On August 12, 2024, a group of educations, administrators, and advocates gathered in New York City for our College Fluency Convening. This all-day event was an opportunity to reimagine the college experience through the lens of college fluency and student-centered design. Hosted as part of the IMLS-funded College Fluency Capacity Bulding (CFCB) grant, the convening brought together participants from our case study institutions, grant advisory board members, and other voices from across higher education to consider college fluency as a guiding principle for institutional change.
This event recap, the first of two parts, highlights themes and insights from the convening’s initial collaborative activities: first, discussions about ongoing student support initiatives (pulled from our case study institutions); and second, aspirational visions for the future of college fluency. The day’s conversations revealed a shared commitment among participants to dismantling institutional barriers and rethinking how colleges can meet students’ evolving needs, which are increasingly non-curricular in nature.
Reflecting on student support: Insights from our case studies
The first breakout activity centered on the case studies of the CFCB research grant, namely the student support models and initiatives drawn from participating institutions. After a presentation about these case studies from the Ithaka S+R research team, attendees engaged in discussed the significance of these data and how we might translate their lessons into actionable strategies. Participants highlighted the potential of campus libraries as more inclusive and multifunctional spaces. Some emphasized the importance of removing restrictive policies, like prohibitions on food or children, to create environments where students feel both welcome and supported. Even small adjustments, like designating family-friendly study areas (particularly at community colleges, with their more diverse age demographics), were positioned as major steps toward fulfilling libraries’ mission.
This thread underscored a broader theme that appeared throughout the convening: physical spaces must evolve to reflect lived realities of students, particularly those balancing caregiving or full-time work with their studies. This aligns with college fluency’s emphasis on aligning internal structures with external realities as an inherently radical and transformative act.
Another recurring topic was the need to dissolve, or at least minimize, the institutional silos that tend to fragment student support. One attendee noted how bureaucratic structures often lead to the “referral runaround,” where learners are passed between departments without finding real solutions to their problems. Participants identified this as a systemic challenge and considered how increased cross-departmental collaboration could transform these disjointed processes into more cohesive guidance systems. By aligning academic affairs, student services, and library resources around regular and anticipated hurdles for students, institutions might reduce confusion and provide timely assistance with respect to students’ holistic needs.
While altering broader administrative structures was a common theme throughout the day, tailoring support to individual student needs also emerged as a priority. Discussions then turned to the shortcomings of one-size-fits-all approaches compared to more adaptive interventions. One participant highlighted the pitfalls of top-down approaches that result in fragmented services when things don’t go precisely according to plan, for example when a key individual is out of office. Another participant identified how critical it is for students to find the right help on their first try, especially regarding convoluted processes like financial aid; otherwise, they risk “giving up” early in the process.
Person-to-person support dominated conversations, but many also acknowledged technology’s role in streamlining access. One participant discussed how her institution uses LibGuides (only how-to resources managed by librarians) to give students easy access to non-curricular information like financial literacy tools and food pantries, all in one place. This participant emphasized how aggregated and up-to-date online resources can smoothen students’ navigation of available services and reduce the need to visit multiple departments.
Activity 2: Envisioning the future of college fluency
Building on the case study reflections and the discussions they spawned, the second breakout activity of the convening asked participants to envision how college fluency might look over the next 5-10 years. This was intended as a “dream big” exercise that encouraged thinking beyond present structures and limitations (which were discussed in later activities). The ensuing discussions generated forward-thinking ideas for holistic student-centered systems, with libraries and librarians having a key role to play.
In one breakout group, a compelling vision emerged of institutions where every staff member contributes in their own way to a collective “safety net” for students. Rather than siloing support within specific departments, this model distributes responsibility campus-wide and ensures students encounter consistent assistance at every point of interaction. Participants linked this idea to earlier discussions about collaboration between departments, noting how a culture of shared accountability could actually mitigate burnout and foster institutional resilience. This was particularly considered in relation to an anticipated “timeline” of student information needs (visualized below), such that relevant resources reach students at point of need.
One participant envisioned a future where each student has access to a trusted individual who is available to help them navigate the complexities of college life, both curricular and non-curricular. This advisor/mentor would be a dedicated point of contact, capable of referring students to other professionals regarding financial aid, course registration, and academic support. Perhaps closer to what is already happening on many college campuses, participants advocated for the creation of more (and better) “one-stop shops,” essentially hubs where students can access all necessary services in one physical or digital location.
Lastly, while some participants acknowledged the potential of artificial intelligence and data-driven tools for college fluency, others expressed concern about the use of big data and predictive analytics to respond to or anticipate the needs of “at-risk” students. One breakout group felt that this could resemble student surveillance, leading to privacy concerns and potentially harming trust between students and the institution. Instead of relying on predictive models, colleges could focus on fostering more personalized, human-centered support structures.
Pathways forward
Amid the optimism, participants also acknowledged systemic hurdles: chronic understaffing, funding gaps, and institutional inertia. A key concern was burnout among student-facing staff, which risks undermining even the most thoughtful college fluency initiatives. Proposed solutions included prioritizing more professional development opportunities, more directly involving librarians and academic advisors in strategic planning, and fostering a culture of valuing student support as a campus-wide mission.
Ultimately, the first two activities of the College Fluency Convening revealed a clear throughline: advance college fluency requires rethinking not only what institutions do but how they do it. Taking stock of present structures and limitations thus emerges as a crucial aspect of this conversation, something addressed in Part II of this convening recap series.
