to school free from discrimination, and that’s what this rule is about. It’s not about bathrooms.”

Bonamici later more forcefully rejected Republicans’ arguments about how the rule would allow men to enter women’s bathrooms.

“The claim that allowing transgender people to use facilities that match the gender they live every day allows men into women’s bathrooms or women into men’s is based on a flawed understanding of what it means to be a transgender person and a misrepresentation of the law,” she said.

She and other Democrats said the resolution was cruel and would have drastic consequences for LGBTQ+ students, pregnant and parenting students, and survivors of sexual harassment and violence. Representative Mark Takano, a California Democrat, said the resolution would “tear down all protections” in the new rule, making the situation on campuses and in schools worse for female students.

Emma Grasso Levine, senior manager of Title IX policy and programs at Know Your IX, a survivor- and youth-led project of the nonprofit Advocates for Youth, said in a statement that the vote was “incredibly disappointing.”

“By voting to strip students of critical Title IX protections against sex-based discrimination, House lawmakers have ceded to transphobic extremists at the expense of countless young people’s right to a safe, inclusive education,” she said. “Despite today’s infuriating vote, the Biden Administration’s Title IX rule still stands. Students are calling on the Senate to champion their civil rights by voting against any attempt to undermine President Biden’s Title IX rule—and stand in solidarity with the young people who worked tirelessly to make new Title IX protections a reality.”

The Independent Women’s Forum, a conservative advocacy group opposed to the Title IX changes, applauded the CRA.

“Today, we saw clearly who stands with women, and who doesn’t,” said Carrie Lukas, president of the Independent Women’s Forum, in a statement. “Title IX is a law that has been essential for women’s flourishing. Now, the Biden administration is pushing women aside to make way for any man willing to say he is a woman. It is shameful and it is wrong. Anyone who cares about women’s rights—and plain old common sense—should take notice.”

Northwestern College, a for-profit institution in Illinois that closed abruptly last week, has been accused of lying to students about transfer agreements that don’t exist, local media reported.

In an email obtained by WGN9, Northwestern College officials told students it had “identified several institutions that have comparable academic programs and have indicated they will accept our students, provide credit for coursework completed on a satisfactory academic basis and will expediate the admission and enrollment processes” in the wake of the college’s closure.

The college named six partner institutions, according to WGN9. However, the colleges contacted by the TV station disputed having transfer pathways for Northwestern students and said they were never contacted by Northwestern College leaders. 

Some of the institutions called Northwestern out for making false promises. For instance, Moraine Valley Community College, one of the institutions Northwestern named, set up a webpage to provide transfer information for students but made clear it had no agreement with Northwestern College.

“Northwestern College indicated that Moraine Valley Community College will provide expedited admission and enrollment for Northwestern College students but this is not accurate. Statements made by Northwestern College were not vetted nor endorsed by Moraine Valley,” officials wrote on a landing page for Northwestern College students.

Contacted via LinkedIn, Northwestern president Lawrence Shumacher—who has led the 122-year-old college since 1977—did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.

Two new reports on the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill show that veterans who use their benefits to enroll at private nonprofit institutions and public flagships tend to have higher college completion rates and salaries than those who enroll at for-profit institutions.

Released Wednesday, the reports—one is an overview of the effect of institution type as well as an analysis of the outcomes of veterans who did not use their G.I. Bill and the other a more focused examination of public flagships—were based on studies conducted by a team of researchers from the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the American Institutes for Research.

“For decades, the G.I. Bill has been one of the single greatest federal investments in higher education,” said Kelly McManus, vice president of higher education at Arnold Ventures, which provided funding for the research. “For the first time, we finally are getting measurable insight into how different types of institutions are serving veterans. We’re looking forward to policymakers using this data to improve the existing program and push for even more data sharing and transparency.”

The difference in degree completion by institution type was stark; only 41 percent of student veterans at for-profit institutions completed a degree within six years, compared to 58 percent and 61 percent at public and private nonprofit institutions, respectively.

Veterans who graduated from nonprofit institutions also earned an average of $38,600 per year—almost $6,000 more than their peers from for-profit institutions, who earned an average of $32,800.

The reports are the latest in a series on G.I. Bill outcomes. The inaugural report, which looked broadly at the number and characteristics of veterans who used the benefits, was released in February.

All three studies were conducted using interagency data sharing, a practice that has received growing support in recent years. Alexandria Walton Radford, senior director at AIR and co-author of the reports, said they demonstrate the type of insights that can be gleaned from agency collaboration and then practically applied.

“This information not only helps policymakers and leaders better understand the use and outcomes of Post-9/11 G.I. Bill benefits but also provides useful data and information about broader higher education policies and practices,” she said.