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.
In Part I of this recap, we shared insights from the breakout groups accompanying Activities 1 and 2, which focused on participant reactions to case studies of student support initiatives and envisioning the long-term potential of a college fluency approach. In this post, we turn to Activities 3 and 4, in which our convening participants grounded the discussion in terms of resources, concrete approaches, and the challenges associated with their local institutional contexts.
Activity 3: Where does college fluency in higher education go moving forward?
In breakout groups, Activity 3 asked participants to articulate their near-term vision of college fluency through the lens of three categories: basic needs support, community engagement/partnerships, and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Participants were then assigned to one of the three categories. In the conversations that followed, major themes included the importance of holistic (nontraditional) notions of needs support, cross-campus and community collaboration, and the central role of libraries in facilitating institutional change.
In their breakout groups, participants underscored students’ basic (i.e., non-curricular) needs as a foundation for college fluency. Although colleges increasingly identify basic needs as an area of concern, the discussions emphasized the inadequacy of present systems that largely rely upon referrals to external services, or, in some cases, isolated efforts by individual staff members to connect students to a suitable resource. To contend with this reality, several participants envisioned libraries emerging as key non-curricular information hubs. The library has the potential to become a space where students intuitively understand that they can access non-curricular information as part of its suite of services. Some pointed out that because the library is often open during nighttime hours when other campus services are closed, it is already the de facto resource for this kind of information request. However, participants also acknowledged the risk of overburdening librarians, who are not necessarily trained to respond to non-curricular (oftentimes emergency) requests.
Breakout groups then discussed the need for enhanced collaboration both within the college (i.e., between academic affairs and student affairs) and with external community organizations, such as food banks and mental health organizations. Participants also discussed the importance of engaging whole families in college fluency efforts, particularly at community colleges with their diverse student bodies. Initiatives like fatherhood programs or simultaneous programming for students with children were identifies as strategies to reinforce the connection between students’ basic needs and their college experience.
Lastly, the breakout groups considered the critical importance of embedding DEI principles within college fluency efforts, even thinking about college fluency as an expression of DEI. Some participants framed DEI not as an add-on but a type of “basic need” for students in itself, tying into the concept of holistic needs: in other words, essential to fostering a sense of belonging and thereby improving retention and completion. A common theme was tailoring college fluency efforts to meet the unique needs of diverse student populations, give the significant overlap of first-generation and minority/POC students.
In tandem with this idea, one practical suggestion included rethinking physical spaces at community colleges to ensure inclusivity, such as adding library carrels with playpens to support student-parents. Such changes would send a strong message of belonging to nontraditional students, while also fostering empathy and awareness among traditional-age students.
Activity 4: Current state assessment
In Activity 4 of the convening, participants collectively assessed the current state of college fluency at their respective institutions. Grouped by college or by similar roles and backgrounds, they grounded all of the preceding discussions in the concrete and present educational environments. The categories for this activity were structural challenges, strategies for collaboration, and local institutional context. This was the final culminating breakout activity of the day, as the discussions ultimately narrowed down from the most high-level, “dream big” theme to what is most practical/achievable in light of present structures and limitations. In their groups, convening participants recorded their ideas in response to the above discussions on sticky notes, which they placed on poster boards at the front of the room, such that other groups could read those ideas following the activity.
Several common structural challenges were identified that hinder the development of college fluency on campuses. These challenges varied by college but were largely related to institutional silos, staffing constraints, and campus-specific cultural divides. A recurring theme was the difficulty of engaging leadership around these efforts. Leadership at colleges is often divided, with a president’s agenda focused on external relations while the provost manages internal operations, making it challenging to present a unified vision of student support. Adding to the persistent issue of lack of transparency in executive decision-making, it is even more difficult when there is little buy-in from leadership to support large-scale change. One participant with an administrative background noted how data is regularly collected about the student body’s non-curricular challenges, but the implications of that data is not fully embraced or appreciated by those the ability to make executive decisions.
Cultural and logistical divides, while mainly an issue for colleges with multiple campuses, were identified as creating frustrating inconsistencies in how services are provided. Practices and expectations for staff can seriously differ from campus to campus, often lacking coordination or proper referrals, making it difficult for students (and even staff) to navigate the system smoothly. Separate from this, some participants identified the dearth of resources and programming dedicated to fully online students–a growing segment of the student body at community colleges since the pandemic–leading to a feeling of disconnect from campus services.
Lastly, the issue of personnel was addressed by all groups, with the lack of sufficient staffing or in some cases extremely high turnover emerging as a significant barrier to college fluency efforts. Participants noted how personnel problems in key departments within student affair have impeded collaboration and stable points of contact, with many staff constantly leaving or switching positions. As a result, the staff who remain are typically stretched thin and forced to take up unfinished projects, leaving little time or energy for new initiatives.
When discussing potential strategies for collaboration, participants pointed to local factors shaping the development of college fluency in their communities. Many of these local dynamics were obstacles, such as recent budget cuts or hiring freezes owing to enrollment drop-offs. One breakout group discussed the unusual and disheartening degree of resistance they had encountered from more traditional-minded librarians around adopting student-centered approaches to librarianship. For others, various local factors were resources, including local organizations and initiatives–such as the AVANCE program in the Austin, Texas, area, launched to support parents who want to go to college and advance their careers.
Acknowledging these local contexts, participants generated ideas for collaboration, such as:
Building mid-level leadership alignment: engaging mid-level actors across departments to align on the goals of college fluency. By bringing together staff members from different areas (e.g, student development, technology services, and academic support), college staff could create a unified front to lobby higher-level administration for necessary changes.
Positioning the library as a central hub and change-maker: a recurring theme of these discussions, libraries were once again identified as a key player. Ideas included allowing the library to spearhead or host student orientation programs, which could centralize and streamline information regarding support services. With the library providing a physical space and central organizing role, employees in different departments could familiarize themselves more thoroughly with each other’s responsibilities, as well as “put a face to a name.”
Final thoughts on Activities 3 & 4
In the second half of the convening’s breakout sessions, a clear throughline emerged: libraries have the potential to play a pivotal role in advancing college fluency. In Activity 3, participants envisioned libraries in the near future as student-centered spaces providing seamless integration of academic resources, basic needs support, and information regarding other essential services. This vision highlights the library’s foundational value as being “open to all” as well as its ability to inspire broader institutional changes.
Activity 4, grounded in present realities, revealed that moving forward with these aspirations also requires overcoming significant structural barriers, such as leadership divides, personnel shortages/turnover, and the human tendency to resist change. By embracing a more collaborative cross-departmental approach, institutions could potentially become nimbler in responding to student needs. Libraries can serve as a link between various departments, as well as a link between students and essential resources and supports. Yet to build a truly student-centered system, college administrations must be willing to embrace flexibility, transparency, and a shared commitment to equity.
